HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 09 14 Other, Letter Provided by Rabbi Maurice Kaprow for the RecordDate: September 14, 2015
This letter from Rabbi Maurice Kaprow was noted
for the Record and is referenced in the Minutes of
the September 14, 2015 City Commission Regular
Meeting.
RABBI MAURICE S. KAPROW
P.O. Box 195233
WINTER SPRINGS, FL 32719 -5233
September 8, 2014
Mayor and Commission
City of Winter Springs, Florida
Dear Honorable Mayor and Commissioners:
I regret that I am no longer able to attend meetings of the Winter Springs City Commission; my
doctoral program schedule at UCF has me in class every Monday and Thursday evening for the
next two years. Accordingly, I would ask that this letter be included in the records of the
September 14, 2014 City Commission meeting as part of public comment.
In the interest of full disclosure, I currently sit on the Code Enforcement Board (hereinafter, the
Board) of the City of Winter Springs. I am fully aware that as all other appointed board and
committee members, I serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and the Commission.
In reviewing the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2015 -17, I inferred that the primary purpose of
this measure is to replace the Board with a Special Master whose powers would be the same as
the Board. The stated "benefits" of a Special Master would according to Agenda Item 503 of the
August 24, 2015 City Commission meeting include scheduling efficiency, experience in law,
prosecution assistance, and other optional code enforcement programs.
Scheduling efficiency. The reported justification is that a Special Magistrate would be
easier to schedule than the Board. It goes on to say that some cases could be handled in the
mornings during normal employee shifts. While it is easier to schedule one person, the Board
has been very cooperative in scheduling meetings as often as needed. It is also important to note
that we are a residential community and most of our homeowners work outside of the City. It is
for this reason that to Commission moved its own meetings to a later hour to allow for more
public participation. The concept of daytime hearings would have the opposite effect.
Experience in law. The Board has the benefit of legal counsel who is present at all
meetings and constantly guides it with legal opinion. This would not change with a Special
Magistrate. Also, to my knowledge, there have been few (if any) appeals of Board decisions.
Prosecution assistance. Again, the City Attorney's office can assist the current Board as
necessary.
Other optional code enforcement programs. The example used is a police vehicle
impoundment ordinance that would require "frequent due process hearings on short notice."
Please note that when the City had a Red Light Camera ordinance, it was the Board that
adjudicated those cases. Should the need arise there is no reason why the Board could not meet
more often, to provide due process hearings.
The other major change recommended is to streamline the process of granting lien reductions to
the City Manager. That can still (and probably should) be done without eliminating the Board.
One of the goals of the City should be to encourage citizen participation to the greatest extent
possible. The Board involves seven (7) volunteer community members. This recommended
change would eliminate those opportunities for citizens to serve.
Finally there is the issue of cost to the City. There will clearly be added expense for the Special
Magistrate that can only come from tax revenue and cannot be recovered as a "cost." "See Op.
Att'y Gen. Fla. 14 -04 (2014)(s. (2). Fla. Sta. does not allow a city to recover against a code
violator the fees paid to a special magistrate or to the special magistrate's assistant).' (Public
Hearings Page 5 of 6 — August 24, 2015.)
Our current Board has served this City well for years. It includes citizen participation and has
always been responsive to the needs of the Police Department and other City officials. There is
no reason to suspect that the Board as currently constituted would not continue to meet the full
needs of the City relating to its codes.
I would most strongly encourage this Commission to take the following two actions:
1- Empower the City Manager to reduce code levies and fines with appeals to the City
Commission.
2- Retain the City of Winter Springs Code Enforcement Board in its current configuration
without resorting to a Special Master.
I feel these two actions would be in our fiscal interests and best serve all the residents of the City
of Winter Springs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
2B�I tMAURICE S. K PROW