Item 8BAGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Information and discussion related to possible regulation of rental properties as part
of the Mayport Corridor Revitalization effort.
SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Doerr, AICP, Community Development Director
Erika Hall, Principal Planner
DATE: May 16, 2008
BACKGROUND: Presentations at the 2008 Strategic Planning sessions highlighted numerous code violations
and a prevalence of drugs, prostitution, domestic and nonviolent crimes, as well as concentrated pockets of violent
crimes along the Mayport Road commercial corridor and in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Many of these
incidences can be correlated to rental housing. Transience of tenants and non-responsiveness of property owners
to notices of violations result in a reactive approach to code enforcement, which is both time-consuming and non-
productive. This progression results in the disintegration of existing housing stock and ultimately, the unraveling
of a community.
Staff was directed to gather information from other communities related to how rental properties are reasonably
regulated in a manner that ensures safe and decent housing conditions are provided and maintained by property
owners /landlords. Clearly, this is an issue that will require considerable discussion and thorough preparation.
Direction from the City Commission regarding specific approaches to take is needed in order to proceed. Below
are summaries of the three (3) options identified.
OPTION #1: Do Nothing.
In this scenario, violations of municipal codes associated with rental housing will continue to be handled on an as-
reported basis. Resolution, or non-resolution, will probably continue to occur with the same exigency as now.
In terms of expenditures, it may be said that this is the least costly option in that there are no additional costs
associated with staffing and administration. However, doing nothing beyond standard code enforcement has
contributed to the current conditions, and will no doubt provide for an environment where the downward spiral of
housing conditions and the community is likely to continue.
OPTION #2: Referral of certain cases by the Police Department to the Building Official for inspection,
enforcement of recently adopted Property Maintenance Ordinance.
In this scenario, Police Officers will be thoroughly trained to recognize and document potential violations of the
International Property Maintenance Code (Il'MC), which was adopted in February, while they are on calls to
suspected rental properties. Documentation will then be forwarded to the Building Official who will make a
determination as to whether or not "reasonable cause" for further inspection exists. If a case is opened, the process
will then involve the following steps: (1) determining owner name & contact information, typically confirmed
through the Duval County Property Appraiser's Office; (2) arranging access, via communication with the owner,
owner's representative, and/or tenant; (3) conducting initial inspection; (4) providing notification of violation -this
may involve an initial informal "courtesy" notice, followed by up to two certified letters to which the owner may
or may not respond; (5) conducting follow-up or compliance inspection(s); (6) if referred to Code Enforcement
Board, preparing the case for and attending the CEB hearing; (7) preparing final orders, etc for recording with the
Clerk of Courts & City Clerk; (8) subsequent tracking/monitoring through various processes such as condemnation
of property, eviction of tenants, liens/foreclosure on property, demolition of structures. This process is comparable
to that currently utilized by the Code Enforcement Officer. Some cases are quickly resolved with investment of
only one or two hours of staff time, while others require considerable research and/or attempts to contact the owner
or gain access to the premises, and prepare the case for hearing, etc. It is estimated that the average case resolution
time will be twelve (12) hours.
May 27, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
The Police Department has estimated that there are probably around 50 structures suspected as centers of operation
for drugs, prostitution or other criminal activities that would also likely be found in violation of the IPMC. Based
on that, it could be anticipated that there would be on average one (1) referral per week, with an average of
approximately 600 staff hours per year dedicated to the program.
PROs
• IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION: The IPMC has already been adopted. Once Police Officers are
trained on what to look for and how to document it, referrals can begin.
CONS
• RE-ACTNE: Referral is on a case by case basis, generally in response to findings of the most severe
situations.
LIMITED SCOPE: Only rental structures subject to criminal investigations will be open to possible
referral for property maintenance inspections.
• LIMITED SCALE: Only potential violations of IPMC will be referred.
INCREASED WORKLOAD FOR EXISTING STAFF: Police Officers, Building Official, Building
Inspector all will experience increased responsibilities and workloads. A great deal of interdepartmental
coordination is required, and though the average number of hours is low, those few hours may be spread
out over a year or more before resolution is reached. Generally this scenario involves a tremendous
amount of staff time obtaining approval for entry, responding in writing to tenantlowner and again,
obtaining permission for re-inspection(s) for compliance.
• NO REVENUE GENERATION: No application, registration, or inspection fees associated with this plan
means no revenue is generated to support day-to-day administration of the plan, staff training, community
educational materials, etc. Recovered fines or penalties will likely not cover the true cost of handling a
case, from open to close.
OPTION #3: Implementation of afull-fledged Rental Re:tulation pros:ram.
In this scenario, a comprehensive rental regulation program is developed and formalized through ordinance
adoption and subsequent codification. Known by various names, from landlord permit to dwelling unit license,
from rental registration to rental inspection, all such programs operate in basically the same manner:
(1) Rental of non-owner occupied dwelling units is seen as profitable and is therefore recognized as a
business. Owners are required to obtain a local business tax receipt (license) and register all rental
dwelling units with the municipality in which they are located. Owners must supply current contact
information for themselves as well as intermediate or local property managers if the owner lives more than
a given distance from the rentals, and report the type of dwelling (duplex, triplex, apartment, etc) and the
number of tenants living in each unit. No information that might breach the tenant's rights of privacy is
required to be submitted to the City.
(2) Rental units are required to undergo inspections for typical health and safety issues, such as presence of
operable fire extinguishers and smoke detectors, availability of essential services (water, sewer,
electricity), etc. The owner coordinates a time for inspection with both tenant and staff. Generally, the
ordinance contains provisions for missed and failed inspections, with re-inspection fees and penalties for
non-compliance and repeat offenses enumerated.
(3) Education is a key component to this program. Time is spent explaining the process, and teaching both
landlords and tenants their rights and responsibilities to one another as well as the community. Written
materials are developed and dispersed, and free community workshops are often sponsored by the city.
Based upon information received from several Florida municipalities with rental registration programs in place, at
minimum, it would take the equivalent of one full-time staff position to handle all tasks associated with
registration/licensing, inspection and follow-up on all residential rental units in Atlantic Beach. Approximately
.425 FTE (17 hours per week) would be dedicated to processing applications, scheduling and other clerical work,
while .575 FTE (23 hours per week) would be dedicated to inspections, reports, case preparation, meeting
May 16, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
attendance and subsequent monitoring. Using the estimated number of residential rentals within the Mayport
Corridor focus area, (1,139 or 53%), it is possible to extrapolate .225 FTE (9 hours per week) and 0.305 FTE (12
hours per week) respectively, for implementation confined to that geographic area. (More on the specifics of rental
regulation programs of Florida municipalities can be found in the attached report.)
PROs
• PRO-ACTIVE: Efforts are made to identify and resolve not only the worst situations and/or those related
to criminal activity, but also the developing situations. Incorporation of an educational component further
serves as a preventative measure.
• FEE-BASED: Fees assessed for unit rental registration, licensing, inspection & re-inspections are used to
help support the cost of operating the program and the development of educational materials. Additional
staff to focus specifically on rental regulation would be required, and the fees would need to be established
to cover the costs of a rental inspection program.
• BROAD SCOPE: Addresses all rental units, either city-wide or within a specific, defined area.
• BROAD SCALE: Addresses IPMC issues, as well as other zoning, land use, nuisance or other code
violations associated with the rental unit.
• IMPROVED ACCESSIBILITY: Provides better method for coordination of inspection, eliminates need to
obtain permission (legal inspection warrant) to enter, inspect. [Reference: Camara v. Municipal Court City
and County, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967)]
CONS
• DELAYED IlVIPLEMENTATION: Drafting and adoption of an ordinance, development of forms,
checklists and educational materials will lengthen the time to get a program in place.
POSSIBLE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY AND RESISTANCE: There will be negative response from those
parties most affected by implementation -namely owners of multiple units or with the most severe
violations, real estate /property management companies, and proponents of property rights and affordable
housing advocates.
• COSTS: The City must commit to budget the additional resources and Staff required for this program.
If the City chooses to pursue a full rental inspection, great care should be taken to implement this process such that
the community understands the need to do this in order to ensure, to the extent possible, that all residents including
those renting their homes are provided with safe, decent, and adequately maintained housing. Staff would suggest
that, at least initially, any such program should focus only on the areas of City, where based upon crime, housing
and similar data, we know that immediate action is needed. In this manner, resources can be more focused and
used more efficiently.
RECOMMENDATION: Direction to City Manager as to which option is to be pursued.
ATTACHMENTS: Memo and tables summarizing other communities' rental regulation and inspection
programs; tables estimating AB costs for implementation of options #2 & #3; maps of probable residential rental
properties within (1) the City of Atlantic Beach and (2) the Mayport Corridor focus area (COAB & COJ).
BUDGET: No budget issues at this time. It is estimated that implementation of Option #2, based upon
information provided above, would cost approximately $19, 206.25 per year for salary and benefits alone, with no
revenue generated. It is estimated that city-wide implementation of Option #3 would cost approximately
$61,466.60 per year for salary and benefits only, with revenue generated by business tax receipts, inspection and
re-inspection fees. Roll-out to the Mayport Corridor focus areas only would require slightly more than 50% of that
amount, or $32,212.44 per year for salary and benefits only. Fees of other municipalities ranged from $30.00 to
$185.75 per dwelling unit. A multiplier would have to be applied to account for needed transportation, office
space/equipment, etc. in each of these scenarios.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:_<~'-
~°'~~ ~ 3 May 16, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
MEMORANDUM
TO: SONYA DOERR, AlCP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JIM HANSON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ERIKA HALL
SUBJECT: FLORIDA MUNICIPAL RENTAL REGULATION PROGRAMS
DATE: 5/15/2008
Presentations at the 2008 Strategic Planning sessions highlighted numerous code violations and a
prevalence of drugs, prostitution, domestic and nonviolent crimes, as well as concentrated pockets of
violent crimes along the Mayport Road commercial corridor and in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Many of these incidences can be correlated to rental housing. Unfortunately, transience of tenants and
non-responsiveness of awners to notices of violations results in a reactive approach to code
enforcement which is both time-consuming and non-productive for staff, as well as the disintegration of
the physical housing stock and ultimately, the unraveling of a community.
Many communities have taken an alternative, pro-active approach by enacting rental regulation
programs. Staff ident~ed seventeen Florida municipalities (see attached table) that either have had or
have recently enacted such ordinances. Known by various names, from landlord permit to dwelling unit
license, from rental registration to rental inspection, they all operate in basically the same manner.
(1) Rental of non-owner occupied dwelling units is seen as profitable and is therefore
recognized as a business. Owners are required to obtain a local business tax receipt
(license) from and register such dwelling units with the municipality in which they are
located. Owners must supply current contact information for themselves as well as
intermediate property managers, and report the type of dwelling (duplex, triplex, apartment,
etc) and the number of tenants living in each unit. No information that might breach the
tenant's rights of privacy is required to be submittted to the city.
(2) Rental units are required to undergo inspections for typical health and safe#y issues, such as
presence of operable fire extinguishers and smoke detectors, availability of essential
services (water, sewer, e~ctricity), etc. The owner coordinates a time for inspection with
both tenant and staff. Generally, the ordinance contains provisions for missed and failed
inspections, with re-inspection fees and penalties for non-compliance and repeat offenses
enumerated.
(3) Education is a key component to this program. Time is spent explaining the process, and
teaching both landlords and tenants their rights and responsibilities to one another as well
as the community. Written materials are developed and dispersed, and free community
workshops are often sponsored by the aty.
Of the muniapalities reviewed, most were approximate to Atlantic Beach in area, population, and/or
estimated number of rental units. However, several larger communities were included because they
Memo: Florida Municipal Rental Regulatwn Programs
AGENDA ITEM # SB
MAY 27, 2008
are illustrative of special circumstances and serve as good contrast to the more comparable locations.
In particular, the City of Gainesville is home to thousands of rental units dedicated to serving the
academic community. Gainesville's often contentious rental regulation program was started in the
1960s in response a fatal fire in an overcrowded student rental and has been the subject of several
legal challenges. The latest, filed in December 2007 by two local attorneys who are also landlords to
32 dwelling units, claims that the program is unconstitutional because it infringes on private property
rights, due process and/or is too vague. However, the city has defended the ordinance with the
argument that property owners voluntarily enter into the business of venting homes and therefore
become subject to regulations in the same manner as other businesses. Judgment has not yet been
handed down in this particular case, but the Gainesville program has evolved over the years in
response to past criticisms and challenges.
It should be noted that °college towns' across the country have some of the most strongly opposed
rental regulations on the books. In fact, Athens-Clarke County, Georgia rental regulation was found to
be unconstitutional in February 2004 because it required landlords to register rental properties and
provide sworn evidence of the names and relationships of people living in rental units The ruling
fudge deeded that the required information violated citizens' Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination and infringed upon their Fourth Amendment rrctht to protection against unreasonable
search and seizure. (Also, reference was found to a Georgia Statute that now prohibits municipalities
from requiring the registration of rental properties).
A similar experience was shared by Aaron Graulau, a former inspector with the Hillsborough County
(Tampa) Rental Housing Inspection Program. There, a majority of the rental units were owned by large
real estate management corporations. The per unit licensing fees took a substantial bite out of profits,
as did the extra staff required to handle the annual paperwork and related inspections for each unit.
So, the Tampa Bay Apartment Association financed a successful challenge to the Hillsborough
program, which has since been discontinued. However, Mr. Graulau, now CE Administrator for the City
of Minneola in Lake County, said this would not likely be an issue in a market dominated by privately
owned duplexes, triplexes and small complexes.
Many of the smaller, more comparable cities reviewed have enacted rental regulation ordinances only
in the past year or two, and are thus still in the process of implementation. In general, most
communities appear #o be taking a phased approach, identifying rental units within a defined
geographic area, rolling the program out in that area, then moving on to the next geographic area. This
ensures that staff is not overtaxed by a deluge of applications at once, and initial improvements are
magnified because they are concentrated in space and time. However, one municipality (Lake Worth)
hired a consultant to identify all rental units, create and mail out all preliminary educational materials
and applications to owners of those properties. No indication was given as to if/how regular staff would
handle application processing and inspections.
Finally, the cities of Clearwater and Delray Beach were found to be shining examples of public service,
providing extensive educational materials and training sessions for owners and managers of rental
properties, as welt as for tenants. Items such as generic samp~ leases and landlord/tenant rights and
responsibilities are made readily available online, as well as in Housing and Neighbofiood Services
departments of many cities.
It was difficult to determine a consistent number of hours dedicated to administration of an entire rental
regulation program due to differences in local demographics, stages of implementation, and the
differing methods of administration. For instance, some communities take across-departmental
approach. One department might be responsible for identifying potential units, while another receives
and processes the application for the registratioMicense, and then passes it along to another
2
Memo: Florida Mu~tfcrfial Rental Regulation Pmgramr
AGENDA ITEM # SB
MAY 27, 2008
department for annual inspection. This same department may or may not be responsible for interim
inspections based upon reported violations. Finally, processing of penalties and liens might fall on an
entirely different department. While this model disperses the work load, it can also result in
communication breakdown, allowing cases to slip through the cracks. Additionally, not all departments
may have the same level of commiitmerrt or assign as much importance to the process as others, or
staff may be expected to assign higher priorities to tasks that belong exdusively to their home
department.
On the other hand, some communities have departments dedicated to resident or neighborhood
services, and within those departments, there might be one (or more) person(s) dedicated solely to the
rental regulation program. That person handles rental regulation from start to finish, researching and
identifying potential rental properties, coordinating with property owners to provide educational
materials and applications, processing applications, arranging and completing inspections, and
following up on reports of violations. Additionally, sme documents violations and handles related
correspondence in preparation of cases to be referred to the local code enforcement board and
processes the resuRant penalties/liens.
Staff found that established programs with approximately the same number of rental units anticipated
for Atlantic Beach expend 15-20 hours per week on inspectioNcode enforcement functions alone.
Several interviewees reported that nearly the same amount of time is collectively dedicated to
identifying potential rental units, verifying ownership/contact information, providing public information,
and processing applications. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to assume that this position would
require 40 hours per week for administration of a aty-wide program. It is estimated that slightly more
than half (53%) of all Atlantic Beach rentals are located in the Mayport Corridor project area.
Accordingly, it would take approximately 20.22 hours per week for administration of the rental
regulation program for that geographic area alone.
RegistratioMicense fees also vary, from $37.50 (Avon Park) to $185.75 (Gainesville) per unit. Some
cities that host many large corporate-owned rental comp~xes have more complicated fee structures in
which the per unit amount decreases as the number of units held increases. However, the Minneola
CE Administrator recommended the following formula to determine a fee baseline:
(1) Multiply the average hourly pay rate of staff to be assigned to the program by 1.7 to cover
salary, benefds, uniforms, and training.
(2) Then multiply that figure by 1.75 to cover the amount of time spent advally administering
the program.
As discussed in Strategic Planning sessions, and reiterated in the Strategic Plan Goal Statement,
availability of quality housing stodk is essential to the economic, physical and soda) fabric of a
community. Staff believes implementation of a rental n3gulation program adheres to the guiding
principle (reinvestment in housing and neighbofioods) and the primary strategies (change the
environment, improve public perception, and incude residents in building a sense of community)
outlined in that goal statement. As described above, it can be aself-funded program that works with all
parties involved, for the benefit of the whole community.
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
its C1
rl n1 00
N 'd' n
' 00 Ct et a~1 h
d
' M
Q1 ~O
tC Il1
01 N
~ 'fit
N 00
h N
O N
ct
~"~ N
~ iT
Q1 M
M tC
' 01 00
tt t!1
.-
i tC
to M
1~ cn
-
t OO 01
i 00
N N N
i N
A~
~"i
N e .- v ~t
~' Ch
~!'
~ O
' tr1
tp
N ~-1
a-i
00 Ot
N
h 00
tG
to e-1
tp
ltrl N
e-1
M M
~
h ~
M
to ti'
t0
r-1 tl1
et
to ei
h
111 h
LA
h O
00
00 O
Ot
CF ~
lD
00 lp
0p
Q
N
N
O M
'= N f
Yt A N N ~ N n N M M d' ~ Q1
O N a-i
r-1
tC
M tC
h
N tt
00
M
~
00 ~O
00
N Q1
e-4
h 00
G1
Cf C1
Ct tl1
ei O
OD 00
p1 00
CA ~
N 00
~ of
d' tC
Cf N
to
"~
M M O 00 N ~C h N 1t1 N
~ M G 00 M ei M
N ~ e-1 e-1 N M M
N
O O
.-i N
h ~
01 ~ ~ tMA a0-1 O
d" et
O 01
.-i O
~' M
tri CC
h LA
00 r-1
.-~ h
N
~' tp C1 e-1 !~ O tl1 Iff ~ tD ~t ~ 00
N N O N ~ a~-1 N ~! N
N n N N M it O cF
N ei
a
O
d' ~
IA Q
"' t~A
N
-^ h
!~ N
n M
~ O
M M
h to
~ h
st O
00 d1
00
~ CC
W O
O
~"{ M
a-I M
01
O ~ 00
O h t0 N h 'd' G1 N1 ~ LA N ~ O 01
V ~ ~ ~ V O
~"~ e0-1 ~ O~0 aN-f Q~1 M ~ ~ e~-1 e^i a-1 00
l0 ~'
to
r
~{
~- .r
E .~
'
E
.~
.~
.~
~ E
.~
~~
E
.~
~~
.~
.~
~~
.~
E
E
~
a
1l
l a
Vf a
Vf a
Vl ~- ~r a
N s
Vl tr
N a
t/f a
41 a
Vf a
VI a
Vf a
N a
N a
to
~ e
~
1'~ t!1 01 ~
M tr1 ~ iF
~ 00 N N ~ N O d1 tr1 N (\ ri
N M ~ ei N 1~ ~
-1 cY1 h ~ tI1 N M d' ~ O t~ car')
H
L ~
t0 O
a ~ f0
~
_
~" °' ~
~ m
o
. ~ o -~
~ 3 ~ 0° ~ a a f °
a
~
~ ~
~ C
-.-~ "'
GJ '^
~
~ a
~ m c
i
~p
d
H ~
i o
i
m
~ u r L d° " ~ a a _
^ 0° Y T o ~
O dC
~ ~
_
ca
,
C~uO
a
~
~ ~
~
O
o ~
Q ~
a.
~ a
Y c
O
-~
., a
,
t
t ~
u
c0
~ -
m Y `
~
'~ ~
~ r
~
j
Y _ ..
-c co
~
i cv
~ ~ - a
O
cv ~
a,
n ~
~ i
aL
ap
m
Q a~
=
~ a
~-- .
co
0
~ v
ca n
co ~
oc
~
a
~ c
~
3 ~ >
~
~ ca o O a,
m o
u
c
tO 0 ~
L o
±+ ~
C
QJ ~
++ ~ ~ a ~
Q Q m m° u u° o ~ 0 L7 J J L G Z Gam. ate.
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
'a
ai
^y
C~ 3 o J
~~.... o
J
_ " ~ H U
N
• ~
~ •C
~ J
~ 3 ~
. /°
•
~
„°,
3 o
o
~
~
N
--.
iC
~
it p
to
~k
00
Xk
it
~k
~
C tOt1 O O O O O n O O p
~ ~ ' c~ i u~i ~ m ~ u~i o`~o o vii `n
~ ~
t
t1 t'
~ fi
' t'' n t''
~ t0 ~ t'
~ t.+
~ U
~ ~ f6 ~-i 6A ~ H i~
{M
i ,= M ~ U ri ~ U e-1 ~ 1~ U
.
N v R U V V V U t
V
f~
fh
~'
O
n
m
^^p
V
:a
~
~
M
N
x p~
O
N
t O
~ O
O .•i N
m O O a0 to n u1 ~, ~ ~ t0
O t
O
t0 o0
O ,
~ r=i
a-i c0
~ O cV N N O
N N
V
~
O O
O
N
H
~ t
40 [O
`
a
O m
=
a
;C
... t
....
~ ~
_
~ ~ L
~ N ~
~ t
fa
~ -,
~ E
fQ --
U
C
C ~ a ~ ~ ~.. y m ~ d1
°° L f0 .~- ~ N
eo 3 ~ ° -- ° !~ ~ ° ~ ~ a ~ ~ m
~
~ c _ c
"
_O CC V OQ v- ~ ~ „~ ° c6 o a J ai .C ca ~
~ ~ Y D L ~ ~ > Y ~ ~ a v ` °C ~ H °
a~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ L
m m ~ ~ •~ o ~ f° p ~ ~ o °
°~ ~ n. ~ ~° ~ ~ >. c ° ~ ~ c a ~ a m u ~°
~ c
° v ~a ° cLa ° +~ c
• a :° ° °
+~ >
Q a a,
m o
m ~
u o
v a,
a a
~ a
~ co
C7 ~
J ~
J c~
L C°
G a,
Z ~
a ~
f1 of
'S
AGENDA ITEM # 8B
MAY 27, 2008
OPTION #2
~ • ~ •• • • •
initial visit/documentation police officer 0.25 29.41 $7.35
conveyance of documentation/coordination police officer 0.25 29.41 $7.35
building official 0.25 43.79 $10.95
building inspector 0.25 35.82 $8.96
building clerk 0.25 21.07 $5.27
verification of ownership/contact information building clerk 0.25 21.07 $5.27
owner contact & inspection scheduling building clerk 0.50 21.07 $10.54
site inspection & findings report building inspector 1.00 35.82 $35.82
conveyance of documentation/coordination building inspector 0.25 35.82 $8.96
building clerk 0.25 21.07 $5.27
first notice of violation building clerk 0.25 21.07 $5.27
second notice of violation building clerk 0.25 21.07 $5.27
building official 0.25 43.79 $10.95
conveyance of documentation/coordination building inspector 0.25 35.82 $8.96
building clerk 0.25 21.07 $5.27
code enforcement officer 0.25 31.15 $7.79
preparation of case for CEB code enforcement officer 1.00 31.15 $31.15
code enforcement officer 0.50 31.15 $15.58
attendance of CEB meeting building official 0.50 43.79 $21.90
police officer 0.50 29.41 $14.71
preparation of CEB final order code enforcement officer 0.50 31.15 $15.58
conveyance of documentation/coordination code enforcement officer 0.25 31.15 $7.79
city clerk 0.25 40.28 $10.07
processing of liens, etc for recording city clerk 1.00 40.28 $40.28
miscellaneous monitoring through resolution code enforcement officer 2.50 31.15 $77.88
12.00 hr/case = $384.13
50 cases/yr = $19,206.25
OPTION #3
CITY WIDE IMPLEMENTATION
inspection, documentation, reports, inspector
case-building, meeting attendance (based on bldg insp) 23.00 35.82 $823.86
information verification, scheduling adm asst
calls, letters, etc (based on bldg clerk) 17.00 21.07 $358.19
1.00 FTE/wk = $1,182.05
FTE/yr = $61,466.60
FOCUS AREA IMPLEMENTATION
inspection, documentation, reports, inspector
case-building, meeting attendance (based on bldg insp) 12.00 35.82 $429.84
information verification, scheduling adm asst
calls, letters, etc (based on bldg clerk) 9.00 21.07 $189.63
0.53 FTE/wk = $619.47
0.53 FTE/yr = $32,212.44
"The above calculations are for salary and benefits only and do not cover things such as transportation, office space, equipment, supplies, training and
other expenses.
Jacksonville Focus Area: ~ '
4,187 rental units
;_
,, ~
~, ~~~ ~. ~ o~ ^ ~~I
~ ~~~~ r ~ ~
- v i ®lalYllil;,l. ~ ~'`~'',, ~ 4 ~.s' 1JLlll ~ L111i~Q-- i ~ -/ F
z ~ ~L; ~ - _ _ 1 r
.~ ~~y _~ 1 r -. _-
~ ~1~~~ ~ ~
_ ,, ,~~ i
1 ~ ~..
J r `r;
Mayport
,Corridor
Focus Area
Probable Residential
Rental Properties
._..~m-~ ~,
~'p ~- a~ w
--i~-L-II.~ ~ ~~j~ ~ R~ ~~~^ - ~ ~_
~~~ I
~~ g ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ jam- '~, ~ _ Residential Property Use,
I~ _ ~~~~ 1~ ,;;L,, ~. -' No Homestead Exemption
®`~ ~~ --
nn ¢¢ ,
__ .._, ~,7ID~O .ll i _ _. _"I
:H ~~~ -
®ID'IU~I?lL ~ a°'
~? ~ ~O~r~~T~ ~~ ,~j I
.. ~! ~
tf rs
~ '" ~ r ~-'` ~~
AB Primary Focus Area:
911 rental units
__ ~ ~ -i 2007 Data
- -~----~ ~
~~ Total: 1,773 parcels; 5,326 dwelling units
~ (
li 1-
~ ~ Single Family: 1,301 parcels; 1,301 du
Ir
' - ~ Condominium: 165 parcels; 165 du
I
_ +
~ r ~ Duplex: 27 parcels; 58 du
-~'
'~-y~` O Quadruplex: 12 parcels; 48 du
-~_ ` .` ~ Complex (10+ units): 13 parcels; 1,598 du
r- _ Mobile Home: 33 parcels; 33 du
~ ~T Mobile Home Park: 11 parcels; 2,084 du
~ -- l Mixed MH/Com: 2 parcels; 2 du
\
\ s ~ Mixed Res/Com: 29 parcels; 34 du
, Mixed Res/Com/Off: 4 parcels; 3 du
r
1 - UnimprovedNacant Residential: 176 parcels
I
~,
d ~ ,
a~ ,._ '~
i -
ISI ~'
^ _, __. ~ ~ J~~
_- _
o _
-~] ~ u' __
~~~~~~;
_~
-' 1;~
1 ~ ~~ r ~~
H v
~ _
c ~ ~ ti
^~~,~ _-
~~,Cr _
D ~ ~~VG f r~
` y
k _ i .
_ ~~~ -,
~ =L V ~ ~ ~ ~ LrC] ~"
n m
~ ~ ~ ,~
o^ AB Secondary Focus Area:
228 rental units
N Rai un~c
t.Metysls is Deaetl upon Dwal County Property ApprslseYS 2007
Data, obtained Jsnusry 12.2008.
2. Parcel wants were tlertvatl by selacang ell parcels dsasMetl whh
a rasltlantlN property uee entl no Iwmesteatl exempbw. Percab
with pertltl axemp0ons were not wanted beceuse tlwy era
intlicaliva of a change in status tlunrrg the sasesament yasr, aM
wnflotrt NrtMr research, C Is not posslbb to lotow whet that
change ores.
3. Dwading Unh wunb ware tlartvad hom the number of unha
reportatl for Corse paruls. sa tlesertbetl m 2, above.
4. Parcel entl Dwslling Unhs coums may ba eC~cbtl by the
Tolbwing:
.Percale dsselfrotl ea 'UnlmprovetlNacant IiesiOantlal'
may have been, or may be fn Ne proceu N Dsing
tlavelopetl since time of assessment
.Parcels deasmetl with en knprovetl property uu may
have Deen demollshetl entl/or may have bean wnvertetl
to enomer tleSalaptlell since time of asusamsnt.
.Parcels vrim no homesteatl exemption may be uwntl
- homes rather then renbls.
.Dwelling Unit counts for parcels claasirietl es 'Mobile
Home ParK are estimated basatl upon information
provitlatl by me COAB Utillhec Department, entl, for
those properties not on COAB water. by multiply ng the
acreage by the pertnitletl tlenstty
.Further inacwracies may exist tlue m either Mcorrad
cbastficetion of property use entl/or Inwned repoNng of
homesteetl exemption.
/N/,~
W~ SE
s
a
c_
az
~O
a
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
Created by COAB Department o! Community DevelopmendGlS Division, May 12, 2008
/ocus_rental
0
s
0
T
b
W
9 T $ r
gg g
e
g ~,~go~~$~ "~ SP°c cG~ ~~rs$NS
o m S~ ffi S~ s k i ~~~~ ffi
s
g R3 B` Y ~ ~ n
3sa 5
~ Su ~4~ d 8~ ~~ ~~~~~
4 ~ ~o:~~ s
gu
Y~
V
,II~~u0~0~0~~`_~I m ~ _ ~
~ 3 ~ ~ f) ~ D ~ O C7 [n ~ p p C. (D
3 m m v 3 3 nci a v~~ :~ ut
v a a~ v v a x x a m m N ~ ,p.. CD
~ ~ ~ x ~ N ~' T ~ N ~ y
Z o o ~ ° ~ v ~ (m~ 3 ~ m p. 0 (p ~~
pnj ~ 3 N 7 ~. nNn _w lD N -~ N m •C ~ ~ •
v N N N
.Z7 (n O ' ~ U~ ~ v A N ~ M ~.
p v w 3 ,~
y v m m °' v ~ c ~ i> ~ _
a °' N 'n m d m a m a °' ~ C ~
m n m ~ ~'' a ~ m m ~- N (D
N N N C N _. = p
N -~ p N N _. N~ ~
N d C a A O d -+ ~ lTY
~ C C N d C A
C
d
_~
4L?'Y' ~,N
~ h 1~:.
Mti, 1
t~~~v~~,
a
~ R
9 0
K ~
.., r..'
cS
m