The City of Aventura
recently passed an Ordinance to regulate structural
oversight for community associations in the aftermath of the
Champlain Towers tragedy. The Ordinance requires the
“Responsible Person,” defined as the Association’s
President, a property manager, or qualified person the
President designates, to share all engineering,
architectural, and life-safety reports conducted on the
building with the City within 48 hours of receipt. Failure
to meet the deadline may result in daily fines up to $500,
as well as up to 60 days in prison for the Responsible
Person. Each day the Responsible Person fails to share the
reports constitutes a separate offense. While the City’s
intent in enacting this Ordinance is commendable, it is
unbalanced with the realities facing Board members, a
majority of whom hold office on an unpaid, volunteer basis.
Stricter laws with respect to condominium safety and
transparency are beneficial and necessary, but Aventura’s
Ordinance is harsh and may lead to some unintentional
consequences.
First, the Ordinance’s
48-hour deadline is impractical and has severe penalties if
unmet. A 48-hour deadline does not take into account any
number of scenarios that can prevent directors from
compliance, like traveling or spam folder delays. While
there should be a deadline, the 48 hours with harsh
penalties provides no proportionate benefit, while also
deterring members from volunteering to serve on the Board.
The Ordinance also fails to consider that engineers have a
separate obligation to immediately notify the City of any
dangerous conditions. Further, the Ordinance provides no
indication of an appellate process to contest such fines.
This is especially problematic because there is no specific
guidance as to what qualifies as a “report” that must be
turned over to the City. Finally, the Ordinance fails to
provide exceptions for privileged, confidential, or
protected documents, as outlined in Florida Statutes
Chapters 718 and 720.
While the purpose behind the new Aventura
Ordinance is well-intentioned, the Ordinance itself does
raise issues, including deterring competent Board members
from investigating the condition of their buildings in the
first place. |
|
|
Strangely, the
Ordinance does not require any additional inspections, just
delivery of reports issued. As it currently stands, the
Ordinance imposes heavy penalties for unreasonable
deadlines, provides unclear standards, and fails to take
into account the practical realties community associations
face in their operation, administration, and management.