I'm going to have a motion for approval. Director committee meeting of July 11th, 2024. Could I please have your roll call? Here. Here. Curtis. Here. Floyd. Here. Montenegra. Here. Big Sanders. We have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. All in favor. Aye. And we have the approval for the May 30th, 2024 minutes and motion for approval. We've approval. All in favor. Aye. OK, we're here today on the discussion to explore the city's ability to issue superfines and establish a short term rental registry. That has changed to just the discussion of issuing superfines. As as we know the governor has not allowed the ability to allow us to do a short-term rental registry since he vetoed that bill The reason that we bringing this forward as you know I think a lot of council members have heard from their residents about issues that they're having with short-term rentals in neighborhoods I've had this discussion for various years with codes and I know other council members have had the same discussions and we're looking to find ways and I know codes that has been looking to find ways to make sure that they can enforce our code because there have been issues in terms of enforcing our code as it stands. So we're looking for different ways where we can have mechanisms to ensure compliance. So that's a reason I brought this issue forward. I know that councilmember Floyd joined me in the new business item. And I would like to open the floor to him if you want to say anything in further ends of it. No, I'm just looking forward to the discussion. Great, great. Well, we have some materials that were provided in terms of the ability to issue superfines. There was Florida Statues Chapter 162, which allows for that issue and so superfines. We also included our code and the chapter that is applicable and a case from Miami Beach, to ensure that we have a very good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to ensure that we have a good opportunity to I'll leave the floor to Joe Wat, unless administration wants to say anything on this issue. No, thank you, Chair. I'll turn it over to Mr. Wat. Okay. Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. So as Council Member Hanoi with reference with the veto of SB 280, that essentially took away our ability to implement a short-term rental registry, which is why that was not provided within any of the backup material. Right now, our ordinance is grandfathered and under current legislation, if we were to alter our ordinance to be more restrictive, we could lose that grandfather's status. And so, that is not something that we have any intention to pursue. We want to make sure we maintain that status and obviously we'll evaluate any future legislation that comes forward that may give us the ability to change that. But right now, it's obviously will evaluate any future legislation that comes forward that may give us the ability to to change that but right now You know that it's not an option so Jumping into the codes compliance fine and lean structure just a little bit of background So the enforcement authority for our department is delegated from the state in chapter 162 before state statutes Most of the adult delegated authority from 162 is mirrored almost identically in chapter nine of city code. However, there are portions of chapter 162 that contain provisions for higher fine and lean structure, but we have not adopted that into chapter nine of city code at this point. So I wanted to go into a little bit of background not adopted that into chapter nine of city code at this point. So I wanted to go into a little bit of background on what the current process looks like for these cases. So for our code enforcement board cases specifically, you know, we're going to go out to a property, we're going to observe that a violation exists, and then we're going to issue a violation notice. And we provide 23 days for a property owner to bring their violations in the compliance. And I know initially that seems like a very short time frame, depending on what the situation is at the property. But that is taking into consideration the fact that we can grant a 30 day extension if they request it. And the fact that with the way that our hearing is structured and the notice requirements that we have for that, it's going to be an additional 45 to 60 days before that case actually gets before our code enforcement board. So while it's that initial 23 day timeframe, you're really looking at more of almost 90 days before that gets before the code enforcement board. So once we get to the code enforcement board, testimony is provided by code staff and the property owner or their representative, and the board going to determine whether or not a violation of city code exists. So if they determine that that violation does exist they're going to enter an order of the board and they're going to provide the owner with a timeframe to correct the violations which is going to be anywhere from five to 180 days depending on the circumstances and they are also going to implement a daily fine that would start to accrue and that dollar amounts between $50 and $250 for each day that the property remains out of compliance after the extension that they provide. That accrue daily fine could then be certified at a future special magistrate hearing. And so then at the special magistrate hearing, testimonies provided by our staff again in the property owner or their authorized representative. And the magistrate at that point can take the testimony and make the decision to do one of three things basically. One, decide that they're working towards compliance, we're gonna give them some additional time, and we're gonna defer any leans from being certified right now, and that'll come back to a future hearing. They could certify part of the fines that accrued. So let's say they had $1,000 that had accrued from their compliance date to the time that they got to the hearing. They could say, you need a little bit of motivation, we're gonna put a $500 fine out of this $1,000 and hopefully that moves you in the right direction to get this in the compliance. Or they can certify the entire amount that's accrued out of $1,000. And that's just one example. But every day that they remain out of compliance, that fine continues to accrue. So even if they get an extension, that daily fine is continuing to accrue that could then be certified at a later date. And if the magistrate does certify a part of a lien, the other amount that was there is still in that pot and continues to be added to the fines moving forward. But it's important to note just for the future of this presentation, the co-enforcement board, they do not at this point have the authority to levier find during that first initial hearing. So they don't have the ability, they just determine whether out of violation exist and what the daily fine is going to be that then the magistrate would rule on in the future. So some of the challenges with that process, we've experienced some difficulties with promptly addressing some violations using that current enforcement mechanism. Several months can pass without fines or leans being placed against the property to encourage them to bring those violations into compliance. And then, you know, the penalties may not be high enough to proactively deter violations that are income-producing. So I wanted to provide some specific examples of what we're seeing. So one is our irreparable violation. So we're talking tree removals without permits and illicit discharges. Those are things that occur and there's no taking it back. So right now through that process, there's not that immediate potential for a fine there that would discourage that behavior. You know, there's this opportunity that I'm going to go to a hearing, I could potentially get more time and try to work through this process. So that's one difficulty that we have specifically with the irreparable violations. And then we have our unsafe violations. So this was touched on a little bit in HLUT this morning when it came to the milestone inspections. But we have seen an increase in the deferred maintenance at many of our larger apartment complexes that lead to disrepair as in this photograph to stairs and balconies specifically. In these cases, because it's isolated to certain portions of the structure, it's not going to go down a road where we're potentially condemning the building. And so we just have the situations where we have an unsafe situation for the tenants. And we wanna get that rectified as quickly as possible. But within the current process, we don't really have the ability to do that. Yes, they could potentially face that $250 daily fine, which is what we recommend for these. But that potential for placing that comes much further down the road. And seeing an increase of these, we believe that this would be helpful for those specific issues. Short terminals. So in our experience, that this would be helpful for those specific issues. Short term rentals. So in our experience, as we've done enforcement on these over the years, we have observed that most property owners attempt to conceal rather than comply. And because of that, it becomes very difficult for our staff to obtain the evidence that we need to be able to move cases forward because of the ease at which they can just change their listing. I mean, at the click of a button, their listing goes from a five-day, you know, minimum to a 30-day minimum. We've actually had individuals at our hearings who have sat in the audience and changed the listing right then and there and walk up to the podium to give their testimonies and say, hey, I'm at 30 days right now, I just changed it. So that's one extremely difficult thing that we have to deal with specifically when it comes to short-term rentals, just how easy it is for them to change those listings. And for us to have that sufficient evidence to move forward. The nightly rental rates are also often higher than what our current daily fine amounts are. And then the current penalties could simply just be viewed as a cost of doing business because of that. And with this, I wanted to just provide some examples of what I mean when we're talking about conceal rather than comply. So obviously, there's been a lot of public input when it comes to the short-term rentals and the amount of enforcement that's come recently due to the complaints that we've received. And the responses that we're seeing overwhelmingly from individuals who have been cited is they're more concerned with trying to conceal their behavior than actually coming to compliance. And this post is an example where essentially they're seeking feedback from other short-term mental operators to find out, hey, how can we hide our reviews? Because that is something that we utilize as a part of our evidence. If you look at the next one, the top was the screenshot of a listing that was taken before we actually issued a violation notice. You'll see that there's a clear picture of the front of the property. It's a beautiful home. And then after we issued the violation notice and we're attempting to take enforcement action, all of a sudden all of the exterior pictures of that property get removed. Now fortunately, because of the way that we capture our evidence, we're getting multiple photos of the interior so we can obviously compare that moving forward. But again just trying to show the efforts that are made to conceal rather than to comply. Excessive outdoor storage. So when there is a significant amount of outdoor storage, oftentimes it leads the city to obtaining a junk relief in order to remove the junk and debris from the properties after they failed to come into compliance. However, the courts have a very high threshold before they're going to tell the city, yes, you can go on somebody's private property and remove their personal belongings, essentially, regardless of what they may be from someone's home. So, with that, typically we're not taking these cases for injunctive relief to a judge until we have leans placed against the property. So $5,000, $000,000 plus pursuing other enforcement mechanisms that are available to us because we don't want to get into a position where we take it before a judge and they tell us, you haven't pursued every mechanism that is available to you. We don't believe that the fines that you've issued are high enough to really encourage compliance and then we're not able to move forward with that. In these cases, obviously, there's a significant blight issue that comes as you can see in the conditions in these two photographs and also just from a public safety concern with that amount of storage being out of property. What we found is working through that process right now can take us you know up to 12 months to get the amount of fines and go through our various enforcement mechanisms before we're taking it to a judge to seek that in drunk at relief. So the proposed changes would be to adopt language from Florida State Statutes 162.093D. And this is the portion that you know for municipalities that have greater than 50,000 citizens population over 50,000 and with a vote of a majority plus one by council we could implement the this new fine structure that would allow fines of up to $1,000 per day for a first violation, $5,000 per day for a repeat violation, and up to $15,000 per violation if the board or the magistrate finds that the violations are irreparable or irreversible. Excuse me, the way that we are proposing this ordinance as it is in the presentation, we're going to cap that maximum fine amount for a single case at $10,000 per hearing despite the allowance for the higher fine. And with that, we're really just trying to find a good middle ground here and there's going to be some case law that we speak about later where going above that threshold was overturned by the state. So our intent with this is to provide the Department with more effective method of addressing these specific violations. And then be able to use that as an alternative for future violations. Draft and ordinance that is intentional about the use of this process. That way we can prevent any future unintended consequences. And with that, we're only going to ask that we can utilize this for specific violations. And we're going to ask that there's a set fee structure that would be established under the following recommendations. So for our junk rubbish and outdoor storage, that would be at $150 per day. For our irreparable violations, it's proposed that $200 per day, short term rental would be $200 per day, and then our life safety and our unsafe issues would be at $250 per day. So I know that that's similar to what I referenced previously with what the board is able to currently do, but this would be structured differently. So we would have a whole new hearing, and essentially right now, you know, those fines don't start to accrue until the board makes their recommendation. The way that we would do this now is, as soon as that 23 days was up, on day number 24, whatever the fine amount would be for the specific violation that we're pursuing, that would start to accrue. And then as soon as that got before the code enforcement board, whatever that total is, we would be recommending that as the fine that they implement at the initial hearing, but then they would still have the ability to say, you know, we don't agree with your recommendation, we think it would be higher and we want to put it at 10,000. Or we think 5,000 is a little bit too steep for the specific situations, so we're going to drop it down to 2,500. So this new process would give them the authority at that first hearing to do that. And these daily fines would start to accrue the day after their initial compliance date is over. So it just moves forward that process essentially a couple of months. So we're also going to have this go to the board rather than a singular special magistrate. And we just think that that's more equitable to have multiple parties as members of the board making that decision as a group and voting on it than having one single individual that could make that decision. And with this process we're going to continue to allow property owners to be eligible to apply for relief through our lean release process that we currently have for any other property owner. So if they brought their violations into compliance at a future date they could appear back before the board. We would present to them the case what they received the leans for, and the board, as they do now, would have the authority to relieve them from those leans or take no action at all. So they could say, we're going to partially reduce your lean. We're going to release your lean in its entirety. Or we're not doing anything, we believe the leans should stay. So we don't want to prohibit property owners from continuing to utilize that process if they happen to get leans through this new proposed enforcement mechanism. So I did want to just share some applicable case law. I think Mr. Judd could probably answer any questions about this better than I could. But what the City of Miami Beach did was they essentially drafted into their short-term rental ordinance violations, or excuse me, fine structures for those specific violations. So they started at 20, then it went to 40, 60, 80, and $100,000. So once they implemented those fines, a owner, I believe, sued them. And then the Third District of Appeals held that the city was preempted by Florida law from opposing its own fines that were outside of the fine structure that was established within Chapter 162. And so as a result, they then had to alter their short terminal ordinance and bring the fines back down to the level that was in line with chapter 162. So lastly here, we're just seeking some feedback on the proposed changes as outlined and then requesting a referral to full council or a future committee meeting if necessary. There's additional details that need to be worked out But I did just want to reiterate You know we were very intentional as we kind of develop this To try to find that middle road and not going to the extreme with what we could potentially do But just finding something that will work better For the department to address these violations than what we currently have available to us right now. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. Well thank you for the presentation. Before I turn it over to committee members, can you clarify? So for irreparable violations and you're suggesting a fee per day if they're irreparable what is the remedy because obviously a tree's removed so maybe clarify how that works. So there's going to be mitigation that would be required it's like a tree being removed. Right. You know they would have to replant in order to to come into compliance for something like that so they would have to get there after the fact permit for the tree removal which would come with an increase fine and then they would have to get there after the fact permit for the tree removal, which would come with an increase fine, and then they would have to replant whatever requirements our arborists would put in place for whatever tree that they removed to replace that tree. Okay, great. Committee members. You asked my question. Okay. Council member Floyd. Thank you. I just want to get get make sure I'm understanding completely. So as of right now you receive a notice that you're in violation and then it takes a certain amount of time to go by before you can start receiving a penalty for that violation. And you described it, it's you have 23 days to come into compliance. And then, but you don't actually see anyone until 45 to 60 days later. And you could have a 30 day extension. And when you start, when you finally get in front of the code enforcement board, at that point is when fines would start accruing now? They would make it a termination, so they could issue an extension, another extension anywhere from five days to 180 days. And then at the end of that time frame that they provide, that's when the fines would start to accrue. So somebody went up just for purposes 60 days, let's say, then on the 61st day, that fine amount, let's say they said, $150 per day to accrue. That $150 a day would start to accrue, and then it would come back in a future-madaget rate meeting. So that's, again, another, if the board determines determines there's more time that's needed. That's another 60 days on top of the current process right now. And so if the board determines that there's not any more time needed to come into compliance, the fines start occurring from the day you met the board or... So the minimum there to do is five days on the six day it would start to... Oh okay, so that the minimum would be five days. Right. Okay all right that's good to know. And so what we're trying to move to for these specific types of violations is a system where after your 23 days are up you start accruing those. So what happens when you go to the board, your 45, 60 days later you get to the board, you've already accrued fines. Now it's on them to certify them? Correct. OK, OK. OK. But there's no possibility of a long amount of time without accruing any MN. But there is still the possibility that you can get before them and say, hey there is still the possibility that you can get before them and say, hey, here's the reasons why I'm having these issues, and they can still give you some leniency at that point. Yeah, they would still have the authority to do that, yes. Okay, okay, okay, but, okay. Well, that makes sense to me. It does make the process stronger and quicker. What I've seen from these most specifically are jump rubbish and outdoor storage. You know, we've dealt with it. Yeah, and people just delaying at every chance they can. And so being able to speed that process up, I think would help a lot of people in our neighborhoods who are dealing with these issues. And then, short-term rental as well, is, you know, people being able to continue to get as many bookings as possible. Just FYI, I went on to Airbnb while we're in this meeting. I found like three immediately that appeared to be violating our ordinance, didn't take but five minutes. I know it takes further investigation than just a cursory glance, but it's quite blatant. So I think you've come up with something that makes sense to speed up the process. It's kind of interesting when it's described as super fines, you just imagine like a really big amounts of money, but I see that there's a limit of $10,000. So that's what we're proposing. Yeah. You know, if we were to adopt a language directly from 162 without that provision in there, we could do $1,000 per day. So you could be out of hearing and you could have a $30,000 potential fine. Personally, I don't know that we need that in order to address these issues. And again, I think that's part of that intentionality to make sure there aren't any unintended consequences, unintended consequences down the road. So that's what we were comfortable with proposing and open to feedback from the committee members today. No, I hear you because as much as these issues frustrate me, I'll use those words. You do still come across circumstances where someone does just need more time. They're acting in good faith and it's very difficult. I know we're always trying to strike a balance between like not being too difficult on people who really need help versus, you know, actually poking people who don't need help and are just doing things for a variety of reasons. So I see your reasoning for coming here, but I also see an ability to say with some of these things, maybe we can revisit it since we do have capacity to go further, but I like what you've come up with right here, and I think it makes sense, particularly to speed up the process of trying to get people to come into compliance, because that's what we want is we want people to come into compliance. We don't just want to penalize people, that doesn't help anyone. It just, you know, penalizes people. We want compliance and so I understand your logic as to why you've done this. Okay, I feel like I have my head wrapped around it and I feel good about it and, you know, maybe my colleagues have some more opinions so I look forward to that. So thank you. Thank you. And Jill, in terms of repeat offenders, how are those dealt with? Currently. And then if we made these changes, because I see here, there's nothing in terms of repeat offenders, how it would be treated, if there would be treated differently, if there would be a second violation, and then the fine increases by double the amount or whatever it may be. to find increases by double the amount or whatever it may be. Yeah, so currently we don't have a process to address the repeat violators, but our board, you know, all of them sit for three year terms. They know when those repeat offenders come before them, they're seeing the same people every single month. So, you know, we will express that information as well if we know that this is a person that we've had issues with before. And then they can take that into consideration with their ruling. We did not incorporate anything you know into the proposal for repeat offenders but maybe that is where you know in lieu of the $10,000 cap if we know that it's a repeat offender we could bump that that fine up a little bit if that's the will of the body so. Okay and that's something I think about okay council council member and Chair did you you didn't have any come you you want to say something okay the first council member Montenegro and then Chair big Sanders. Thank you Chair. So my my first thoughts you know when it comes to this sort of stuff I there's two ways to go. You got the carrot or the stick approach. And a lot of the neighborhoods that I represent in district three, people try to do the right thing. And so I always want to do a light touch when we are addressing issues like this. But then again, I do have some major issues with some property owners in my district too that they kinda need a wake up call to kinda move their project forward. The first thing I wanted to talk about is because we've had a lot of tropical storms and hurricanes recently, how would this work post storm? Because I could see, especially in some neighborhoods like shore acres, post storm, people are cleaning up their houses, they may have a lot of debris in their yard. Like, could we, do we have, I know we wave a lot of this stuff like post storm to kind of walk me through how that works? Yeah, so when we look at the proposal for the outdoor storage, and I think that would be the most in line with what you're referencing, you know, there's a difference between someone that is, you know, hoarding issues over many, many years, and somebody that's just putting stuff out because we're coming out of a storm. And typically post storm, we're not out there. We're out there as street teams providing assistance. We're not out there with our code's hats on. So I don't anticipate that there would be any concern of this potentially being used to address those types of violations. That's not what the intent of it is. Okay. All right. Good. And then the fines are the fines totally separate from the ordinance or grandfather ordinance. That's not going to have any effect with the grandfather provision. Legal wants to make a comment real quick. OK. So the grandfathering relates to our ordinance regulates the duration and frequency of vacation rentals. Basically, you can't do it more than three times a year if it's less than 30 days. So that's the part that we want to protect is our ability to do that citywide. This is separate. This is allowing something that we want to protect is our ability to do that citywide. This is separate. This is allowing something that we're not preempted for. It's a fine classification for we're just adding power to our code enforcement boards. We're not actually changing what would be a violation. We're just changing a fee. So I don't believe that that's going to have any bearing on those ordinances. We're not having to change any of those sections at all. We're just changing a fine structure and really you're it's not even so much a fine structure. It is a ability to give powers to the code enforcement board. Okay. And secondly there's also precedent, because as Joe mentioned, there was a Miami Beach case and they implemented even more directly than we would be doing here, fine amounts. And they were allowed to do that without sacrificing other portions of their vacation rental ordinance. So it was deemed separable when they had the fine issues. I think we're totally within our bounds to do this. Okay, thank you for that clarification because I just want to make sure that we weren't going to lose our grant grandfather provision. Joe the $200 a day penalty for the short-term rentals. What are we currently? Where are we currently? So currently we recommend to the board $200 per day. So when we're considering these fine amounts, it's dependent on the severity of the violation. I have a hard time going before the board to say that a short-term rental has the same seriousness as a life safety issue like that status there so we just showed you. However, the board has the ability to change that and what we have seen over the past couple of months is despite the fact that we're recommending $200 per day, they're bumping that to the max of $250 per day. So really, this is just our recommendation to them and then they have the ability to go outside of that whether they want to go higher or lower but they would still be capped at you know whatever the proposed ordinance would include from a total fine amount. Okay. And council member Floyd talked about going during the meeting and looking for short-term rentals. Do you have staff that's doing that on a daily basis? And what do we do with that information? So proactively right now, we do not. So we have looked at implementing that in the past, but we've done some small little pilots with doing that research. And what we found was there was just resource limitations with what we were actually getting out of the research that we were doing. So one example, we had looked at one portion of the Airbnb map in St. Pete. And there was about 334 potential rentals within that area. Once we narrowed down the ones that were in violation, just based on an initial observation, that went down to 200 and some change. And then once we got to the point where, hey, we can actually see that this is this property at this location, and it'll be in 30 properties. So we started at 334, ended up at 10% of the properties that we'd actually be able to move forward with. And it was probably over a week, maybe 10 days of staff time in addition to the other duties that they have to do on a daily basis. So with the 10% return on that, and then the difficulties with enforcing it, once we do issue them the violation notice, because then it becomes even harder, we have not made the decision to move, in the past, to move fully into proactive. Things have changed. I will say since we did that, that's probably been about a year now. Great thing about Google now, they altered the way you can reverse image search. And it's much easier how to click of a button. And that opens up new opportunities to where maybe that 34 properties that we're able to find would maybe be 60 properties now. But there are just a lot of challenges with just the amount of time that it takes to go through and click through reach one. And then it's just really the follow up, like I referenced. It's very difficult. These listings can change on a day-to-day basis. So it's just a lot of staff time and resources. And then you open up the map, you see all the dots, and just work your way through the number of them that are there. So. OK. All right, good. The last thing is more of a statement, but maybe you can enlighten me a little bit. We have residents of St. Petersburg that own multiple properties, rent them out. They're low income housing. And you know, you get homeowners or property owners that are doing their best to kind of keep the rent slow. Are you concerned in any way of raising the code violation fees and what effect that might have on a four-globs? No, and I think that that speaks to how intentional we were with this proposal because these violations that we would pursue and that the way we would draft into the ordinance, we wouldn't be pursuing anything necessarily probably against a mom and pop landlord who is renting out long term, you know, maybe they just have a roof disrepair. You know, we're not going to have a case being probably for our board where we're asking them to initially give a $10,000 fine because somebody's got roof disrepair. They would go through the current process that we have. You know, go before the board, be able to get that additional time and work through compliance like they can currently. That type of a situation is not something we would be looking to utilize this process for. Okay, all right, very good. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Chair Fix Anders. Thank you, committee Chair Hannah was asked my question. It's about the irreparable violations. First of all, good morning, everyone. Good morning. I haven't seen many of you for all in a minute. Um, but the same question was about the irreparable violations. And I looked at that $200 a day and you explain what a fix, somewhat looks like. But generally when you have irreparable violations, especially like an el list of discharge, that comes with an extensive repair. So does that lean amount started, it did say start amounts after notification, but there's generally a third party that's involved. The homeowner can't complete that repair, especially if it's irreparable. How do you handle, if you have to bring a third party into that? Yes, so I mean, that's a challenge that we have right now. And I believe that British, Pramins or Praman engineering director is working on a process to increase his enforcement ability when it comes to illicit dischargers that would be able to go after those third parties. Because our enforcement mechanism is really geared towards the property owner. enforcement ability when it comes to listed discharges that would be able to go after those third parties because our Enforcement mechanism is really geared towards the property owner You know, so this would probably be more in line with somebody that's their own private property Maybe they're draining their pool and it's going directly into to the bay or something like that and even after we issue them And notice they don't stop doing it So you know, we don't anticipate using it Against the third party we really wouldn't have the ability to do that. So we're hopeful that a combination of this when we have private property owners and then what Mr. Premon's going to be working towards will be able to address it from both ends. Okay, and not really use so much going against the third party, but if the home owner needs the assistance of a third party and so they're at the mercy of their time frame. You know, because it takes so long to get services these days, people to schedule jobs two and three weeks, you know, out and so that that lean is a crewing at no fault of the homeowner. And that's the beauty of the process with them appearing before the Code of Force and Board. As long as you participate in the process, you have the ability to notify the Board of what your challenges are. And I think that that's a perception that the community has about our process because our Board generally is very forgiving in many of the situations. So as long as you're participating, you appear. You notify them of what's going on. Our board, I think, on average, gives over 60 days for additional time, even our magistrate. Like the percentage of leans that they actually certify is less than 10% of the potential leans that come before them. So as long as they're participating, they're explaining the challenges that they may be facing, the board is going to take that into consideration, and they may determine that, you know, we don't believe that we should be implementing a fine right now. They're having issues with this contractor who's not coming to do the mitigation, and we're gonna give them a little bit more time. So they'll have that authority to do that. Okay, thank you. And I missed this, and please forgive me if I did. The six bedroom house slide. If you go back to that, you said something about the exterior was there and then it wasn't. What was that example? Which slide were you referring to? Keep going, that one right there. Oh yeah, so the top is a snip from what was initially shown on Airbnb and it shows the outside of the house. And then after we sent the violation notice, when we went back to capture additional evidence, they had taken down the pictures of the outside of the house. And so it was just a point to the efforts that a lot of individuals take just to conceal what their activity rather than comply. So with the short-term rentals specifically, it's a much different situation than our standard violations. We have a roof disrepair, a homeowner can't click a button and have a hologram go over the roof that makes it look like it's in compliance, right? But with the short-term rental, they can do that. So it was really just a drive home that point of how this is what we're seeing. We're seeing more attempts to conceal rather than comply. And we believe that this mechanism, you know, will help us with the enforcement of these, with the ability to have that higher find earlier on in the process. Okay, because I thought the point you were trying to make is that it really didn't look like that on the outside. So I wasn't sure. Okay, I just need a clarification on that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. In terms of resources, you mentioned earlier that we're limited in terms of codes on short-term rentals and what you're doing in terms of assigning people just to investigate this. But how much proactive education are we doing out there? So people understand what our rules are with short-term rentals. Because I know for a fact, it's been, I mean, our code has been, it's been in our code for over a decade. It's been 2001. Right, I mean, a long time. And then people are like, oh my god, I can't believe this, this is like new, it's not new. This has been on our books since 2001. And I just want want some of the challenges are people don't realize this is out there. And how much can we empower both our neighborhoods knowing like, look, these are the rules. And that way maybe they can help out and share information when necessary and how to do that and what we're doing to solve this issue because I think we are getting some of those concerns but people don't really understand the landscape right of what we're dealing with. Yes it is a challenge and you know Miss Adrathy and her team they have a two-pager you know that they've developed that talks about the short-term rental ordinances and I think a lot of confusion comes in because you can go to the state and get a license and you're paying your bed taxes and everything like that. But there is nothing that they really indicate to say, hey, you need to check with your each municipality to make sure that this is something that's able to be done. And then on top of that, when we have investors coming in from outside of the city, they don't know our ordinances. You know, properties a lot of times we see, you know, when they're on, listed for sale, it's right in the description of this. It's a great opportunity for short-term, you know, rental income. So there's a lot of different fronts that make it challenging. Certainly we can look at different ways that we could improve on the educational outreach with that. certainly we can look at different ways that we could improve on the educational outreach with that. But I also believe that there is a due diligence for owners coming in to understand what our ordinances are. And we see the same thing when people purchase a property and maybe an addition was done without a permit. They didn't do that due diligence to realize that and they end up holding the back for that. Oh, I'm not advocating. In the ignorance of the law is no defense. So I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying in terms of our residents for them to have the tools necessary and no, look, these are the things you can do. And maybe going to neighborhood association meetings and explaining, look, these are short term rental rules. If there are issues, you know, you can notify us when these issues happen. And that may be a way of also kind of making sure that the information is out there. And we are, and what we're doing about it, because I think part of it is when we get, I guess, concerns from residents and neighborhoods about the issue, they really don't understand what's happening. Yeah. And I think one thing that can be confusing is the provision that's within our ordinance that allows the three times. Right. And I think that was well-intentioned, obviously, to take advantage of situations like super bowls, the Grand Prix. And when it was developed, I don't think anybody could have anticipated that. We would have this Airbnb and VRBO market that's out there for this type of activity. So it is difficult for people to kind of understand what the thresholds are, what are you allowed to do, what are you not allowed to do. And that complicates enforcement as well because those opportunities are there to capture your three rentals. Right. Well, we may have not known what the future brought, but we were lucky to have that in the code. And it's grandfathered in Committee vice-chair girders Thank you, Chair Okay, so I just I think I understand but I just Will kindergarten there for me so If we were to implement this new recommendation and we we'll just use, I take down a tree, and I wasn't supposed to take down a tree as an example. And I get a violation the day after I took down the tree. I'd have 23 days to fix the problem. So I go get essentially a back-dated permit. I pay a fine because I did it. I have to plant the new tree To replace the one I took down if I don't do those on the 24th day the fines start to accrue correct, okay All right, I just wanted to make sure I I had that so so really we're the part of this on timing is we're moving up this timing by 45 days or so to make sure that we can start implementing the fines and the code enforcement board is then in charge. Overse is overseeing this. It doesn't have to wait to go to the magistrate. Correct. Okay. Just want to make sure I had it clear. The only, I really like this, thank you for this. I wish we didn't have to wait 23 days. I would start finding them the next day, but that's just me. And by the way, I've been fined by the city of St. Petersburg, so I get it. I don't necessarily want to go by the stick either, but in these categories, I don't mind using the stick to be honest with you. I think our code enforcement board and the special magistrate having watched them because of some homes in District 1, I think they do a very good job of being fair and sometimes overtly fair in giving our residents time And sometimes overtly fair in giving our residents time and not certifying leans. And so I think they do a really good job of that. Here's my opinion. I think we should give, and I'd love to hear feedback from my colleagues, I think we should give the opportunity for these fines to be higher, not necessarily use them, but give them a higher ceiling. I don't know that we need to go to $1,000 per day. I certainly agree that life safety, unsafe, is more important than short-term rental. But when I think that code enforcement today is going to 250, our max today of 250, I think we should give them a ceiling higher than that. That's just my opinion. But I think about the homes that I get emails about, thankfully I don't get a lot of life safety unsafe, but I get emails about the same homes all the time about short-term rentals. And this is to your point, Chair, about repeat offenders. Like I wrote down, we should be at 500. Well, and committee vice-chair to your point. I think first of all, I think this is the floor. It's not the ceiling, right? What these fees are. But I think the recommendation. It's a recommendation, right? But if we implement the other portion where they could go up to a thousand per day it doesn't does is this is this a top or is this a floor? This doesn't change the top of 250 right administratively this is what we would use a lot like the chart that's here for those daily finds that is what we would use to calculate when we present this to the board. This is what we are recommending that you certify a lien right now. The board could sway that. And they could go higher, but I also put that provision in there to cap at any individual hearing that they would not be able to find a single proper or single case more than $10,000. You know, because we could have a situation where maybe there was a delay in getting it to the hearing and there's a potential for a 30 or $40,000 lien that gets certified. And I think our structure is different than what City of Miami Beach did, but I don't know maybe Heather can answer that question better. But what liability we could potentially have that, you know, because the number of days that passed, this is, you know, a much higher fine that then we are dealing with another loss. Okay, so then clarifying question. What's the cap fine per day without talking about the $10,000 limit per hearing? What's technically, so let's say I got fine and my hearing was seven days later. What's my, what's my cap fine? The board could go up to $7,000. So let's say I got fined and my hearing was seven days later. What's my cap fined? The board could go up to $7,000. Okay. Alright. I misunderstood that. So we're talking about implement totally adopting this Florida statute language, but this would be the recommendation with the cap of 10,000. I misunderstood. I apologize. Okay. But to your point, there could be something where there's repeat offenders and you could put in a minute and you can have a recommendation that's higher than this, which is I think what maybe. Yeah, that's exactly right. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I misunderstood. I didn't realize we were. I thought this was we could do this, but this this next section is what we're recommending that we do. I misunderstood that we're going to adopt this, we would recommend to adopt this language, but this would be the recommendation of per day with the cap of the 10,000 per hearing. Right, adopting the language that's there with the caveat that, you know, as proposed, we would say no more than $10,000 at one individual hearing. I'm good. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Floyd and then Chair Fick Sanders. Thank you. Okay, and so these, this intent slide, these are what are going to start affruing before there's been any hearing or anything. So, you know, this is before we even have gathered information from the property owners, what's going on. And after that, it could be a different situation that board could change their mind completely. So, with that being the case, I wanted to hurry them up in the compliance, but we haven't gathered any information from them, and so who knows what circumstances are under. Okay, so again, I like the way that you've come up with it. I will just say, though, that maybe some sort of acknowledgement of repeat offenders would be very worthwhile. And then I know the board will get to make determinations, but somebody goes how to compliance. Comebacks, it comes back into compliance. Goes how to compliance again would be cool if the fees that they pay whenever the fees that they accrue on that 23rd day, the second or third or fourth time, were maybe a little difference. That's that, but again, I'm still, I like everything, but since a committee chair brought up the repeat offenders, it would be important. Interesting to see what you recommend for us. Okay, and legal wants to make a comment on that. So generally another benefit, potentially timeline wise, of going to this model is that we have a lot of folks that as Mr. Wall said, we'll wait until white before the board and then the comments are upon us and then we have to restart and there's different notices. And this point, it's you have your compliance timeline, whatever we set that as right now is the 23 days. But then that fine is accruing. So they could be in compliance at their board date or a little after, but the board still has the ability at that point to say, well, between the time that codes first went out and now you did this for a month. So we're gonna find it. Yeah, I know, yeah. And even if you're right from here on out to the end of time and you're in compliance for that month, you weren't. And that's what this cost. And that's the deterrent factor that I think is enhanced in this. Yeah, and I think that really does speak to short-term rentals because people will continue to book them for the next 60 days while they can to get as much money as possible and then they can it's bit so easy to come into compliance They just change it right there in the meeting and so I appreciate that Being pointed out one other thing that you brought up and well, I don't I think it was councilmember Montenegro They brought it up But what enforcement proactive enforcement looks like you know I Would say of be support of hearing what CODE's department has to say about what proactive enforcement could look like since it hasn't taken place. And just one suggestion, you know, I don't know that to try to compromise. I don't know that, you know, one person whose job it is all the time, sure that would be ideal. But based off of what you said, a possibility could be someone who takes time to do it occasionally. And if we're doing it every few months or something, like there will be a large pool of homeowners that then realizes, I guess, to use good faith. They realize they're in violation of it and maybe we can correct those issues and then give it some time and then do it again. And so that's just one idea that I had crossed my mind while you were describing how it's taken place in the past. But I do think another conversation that we could have in a committee is what your department believes could be achieved in. What we would like to see achieved, I know it's maybe not the topic of discussion today, but I think going forward, it would be interesting to have that discussion. Thank you. Sheriff is fantastic. Thank you. Going back to Vice Chair Gertis's example, and you gave him a total of $7,000 for that particular example that he gave and that we're recommending no more than 10,000, but per this verbiage, we could go up to 15,000 correct? For irreparable for irreparable only irreparable. Okay. Yes You'll notice that the language is the first two amounts are it says per day and then for that 15,000 it says per violation So that's cognizant of the fact that it is irreparable. So if you're already calling it that there is no real continuing violation. So theoretically for certain irreparable violations such as a tree removal or a listed discharge we could just say that's 15,000 period. But that's not a per day amount. OK. And I concur with the repeat offenders, those that realize it as a cost of business. When you go to the board and you're there, can you give recommendation to the board that this particular homeowner is a repeat offender that they are consistently? I know that they'll notice people but everybody on the board might not be attention to that so is that something that we can do as a staff you mr. walk and also make a recommendation yeah that that is something that is provided as testimony commonly within the hearings okay all right all right thank you thank you chair thank you and just just to to I guess reiterate in terms of the deterrence factor, which is I think what we are all focusing on because repeat offenders obviously it's not the deterances and they're enough for them. They're continuing to repeat it. And I think the whatever is drafted has to be crystal clear. If you continue doing this, there is a hammer. And I think part of the concern that I may be hearing and the committee can correct me is maybe just by having the structure there, it's not crystal clear what the cost of doing business could be if you just ignore them. So legal. For this kind of ordinance to go to, well, super fines is the industry term. To do that, the ordinance has to be very explicit. And that's why we're only starting with these violations. You do have to make particularized findings. If you look at the Miami Beach, they had to make findings based on the, what they're trying to achieve, the harm and the vacation rental, so we would have to do that. So you will see a very specific and detailed ordinance related to these violations and the fines. I'm just talking about repeat offenders. There's nothing about repeat offenders here. Oh, we can put that in the city. That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying, because that would be crystal clear to anyone that would be sending a message. Yes. Committee Vice that would be sending a message. Committee vice chair, Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just real quickly, Council Member Floyd, to your point, because I was going to bring this up earlier, but didn't want to get lost in the weeds, but you kind of touched on it. So two or three years ago, when Senator DeSigley first brought up an Airbnb bill relating to collecting the bed tax. My concern with the bill was that it did not hold sites like VRBO and Airbnb accountable to saying when somebody goes it because it's very easy. We all know that they are collecting data left and right. When I've posted my home for the fourth time in a short term rental, I shouldn't be allowed to do it. Or certain zip codes like out on the beach, don't allow them at all, right? And so in that zip code, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. And so we really need to continue to work with our state legislature to get them to push that button. Because that's where it's at. Airbnb, VRBO, all these sites, the RV camper sites, all of them, they can do those. They can do it. I talked to them three years ago, but they just have no incentive to do it right now. And so I had a round table with Senator DeSigley last year with a bunch of elected officials from Pinellas County and we asked them to do it this past year and I get it right. I mean, I don't agree with it but I understand his position but that's where it's at. We've got to get our legislature to understand. Listen, we've got an ordinance in place. We're grandfathered. Here it is. We should be able to tell Airbnb and VRBO turn it off. Right? It's a real easy button. And so I just think that's our opportunity to help ease some of this. We wouldn't need to do this if all they had to do was that. And so I just, while we were all here in the sunshine, I thought I would bring that up quickly. Thanks, Madam Chair. It would be a great world if that was the possibility. Right. It would not only just solve our issue. You used the word easy. It's nation wide. I mean, this is an issue that's nation wide. You can look at so many cities. I mean, Sedona, I remember going visiting years ago and they were having the problems back then and it's gotten it's so bad over there They have I think it's 16% of their inventory which is insane that 16% Imagine that in our city. So I mean it is a huge issue and the other thing that people don't realize is you're affecting neighborhoods. They're not meant to have hotels right beside their house. When you buy a house or you're renting a house or whatever is in the neighborhood, it's known for a neighborhood. It's not for a hotel to be beside your house. So which is kind of how these VRBOs operate and again whether it's parking, services, all the other issues that come with that is what our residents are facing. So that's why we're trying to find the solutions. Council Member Montenegri. I can't just make a quick point on the short-term rentals in Airbnb's. B&Bs. When it comes to monitoring these sites, it seems to me we live in a county with 24 municipalities, separate county commission. People get confused over laws, boundaries, where the city limits for St. Petersburg are and we're on a corporate banellas could be and you have different different laws and boundaries, where the city limits for St. Petersburg are and where uncorporated banalists could be and you have different different laws and ordinances pertaining to this. If we could have some enforcement where we have staff review these sites and then send a letter to the property owner and a copy of the ordinance just to kind of tell them this is what we have. To me that would be an easy for a step to take. How hard would it be to do something like that? I mean legal wants to say something before you talk to. She's giving the thing here. I think when we do get into an enforcement posture, we do that. We obviously have to, we're required to send a written warning letter to folks. Doing some kind of a blanket courtesy notice, I think, from historically, what we would see is more of what Mr. Wad described as in people trying to hide it. Generally, I am very, very reticent to discuss how we enforce things because it seems like every time we find a method that works, then there is a hundred new ways around it and makes it even more difficult. So honestly, we're trying to go on the other direction where we're trying not to tip the people that we're doing it, but I do think that awareness, especially from some of the Reels associations and things. Those things might help. That might be where a more helpful notice is, but when we tell people that we're looking at them, they turn a love and it's really difficult. And then we have to spend more staff time trying to monitor it, waiting for it to come back online. So that is something we could do, but I would say that that might actually make it harder on the enforcement side. And I think that if we're going through that effort to do that research, because it's not like we just click on it, it tells us what the address is. Right? So if we're going to go that deep, then to me, the violation notices enough education, let them know that they can't do it, and they have time to bring it into compliance. So I think in those situations, you know, that's how we operate now. Essentially, you know, we find the violation and we're issuing you a notice you have time bringing it to compliance. And violation notices do contain a violation detail which is usually the section or subsection of city code that they're violating so they can have that and if they want to see more than they have that reference citation where they can go and look at up on many code themselves too. Okay. Like everybody else I just want our laws and force and I'm trying to figure out a way to like deal deal with this issue. And in a simple manner, and now that you can't put in a code violation anonymously, people are reticent sometimes to do that sort of stuff. So anyway, just a thought. And then one other thing for the committee, these changes, I think it would be a good idea to maybe keep this on the referral list. I think we may recent it upstairs and improve it, but maybe come back in a year and see how it works. See if we need to change this and make it stronger or weaken it and see how it goes. Okay. Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. I just wanted to offer so that we can have a conversation on what proactive enforcement looks like. I'll put in a new business item. I'm writing it up and I'm going to copy Joe and Heather on it so that you can see what I've got and tell me if I'm way off base or anything. I'll put that in. That's perfect. So I think where we're at right now, it seems like you have consensus here. Something's going to be drafted up. Yes. Okay. And then this committee want it to come back here or do we want it to go directly to city council? I'm okay with upstairs. Upstairs? Okay, well I'll entertain a motion. Move, approval. Okay, all in favor? I have. Hold on, Council member Floyd? Yep. Do we want it to include just this or did we want to include anything about repeat? I think Joe's got it with her. He's going to include repeat. I thought there was consensus. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I thought there was consensus. Yeah, yeah, I think there's consensus in the committee about some provisions about repeat of repeat. Yes, and that wasn't In this slide with the administrative the repeat wasn't focused because that's not something that administrative We've done in the past for our recommendations But that language that is getting added to mere 162 repeat offenders are addressed in there and that will be included. So we'll just add some extra findings related to administratively how we're going to be. Do you need me to amend my motion? I don't. Okay. No, I just want to. Yeah. That was okay. It was already contemplated when we moved closer to the exact language of 162. So clear. Great. Yeah. So for care. Great. Yes, chair for extended. So do repeat offenders automatically categorize those that use it as a cost of doing business because you have some people that are just poor landlords but then you have some that are repeat offenders because it's a part of doing business so is there a distinction? Repeat offenders is actually defined. Okay. And that's having the same violation within a 365 day. Okay. So it doesn't go into any outside factors except for you have been found in violation multiple times within that year period. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And you have their further discussion. Okay. With no further discussion. What have a vote? All in favor? I willosed this is what happens when you're on vacation first day back first day back Okay, well thank you. This has been a wonderful discussion frankly, and I really do appreciate Administration and codes a Joe you've been wonderful on this issue I know it's been tough and I know that actually going after these violators is not as easy as people think it may be and we're trying to use every tool in the box and adding more tools right now to make sure that we can actually enforce her code. So with that being said there's going to be follow up on this so we will know if this is working in the future, we'll have a new business item and we'll address this in the future. But with that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you, Cheryl. Thank you, Cheryl.