Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2014 Minutes THE CITY OF OCOEE VIOLATIONS HEARING BOARD MEETING MARCH 20, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Member Ball called the Violations Hearing Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall and led the Pled of Allegiance to the Flag. The roll was called and a quorum declared. MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Amey, Garland, Laney, Lopez-Anderson, Ball, and Zielinski (late arrival). ALSO PRESENT: Lt. Dreasher, CSA Sulkowski, and Recording Clerk Garza. Chairman Ball welcomed everyone and explained the procedures for the hearing. He swore in the officers and the complainant who were present. (Member Zielinski arrived at 7:02 p.m.) HEARING OF VIOLATIONS 201400001230 Bhavinder Tuteja— Mrs. Tuteja expresses her desire to continue with the hearing and not abandon her appeal. CSA Sulkowski presents his case as to why a violation was issued to Mrs. Tuteja on January 10, 2014. While on patrol at the Forestbrooke subdivision, he observed a vehicle parked opposed to traffic with the left side wheels next to the left side curb and, per Florida State Statutes and the City Code, the right wheels must be next to the right side curb; he continues by showing the pictures of the vehicle and license plate and by stating this happened in the City of Ocoee, Orange County. Vice-Chair Laney asks CSA Sulkowski if there is any record of a warning given before the violation was issued and CSA Sulkowski responds by saying he does not give warnings for vehicles parked opposed to traffic but is unaware if other officers did, or if any were given before. Mrs. Tuteja addresses the board members by saying she has lived in the City of Ocoee for six-and-a-half years and has parked her car in the same direction in other occasions just as other neighbors do. She had been in the hospital, came back home to find the violation, and wondered why did she not get a warning since she did not know she was not supposed to park opposed to traffic. Mrs. Tuteja continues by saying she now parks in the direction of traffic. Member Amey asks how often does this type of occurrence happen to which CSA Sulkowski responds he does not have an actual number but this happens all over the city; Member Amey asks CSA Sulkowski if he always writes tickets and he replies yes because the Florida State Driver's Handbook states vehicles must park with the flow of traffic. Lt. Dreasher interjects by saying it is Florida State Statute. Member Garland asks Mrs. Tuteja how long has she had her Florida Driver's License and she replies she has had it for twenty-two years; Member Garland also asks Mrs. Tuteja if her house is the one to the left of the two vehicles and she replies yes. Member Garland continues to ask Mrs. Tuteja how many vehicles does she have and she replies five, one is parked in the garage, two on the driveway, and two on the street; she adds that many other people in her neighborhood park the same way. Vice-Chair Laney asks if several people park opposed to traffic at the neighborhood to which Mrs. Tuteja replies yes; the people across the street park opposed to traffic. Member Garland points out that one of the pictures shows a vehicle parked the correct way across the street but Mrs. Tuteja says the vehicles parking opposed to traffic are the ones right across the street from her house. Member Amey asks Mrs. Tuteja if she was aware that parking opposed Page 1 of 4 to traffic was against the law and if she remembered from when she took her driving test; Mrs. Tuteja replies if she had known she would not have parked opposed to traffic. Member Lopez- Anderson says this is a problem throughout the city, including areas clearly marked as no parking zones, where people still park and believes it a good idea to send reminders via the Homeowners Associations but it is still Florida law. Vice-Chair Laney would like to see warnings given before a ticket is issued and Member Lopez-Anderson says even when warnings are given, people do it again. Member Garland adds this is the same issue as with the red light cameras, even if there is not a camera at every intersection, you must follow the law and stop. Member Garland made a motion to deny the appeal, seconded by Member Zielinski. Mrs. Tuteja addresses the board members and tells them she is currently not working because she has had two surgeries and wishes she would have gotten a warning because she did not know it was against the law. Vice-Chair Laney asks if it is possible to waive any extra fees to which Lt. Dreasher replies it is not allowed per City ordinance. Discussions ensued on this matter. Chairman Ball continues by saying the board is set to determine whether a violation of the City ordinance occurred or not, and paragraph 168-4, section A15, clearly states vehicles must be parked in the direction of traffic. Furthermore, the ordinance does not state a warning is required. Member Lopez-Anderson continues by saying the board does not have the authority to waive the fees and Lt. Dreasher adds that a payment plan can be set up after the hearing. A vote was called and the motion to deny the appeal passed 5-1, with Vice-Chair Laney voting against. REGULAR AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes for June 20, 2013 A motion was made by Vice-Chair Laney to approve the minutes for June 20, 2013, seconded by Member Lopez Anderson. Motion passed unanimously. B. Election of Chairperson A motion was made by Vice-Chair Laney to nominate Chairman Ball for Chairperson, seconded by Member Amey. Motion passed unanimously. C. Election of Vice Chairperson A motion was made by Member Garland to nominate Member Laney for Vice Chairperson, seconded by Member Amey. Motion passed unanimously. V. BOARD OR OFFICERS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS Member Lopez-Anderson addresses the board regarding the red-light camera violations and how these were previously heard by the Police Infraction Hearing Board and then by the County Clerk of the Court, but the next thing she knows, the violations are now heard by Fred Wilsen; Page 2 of 4 she continues by saying she would have liked for the board to be notified and involved in the process, and also asks what was the City thinking when this decision was made. Lt. Dreasher replies the City had no control over this process; state legislature ruled there are now two ways to contest red light camera violations; if a person receives a notice of violation for $158.00, one of the options is to contest it, but the hearing has to be held locally and not at the county court. If the person, after the provided 60 days, does not pay, contest, or submit an affidavit, then the violation becomes a uniform traffic citation for $262.00; this can be contested as well, but at the county court. The new law provides for the local hearings to be presided by a local member in good standing with the BAR Association as well as a certified hearing officer. Because there was such a small window of time to comply, the City followed the process, consulted with the City attorney, and executed a contract with the current hearing officer; it is a one year contract and before it is due to expire, there will be an open bid. Member Lopez-Anderson continues by saying she believes Mr. Wilsen to be and upstanding person but since he is the spouse of a City commissioner, the City should do everything to avoid these kinds of situations. She adds she was appalled by this decision. Lt. Dreasher also adds that the City Commission approved it and the Police Department had no control over any of it. Member Lopez-Anderson replies the red- light camera topic is controversial as it is and this issue just makes it more so; she wants this to be on the record. Member Amey adds she agrees because it is a conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Laney also agrees and was very surprised to hear of this in the news and thinks it would have been better to let the board members know. Lt. Dreasher stresses the issue there was a very short window of time to get this done. Furthermore, he explains, initially the City had thought about using the hearing officers at the county court but they are not able to hold both seats. He continues by explaining that when the law first came out, the City was able to use the Police Infraction Hearing Board and other locations used their Code Enforcement Boards or hired hearing officers; the City of Ocoee was the only city with red light cameras in the country using a board to hear the cases; Tallahassee made some changes to the law today but because of the hearings, he was not able to go online to hear what the changes are. The state is recommending the fines be lowered, municipalities get zero dollars, and the state get everything; municipalities can choose to have hearings but all moneys go to the state, and the city can only charge enough to cover the cost of the hearing. This means the cities would not have enough money to pay the vendor; the City is currently paying the vendor approximately $45,000.00 a month. Vice-Chair Laney states this situation would be the end of the program and Lt. Dreasher adds the City currently pays the vendor $4,700.00 per camera per month and there are eight cameras; furthermore the City also has to pay for certified mail, four dollars per piece, and two dollars per any subsequent mailings. Member Amey asks where is the City coming up with the funds to pay all of these expenses and Lt. Dreasher replies the money comes from the use of the cameras; the City makes, after paying the vendor, $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 a month. Member Zielinski asks if the cost of the violation is $158.00 to which Lt. Dreasher replies yes and the City gets $75.00 from which to pay expenses. Member Zielinski asks where the remaining $75.00 go and Lt. Dreasher replies to the State of Florida. Member Lopez-Anderson asks when does the one year contract expire and Lt. Dreasher replies he does not have the exact date with him but he believes it was executed in September of 2013; Vice-Chair Laney asks how does the hearing officer get paid and Lt. Dreasher replies he gets paid a minimum of$500 and if the hearings extend for more than five hours, he gets paid an additional $100. Member Amey asks what the required qualifications to become a hearing officer are and Lt. Dreasher replies the person has to be a member in good standing with the Bar Association. Member Zielinski Page 3 of 4 asks what will happen if the bill passes and Lt. Dreasher replies the City Commission will have to make a big decision, but most cities agree that if the bill passes, it will be the end of the program. Member Lopez-Anderson asks if the bill passes and the cities get zero dollars, will the City owe money to the vendor and Lt. Dreasher replies there are clauses in the contract to cover this. Discussions ensued on the contract and the law. Member Zielinski asks where the $30,000.00 the City gets from the cameras go and Lt. Dreasher replies to the general funds and used for street improvements and such. Discussions ensued on how many cameras are there in the city and the locations. Lt. Dreasher adds some of the cameras also serve to help solve crimes and help monitor who comes and goes in and out of the City. Discussions ensued on the red light law and how "careful and prudent" applies. Lt. Dreasher continues by informing the board about Sgt. Wagner's promotion to Lieutenant and how he will now be supervising patrol. Lt. Wagner attended a county meeting yesterday regarding noise ordinances and how to make them uniform; some cities use a very expensive device to measure noise in decibels. The City does not use such a device but if the noise bothers the neighbors, that means it's a problem; there have been a few complaints against Frank's place lately. Member Lopez-Anderson continues by saying she was surprised it was allowed considering the assisted-living facility in close proximity. Lt. Dreasher explains Frank's Place thought it had an exemption but a warning was given that if it continues to happen, a noise ordinance violation will be issued. Lt Dreasher furthermore explains the noise ordinance is being reviewed to make it more uniform across the cities. Discussions ensued. Vice-Chair Laney asks if warnings are required in other cities before a violation is issued and Lt. Dreasher replies absolutely not; probably the new ordinance will not require a warning either. Member Garland asks if the Police Department is keeping a better record of warnings and Lt. Dreasher replies officers are required to type any information in the note section of the calls for service; he adds the Police Department is now implementing paperless reporting by which officers type reports electronically as they happen and makes the process more efficient. Member Amey asks about the vehicle radio noise and Lt. Dreasher states it is allowed per state statute. Discussions ensued regarding this topic. Vice-Chair Laney asks is if it is possible to issue warnings before issuing a parking citation, maybe even getting the Homeowners Associations involved; Lt. Dreasher replies the line has to be drawn somewhere and also adds parking opposed to traffic is against the law in all 50 states. Discussions ensued. Lt. Dreasher reminds the board that CSA Sulkowski and CSA Michaelis opt to write the city parking ticket for $40.00 as opposed to the state parking ticket that is $129.00; he adds the Police Department encourages officers to write the city ticket. Member Garland asks if it is at the discretion of the officer and Lt. Dreasher replies yes it is. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ((-) 4604.0-4, h6Lee Ma lei e rza, Record' Secretary David Ball, Chairman. Contact the City Clerk's Office to listen to an electronic copy of these minutes. Page 4 of 4