By D. L. Norris
A recurring theme woven throughout this blog is Okaloosa County’s inability to enforce its code (law). In the November 2019 and February 2020 archives, three separate articles directly address code enforcement failures. Their titles are respectively: Okaloosa County Plays a Real-life Game of Chicken; Okaloosa County’s Eroding Code Enforcement; and Okaloosa County’s Short-term Rental Dilemma…State-Sponsored and Self-Inflicted Liberalism. In addition, in the November 2020 archives, a separate article titled Okaloosa County’s New BOCC is for the Birds…and that’s a Good Thing! discusses the county’s adoption of a new ordinance to address a code enforcement issue not previously under their jurisdiction.
During the October 19, 2021 Okaloosa Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regular meeting, code enforcement failure was once again discussed when a county resident presented, during the public comments portion of the meeting, an ongoing battle with county agencies to get basic code enforced.
This county resident was advised by both the Sheriff’s Department and Panhandle Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) to bring a complaint to the BOCC about county ordinances that are not enforced or dealt with in a timely manner. This resident, and other neighbors, had been dealing with a barking dog for about seven months. For four months they tried the neighborly way to resolve it but that did not work. Then they contacted PAWS and the Sheriff’s Department. These two agencies responded and visited the dog owner but nothing was accomplished. The resident said the dog barks every breath as in almost every second and handed the commissioners a copy of the ordinance [5-25] that Code Enforcement gave to him. When the resident showed the ordinance to PAWS, he was informed they did not go by that one and PAWS told him a dog had to bark for 30 minutes before it was considered a nuisance. PAWS, the Sheriff’s Department and Code Enforcement all had different interpretations of the applicable ordinances. The resident requested the commissioners make necessary changes to the ordinances to help the people who have been inconvenienced by this barking dog and then strictly enforce the ordinances in a timely manner.
When code enforcement issues keep making their way to the BOCC, that’s a telltale sign that something still isn’t functioning properly within the code enforcement arena.
In a previous article on this blog, in the December 2019 archives, titled Okaloosa County: Commissioners and Eminent Domain and Separation of Powers, Oh My!, the BOCC’s duties as the legislative branch and the administrative staff’s duties as the executive branch are discussed. The Florida Statutes are clear that the administrative staff has a mandatory duty to enforce the laws the BOCC enacts. The administrative staff has no decision making authority. They cannot choose to not enforce a law. So, why is code repeatedly not being enforced within Okaloosa County to the point that residents must beg the BOCC for enforcement help?
Part of the problem in this instance is that Okaloosa County contracts out for animal control with PAWS, a private non-profit organization. The contract for PAWS resides within the Public Safety Department; however, Code Enforcement resides within the Growth Management Department. Code Enforcement has no oversight of animal control, contractually or operationally.
According to the Director of Public Safety, PAWS was using a separate ordinance, 9.02.3, where the citation of the 30 minute rule is under sound prohibition. The Director also stated there is a sub section, 2b sub 2, which says that any sound produced by any kept or raised animal or bird which by causing continuing or intermittent noise for a duration of more than 30 consecutive minutes disturbs the peace.
The ordinance Code Enforcement gave the resident was 5-25 Public Nuisance. The Director of Public Safety stated he thought the ordinance [5-25] was completely enforceable. He went on to say he thought the issue of whether or not the dog incessantly barks or whines is well defined within that statute language.
District 4 Commissioner Goodwin then asked the Public Safety Director if he could visit with the contractor [PAWS] on the application of the ordinance. The Public Safety Director then stated the issue was whether the “barking dog logs” were filled out appropriately and correctly for each incident engaged by the dog because that is the policy followed by PAWS.
The two questions that were never asked by a single commissioner in this meeting were: 1.) Why doesn’t Code Enforcement have contractual and operational oversight of the PAWS contract? 2.) Why is PAWS creating policy for “barking dog logs” when there is no requirement within the two ordinances for such an item?
Commissioner Goodwin then asked if we delegate our entire enforcement authority on this to PAWS or do we have other options? The Public Safety Director replied that, “the way it is written, the animal control officers have the ability to enforce under 5-25 and that’s been our past practice to allow them to do so.” But PAWS was using 9.02.3 to justify not taking action against this barking dog.
Commissioner Goodwin then asked the Public Safety Director if he could be a point of contact because this is a particularly problematic situation that’s obviously not getting resolved. To which the director stated that he would intervene and see what resolution he could bring.
District 2 Commissioner Ketchel then stated she “did not want to hear this stuff about barking dog logs. If the guy is here, there’s a problem…so let’s get this enforced and whatever it takes, if we need to bring it back to the commission to get the ordinances written correctly, please do so.”
District 3 Commissioner Boyles then stated “Madam Chair, I certainly understand that but keep in mind the other side of that is making sure before you come snatch somebody’s dog, they’ve actually committed the crime.”
The privatization of code enforcement in this instance clearly isn’t working. There were operational, accountability, and legal/constitutional concerns raised by several participants in this meeting. The BOCC would be wise to request an audit and functional review of all aspects of Okaloosa County Code Enforcement to include proper manning, training, and funding requirements because, doggonit, the county still can’t, or won’t, enforce its code.
You can contact the author at dlnorris@theparadiasepatriot.com