Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/18/2001 RJune 18, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 18, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Darrin M. Phillips Rhona E. Sanders Kathryn M. Godfrey Roberta Dusek George Ponte Diane Taylor ABSENT: Peter Lehmann ALSO PRESENT: Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Attorney, Jean Rawson, Code Enforcement Page 1 06/14/01 09:02 FAX 941 403 2345 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ CLERK OF BRD ~001 CODE ENFQRCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER .CJ~L~NTY, FLORIDA AGEndA Date: LocatioN: June 18, 2001 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. 3301 E. Tamiami Tr.. Naples, Florida, Collier CoLulCy Government Cenger, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSU~ T~AT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THZ TESTIMONY A.ND EVIDF~NCE UPON WqMICK THE APPEAL %S TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SMALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 2. 4. 5. ~OLL CAbL APPROVAL OF AGENDA ~PROVAL OF MINU~F~ ~UBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. David and Alandee Marie DelD B_ BCC vs. Jean C. Jacques C BCC v~. william G. Schrack D BCC vs. Randy L. and Lorrie J. Johns E BCC vs. Patrick W. an~ Erin L. Rose F BCC vs. W. Gary Sanders G BCC vs. PJ Of Naples, LLC III BCC vs. PJ of Naples, LLC III N~W BUSINESS A. BCC vs. Russell G. Platt B. BCC vs. Somsanith Thar~mavong C. BCC vs. Tim Flick 11. CEB No. 2001-039 CEB NO. 2001-040 CEB No- 2001-041 CEB NO. 2001-042 CEB No. 2001-045 CEB NO. 2001-046 CEB No. 2001-047 CEB No. 2001-048 QLD BUSINESS Request for reduction/waiver of ~nesflien ~_m~oee~ A. BCC vs, A~na Maria and Philip a. Marrone B. BCC vs. John and Rica Goodman, TR. REPORTS Filln~ 0£ Af~davlts Of ~0~lianoe/Sati~fac~£on O~ Lien A. BCC vs. Tim Plick B. BCC vs. Virginia Nesmith CEB NO. 2001-022 C£B No. 2001-014 CEB No. 2001-007 CEB No. 2001-013 CEB No. 2000-024 CEB NO. 2001-007 CEB No. 98-022 Review and approval of Code Enforcemen~ Board Rules and Regulations COMMENTS NF~T,MEETING DATE June 28, 2001 ADJOURN June 18,2001 (Proceedings commenced, Mr. Phillips not present.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order, please. Please note any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. The record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll called, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz. Roberta Dusek? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey? COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: Darrin Phillips? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: George Ponte? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Sanders? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Here. MS. CRUZ: Diane Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Present. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of our agenda. Are there any changes or additions to our current agenda? Page 2 June 18, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Under "public hearings" Item A is being pulled and Item F is being pulled, and we've got a couple requests for continuances for two of the items on the agenda -- or three. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I didn't receive any minutes. Do we have any minutes to approve, or do we need to delete that item? MS. ARNOLD: They haven't been -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Done yet? MS. ARNOLD: -- prepared. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So we can delete that item. Any other changes? Additions? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we need to keep this information or-- MS. ARNOLD: No, you don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda as changed. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So moved. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. We now open our public hearings. First item, Case 2001-040. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to hear the continuances first and then the other public hearing items, it's up to you and the board. Page 3 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That's fine. We can do that. MS. ARNOLD: The first request is actually item -- the first request is Item No. C, Board of County Commissioners versus William G. Schrack, Code Board Case 2001-041. I believe Mr. Moon is here representing the property owner. And we have no paperwork that has been submitted with that request for continuance. MR. MOON: Good morning. We were just retained late last week for this matter. We were actually retained after the date -- I believe Wednesday, June 12th -- that they were to submit the defense packet to Miss Cruz so that she could get it to the board. Given the short duration in which they would have had to actually hire counsel - - notice of this hearing was sent out after May 3 lst; they would have had less than 10 or 12 days to even retain counsel -- we would ask for a brief continuance on this matter to come back before the board. We could have our defense packet served on the county probably by Wednesday at the close of business. Given the length of time that this matter has been going on, I do not believe the county would be prejudiced at this point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case is actually being brought to you from our solid waste department. I would have to actually defer that -- if you-all have any comments with regard to objections to the request-- to that department. We have Tony Asaro here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: From a personal standpoint, I don't have any objections to a continuance after, you know, what has been submitted to us. MR. ASARO: For the record, I'm Anthony Asaro with the Collier County solid waste department. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have any objections if we continue this? MR. ASARO: No, sir. I don't have any objections to a Page 4 June 18, 2001 continuance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: days. Thank you. What's the Let's give them another 30 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Thirty days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Make a motion, please. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make a motion that we continue this case, 041, to a later date. MS. ARNOLD: I would ask whether or not the petitioner waives their notice of hearing. MR. MOON: We will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to continue to a later date. The county can determine what that date is. I think it's probably too short to be on the next meeting. It will probably have to be next month. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. That probably would be the 16th of July, but we'll give you a call. If you can leave your phone number with us, we would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I have a second on the motion, please? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any objections? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. MR. MOON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The next item that's being requested for Page 5 June 18, 2001 a continuance is Board of County Commissioners versus Patrick W. And Erin L. Rose, Case No. 2001-045. We received a faxed request on Friday requesting a continuance to the July 16, 2001, meeting. I'll read what the fax indicates. This came from the Roses. (As read): "We are in the middle of a medical emergency. Our son has just had heart surgery in Montana. We will not be able to make the scheduled appointment, and we're asking that you please accept our apologies and give us a later date so our son will be able to travel. We appreciate anything you can do for us and hope you understand." It's signed Erin Rose. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have no problem with the request. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: That sounds very reasonable to me also. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Case No. 2001-045 to a later date. COMMISSIONER PONTE: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. later US. I make a motion that we continue I'll second the motion. Any question on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's 5 to 1. It's continued to a date. For the record, please, let's make note that Mr. Phillips has joined Okay. Any further continuance items? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. There's also a request that was submitted in your packet for two cases, G and H, Board of County Commissioners versus PJ of Naples, LLC, III, and that's both Cases Page 6 June 18, 2001 2001-47 and 48. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that's a request for a continuance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The packet is under the tab for those two cases. Actually -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't notice a request for continuance in my packet. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Nor did I. MS. ARNOLD: There's a respondent's defense statement, and there's also in there -- let's see. MR. DAWSON: Mr. Chairman, there was no request. We were hoping -- COURT REPORTER: Can I have your name? MS. CRUZ: Third page. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just finish? They were requesting a dismissal. I guess their counsel is here so ... CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if they're just requesting a dismissal, they'll have to wait their turn and come up here and request it. I mean, is this a continuance or -- MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for dismissal. I misspoke. It's a request for dismissal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On both cases? MS. ARNOLD: They're similar cases. It's two separate lots, same owners. The attorney representing PJ of Naples, I believe, is here if you'd like for that person to explain what their request is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's hear that. COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir. MR. DAWSON: My name is David Dawson. As Miss Arnold has indicated, I represent PJ of Naples who's the respondent, the named respondent here in this proceeding. As a procedural matter, Page 7 June 18, 2001 we only received notice of the 047 case, and we're under the impression, I think, that the packet for the 048 case had been pulled for some reason from the agenda. But we're dealing, I think -- they are similar properties. I think we can try to address those both cases even though we didn't receive notice on the other one. Basically what we have here is a situation where my client bought this property in December of this past year. The property which our client was purchasing was a property containing three buildings, each of which has three residential rental units. Our client was -- intended to purchase and thought it was purchasing a rental complex, if you will, that contained nine residential rental units. After the closing we received a notice of violation that had been sent by the Code Enforcement Board indicating that there were problems with these buildings apparently having been converted from duplexes to triplexes without a permit. Now, that happened -- frankly, I don't think we're sure when that happened, but it happened a long time ago because the seller that we purchased the property from, Mr. Franklin Baker, who is represented by Mr. Lou Amato here, had purchased this property back in 1994. And at the time he purchased he bought nine residential rental units as well. Apparently what Mr. Baker had done before he had purchased was he had asked the county whether these triplexes were okay. You'll see in your packet on the defense materials -- it's the very last exhibit, which is the last three pages of the packet, and I do have extra copies right here. I don't know what the procedure is here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have them. MR. DAWSON: You've got them? Basically, there was a case detail report for a case open back in 1994. The complainant was Franklin Baker-- that's who we purchased the property from -- requesting information about whether these triplexes were okay. In Page 8 June 18, 2001 that case -- and it's a Case No. 40413021 -- it was closed on June 1 st, 1994, and the notation says "property appraisal card, property converted to triplex, 12/11/91, Permit No. 91-6547." MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, are we hearing testimony for this case or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was just going to ask. MS. ARNOLD: -- are we hearing why -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You haven't got to the reason why we should dismiss this case. Now, let's get to that. MR. DAWSON: Well, the reason, I think, is this has already been investigated by the county back in 1994, and the case was closed, and people were told that it was okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Well, from my part as chairman, based on what was given to us in these packages and what little bit you've said, I don't think the board's heard enough to dismiss the case, so we're going to have to hear the case. MR. DAWSON: Fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. DAWSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Let's get back to our agenda. The first case is 2001-040. MS. CRUZ: This is Case No. 2001-040, Board of County Commissioners versus Jean C. Jacques. The violation brought before this board is a violation of various structures placed on the property without first obtaining the required Collier County permits, several vehicles on the property without current valid tags, and litter consisting, but not limited to, refrigerator, ice maker, wood, metal parts, buckets, hot water heater, chairs, and other debris. This violation is a violation of Section 2.6.7.1.1 and Section 2.7.6 paragraph 1 and 5 of the Land Development Code, No. 91-102, and also a violation of Section 6 and Page 9 June 18, 2001 7 of Ordinance No. 99-51, the weeds and litter ordinance. Let the record show that the respondent is not present. I'd like to request that the packet I have provided to the respondent and to the board be admitted into evidence at this time, please, marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The county did provide proper notice and everything? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: It was provided via certified mail and posting at the subject property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a request to submit the packet as evidence on behalf of the county. Do we have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I so move. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibits from the county. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: The violation previously described exists at the location of 841 12th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 49 North, 75 feet of Tract 56. The owner of record is Jean C Jacques. The address of record is 5400 Third Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on November 19, 2000. The notice of violation was provided to the respondent on November 19th, 2000. We're requesting compliance by November 27th, 2000. There was another notice of violation given to the respondent on Page 10 June 18,2001 December 19th, 2000, asking for compliance -- I'm sorry, November 27, 2000, asking for compliance by December 19th, 2000. The last reinspection was conducted Friday, June 15th, resulting in the violations remaining. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, my name is Jeffrey Letourneau, Collier County code enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would you swear him in, please. (The oath was administered.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I first responded to this case on 19th of November 2000. It was an anonymous complaint about possible people living in a camper in the rear yard and litter. After discovering that there was nobody living in the camper, I observed numerous litter and the structure that you see on these pictures. Mainly the structure is a large -- actually, a poultry coop with emus, turkeys, and chickens all in the right side of-- all in the shed with the emus being in the fenced-in pen part. It's approximately 80 foot by 80 foot. I also observed numerous litter which Maria described and four vehicles on the property that were unregistered and/or inoperable. During the time of this case, I never really made contact, you know, personal contact with the owner. I talked with his daughter and his wife on the phone. The original NOVs were served to his daughter. During the case they shuffled a few of the vehicles in and out. I don't know what they were doing with them, taking them away to get fixed or whatever, but two remain, the black truck and the blue van. On my last visit, which was last Friday, I would say maybe 75 percent of the litter had been cleared up, but all the structures remain and three vehicles remain also on the property. As of yet no permits have been pulled for any of the structures in the rear yard. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Would they be permitted if Page 11 June 18, 2001 they tried to pull them, or are they just put together with nails and they would blow away? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think they would be permitted. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Where is this located at? In Golden Gate Estates? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. It's on 12th Street Northeast right off of Golden Gate Boulevard. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Okay. COMMISSIONER PONTE: How many untagged vehicles remain? Two? Is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: As of Friday there was two untagged vehicles in the rear yard that I would say were inoperable, and there's a car in the front yard now that looks operable but has an expired tag on the front. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And still no permits of any type for this structure? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, no permits yet. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: And no contact from the owner as to what's going on or whether he was trying to remedy any of this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. I talked to the owner's wife, Mrs. Jacques, on 12/28, and she stated that her husband was very ill, and they were going to try to clean it up. They did some of the litter clean-up and tried to dismantle one of the sheds, but since then no work had really been done until I went out there Friday and noticed some more of the litter had been taken away. But all the structures are still there. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, I believe Mr. Jacques is present and will be available for testimony and questions. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: When did you last try to make Page 12 June 18,2001 contact with the owner? MR. LETOURNEAU: Every time I've been out there -- the last time I tried to make contact was Friday. I called the number that was available to me, and there was no answer. Every time I've been out there I've left my card or some kind of message, you know, telling him to call me to try to avoid this situation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the county? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, how can you avoid this? You can't; right? I mean, this is not permittable. Nothing. MR. LETOURNEAU: Nothing, no. None of it is permittable. The whole structure is not permitted. It either has to have a permit pulled, or it has to be taken down. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Does he have to have a demolition permit in order to take the structures down? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would assume so, yes. I don't know if -- a lot of it is wood. I don't know if they can do a controlled burn on it, you know, since the rainy season started, but I'm not really sure. I would imagine he needs a permit, though. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions? Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Friday if you want to view that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not me. The pictures were fine. Anybody want to see the video? MR. LETOURNEAU: It covers everything that's basically in the pictures. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not at this time. Thank you. Mr. One more statement. I did make a video Page 13 June 18,2001 Jacques? Is he here? Come up, sir. Come over here, sir, to the podium. Would you state your name for the record, sir. MR. JACQUES: My name is Jean Jacques. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right. Sir, would you tell us your side of this about the vehicles and the structures. MR. JACQUES' Yeah. I got problems from Haiti. It's my mother died and my sister died. That's why I'm in Haiti. I come in two days ago. That's why I tell my wife, "Move vehicle for me," but my wife don't got place to put vehicle or to move it to just like this guy said. It's everything. I want to work this year, but I'm a diabetic. I don't got enough money to pay people to clean yard. I started cleaning yard two weeks ago. It's my truck -- one truck I've got back there I got for when I'm retired. I put it far away for fix- 'em-up when I'm retired for travel. The black truck I thought there's nothing wrong with that. The black truck I fix it up, and it's no good. I put some -- a couple tires on it. I want to put them out there anyway. I don't have any time or money. Money-wise, I don't got money. My trouble's no good. My family -- I have to think of my family. That's the problem I've got. I'll make sure -- if you give me two months, I'll make sure I clean it better. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Mr. Jacques, would you be able to get rid of the structures on the property which is also a request by the county? MR. JACQUES: Yeah. If you give me two months, I clean it now. COMMISSIONER PONTE' Mr. Jacques, this has been going on since 2000 -- the year 2000. What is going to get it completed now so quickly seeing that it's been going on now for six months, seven months? MR. JACQUES: It's just like I said. I go to Haiti. That's the Page 14 June 18, 2001 problem I've got. My sister die two weeks ago. After that my mother die. I have to take care of everything. My family is not big enough. I have to do it. But I know because my wife called me after which they made me mow. That's why I come back. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Mr. Jacques, if you take down the structures, what are your plans with the animals that are in them? MR. JACQUES: Yeah. I love -- I'm an animal lover. I'm hurt. I don't know what to do. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Are you saying you're going to sell the animals? Are you going to -- MR. JACQUES: Yeah. If I've got a permit, I'll clean back there and put my animals there because I'm an animal lover. I didn't know what I'm supposed to do. I don't have too many animals. I got four emus, two goats, one turkey, my pet, and a couple chicken -- a couple chicken. I would say five chicken. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But you'll either get the property permits to keep the structure, or you'll get a permit to tear the structure down and whatever needs to be done with your animals you'll do? MR. JACQUES: No. I don't have the money for what I have to get. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Sir, is the property zoned to keep those kind of animals there? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So he could have some sort of structure to pen them in and keep them? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, but it would have to be permitted. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Permitted? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: And the structure that he has now Page 15 June 18,2001 where he keeps those animals, did you not say earlier that that could not be permitted? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not an inspector, but in my opinion I don't think they're up to Collier County codes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So he would have to take them down and rebuild some other sort of-- MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. Or refurbish the ones he has right now, I would say, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jacques? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: sir? yOU. Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Thank you, sir. MR. JACQUES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have anything else to tell us, You may sit down. MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You can sit down too. Thank COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I look at this case realizing that it's been going on since, I believe, November of last year. Also, I look at the case and see that progress has been made. Before today hearing testimony we had written testimony -- executive summary that 50 percent of it has been cleaned up, and now we've heard that 75 percent has been cleaned up. I think that Mr. Jacques has shown some responsibility here, and even though he is in violation I think that we should give some consideration to his personal circumstances and the fact that he has made some effort. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First what the board needs to do is, in fact, find that there are violations. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I make a motion that there is Page 16 June 18, 2001 a violation with the Board of County Commissioners in Collier versus Jean Jacques, Case CEB No. 2001-040. The violation is of Sections 2.6.7.1.1 and 2.7.6 paragraph 1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 91- 102 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code ordinance, and a violation of Section 6 and 7 of Ordinance No. 91-51 as amended, the Collier County litter and weed ordinance. The description of the violation is "various structures placed on the property without first obtaining all required Collier County permits, several vehicles on the property without current valid tags, and litter consisting of but not limited to refrigerators, ice maker, wood, metal parts, buckets, hot water heater, chairs and other debris." Now, in being so specific with the refrigerators or the items of litter, I don't know at this point which of those have been removed, so I'm not so sure we should be that specific. Should we, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: I think you can just say "litter." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. That was going to be my recommendation, to keep it simple, just in case -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Okay. Then I'll remove that part of my motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation existing. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's the order of the board. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I think the county -- the staff's recommendations are reasonable in this case, and I would support them. Page 17 June 18,2001 MS. ARNOLD: I have a question for the board. I wasn't sure whether or not the findings included more than the litter. Did it include the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In the recommendation of the staff, they say "obtain permits for all permittable structures." I think the board needs to give the owner the option of obtaining permits or removing the structure and not limit him to just getting a permit. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now, obtaining the permits, the county has suggested two months, which I think is fair. Removing all litter and the valid tags, they've given him 14 days. I personally don't know if that's enough time. I don't know how much litter is still there. And, Mr. Jacques, I would like to ask you if you would be able to remove the litter within two weeks. MR. JACQUES: I don't have any money. MS. CRUZ: Please come to the mike, Mr. Jacques. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: You have to come up here, Mr. Jacques. MR. JACQUES: Yeah. I don't have any money for two weeks. Just like I told you, I'm diabetic. I cannot work in the yard because I have to watch out for cuts. If I could work in the yard, yes, but I have to get a couple people to help me out. But just now I'm just back from Haiti. Like I said, two of my family died. I don't have any money now. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: May I ask you -- the county is suggesting two months for you to get permits for your structures or either remove them, whatever has to be done to bring them into compliance. Is that two months reasonable to you? MR. JACQUES: (Nodded head.) Page 18 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now, they've said that the litter must be removed in two weeks. MR. JACQUES: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Do you think you could get the litter removed in two weeks? MR. JACQUES: I try my best. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Jacques. I would recommend to the board that they consider -- I mean, this case has lasted for seven months. Understanding that the respondent has voiced some family problems, I think we should be at this point a little more lenient than the two weeks to remove the litter. It's gone on this long, maybe 30 days rather than two weeks. I don't think it's our purpose to put a date out there so we can start fining him when we already know he doesn't have any money. We need to give him as much help as long as it's not excessive. Maybe we can keep that in mind. He's talked before and gave testimony that he needed two months to remove the structure. That's from his own mouth. I think we can live with that. Now all we need to do is find a date that's amenable for the litter and the tags, if that's what he's going to do, and a little flexibility there may help to see that it gets done. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: COMMISSIONER PONTE: that's correct. I concur with the chairman. With a limit of 30 days, I think CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Whatever is comfortable. I mean, he's already told us he doesn't have the money to do it in two weeks. I don't see the advantage of putting a date on there that we know he can't meet just so we can start fining him. That's really not the intent. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Let's ask Mr. Jacques whether or not he can do it in 30 days. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yeah. Page 19 June 18,2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we give you 30 days to remove the litter, will that help you? MR. JACQUES: Just like I said, I'll try my best -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. JACQUES: -- but sometimes -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we can ask is for you to tell us, and if you say you'll try your best that's what we'll go by. MR. JACQUES: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: But he can come back and ask for an extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody can do that. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Well, he may not be aware of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First let's come up with a date and get our order set, and then we'll instruct him on what he can do. Now we're working on what the order of the board is. Thank you, sir. You may sit down. Any recommendations from the board? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make a motion that we follow the staff's recommendations, which is obtaining permits for all permittable structures and/or demolition, whatever needs to be done to come into compliance, within 60 days or a fine of $50 be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. That's No. 1. Number 2, remove all litter including inoperable vehicles within 30 days or a fine of $25 will be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. And, No. 3, obtain valid tags for operable vehicles within 14 days, or he may choose to remove the vehicles -- excuse me. Not 14 days, but 30 days or a fine of $25 will be imposed for every day the violation continues to exist and included in that is the cost of prosecution. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be Item 4. Okay. We have Page 20 June 18, 2001 a motion for four items: Obtaining permits or removal of the structures within 60 days or a fine of $50; removing all the litter including the inoperable vehicles in 30 days or a fine of $25 for every day. COMMISSIONER PONTE: If that's the motion I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. There are two other parts to that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: put forward. The one that Ms. Dusek has just CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The third one being obtain tags for any operable vehicles within 30 days or a fine of $25, and No. 4 being pay for the cost of prosecution of the case. Those are the four items. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I would like to propose an amendment to Section 3. I think even though he cannot work at this time, obtaining valid tags for operable vehicles is a fairly easy thing to do, and I would like to keep that at 14 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If he doesn't have any money, he can't do it. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: He's not going to have it in 30 days either. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Keeping it consistent with the 30 days, 30 days is -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I think a sense of urgency or motivation is important, and this gives it nice stages. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think that Mr. Jacques has shown some motivation in the fact that he's already cleaned up 75 percent of the litter. He hasn't been sitting there like some cases that we get who completely ignore us until they come up before us. He has already made some effort. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We had a motion. We then -- we didn't have a-- Page 21 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: I will second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: George, I think, seconded the motion. Then we had an amendment to the motion to change Item 3. Is there any second to the amendment? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The amendment to the motion is to change Item 3 from 30 days back to 14 days. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure Mr. Phillips can vote for this one because we don't have -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Yes, he's a permanent member. There's seven members of the board. MS. ARNOLD: He's an alternate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board consists of seven members. When there's one member missing, the alternate takes their place. That's the way I remember how it reads. MS. ARNOLD: Only when there's a lack of a quorum. MS. RAWSON: Well, this is interesting. We probably need to add this in when we get to our discussion. It says that we have a quorum at four, and if there's not a quorum the first alternate shall have the right to vote. If two members are needed to make a quorum, the second alternate shall also vote. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We didn't need anybody to make a quorum, but the board consists of seven members. MS. RAWSON: Well, I realize -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we've done is -- MS. RAWSON: -- we have seven members, and we have two alternates. However, you know, it's interesting that that's not in here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In the past when a regular member has been absent, an alternate has been permitted to vote, at least during the four years I've been on the board. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I do believe that's correct. Page 22 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the way it's run since I've been here. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that is the way we've done it in the past, but I'm glad that this came up because it doesn't say anywhere in our rules how many members are on this board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the statute says it's a seven- member board, as I remember it. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood the amendment, so I think the issue is moot. If the amendment was to push the days back to 14 days -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. That's what it was. MR. PHILLIPS: -- I'm going to withdraw the second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have an amendment. Do we have a motion-- a second to the amendment? I'm getting lost. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. No second, so it dies. Now we're back to our original motion which has been seconded. Any further discussion? Thank you. All those in favor -- do you want me to repeat it? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: No. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: understand what we've done? Any opposed? Thank you. Mr. Jacques, do you If you come up, sir, I'll explain it to Page 23 June 18,2001 you just to make sure before you leave. This board has given you 60 days to either get permits or remove the structures that you have. Okay. We've given you 30 days to either remove all your litter, you know, and as far as the vehicles go to get tags for those vehicles that will run. Now, if you don't meet those dates, you're going to get a fine. Okay. MR. JACQUES: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, you also have the right if you're progressing and it looks like those dates are going to hit you and you're not finished, you have the right to ask the county to let you come back before this board and ask us for an extension. Okay? MR. JACQUES: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you. MR. JACQUES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Michelle, may I also request that the county stay in touch just to make sure that -- MS. ARNOLD: We will. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- he understands? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next case is 2001-042. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that the respondent is present. That's Randy L. Jones -- Johns. It's the case of Board of County Commissioners versus Randy L. And Lorrie J. Johns, Case No. 2001- 42. Before we introduce the packet into evidence, I'd like to make a couple corrections in the packet. In the photo section, I'm going to call out the pages that need to be withdrawn from this packet. These copies or these pages are irrelevant to this case. Those are page numbers 20, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Wait, wait, wait. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're going to have to slow down for US. Page 24 June 18, 2001 MS. CRUZ: It's 20, 24, Page No. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34, 35, 36, and 37. I also have two pages that I would like to include in this packet. Those will replace all the pages that we just took out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You furnished these pages to the respondent? MS. ARNOLD: (Handing to the respondent.) MR. JOHNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Maria. MS. CRUZ: I would like to request this packet be admitted into evidence, please, marked Composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Johns, do you have any objection to the county submitting this to the board -- this packet? It looks like you're just getting it or something. MR. JOHNS: CHAIRMAN MR. JOHNS: CHAIRMAN down until we call you. MR. JOHNS: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I do not. FLEGAL: No. FLEGAL: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: accept the County's Exhibit A. aye. You don't have any objection? All right, sir. Thank you. You can sit I make a motion that we accept the packet marked Composite Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll second the motion. We have a motion and a second to All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: The alleged violations before this board is violations of Ordinance No. 91-102, Section 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5, Order No. 98-76, Sections 104.1.1, 104.1.5.1, 105.5, 106.1.1, and Page 25 June 18,2001 Section 106.3.1. This is the building and construction administrative code. The violation description is placement of fill and a mobile home on unimproved property without first obtaining the required Collier County permits. The violation exists at 6980 Amity Road, Naples, Florida. The legal description is Section 50, Township 26, Range 23, the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter less north 30 feet of the right-of-way. This is a 4.7 acre tract. The owner of record is Randy L and Lorrie J. Johns. Their address of record is 811 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida. The violation was first observed on October 2nd, year 2000. A notice of violation was provided-- two notices of violation were provided to the property owner. One was dated February 5th, 2001, requesting compliance by February 19th, 2001. The second one was provided to the respondent on March 8th, 2001, requesting compliance by March 26th, 2001. It is my understanding that the violation remains as of this time, and I would like to have Investigator Tom Campbell at this time come up, please. MR. CAMPBELL: My name is Tom Campbell. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. One moment, sir. MR. CRUZ: We need to swear both of them. Mr. Johns, will you be sworn in? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Swear them both in. It'll save time. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. You can sit down. Yes, sir. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. In October we received an anonymous complaint. I followed up on it. Site improvements have been made to the property. I posted a cease work order on the Page 26 June 18, 2001 property. The fill had been put in, and there were no permits in the record. I contacted Mr. Johns, and he advised that he would get permits. This went on for several months, and permits weren't forthcoming. We went ahead and issued a notice of violation. I was there -- as of this morning the violation remains. I checked the computers, and there are no permits on record as of this morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is there electricity to this? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. And the trailer has been replaced on site on top of the fill. I believe or I understand that the fill was put in there to raise it above flood levels. The trailer was reinstalled. Hook- ups were made, electric and water and sewage, and it has not been given a certificate of occupancy either. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Sir, are you saying that there was a trailer there before, and they removed it? MR. CAMPBELL: I understand. I did not witness it, but I have been told that there was a trailer there before. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Okay. MR. CAMPBELL: And the trailer had never been permitted according to county records. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: The prior trailer? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: So you don't know anything about septic or well or no inspections? MR. CAMPBELL: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The hook-ups that have been made -- water, sewer, electric, and everything -- was that done by the county? MR. CAMPBELL: Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is really remote; right? MR. CAMPBELL: It's off of 951, Collier Boulevard, by the Page 27 June 18, 2001 campground, Kountree campground. There's Johns Road and Amity Road just to the south of there. It's not -- maybe three-quarters of a mile from the Rattlesnake Hammock intersection and Collier Boulevard. It's remote in there, and it abuts the Florida Power line right-of-way with the power lines running along the back of the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for the county? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Did the electric company come in and connect this? MR. CAMPBELL: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Johns. MR. JOHNS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning. MR. JOHNS: A few things he said were not correct. One is we have some permits, not all of the ones he wants. When he gave us the violation, we did go down to the county to get a permit. Let me back up before we even go there. I bought this property less than two years ago. When I bought this trailer, the same trailer, was on that property. There was a family living in that trailer. And when I purchased the property, and I bought other properties around it, they asked could they stay, and I said yes. Then a neighbor called in because he pulled -- the kid that lives there pulled the trailer out, put fill in there, and put the trailer back. At that time Tom Campbell informed me that once you move it, you have to permit it. So we have tried to permit it. I went to the county to get a permit, and they told me before I can get a permit for the trailer I had to have a fence permit, so I have a fence permit. I went back to get a permit for the trailer and the tie- down and stuff, and they told me that I as an owner can't do it. I have Page 28 June 18, 2001 to have a general contractor do it. So my partner's a general contractor, and I asked him if he would pull a permit for me. He said he would, but he wanted to find out, you know, all the requirements, so we went through that. We went back to do that, and they said, "No, general contractors can no longer pull permits to tie down trailers. You will have to get a licensed trailer installer." So we found one, and then when we went back, we have now been informed that we have to own a cow and a bull before they'll issue us this permit. So we went through this process. We have now purchased a cow and a bull. We have also -- to try to alleviate some of the problems with Tom Campbell, we did go get an electrical permit to replace the electrical in the trailer. We have done that and have passed that inspection. FP&L has hooked up the electrical. FP&L has a meter on it. That trailer has been there for over 12 years. I talked to the former owners of it. They said six or seven years ago they had a violation on that same trailer. They went through the same process at that time, too, but because we've moved it and put it back we have to go through this process again. So we are now in a position to -- we own the cow. We own the bull. We have the trailer guy. We are now ready to pick up this permit. I mean, I've done as much as I can do with this thing. And with the family that's living there, I mean, I don't charge them rent on nothing. They're just staying there. I even offered -- I even sent them a three-day eviction notice that "you guys are going to have to move." Then I was called by Tom Campbell's supervisor who said it doesn't matter if I evict them. I still have to get a permit and stuff for it. I have to still go through that process. So I stopped the eviction now until I either get this permit or whatever I do, whatever I have to do. Page 29 June 18, 2001 We've done as much as we can do, but I do have all the stuff now to get this permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's interesting that you can't have a piece of property unless you have a cow and a bull. I've never heard of that. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Agricultural. In order to be agricultural -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you only get agricultural if you ask for an exemption. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: -- you have to have goats or-- THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait, wait. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: -- cattle. THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Goats or cattle in order to have it agricultural. MR. JOHNS: Well, they didn't tell me goats. They told me a cow and a bull. That was it. Sink or swim. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Goats and/or cows. MR. JOHNS: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait, wait. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I think that's if you're looking for an exemption. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Uh-huh, for agricultural. MR. JOHNS: I'm just looking to get a permit. I don't need an exemption. I just need a permit. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, what he's saying is not true. You can own a piece of vacant land, and you don't have to put anything on it. MR. JOHNS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So don't be misled that you have to buy an animal. Page 30 June 18,2001 MR. JOHNS: No, I-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can own a piece of blank land out in no-man's land, and you don't have to put something on it. MR. JOHNS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think there is such a law. If you get it zoned, that's different. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: You have to put a bull or a cow or goats on the property to be zoned agricultural to get the agricultural break-- tax break. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That's what I said. I don't know that he was looking for that. MR. JOHNS: No. I was told I have to have a cow and a bull before I can have the permit. MS. ARNOLD: I can probably answer your questions. The reason why he needs to have animals on there is the only way that the county would permit someone to reside on that property is if it were considered a bona fide agricultural use because of its zoning. Mobile homes are allowed only with bona fide agricultural uses. And because it's a mobile home, because of the type of structure it is, and because they didn't have any animals is why the building department was telling him and the planning department that they would have to have some sort of bona fide agricultural activity. Probably they gave him an example, "If you have a cow and a bull or whatever, that would qualify you for the agricultural activities." COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So do I understand that -- I don't know how it was zoned prior to putting the cow and the bull there to make it agricultural, but do I understand that it was not zoned so that he could have a mobile home on there? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's not zoned -- some agricultural zoning in the county have mobile home overlays that would permit mobile homes as a right as a permitted use on those agricultural Page 31 June 18, 2001 zoning districts. This particular one doesn't have that overlay distinction. It's just zoned strictly agricultural. And to allow that type of structure they would have to have a bona fide agricultural activity on there. That's why he's being told the structure that existed before -- we're not aware of any permits that allowed it to be there. So we're just trying to clear up the situation now. I think he's pretty close to getting a permit. They've completed the application. It's just a matter of going in and providing the county with some of the necessary paperwork to clear up the situation. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Mr. Johns, I have a question. The executive summary that we have on this case says that you are a general contractor; is that correct? MR. JOHNS: My partner is a general contractor. COMMISSIONER PONTE: You are not? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. I am not. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that where the 1511 came from? MR. JOHNS: The fill came -- the gentleman that lives in the trailer got the fill -- when they were doing the extension on Marco, they used a lot of fill to compact the road. Well, they had some extra fill, and they didn't have any place to take it. He knew one of the drivers or whatever, and they brought that fill there to him. They gave him, like, 10 or 15 loads. That's where the fill came from. MS. ARNOLD: The executive summary says he's an excavation contractor-- you're an excavation contractor. MR. JOHNS: No, ma'am, I'm not. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. JOHNS: I don't have an excavation license. COMMISSIONER PONTE: With your partner being a contractor, it seems that there was a lot of knowledge that you had about contracting and permitting -- MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. Page 32 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: here. MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PONTE: October of last year. -- that should have come into play This case has gone on since MR. JOHNS: I have no experience in a mobile home, but I was told by the county that a general contractor cannot pull a permit for a mobile home, and they would not let us submit our application by a general contractor. A general contractor cannot pull a permit for a trailer. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Did I understand you to say, sir, that it is -- Florida Power & Light has come out there, and you have a permit for the electric? MR. JOHNS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Okay. And-- MR. JOHNS: And there's a meter on it. There's a service pole there, everything. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: How about the septic? MR. JOHNS: The septic? Like I said, the trailer had been there for 12 or 15 years. All that stuff was done then, the well, everything. We have now signed a contract with J.C. Drainfield to -- they have to update the tanks and pump it and do all that stuff. We have signed a contract with them to do that also. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: When do you think you will have everything together and be in compliance? MR. JOHNS: Tomorrow the trailer installer is going to meet us at the county with his package. When he brings that package, then they'll let us submit it. He told me after he submits it tomorrow it will be four weeks before the county will issue that permit. But the application can be put in tomorrow. Page 33 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further questions for Mr. Johns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Mr. Chairman, before we do any voting on anything, did we clear it up whether Mr. Phillips can vote? MS. RAWSON: We need seven members on the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's been that way. I've been on the board for four years, and every time -- it's a seven-member board, and every time a permanent member is absent, one of the alternates is asked; if there's two permanent members absent, both alternates are added so we continue to have a seven-member board, which is what it is. MS. RAWSON: That's in the statute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The statute says it's a seven-member board. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: COMMISSIONER PONTE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I think I have a question for Inspector Campbell or just a clarification. Where we pulled out all of these photos, I may have missed some. Is there still a fill problem? Is there fill that has to be removed, or is the fill -- MR. JOHNS: No. The fill was put under the trailer site. They raised the pad, and the trailer was put back on that pad. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The first order of business is for the board to, in fact, have a finding that there is a violation. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make a motion that there is a violation with the Board of Collier Commissioners, Collier County versus Randy and Lorrie Johns, CEB Case No. 2001-042. The Page 34 June 18, 2001 violation is of Section 2.7.6, paragraphs 1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 91- 102 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code ordinance, and violations of 104.1.1 and 104.1.5.1 and 105.5 and 106.1.1 and 106.3.1 of Ordinance No. 98-76, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code ordinance. The description of the violation is placement of fill and a mobile home on unimproved property without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion that there, in fact, is a violation existing. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a second by Mr. Ponte. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's the order of the board. I would recommend that we follow the staffs recommendation. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I was just going to say that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It seems reasonable. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I seem to be the motion maker this morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make a motion that the CEB order the respondent to pay prosecution costs and bring the property into compliance by obtaining a building permit for the mobile home within 60 days or a fine of $50 be imposed for every day the violation Page 35 June 18,2001 continues to exist. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor of 60 days. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I think it's more than ample, but-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I do too. I think it's more than reasonable, but just in case something else pops up -- it sounds like every time he goes down there they throw out a new gimmick. So I think that's reasonable. If it doesn't occur in 60 days, then it's $50 a day thereafter plus the prosecution costs. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anything further? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I have one comment for the board again. This is the first case I've come across where I don't really believe it's fair to ask him to pay prosecution costs. They have gone all the way through the procedures as I hear it every step of the way and, you know, tried to do what they're supposed to do. I don't feel they've caused code enforcement -- I think the Code Enforcement Board has been doing their job, but I also think that the property owner has, and I'm a little uncomfortable asking them to -- since they have tried so diligently, as I see it, to make this happen, I'm uncomfortable asking them to pay prosecution costs as long as they do it in 60 days. COMMISSIONER PONTE: The fact is that with the knowledge that they have, that is, one of the partners being a contractor, this should never have started in the first place. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: The contractor did not buy the property in my mind; his partner did. But that doesn't mean that -- it wasn't bought by the partnership. It was bought by an individual. Page 36 June 18, 2001 Even -- the county rules for agricultural versus whatever, if you're not into contracting for mobile homes and agricultural land, I think it's reasonable to say that the contractor may -- whoever he consulted with -- may not have known that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: No. But what I'm suggesting is that a contractor knows full well that permits are required for many, many items, and it would just seem to me that it would be general knowledge, his general knowledge, that permits probably would be required. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: They had to pick the pad up, put the fill in, put the pad back on, put the mobile back on, tie it down, so somebody had to know -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Something. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: -- something, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one thing that's bothering me. The sewage system -- J. C. Drainfield is going to do a perc test before they do any work at all? MR. JOHNS: They have to do a -- I forget what it's called. The existing system that's there now, they have to come and update it. As far as us as general contractors knowing this, this family that lived there did this on their own. We had no participation in it at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We're getting a little sidetracked here. If that's part of getting his permits, then he'll have to provide that, but I don't think we need to add anything to it. He's been cited for not having permits. I think we need to leave it at that. He hasn't been cited for specifically electric or his septic tank or anything. He just didn't have the permits. Whatever the county requires him to do to get those permits, I'm sure they'll do. I think the board needs to shy away from getting down to specifics. Page 37 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This was just something I needed to ask. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I must say that with the comment that Rhona has made, perhaps in my own mind I think this case probably should not have been brought to us maybe this month knowing that he has been working very diligently and all that he's gone through. The fact is it has been brought before us on this date, and it's still in violation. But I understand Rhona's reasoning and am somewhat empathetic to it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second for the order of the board. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It's 6 to 1. Motion carries. Do you understand what we said, sir? You have 60 days to get everything squared away. If you don't do that, you're going to get a fine of $50 a day. MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If for some reason you run into another problem, you have the right to ask the county to let you come back before the board and ask for an extension. MR. JOHNS: I will know tomorrow if there's another problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you, sir. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, who opposed the motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Sanders. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. Page 38 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Johns. The next case is 2001-047. MS. CRUZ: I have a question since both cases 047 and 2001- 048 are similar and they both affect the same respondent. Would you like to hear both cases at the same time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I was just going to say, since they're tied together I think it's probably going to be a lot easier to do them both at the same time. And since there's representation here, I think that probably would be the most expedient. MR. DAWSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it's appropriate to butt in now or not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can. MR. DAWSON: We've never seen the packet on 048. We weren't served with that packet. MS. ARNOLD: They were signed for the same day. MR. DAWSON: We only got one packet, which was for Case 047. This is -- I can show you what we got. Were they sent out separately? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. On the 5th of June Judith Beach signed for it. Do you know that name? MR. DAWSON: Yeah, I sure do. office. MS. ARNOLD: MR. DAWSON: MS. ARNOLD: MR. DAWSON: That's somebody in our And then this is for 47. How can you tell? The numbers. Now, I talked with counsel the other day just to make sure I knew what was going on, and Miss Rawson had indicated that the 048 package had been pulled from her agenda anyway. MS. RAWSON: Actually, it is here. I did find it. MR. DAWSON: Oh, you did. Page 39 June 18,2001 MS. RAWSON: It was in front of your defense packet. These two cases are very similar. They just involve two different legal descriptions, I believe. MR. DAWSON: If that's the case, you know -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have evidence that you signed for the package. So if somebody in your office mislaid it, you know, you have an office problem, and we can't help you. MR. DAWSON: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the packets be admitted into evidence marked Composite Exhibits A and B, please. That will be for Case No. 2001-047. That will be Composite Exhibit A. And Case No. 2001-048 be marked Composite Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Sir, I'm going to ask you the famous question: Do you object to these being submitted? I understand you're saying you don't have it, but somebody in your office signed for it. MR. DAWSON: I don't believe so. I'm wondering can we also ask that the defense packet be admitted into evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When it's your mm, yes, sir, we're going to ask you to do that. MR. DAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem. Okay. There's no objection. Do I hear a motion to accept the county's two exhibits, A and B? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I move that we accept the county's exhibits. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibits. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 40 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I need to ask for a correction, please, on Packet 2001-047. On page 2 and page 4 there's a typographical error. Page 2, Item 2, the description of the violation should read "conversion of a permitted duplex structure into a fourplex structure without first obtaining all required Collier County permits," and the same for page 4. I'm looking for the word "triplex" to be changed into "fourplex." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: The alleged violation, again, is Section 2.7.6, paragraph 1 and 5. These are for both Cases 2001-047 and 2001-048. That would be a violation of Ordinance No. 91-102. Also violations of Section 104.1.1 and Section 106.1 of Ordinance No. 98-76. That's the Building Construction Administrative Code. The description of the violation for Case No. 2001-047 is a conversion of a permitted duplex structure into a fourplex structure without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. The violation description for Case No. 2001-048 is conversion of a permitted duplex structure into a triplex structure without first obtaining the required Collier County permits. The violation for 2001-047 exists at 2764 Arbutus Street, Naples, Florida, and is more particularly described as Whitehursts replat 2/3. I'll just rephrase the description of the violation or the legal description. It's INT in South 170.5 feet of Tract 5. The violation on Case No. 2001-048 exists at 2766 Arbutus Street, and that is more particularly described as Whitehursts replat 1/3 INT in south 170.5 feet of Tract 5. The owner of record of both of these properties is PJ of Naples, LLC. The address of record is P.O. Box 40, and that's Naples, Florida 34106. Page 41 June 18, 2001 The respondent is being represented by David N. Sexton, registered agent. The address of record is 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 404, Naples, Florida 34103. The violations were observed on May 29th and May 26th, 1999, and notice of violation was provided to the respondent on December 18th, 2000, requesting compliance by December 29th, 2000. A final reinspection was conducted Friday, June 15th of 2001 revealing violations that remain at that time. I would like to call John Kelly, code enforcement investigator, at this time, please. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Kelly, before you start-- Miss Rawson, let me ask you a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since we have a defense packet that asks for dismissal, rather than make the county go through their lengthy dissertation, would it not be more prudent to have the defense submit their packet and tell us why they want it dismissed? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think I understood him to say he wasn't -- he's asking for a continuance. He is asking for a dismissal, and there is pending litigation in the circuit court. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: So that's the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, what I'm trying to do is save the time because of the pending litigation. I personally think that, you know, at best it should be continued -- maybe not dismissed, but at least continued until that gets settled rather than have the county expend their efforts. MS. RAWSON: Well, you certainly have -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That might be more prudent to us as the board to hear why they want it dismissed, and then say yes or no, and then let the county proceed. MS. RAWSON: Well, procedurally, you certainly have the Page 42 June 18,2001 right to hear his motion to dismiss first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What does the board think? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I have a question. When there's a case pending, which is connected with this violation, can we make a decision on something like that? I mean, I'm a little uncomfortable with that. I don't know what the true process is here. MS. RAWSON: Well, the staff has brought this before you because they are alleging that there is a violation of the code that exists. Your problem is, you know, who is responsible because of this pending litigation. Staff certainly has the right to bring this before you, so you need to make a determination whether to act on it now or to wait. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think waiting is better but -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Me too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the pleasure of the board? Should we have the defense tell us why they think it should be dismissed before we let the county proceed with their lengthy -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because we might either dismiss it and/or recommend that it be continued, therefore saving the county some time. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why would we dismiss it? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I haven't heard yet, so I mean, we have to hear it. Until he tells me why he wants it dismissed, I can't tell you. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I read this over twice, and I was wondering why we had it at all until the litigation is over. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back to the question. Should we let the defense come up and tell us why they want it dismissed? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. Page 43 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Do we have to make a motion to that or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make a motion that we listen to the defense to find out why they want to dismiss the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: you'd like it dismissed. Any opposed? Okay. Sir, you're on. Tell us why MR. DAWSON: Just for the record, my name is David Dawson. I'm a partner of David Sexton's. We're both with the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King. We represent PJ of Naples, which is the current property owner. I basically laid out the perspective from -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To help you, would you submit your package too? MR. DAWSON: Oh, sure. That's a very good idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I know we have it but -- MR. DAWSON: If I could submit the defense statement -- I only labeled it as 047 because it's obviously my error, my office's error, for not realizing that 048 was on it, but I would like that submitted for the record for both 047 and 048. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does the county object? MS. ARNOLD: No. Page 44 June 18,2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll entertain a motion to receive it. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. MR. DAWSON: Thank you. Basically, I think I pretty much took up enough time of the board when I talked a little earlier. Basically, what we have is a situation where my client just recently bought the property. He hasn't done anything to change the property. He thought he was buying nine units. The earlier property owner from whom we acquired the property is a person named Franklin Baker, III. He's represented by Mr. Amato. My understanding as reflected in the defense packet is Mr. Amato, on behalf of his client, has started an action against Collier County because Mr. Baker apparently -- and I'd like really to turn it over to Mr. Amato -- had asked the county to investigate this back in 1994 before he bought it and was advised at that time that these structures were okay, the triplex and the quadplex were okay. And there is -- attached to the last three pages of the defense packet is the information with regard to the proceeding that had gone on back in 1994. If he could maybe I'll just turn it over to Mr. Amato who can fill you in more on the details of what happened back in 1994. Our client, as I said, just bought the property in late November of last year. Basically, I think, in one way or another we would either like Page 45 June 18, 2001 to get the case dismissed based upon the fact that it's already been dealt with when the parties back in '94 were advised that everything was okay, or alternatively we have a lawsuit pending. We've sued to rescind the deal. Basically, our client thought it was buying nine residential rental units. The deal doesn't work if it's not nine residential rental units, and so we've sued to rescind the deal, brought the lawsuit against Mr. Baker, and Mr. Baker has, in mm, sued the county over what happened in 1994. So if I could just with the board's permission turn matters over to Mr. Amato, I would appreciate that. MR. AMATO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Louis Amato, A-m-a-t-o. I see I'm supposed to spell, it so I'll do that here. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: He's-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. He's a lawyer just talking, you know. MR. AMATO: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's all right, sir. MR. AMATO: Thank you. I do represent Franklin Baker, III, and we have filed suit against the county for determination that the violations, if they technically exist, should be overturned because of the fact that the county is estopped from proceeding with a challenge to the current use. The reason why, very simply, is that prior to the time that my client purchased the property and in an attempt to determine that the property was in compliance with all applicable codes, he made an inquiry to the county through the form of a complaint. The county after investigating it determined that the units were, in fact, permitted and authorized. On the basis of that determination by the county, he went forward and changed his position substantially and expended a significant amount of funds and purchased the Page 46 June 18, 2001 property based upon and only after the determination by the county that the current use, which was the prior use, was a permitted use. So it would seem to me obviously to be tremendously unfair, especially given the fact that seven years have passed, to now make a retroactive determination that the decision by the county in a prior time was incorrect and, therefore, these innocent parties who went to the county to determine their rights should now be penalized for something that the county did seven years ago. It would seem appropriate that this board at the very least dismiss the case without prejudice, in other words, without any impact. With respect to the county, I think it's more appropriate to dismiss it with prejudice given the fact that these events occurred, but at the very least this particular board should suspend these proceedings pending a determination of the exact same issues in the circuit court case. I'll be glad to taken any questions that you-all may have, but I think that succinctly sets it forth, and I think that the -- especially Exhibit No. C, which Mr. Dawson has put together in the defense packet, sets forth the circumstances. I would also point out that we just heard about this proceeding a few days ago before the weekend and were unable to present anything more to the board should that be its pleasure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question. Were these duplexes to begin with? MR. AMATO: I don't know precisely whether they were duplexes before, but I believe that to be the case. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When were they changed? MR. AMATO: I don't know. My client doesn't know because they were changed long before he purchased the property in 1994. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I-- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question seeing as he's referenced Exhibit C. Page 47 June 18,2001 MR. AMATO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It says -- and it's just a concern to me now because it is hurricane season. It's believed that the existing properties are grandfathered as some of the lower units would not meet flood code. Is that still the case? MR. DAWSON: That's not in Exhibit C. You're referring to -- One COMMISSIONER PONTE: THE COURT REPORTER: at a time. I'm looking at the note from -- Wait, wait, wait, wait. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. (Whistle) We need control. Everybody quiet. Thank you. Now, what we're to determine first is whether we should hear this case or we are not hearing this case. So let's not ask those types of questions, whether we should even hear the case or set it for a continuance to a later date until the court action is settled. Beyond that -- you know, if you want to hear it and make a determination, we will do that. If you want to continue it, we will do that. I personally think we should continue it until the court case is settled to find out who is actually going to be the owner of the property. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I agree. COMMISSIONER PONTE: The only reason I ask is it will have an affect on my vote. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you want to hear the case and make a determination, we will do that, but first we have to decide do we or do we not want to continue this case. I don't think we need to dismiss it personally. I think we need to continue it. Then we would have to hear the case, and then we could order them to do something. But in the meantime that person via court may be removed and we've ordered somebody to do something that doesn't own the property. That's why I say I think it should be continued personally. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I have a question for staff. I Page 48 June 18,2001 want to know if what has been testified holds with your evaluation that the case was heard in 1994 or that the county inspected it in 1994 and that permits were issued -- that it was determined that there was no violation in 1994. MS. ARNOLD: No, there was no code board case in 1994. I think he's basing his comments on a code case that was initiated internally administratively. Maybe the prior owner, Mr. Baker, inquired whether or not one of the properties is what this record indicates. One of the properties was in violation, and there was a determination made by an investigator at the time that a permit had been obtained for conversions made to that particular property, which is 2764. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: And that is the triplex or-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: ! think the board is still off track. What was done to the property is between the two people that are buying and selling. What we need to decide is do we want to hear this case to make a judgment against the person that has been brought before us, or do we want to continue it because there is a case pending in court which the person brought before us may or may not end up being the owner. What was done to the property is immaterial at this point. We need to backtrack. We're getting ahead of ourselves. Please. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I think there's a third option, Mr. Chairman, which is do we want to dismiss the case based on previous action by the county that does grandfather it in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we want to do that, we would have to hear the case to hear everything, and then we can decide that. We just can't make it on what little we've heard. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, you're kind of jumping Page 49 June 18, 2001 forward. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Given the pending legal action, Miss Rawson, what would you suggest? MS. RAWSON: I have difficulty with your finding -- I mean, you can find a violation, but I have difficulty with your fining the person that you have -- who is now the owner of the property because the circuit court might change the owner of the property, and then we have to come back here and change your orders. That's the difficulty. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I think a continuance is the best course of action for this board until the circuit court decides on whatever. Once they make that determination, then the county can put it back on our agenda. If it's the wrong person, then that case automatically disappears, and they would have to start their process over against the right person. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned about why the county brought it to us to begin with. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If this is a motion, I second it, Cliff. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: He hasn't made it a motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL I haven't made it. I keep making suggestions, but if you want me to make it a motion I will. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: I've got a question for Mr. Amato. I'm curious to know what sort of confirmation your client received from the county indicating that the use back in '94 or '93 was a permitted use at the time he acquired the property. MR. AMATO: Composite Exhibit C to the defense packet is with respect to one of the three parcels that my client acquired. That's -- 2766 is the street address. He filed a complaint requesting validation of the fact before he purchased it that the apartment on the ground floor next to the garage was built without a permit, and he Page 50 June 18, 2001 asked the county if that's a violation. The county in its determination on June 1st, 1994, closed the case because the property was converted to a triplex on 12/11/91, almost ten years ago, and referenced Permit No. 91-6547 and closed the file. On the basis of that determination that it was authorized, he purchased the property. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I go back to my question of why the county brought this before us. I know that -- I don't want to hear testimony, but I just wanted to know because that will help me in my decision whether it's a continuance or a dismissal or we hear the case. Since it's in litigation and we're not going to know, as Cliff has said, who the owner is -- MS. ARNOLD: We had this particular case on the agenda, previous agenda, under the prior owner. We pulled it off the agenda because, you know, days before the hearing we found that Mr. Baker had sold the property to TJ of Naples. We've been talking to representatives of TJ of Naples that had indicated to us that they were considering rescinding the sale or requesting that the sale be rescinded because they weren't aware of this pending code case. Time had passed. We saw no evidence that that was being pursued. It came up prior to us putting this on the agenda again, and so rather than removing it again, you know, we just figured we would leave it on, have the board decide whether or not we want to suspend hearing it until, in fact, something had been filed with the Court. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: That's good enough. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: It seems to me that a key element in the lawsuits that are filed are whether or not there is a violation. I think it's our responsibility to determine if there is, indeed, a violation or not, which makes moot the lawsuits or at least certainly directs them in whatever way they wish to go. Page 51 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. COMMISSIONER SANDER: But the lawsuits are based on whether or not these properties are zoned for seven units, nine units, or whatever. I think continuing it doesn't help anything, and I would like to hear the case so that we can determine if there's a violation or not. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: The problem with that is we don't know who the owner may be if there is a violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They may get this whole thing changed. I personally would make the motion that we continue this case until a later date after the circuit court has made its decision. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to continue. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. sir, to a later date. Aye. 6 to 1. The case is continued, MR. AMATO: Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That closes our public hearings. Our new business is the request for imposition of fines, the first one being 2001-022. MS. ARNOLD: One second here. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, this is the Board of County Commissioners versus Russell G. Platt, Case No. 2001-022. This case appeared before the board on April 26th, 2001. The board issued an order requesting the respondent to comply by May 26th. By comply -- I see the violation that was found was numerous vehicles, unlicensed vehicles of all makes and models, and also litter. Page 52 June 18, 2001 The order of the board -- the board ordered the respondent to comply by removing all the litter and obtaining valid tags for all the unlicensed vehicles by May 26th. We have an affidavit of noncompliance signed by Investigator Jeff Letourneau where the respondent did not comply with such order. Further, the order stated that if the respondent did not comply within the time specified that a fine would be imposed of $50 per day until the violation is in compliance. We're requesting -- I don't have the summary here. We're requesting the amount of $400 be imposed for the period of May 26th through June 4th at a rate of $50 plus $538.80 for the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do I hear a motion to impose the fine as requested? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I so move. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next is 2001-014. MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for an affidavit -- filing of an affidavit of noncompliance and an imposition of fines. This case was heard before the board on March 22nd, 2001, at which time the board found the respondent in violation and ordered to obtain required permits for unpermitted structures within 30 days -- by April 21 st, 2001 -- and if such was not done fines of $125 per day would be Page 53 June 18, 2001 imposed each day the violation continued. Additionally the board ordered the respondent to pay operational costs. We have an affidavit from the investigator which was signed on June 4th, 2001, noting the noncompliance of this case, and staff is requesting the board impose fines in the amount of $5,375 from a period of April 22nd through June 4th at a rate of $125 per day and an additional $388.94 for the operational costs. And this is Board of County Commissioners versus Mr. Thammavong, T-h-a-m-m-a-v-o- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I remember that. Do we have a motion to impose fines as requested? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I so move. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. 2001-007. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's the Board of County Commissioners versus Tim Flick. On the 22nd of March 2001, the board heard this case and found the respondent in violation. At that time the board ordered the respondent to obtain required permits or remove the unpermitted structures within 60 days -- by May 21st, 2001 -- or fines of $50 per day would be imposed. Additionally, the board ordered the prosecution charges for the case be imposed. Staff is requesting that the board record or accept the affidavit of compliance which was signed by the investigator. This is under your report section. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: At the same time order the imposition of fines for the prosecution charges which is in the amount of $433.94. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would then -- the board needs Page 54 June 18,2001 to entertain a motion to accept the imposition of fines as requested and at the same time the affidavit of compliance as submitted. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So moved. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's take ten minutes. (A break was held from 10:43 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call the board back to order, please. The next item is old business. The section cited is a request for any reduction or waiver of fines. I see a letter from Mr. Marrone or Marrone. I don't know how it's pronounced. I apologize if I do it wrong. MR. MARRONE: Either one is okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What are you here to ask the board to do, sir? In reading your letter, it does not appear to me that you're asking us to reduce any kind of fines. MR. MARRONE: Well, I've come across a slight problem in the sense that -- you were not here, sir, at the last board meeting that I was here. They found me in violation for my sign. I have to remove my sign. And I came across a couple of difficulties, and I would like to go over them including the fine, if possible. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess my first question is, are you asking us to rehear your case? MR. MARRONE: Not really, but I do need to clarify a couple of things. Page 55 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. the fines? MR. MARRONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. yet. But you're asking us to reduce We haven't imposed any fines MR. MARRONE: Not to reduce the fine, but to waive the administrative costs for the signage. Miss Arnold assessed me $347.12 of administrative costs, and I would like to have that waived. But before I get to that I have a couple other things that I would like to go over. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I just want to caution you that we are not going to rehear your case. Okay. The case has been decided, and I don't know off the top of my head what the deadline was for you to comply because I don't have it in front of me. COMMISSIONER PONTE: June 2002. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: have to comply. MR. MARRONE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it's a long way out that you I'm not here to argue that case -- Okay. MR. MARRONE: -- but I have come across a couple of problems since the sign case which was dated, I believe, May 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm trying to narrow you down to is you said you wanted -- you really want us to waive some operational costs for prosecution, some $300. What we want you to do is tell us why we shouldn't charge you that money. I don't want you to tell us what's wrong with the case. That's done. Okay. That's been decided. Now you need to tell me why we shouldn't charge you this $300. If that's what you want to do, we're willing to listen to you. MR. MARRONE: Code enforcement found me in violation because I did not get a permit, okay, because according to code my Page 56 June 18, 2001 sign could not be changed -- the face could not be changed on it, a copy change on it. As we stated the last time when Mr. Chahram was here -- Mr. Badamtchian-- we did call, and he says there was a misunderstanding. Well, this misunderstanding is going to cost me around $20,000 plus $347. And what's Mr. Chahram -- I mean, there's a misunderstanding. Fine. I'm being penalized. Why be penalized even more? Do you understand what I'm saying, sir? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I've heard you. You still haven't convinced me that I should waive the $300 personally, but go ahead. Is there something else? MR. MARRONE: Okay. The whole situation with the -- again, it can't be redone, so I might as well not tell you anything. I don't believe it's fair. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Do you understand what these administrative costs are? MR. MARRONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. MARRONE: And I don't believe that I should pay them, as I was not the only one at fault. We called the planning board (sic). We asked them if we could paint the sign. He says, "Okay. Go ahead and do it as long as you don't change the structure on the sign." We painted the sign. Two-and-a-half years later they find me in violation, besides the fact that I have to remove my sign by 2002 at a cost to replace it, put up a new sign and take the old one down of about $20,000. Now, $347 for administrative costs -- okay. There was a misunderstanding. How come I've got to pay for everything? How come I'm the only one who's going to be punished? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying. Is that all you have to tell us? Page 57 June 18, 2001 MR. MARRONE: Well, I had a lot more, but I don't believe -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we don't want to hear the case. I mean, that's -- MR. MARRONE: No. I don't want to talk about the case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You've told us why you don't want to pay the three hundred and some dollars, and I understand what you're saying. MR. MARRONE: Also, I would like to mention another thing. I have to. As much as I don't want to, I have to. Being that I have to put this sign up I have to take my sign from the roof, and it's going to be a 15-foot post sign. Okay. And my property does not have the proper setback because it's an older building on 41. The trees -- if I put -- the trees in the front, they're going to block my sign. Now, two Fridays -- not this past Friday, but the Friday before I met with Nancy Siemion and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me stop you just a second. This board can't make any determination, I think, where you're going on the landscaping and all of that. We made a determination based on a violation that was brought before us. That ends our authority. If you have some concerns about what you're going to do when you move or replace or whatever the sign, you need to take that up with the county. The board can't help you with that. We're here to strictly judge a violation, and that's been done. If you have a concern about now you're going to move something or change it and another problem exists, you need to work that out with the county. We can't help you there. Okay? MR. MARRONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not that we don't want to hear your problem, but we can't help you. We have no power to do that. MR. MARRONE: I understand, but you have power with the financial part of it. Page 58 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With the money that's in our order, we have the power to do something with that if we so desire. MR. MARRONE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Thank you. We have a request from Mr. Marrone to waive the operational costs for prosecution of three hundred and -- and I don't remember the exact number-- three hundred and some dollars. MS. ARNOLD: Three hundred and forty-seven dollars and change. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a motion to do that or to not do it? We need one motion or the other since there's been a request, either a motion to waive the costs or a motion not to waive the costs. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I would like to ask staff if there's any reason we should not waive the costs. I'm inclined to waive them, but is there anything else we need to know? MS. ARNOLD: I would just have to note that it's been a decision of this board that we impose prosecution charges for the time and cost to the county for prosecuting the case. That's what we've done. It's the pleasure of the board whether or not you want to waive it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I make a motion that we not waive it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. There's a motion on the table to not waive them. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion on that motion? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Once again, I think I'm in the minority today, but this is a small business owner who is, to me, working hard to try and, you know, comply with requests. I know the sign ordinances have been very expensive for many of the business Page 59 June 18, 2001 owners. He's asked us simply to waive three hundred and thirty- seven or forty-seven dollars. I think we can do that in this case. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: Well, not only that, I would like to add that there was testimony at the prior hearing that the respondent contacted the county before they made changes to the sign and that they received oral approval from the county to make those changes. Based on that representation they went ahead and made the changes. So I would agree with my fellow board member that we should waive the imposition of administrative costs on this. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yeah. The only problem with that is that this is the second time. If we are going to embark on a policy of reviewing all of these on a case-by-case basis, we're going to have to change our policy. The policy that we have is that the costs are to be borne by the respondent if the respondent has been found in violation. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I just want to make one comment also. There would be no prosecution charges before the case is brought to us; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. ARNOLD: It's only when you-all hear the case and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Find a violation. MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Very good point. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The motion on the table and seconded is that we not waive the costs. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 60 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: against or opposed? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: that? What are we voting on? That We better show hands. All those Wait. Would you please repeat CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not waiving them. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Not waiving them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not waiving the operational costs. means he's going to have to pay them. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: COMMISSIONER PONTE: Aye. Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: of us, so that carries. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS: COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Aye. That's four. Aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Four to three. MR. MARRONE: I'm not happy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. Goodman and Love. Are they here? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Love is here. Well, there's only seven Do you understand, sir? The next item is MR. LOVE: Good morning. Larry Love for the Goodmans and Loves. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Refresh my -- let me ask the staff a question, please. Refresh my memory. What kind of fines are we looking at here that he's going to be talking to us about? Page 61 June 18, 2001 MS. ARNOLD: We had an imposition of fines for -- this was the exotics removal case. We had no information at the time that we heard the imposition of fines of whether or not they were in compliance with the board's order at the time of the order. We've since been given information from the contractors that did the work that they, in fact, did treat -- remove and treat the exotics before the date that the board ordered them to do so, but we've imposed fines for the amount of $3,300 and then additional operational costs of $624.97. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're telling me that besides imposing the fine there was also an affidavit of compliance found? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And it was all done within the time limit of the order? MS. ARNOLD: No. We had no knowledge of compliance until after we imposed the fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That wasn't my question. Did he comply by the date said in the order? MS. ARNOLD: We have information now that, yes, he did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But the county didn't go out and check like -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The day after the -- in other words, if it was the 20th-- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you went the 21st -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- and he wasn't in compliance? MS. ARNOLD: We weren't totally sure if he was because part of the compliance -- because he didn't remove physically the exotics, the trees. They had to treat the plants. There was no evidence that Page 62 June 18, 2001 the exotics were treated. We tried to get that information from Mr. Love, and he failed to give us that information, so we only had to assume that, seeing no evidence, that it hadn't been treated. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: If I recall, he refused whoever the landscapers were and was quite difficult in getting this information. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, your side, sir. Why should we waive all of this? MR. LOVE: Well, basically because we were in compliance by the date that this board set for us on or before the 15th of February. The plants were treated with the proper poison, however it did not have a blue dye in it. When Alexandra Sulecki came by, she saw that they were treated, but it was a milky substance and not a blue dye. Since that time Miss Arnold has found out that -- Miss Mason spoke with the people who treated the plants and found out that they did use a proper poison on these plants. Therefore, since we were in compliance by your original date -- and I always contended so -- and a few of you board members actually voted in our favor last time, I believe there should be no fines. As far as the prosecutorial costs are concerned, once again, since we were in compliance -- and you have a document, I believe, in front of you showing that the code enforcement said that we were by the 15th, on or before -- I don't believe there should be any prosecutorial costs, especially since this case originated prior to your new policy of imposing costs for prosecution. Therefore, we can't really be responsible for those costs since we were in compliance all along. Our story has never changed. We did exactly what the board asked us to do from the beginning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any questions for the board? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How long was this case before it was brought before the board? Page 63 June 18,2001 MS. CRUZ: September of'99. COMMISSIONER PONTE: This case started late in '99. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. It was quite some time. We tried working with the property owners or the Loves. I wouldn't have any objections to waiving the fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was just going to say the board -- MS. ARNOLD: But the prosecuting charge, because of the fact that they weren't really cooperating with staff through the case and then even after the board heard the case, I would recommend that we impose or continue to impose those costs. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The board needs to keep in mind two things. The fine is based on that they don't come in compliance with our order, which it sounds like they did. The prosecutorial costs are relevant if they're found guilty of a violation. It has nothing to do with that they come into compliance. So you have Item A and Item B. I would recommend that since they're in compliance and were by the date they were supposed to be that the board, in fact, waive the fine but not prosecution costs because that relates to just finding you guilty of a violation. MR. LOVE: I would like to speak to that matter, please. I reviewed the videotapes of this board's meeting when Mr. Flegal was here originally. If you recall, we were in contention that we were being -- excuse me -- how do I say this? You know, the enforcement of this law was -- we did not agree with the way this law was written. This board and Mr. Flegal said that we could go to the county commissioners -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And try to get the law changed. MR. LOVE: -- and try to get the law changed, which we did. Now, because there was an election last year we had to -- we think there was an election -- we had to wait until the new board members Page 64 June 18,2001 took their seat in order for us to get the time to plead our case to them. We did that and, of course, the board was not able to change anything for us, but we did not drag our feet as far as any of this was concerned. We complied, and the $600 -- we've spent two or three thousand dollars to have all this stuff come into compliance, and we spent it to have it done. We've paid about $25,000 in property taxes over the last five years. We don't believe that since we were in compliance by the order of this board that there should be prosecutorial costs. Now, especially since according to Ms. Arnold-- and, once again, I'll quote her -- this case occurred prior to your new policy of imposing costs for prosecution. The only reason she brought that up the last time was she, I guess, needed this board to fine us in order to try to recoup the $600. Therefore, since originally this case was before your new policy, I don't believe that we should be fined the $600, which would be, again, a hardship. We've spent thousands of dollars, and we, once again, were always in compliance by February 15th as you requested us to be. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Mr. Love, if I recall, a landscaper viewed your case when you came before us and volunteered his services. They started it, and you told them to leave and left it halfway. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't want to rehear this case. We're not interested. The case has been decided. MR. LOVE: She's asking me a question. No response? COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I'm just saying you made the statement that -- MR. LOVE: That was so the -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: -- it cost you all this money. THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Page 65 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER GODFREY: You made a statement that it cost you all this money to comply. MR. LOVE: Right. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: A landscaper volunteered to come out. They started the work. You told them to stop. MR. LOVE: Yes. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: So if there was any costs incurred, you caused that by telling these landscapers to leave your property. MR. LOVE: That's not really the case. That's your -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: MR. LOVE: That's not true. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. No, that's what was in the case. We keep our-- Let's start here. You were brought before us because you were guilty of a violation of the law, i.e., an ordinance. MR. LOVE: There were some -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We found you in violation. I remember. Period. The law is the law is the law. It said you shouldn't do this. You did it. You're guilty. Sorry. Now, all we're interested in -- and we're willing to waive those costs because you were in compliance. Let's get back to the six hundred and some dollars. Because you were brought here, the statute, which hasn't changed in years and years and years, said that those could be recouped. Okay. And I think, as I remember way back before I got on the board reading some cases, there was a statement in there -- whether they were being collected or not, I don't know. I don't do that. What we did is we made it a specific line item other than part of a continuing sentence, as I remember. So it's not a, quote, unquote, brand-new policy. It's something that's always been Page 66 June 18, 2001 there. Whether it's been adhered to I can't tell you. It's in the statutes. It's in the ordinance. It's been there for years and years and years. It's not something new. MR. LOVE: I would like to ask Ms. Arnold if she would please clarify from the last hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. You need to understand one thing. Miss Arnold is not a member of this board, so what she thinks really is irrelevant to what this board does. MR. LOVE: Well-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She's not a member. She works for the county. She doesn't work for us, and we don't work for her. MR. LOVE: I'll just finish by saying we followed your order specifically. We were found -- she's shaking her head. We were found that we were in compliance by the 15th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We don't have a problem with that. MR. LOVE: I just want everything waived so that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They've told us that you were in compliance. We don't have a problem with that part. MR. LOVE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, do you have anything else you want to tell us about the $624 other than you don't think you should pay it? MR. LOVE: Yes. I don't believe that we should pay it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LOVE: -- because this was an older case before your new policy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. Is that it? MR. LOVE: That is it for the moment. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, sir. Thank you. I would make a motion to the board that we waive the fine of $3,300 -- is that the Page 67 June 18,2001 amount, Miss Arnold? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I don't want to get it wrong -- and not waive the prosecuting costs. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: pay the prosecution costs. We have a motion and a second. Any All those in favor signify by saying Any opposed? We've waived the fine, and you will MR. LOVE: Once again, this board has disregarded the real facts, and I'm very saddened that it's taken so much time from my life, and I'm very disappointed in the work that you've done here. What can I say? You're disregarding facts. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That concludes old business. New business. Affidavits of compliance. We accepted Mr. Flick previously, so that leads us to Nesmith. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This is just a report. It needs no action from the board. Mrs. Nesmith has complied, paid her fines, and we're filing an affidavit of compliance and release -- satisfaction of lease -- of lien. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I've forgotten, Miss Rawson. Do we make motions to accept those affidavits? It's just done. It's administrative -- isn't it -- as I remember. MS. RAWSON: I think if it's information only, you have to sign it-- Page 68 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Okay. MS. RAWSON: -- so we can get it recorded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next item of business is the new or wanting to be revised rules and regulations. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to note that this boardroom is reserved until two o'clock. There's another meeting here at two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Before we start there was a question from the county last week, as I remember, when I brought up that you can't adopt these under the rules except at the annual meeting. The county had a reservation that the current rules and regulations might be illegal. I went back and reviewed everything. At our annual meeting last year, they were brought before us under Robert's Rules of Order. We chose to set that to the April meeting. That's in the minutes. At the April meeting we reviewed and adopted them, and in the April meeting we stated we would sign them in the May meeting. And if you look in all the minutes, it was done. As far as I'm concerned, what we're looking at are approved rules and regulations. Miss Rawson, have I missed something? MS. RAWSON: You know, actually, I've rewritten page 11, miscellaneous, which is Article 13 because -- and this is proposed for the new rules -- because Section 1 and Section 6 don't agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: So what I'm suggesting that we do in Section 6 is say "at any regular scheduled meeting provided a notice of a proposed change is given to the board" so that it will comply with Section 1. But, of course, that's not the rules that we were operating under before. That's my suggestion to change so that the miscellaneous page doesn't conflict. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Have you changed it again other than what we got the last time? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 69 June 18,2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because what I've got doesn't say that. MS. RAWSON: Yeah. Oh, no, I've got a couple more changes to talk about today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: No. You haven't seen this. You brought this to my attention last month. So I took a look at Article 13 and realized that Section 1 and Section 6 are in conflict. So my proposed change is that Section 6 be changed to agree with Section 1. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And I -- I mean, there's a lot of reasons for doing that because you don't want to tie your hands so that you can only change your rules at the annual meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: You need to have the right to do that at any regular meeting as long as you give a proposed notice of change at the meeting before. So that's my proposal for the future. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't we start with, to make it easy, page 1 rather than jump back and forth. I think everybody can -- if they have changes -- I don't know if they've submitted them or if they have questions, but it's going to be easier, I think, to go article by article. People can compare the old one with this proposed new one, plus any additional changes anybody wants to throw out on the table. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Forgive me for being a little bit confused, but are we able to make changes now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Not by the way it currently exists. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: This is what I'm confused about. If we aren't allowed to make changes for the rest of the year, why would we be discussing them right now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you have the current page, Miss Rawson? Page 70 June 18, 2001 MS. RAWSON: I do. I know what it says. It conflicts. Article 1 and Article 6 are not in agreement because the first article in your current rules say that you can do it any time at a regular meeting, and Article 6 says that you have to do it at the annual meeting. It's interesting. You know, I guess you're going to have to make that decision about whether you're going to let Section 1 or Section 6 comply. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, Section 1 basically says you can revise them by an affirmative vote. I don't have a problem with revising them. Section 6 says you can't adopt them until you get to the annual meeting. So you can revise them, but you just can't use them until you get to the annual meeting. MS. RAWSON: Well, I suppose that's one interpretation. I have a real problem in us waiting until next March because we have a lot of pretty crucial changes in here that I think we have been living by that we really need to get in here. We need to get it on paper. We need to get it out to the respondents and their attorneys so that everybody is living by the same rules and regulations. I have a problem sending them the old rules and regulations now because we've not actually been going by a lot of them. I just think that a change is necessary, and I'd really hate for us not to be able to put that into effect until March. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I'm in total agreement with you, and I just want to know how we can do it following the rules. MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess because there's a conflict on the last page, my only suggestion is that you're going to have to decide whether you're going to live by Section 1 or Section 6. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So we can legally vote on either one of those -- follow either one of those. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think there's a conflict in the sections. I understand what Mr. Flegal is saying. He's saying we can change Page 71 June 18, 2001 them but we just can't adopt them. Well, you know, that doesn't really make any sense. That's why I think there's a real conflict between Section 1 and Section 6. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: How can we make this determination? How can we-- MS. RAWSON: If you live under Section 1, we can move forward. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, then do we need to make a motion that -- if we decide to live with Section 1, then we can go back and review all of these rules and regulations and put them into effect immediately? MS. RAWSON: I think so. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now, can we make a determination that we either follow 1 or 6 today legally? I mean, I know they're in conflict. One says one thing, and one says something else, so how can how we abide by it anyhow? It would appear to me that we have to make a change, that we have to decide on one or the other in order for the rest of the rules and regulations to follow. MS. RAWSON: Well, that would be my position because I feel very strongly about us moving forward and getting these changes on paper. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I do too. COMMISSIONER PONTE: The question remains, can we do it? MS. RAWSON: When there are two conflicting sections of your rules, you know, you have to go back and look at the intent of the parties at the time they wrote it and approved it and adopted it. You're going to have to make that determination. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think you used the magic word, when they adopted it. I think Section 1 states you just revised something. Section 6 states that you can adopt something. So if you're going to Page 72 June 18,2001 adopt new rules and regulations, i.e. Use them, Section 6 says you can't do that but once a year. MS. ARNOLD: But you wouldn't be-- you wouldn't-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't write this, so I'm just following the way it's written. If you're going to revise it, fine, but when you adopt -- and the specific word is used in Section 6, not in Section 1 -- so, I mean, I think it's pretty specific. They didn't say revise and adopt in Section 1. MS. ARNOLD: You wouldn't be revising something without the intent to use it, I wouldn't imagine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know who wrote these way back when. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Section 6 when it says "and/or adopted" -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: "If required the provisions of these rules shall be discussed, updated if required, and/or adopted or readopted." Item 1 only says they can be revised. Normally you make a motion to adopt new rules and regulations. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I think we -- MS. ARNOLD: Jean, can the board today make a finding of what the intent was, I mean, as the board? MS. RAWSON: When you have conflicting paragraphs in your rules or your contracts, you have to always go back and look at the intent of the parties in order to determine what was meant. I can't do that for you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, when I look at Section 1, if we were doing -- let's say that we're doing something wrong or our rules and regulations are not following the statute, it would seem to me that we would have to make an immediate change or immediate revision and follow that revision and that we couldn't say, "Well, we can continue to go against the law until we have our annual meeting." Page 73 June 18, 2001 Because in that first Section 1 it says, "in a manner not inconsistent with state statues" that we can revise these. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But, Miss Rawson, all these things that I read that people want to change, we're not violating the law. MS. RAWSON: Well, I recall that we had to change our rules and regulations to provide for notice by posting when the ordinance changed and when the state statute -- well, the ordinance changed to agree with the state statute, so we had to change our rules. I don't know if we did that at a regular meeting or not, but that's just an example of when our ordinance changes we need to change our rules to keep up. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that part of it, but what we're asking here -- in most of these changes that I've read that are being put in, the law hasn't changed to put these in. I mean, we're trying to -- what I'm getting from this is someone is trying to say, "Well, you have to give so many copies of this. You have to do this so many days before. You have to do it under this form." There are no forms in the statute or the ordinance. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: My point is ignoring anything that we may be proposing today. If we needed at any time in the future to make a revision, we should have that ability to do so if it's inconsistent with the law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, I agree with you. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So forgetting whatever changes we are proposing to do today, I think we need to have a section in here that gives us that ability to make that change immediately and not wait until the annual meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree with you, and that's what Miss Rawson is going to propose we do. I'm just saying the way it's currently written we can't do it today unless, I guess, we vote to overrule what's in here. Page 74 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think we need to do that. I mean, I think we need to overrule it because we can't wait to adopt it a year later or seven months later or whatever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You want to do it because you said you don't want to be in violation of the law. First of all, as I remember how things run, any rule and regulation written by any board anywhere does not supersede the law. Whatever statute is published today you're obliged to follow if it's effective today regardless of what you have written down. MS. RAWSON: That's true, but that's -- I can tell you in the law that's very, very confusing for the respondents. A perfect example of that is if you look at our state statutes in a number of other areas, there are Supreme Court cases that have declared the statutes void, against public policy, unconstitutional. They're still in there. So if you were just a layperson and you went and looked up the statute, it's still there, and you don't know that. So I'm just trying to be consistent and fair to the respondents, and that's why I think we have to stay right up with the ordinance, right up with the statutes. We're trying to make things easier, not only for the respondents, but for this board. So a lot of the changes that we're proposing help you have a more orderly process as well as explaining to the respondent exactly what it is they should do to appear before you so they don't come in here like one fellow did today with a one- page -- one paragraph letter. You didn't know what he wanted. Now they have to follow our forms if you adopt our proposed changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But in hearing some comments from Bobbi -- I mean, and I understand her concern about we might have something that's in violation of the law. None of these changes are in the statute or the ordinances. They haven't been changed, and that's why we're changing this. I mean, we're saying, like you said, we want to put in a form. A form is not even called for in the statute or Page 75 June 18, 2001 the ordinance. It's something we're going to come up with to tell people they have to follow, which I kind of disagree with, but that's beside the point. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I just think we ought to have the ability to make changes when it's necessary. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree with that point. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Therefore, I don't know if we can incorporate some of the language from 6 into ! and just make it one section with just a few words, you know, revise and adopt, and put it in Section 1 and-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the way my notes are reading. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think that's the way we should -- that's what we should vote on today and then proceed with our changes. MS. RAWSON: I agree with you, Bobbi. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So I would like to make that a motion. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: COMMISSIONER PONTE: COMMISSIONER DUSEK: If everybody understood that. Not quite. With Section 1 -- and I don't have the exact verbage, and maybe Jean could help me with that -- where it says "revise." MS. RAWSON: (As read): "In a manner not inconsistent with state statute and county ordinances during a regular meeting by the affirmative vote of at least four members of the board provided notice of a proposed change is given to the board at a preceding regular meeting." And 6 says -- let's see. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: It basically just says will adopt it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (As read): "The provisions of the rules Page 76 June 18, 2001 and regulations shall be discussed, updated, if required, and/or adopted or readopted by the board at its regular scheduled annual organizational meeting." That's the existing two sections. one. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And they really should be combined in COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So if we could -- if you could help with the language, Jean, to perhaps put them into one section -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is the -- MS. RAWSON: I think the operative word here is "regular" meeting rather than annual -- scheduled annual organizational meeting. And I think, really, the intent when this was written way back when at the very beginning was because it was an organizational meeting, and I think that's what was in there, organizational. This was a long time ago. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So if we just take out "scheduled annual" and just put "at its regular" -- MS. RAWSON: At a regular meeting. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: At a regular meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Regular meeting. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: All right. So all we'd really have to change, then, is Section 6. MS. RAWSON: We can just eliminate Section 6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, eliminate it. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: and move it up to Section 1. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Okay. Then take that sentence Why don't you just eliminate Section 6 period. I mean, why do you even need it? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Do you need the word "adopted"? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. That's exactly what's hanging us up right now or what started this examination. So if you were to Page 77 June 18,2001 combine it into Section 1, it should say "the rules and regulations may be revised and adopted in a manner not inconsistent" and so on. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: That's right. it? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER PONTE: DUSEK: PONTE: DUSEK: That's what we want to do. Yeah. Revised in a manner-- Revised and adopted. -- and adopted. Does that satisfy COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'm sure that was the intent of the board when they did this years ago. Cliff and I have been on this board since '97. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A long time. COMMISSIONER PONTE: And I precede him by about four months. It seems to me that's what we certainly meant was that the rules would be revised and adopted, not just revised and left in limbo. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Okay. I make that motion that we eliminate Section 6 and add the word in Section 1 "may be revised and adopted" and then the rest of the language to follow. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to revise Section 1 and delete Section 6. Is that what we're doing? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yes. And the revision would be to add the word "adopted" after revised. Revised and adopted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed say "no." No, because I think it's against the existing. Okay. Page 78 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now, are we able to proceed with the rules and regulations and put them into effect immediately? MS. RAWSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I have a question. Do you have to say "nay"? What if I don't want to say that? What if I want to say "no"? Do I have to say "nay"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we'll have to change that because right now "nay" is required. Sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You just said "no." MS. RAWSON: When we get to that section, you can make that suggestion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A basic question to start with now that we've solved this problem. The authority given to us for what we're allowed to do under the statute and the ordinance says we can make rules to conduct hearings. We've got rules and regulations that do all kinds of things. Talk about enforcement, which we have no power to deal with, talk about -- and I guess maybe it's moot, but prehearing procedures, which nowhere in the statute or ordinance does it even talk about prehearings. We've talked -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Shouldn't we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I want Miss Rawson to give me some help here. We also talk in miscellaneous that -- and Section 3 about violations on multiple ownership. I'm kind of lost as to -- I mean, that's really not our function to determine who's included in it by the code enforcement investigators. They don't work for us. We don't work for them. We don't have any power to tell them how they should do things. If they don't know how to do it, that's their problem. I don't think this board should be writing rules and regulations telling a department of the county how they need to Page 79 June 18,2001 operate. We don't have that power. MS. RAWSON: Well, in response, that particular section, as a lot of other sections, have come to pass because of prior cases that this board has heard where all these problems arose. And I might add that while everything is not specifically defined in the statute -- because there's not very much defined in the statute. The statute is very general. In revising the rules and regulations in working on this, the county attorney's office and I -- we were able to get other Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations from around the state. And so some of this is modeled on what other counties already do. Actually, I wanted to go and watch some of the other counties, but we got some of their other rules and regulations and some of their forms. I mean, we didn't just think all of this up. And while you're correct we don't have the right -- the board doesn't have the right to tell the county what to do -- and I'm looking now at Section 3 -- that certainly has been a problem in the past. And I think that the reason that was put in there initially is a way to notify respondents that, you know, just because you're the owner, you might be the renter, and you may be listed also on the affidavit of violation because we'd have the right to do that because you may be the one that's required to bring it into compliance rather than owner. That's the reason that's there. MS. ARNOLD: I think-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think-- I have a specific problem because if I'm a respondent and, as you say, these are to tell them how to operate, Section 3 says "the code enforcement investigator shall include" -- we don't have the right to tell an code enforcement investigator to do anything. And if I was over there I'd say, "Hey, he didn't include me or, you know, he did or he didn't or whatever." Where does the board get the authority to tell a department of the county to do anything? It does not have that Page 80 June 18, 2001 authority. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think that although these rules and regulations are guidelines for the board in how they should proceed in hearing cases and hearing appeals or whatever, it's including additional information so that it not only addresses some procedural matters from the board's perspective, but also procedural matters from the code enforcement department perspective so that the respondent, whether they're representing themselves or they're represented by legal counsel -- everybody can see how we're proceeding with cases heard before the board. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I would like to make a suggestion. It seems to me that what we're looking at are two documents: One, which is the rules and regulations for the board, and the other document is a guideline for procedures for respondents, and they ought to be separate. MS. ARNOLD: Well, a lot of times the requirements for the respondent to get and be heard before the board needs to be a part of this process, in my opinion, because they need to have given prior information so they know how they can -- what is expected of them, so to speak, at this hearing process. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Right. It very well might be in some cases, but in the majority of cases the guidelines to the respondent would be different than the rules and regulations affecting the operation of the board, so why don't we just come up with two -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm not sure I totally agree with that, George, in that-- in terms of people who are coming back before you asking you to waive their liens or their fines. Not only do they need to know how the process works, this board needs to have the process. So that's a perfect example of where it needs to be in your rules, too, so that everybody is playing by the very same rules. Back to Section 3, I have one suggestion because Page 81 June 18,2001 I agree with Cliff that we can't tell the code enforcement investigator what to do. We can simply change that to "may" because this is a particular section which informs the respondent as much as anything else. It also informs this board that that might happen, that we don't always just cite the person who is the owner. So if you change the "shall" to "may" we're not ordering you to do anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's other places in here. I have a real problem because it seems we're writing in our rules, and it's how this board works. It's things for the code enforcement department, how they should do things or what will happen, and I have a real problem with that. We need to be totally independent. Too many people think that we both work together, that we work for each other; and we are totally independent. I don't like rules that give people the idea that we're together. We're not. They prosecute cases before us, and we hear them. Beyond that it ends. I think we need to -- there's just too many things that we do, at least, that are in here and proposed to be in here that lead me to believe -- where some of these changes came from. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: If I might just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we should change all of that. MS. RAWSON: Well, as we go through them, you can tell me which ones concern you. But if I could draw an analogy to the court system, when the judges give us the rules on how the Court will operate, they are telling us whether we are the respondents, whether it's the state attorney's office, whether it would be the staff. This is how we're going to operate. And it's the Court, which is the judicial body, which you are, the quasi-judicial body, has the right to tell everybody else how to operate. So if I can draw that analogy, you know, a lot of this stuff-- you know, you certainly have the right to tell everybody this is how we're going to operate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But in this case -- as an example, Page 82 June 18,2001 where you're telling the code enforcement investigator he's got to include certain people when he writes violation tickets, that's not our job. If he doesn't know how to do that, then that's bad training. We shouldn't tell him, "Oh, by the way, don't forget to include tenants. Don't forget to include somebody else." That's not our job. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I personally like to have a point of reference so that I can go and say, "All right. This is how it operates." It's like a restatement of what the staff is doing which helps me to follow the process and to know where my obligation is to the respondent also. If we change the word as Jean suggested from "may," then it doesn't say that this is what he must do, but it's reminding us of the process and the process that we have to follow. Under miscellaneous, I mean, I don't really have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with "may," but I have a problem with the way it exists. That's what I'm saying. There's a lot of things in here that -- we're directing people to do things when we don't have that authority. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'd like to make a suggestion that we start with page 1, rather than the last pages first. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I didn't get an answer to my question, but that's okay. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I like the name change. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't see a name change. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'm only joking. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I was going to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I highlighted all the changes, and that wasn't one of them. So what you're telling me, Jean, is we're allowed to write rules and regulations that cover much more than conducting hearings? MS. RAWSON: I think you're allowed to make rules and regulations that govern all the procedures that come before you. Page 83 June 18,2001 While you don't have the right to order anybody else to do anything, you certainly are telling respondents "this is how we operate" and "this is how we want you to appear before us." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Like I said, we reviewed a number of other code enforcement boards in the state and looked at other people's roles and regulations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 1, Article 1, there's no changes. Any proposed changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 2, no changes. Any proposed changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 3, there's no changes. The only proposed change I would make is the first sentence of Section 3, "The chair shall be one of the permanent members of the board." Delete that because it already says that in Section 1. "Officers shall consist of a chair and vice chair, both of whom to be permanent members." It's kind of redundant. We've already said it. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Is that a proposal or -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be my proposal to eliminate that first sentence. Does anybody object or disagree? Jean, do we need to do each of these separately? You can go through and mark them and then we're done? I mean, do it by-- MS. RAWSON: If somebody has a violent objection to some of your suggestions, then we'll vote, but otherwise do what you're doing. If everybody is in consensus, we'll just keep moving. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So we're eliminating the first sentence? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll eliminate that first sentence. I Page 84 June 18, 2001 think that's -- all right. Election of officers, the only change I noticed was Section 2, last sentence, "No one member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairman." That's a change from the way it exists. I can't remember the way it exists now. COMMISSIONER PONTE: "But which is not limited to one year" is the way it currently stands. MS. RAWSON: That's a change that somebody made a motion about some time ago. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I did. MS. RAWSON: So I incorporated the change so you could have a discussion and vote on it, actually. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I made that motion. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I think some of us are very good at certain things, and Cliff has a way of kind of directing us when we get off track to get back on track so these meetings don't take all day long and-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Big whip. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: And then Peter's getting as good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think Peter's going to be all right. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: He's like a lawyer. So we have another attorney on here. I think -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think it's good to get -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I understand what you're saying, but I think we should -- if all of us agree that the same individual should run as chairman again, I think we should have that opportunity and not just limit it. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think sometimes when there is a qualified individual, it's hard to bring that individual forward, you know, if you don't put some sort of end to one chairmanship. I agree Page 85 June 18,2001 with you. Cliff is terrific. Again, I take personalities away from it, because I think there are a number of people who could act as chairman, and I also think it's healthier for the board to put someone else into it to have it come from a different perspective. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not me. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: We're voting you next time. No. But this isn't always going to be the -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I understand where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- composition of the board. Again, you may have a chairman who's not a good chairman, and yet people will sit here and they don't want to say, "Let's vote him out" or "Let's vote her out." I think this is just a good healthy opportunity to give more people a chance to be chairman. I think that there are several people who could do that very well. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I agree with you, Bobbi. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: That's why I put that in there. It may not be -- it's not for perhaps the chairman who exists now, but this is for the future, and I think it's just healthy for the board. I really do. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I think what you then have to address, also, if you go that route is how long should it have to be before a former chairman can return. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: We can do that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Say a two-year term is over and the new person appointed chairman for whatever reason doesn't want to continue or can't continue, then can we go back to the -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: You can vote anybody in, I guess. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess the only -- whichever the board decides is fine with me. I understand where Bobbi comes from. I think if you have somebody who's willing to do it and everybody's Page 86 June 18, 2001 happy, that's fine. You have to do it every year. So at your annual meeting you throw out a different name. I think, as Bobbi said, if you have somebody that's not working out and you want to remove them, there are no provisions, unfortunately, for removing a chairman, so you couldn't do that anyway unless they don't, you know, I guess, ever come back. But in the interim at your next election, you put a different person on there, and if you're all unhappy with them, it's easy to get enough votes so they don't get re-elected because you're obviously already unhappy. So all you need is four people, and that's a done deal. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think it's hard to do unless you have some requirements. I think most boards only work on a one- year chairmanship, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure what the county commissioners do. Is it a one year or-- MS. ARNOLD: It's typically a year. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: But then we could put something in here that the previous chairman could be reelected after his or her term is up. MS. ARNOLD: I think the way the language is stated it wouldn't preclude that from happening. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So it doesn't mean that the chairman who served two years couldn't come back and serve again after another chairman takes his place. I really think it makes a very balanced board, and it puts -- let's just use Cliff as an example. He's a very strong chairman. Now, if he were sitting on the board and you have someone -- and we'll use Peter as an example because he's the vice chairman, and I think we saw an example of what he could do, and now you've got two strong personalities, and one who is really pushing himself, Peter, to follow in the footsteps of Cliff. Now, I'm using personalities, but -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I like him. I think he'll make a Page 87 June 18,2001 good chairman. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Because those are two strong personalities. Cliff will sit there if Peter's the chairman, and he'll give him a nudge, "hey," you know, but it's making Peter really focus hard -- and I'm just using Peter -- or Diane if she wants to do it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I'm just kidding with you, Diane, but do you understand what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: It pushes another individual to really research like Cliff does. If you just continue to let the same person do it, we all kind of hang on to his apron and may not research as much as he does and put the time into it, so I just think it makes a stronger board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Peter does work at it now because he calls me all the time. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I'm using the two of you because you both are excellent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. He's really done a lot. So I think there are good people on the board, and there's a couple other people that call me from time to time asking questions. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I didn't know you were supposed to, or I would have called you on different questions. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's why you're chairman. You're supposed to be able to take all the calls. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I would be worried about the Sunshine law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anyhow, as long as it's -- it can't be about a case that's coming before us, but if it's a question as to looking something up, you know, "Can I go here to look something up?" I don't have a problem saying, "Yeah, go there." I won't discuss Page 88 June 18,2001 the case with you, but I'll tell you where to go. MS. RAWSON: Yes. Let's go on record right now to say that we don't discuss cases, and we don't violate the Sunshine law. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, I need to change my paper. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Not a problem. Okay. Everybody can talk now. She's got paper. Okay. What do we want to do, folks? The proposed changes before us, I don't remember the way it exists, so I guess your two options are -- the three options are the way it exists, the proposed change, or something different. This is one we ought to vote on. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: I would like to leave it the way it is in Section 2 right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The way it -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: The way it's been changed. CHAIRNIAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The way it is before you is a change, and there's a motion and a second to make it so. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I thought Rhona just said she wanted to leave it as -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As it's before us, she said -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: As it's before us. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- on the proposed sheet. Okay. Does everybody understand that? The way it's changed would read, "No one member shall serve more than two consecutive terms as chairman." That's what's proposed to be the new deal. Everybody understand that? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 89 June 18, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Can I go back up to Section 17 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: This is just a matter for my own information. March -- why is March the annual meeting? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know who picked that or where it came from. It's just the way it's been. MS. RAWSON: That was probably the organizational meeting initially, but that's as good as any. Now, you know, you can change the rules if you need to at any regularly scheduled meeting with 30- day notice, but that's just the month somebody picked way back when. And it's probably good to have the same month every year because then you know when you're going to have the election of officers. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, Article 5, there was one change, which is in Section 1 after "9 a.m." was added "and/or at other times as needed." I would change that a little. I would just change the word "needed" and add some other words. What I would propose would be the following: "And/or other times as deemed necessary by a majority vote of the board." I think it's important that the board decides when it meets, not someone else. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would we know -- would we know what's coming up? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the only way that the board would vote to hold another meeting is the county would have to present a reason why they wanted the board to have another meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, then, that's what that means or at other times as needed. That's what that means. Page 90 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, the thing is, you don't have - - if-- let's say that the staff decided that they wanted to have a meeting. We would have to vote on it to make sure that we could all -- there would be enough people able to come. They couldn't just say, "Well, next Monday we're going to have another meeting." The board -- I think that's a good point that Cliff has made. We should vote on it as a board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just feel the way we're now into two meetings and the way that came about wasn't as smooth as I thought it should be, and I think this -- if I change this sentence a little as I'm suggesting that the information that's presented to the board -- the board can make a decision on when it wants to meet, and it will vote on that decision. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it was brought before us, and we did vote on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, it wasn't. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And we voted on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We voted to have a meeting, and then slips were faxed to everybody, and you filled in the date, and the schedule was presented. We didn't vote. Sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, we did too. It was brought before us, and we decided sitting right here that it was okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. To have an additional meeting. That was the vote. When the meeting was to be held wasn't voted on. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, good heavens, we'd never agree on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you must, you know, and I think it's important that a board do that, not somebody else making decisions for the board. That's just the way I feel about it. But it's Page 91 June 18,2001 the majority vote, so what's your pleasure? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I really don't have a problem if there's a crisis having the staff call a board meeting and poll us to see if we can attend that special meeting, so I'm -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me. Staff does not have the right to call special meetings. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Have staff request a meeting and see if we can attend or do it by poll or whatever. I've been called that way a lot of times on other advisory boards or boards that I sit on to say "We'd like to have a meeting at this time. We're taking a poll to see who can do it. This is why we need it." Rather than us sitting here and having -- I think you have to work with staff a bit. I mean, this is not a -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, there's a difference between a regular meeting and a special meeting. We've got to separate them. This is talking about regular meetings, which is what we've agreed to do now, two regular meetings a month. A special meeting, if something comes up crisis-wise, we are allowed to have, and the staff would get ahold of whoever is chairman and say, "Hey, we need a special meeting." I don't have a problem with that the way it's done. Regular meetings are different. There should be no, quote, unquote, gigantic emergency for a regular meeting. If staff is getting backlogged, they would know that in advance. They could come to the board like they did and say, "We think you ought to have additional meetings." We agreed. Then we got into when these were going to be held, which was not voted on by the board. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Well, I think Section 1 talks in terms of regular meetings. Section 2 talks in terms of the special meetings -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Page 92 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: -- that Rhona was talking about. So the two are quite separate. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Let me cite another example. Staff has scheduled -- the regular meeting is scheduled the fourth Thursday at 9 a.m. The County Commission decides they have to hold a public workshop. They say it goes from 8 to 10 a.m. Staff calls and says, "We'd like to move the meeting to 10:30 a.m." We haven't voted on that. I don't think we have to vote on that. I think this is -- they say, "Is that okay, or isn't it okay?" I think we're really micromanaging this, and I don't think we need to. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I think you're right because the special meeting is covered in Section 2. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: You know, let's let it work. Let the system work. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're wanting to write a set of rules, and yet you-all don't want to follow them. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Well, I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now -- can I finish? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right now it says you meet Thursday at 9 a.m., and unless you vote that's when you're supposed to meet. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: It says "and/or at the time." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that's the change. Right now it says Thursday at 9 a.m. Staff can't call and say, "Oh, by the way, the room isn't ready" because under the regulations that you've written for yourself, you're supposed to meet here at 9 a.m. On Thursdays, the fourth Thursday. Now, if you want to change that and meet some other time, you would have to vote. You just don't call a bunch of people on the phone unless you're going to have a meeting on the telephone, which we're not allowed to do, as I understand the rules and regulations. There will be no telephonic meetings. Page 93 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I'll tell you what. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We've limited ourselves right now to this Thursday at 9 a.m. Without a vote. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Since we've never had this problem, why are we going over and over and over and over this? If this arises we can just change it. MS. ARNOLD: Well, can I make a suggestion that -- I think the point that the chairman is raising is that the current article indicates that you need to have a vote to determine when a meeting shall be had other than the fourth Thursday of each month. If the board wants to make a decision whether or not that's something -- that provision is something you want to remove, you can make that change right now. I think the suggestion is that we're eliminating the need for a vote. I mean, the matter can be brought before the board in the event, like, we have a circumstance like we have now where we have a number of cases that were being held for prosecution, and I thought there was a need for additional meetings, additional regular meetings, to kind of catch up on that backlog rather than having another -- a second Code Enforcement Board be established like we did in the past when we were in the same circumstances. I thought that the board agreed to have additional meetings, and I don't know if a formal vote was held. You know, you-all just need to decide do you want to make a formal vote or not when we come up in circumstances such as we are now where we need additional meetings to catch up on the backlog for regular meetings. I think that's the only change, really, that's being recommended, that we take out the language with respect to the board voting on-- you know, taking a formal vote. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think you should take a formal vote. I don't think it should be done by a bunch of telephone calls or a bunch of faxes. I think the evidence that we need additional Page 94 June 18,2001 meetings should be presented to the board and why additional meetings are needed, and you should make a determination sitting there that, yes, we need additional meetings put together and when they should be and come back to us, and we'll tell you if we can live with it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What ever happened to -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: What you're suggesting is simply, perhaps, you know, Section 1 saying "and/or at other times as needed." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what's in there now. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yeah, I know. "Determined by the board," which is from the other-- from the current rules, "determined by the board." That's what it says. So just add "and/or other times as needed as determined by the board." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it's the board should decide -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: So we've combined the two. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think the board should decide do we want to have another, quote, regular meeting. COMMISSIONER PONTE: So it would read -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not a meeting that you're going to have once in July and then never have again. That to me is a special meeting. A regular meeting is something you're going to have consistently. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't understand any of this. We did all that. We decided as a board that we would have the second meeting, and now I don't understand what all this fuss is about. We decided as a board that, yes, we would do this, so now what's all the hullabaloo about? I don't understand it at all. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Let me make a motion -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER PONTE: -- and see if we can move off of Page 95 June 18,2001 this. Regular meetings, Section 1, page 2, the proposed section, let it stand as is and after the word "needed" on line 2 insert "determined by the board" -- "and determined by the board." COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, that sort of covers it. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It covers them both. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're right. It does. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I second the motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What if an emergency arises? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's a special meeting. COMMISSIONER PONTE: That's a special meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to add the words after needed "and determined by the board." Is that right, George? COMMISSIONER PONTE: That's correct. That's my proposal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a question on Section 4, Item B. MS. RAWSON: Could I get the Section for Item A first? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Because I'd like to add an "A" under Section 4. "The Code Enforcement Board shall consist of seven members and two alternates." I was looking for the right place to stick that because it's not in here anywhere. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I was wondering about that. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Where did you see -- Page 96 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What are you talking about? MS. RAWSON: Under Section 4, attendance, what I'm proposing is that we put an "A" in there. "The Code Enforcement Board shall consist of seven members and two alternates." MS. ARNOLD: Should we put it under officers and duties rather than under meetings? COMMISSIONER PONTE: It should be up in 4. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, they're not officers. What I was going to do, Jean, was Article 5 -- I was going to recommend that Article 5's title be changed from "meetings" to the word "board," and then have an Item 1 that did exactly what you're saying. "Code Enforcement Board is made up of'X"' and then get into Section 2 about meetings and so on and so forth. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yeah. That's a good idea. MS. RAWSON: You just tell me how to write it. I just think that after this morning we need to add that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Change Article 5, meetings, and just call it "board." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To the word "board." I think that would be, really, probably the best way to talk about it. Then under board the first section is, as you suggested, how the board is made up, seven full-time members, two alternates, and also put in there that if a regular member is absent, an alternate will replace them. And then you can go to -- then renumber Section 2, 3, 4, 5. I think that makes it a little more conducive to -- this is how the board is made up and when it meets. Does everybody understand that? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So what you're doing is Section 1 is now going to be this new language. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Say how we're made up. Seven people Page 97 June 18, 2001 plus two alternates. My question under Item B is -- first of all, Miss Rawson, I don't think we have that authority. People are appointed to this board by the county commissioners. We're saying you miss two or three meetings and you forfeit your appointment. We don't have that power. They're appointed by the commissioners. Only the commissioners can remove them. MS. ARNOLD: I think what we've done is we -- the board -- I think this is standard language in documents, but we don't automatically -- it's not an automatic thing. The board -- the county commissioners would be the ones that would remove a person from a particular committee or board, and this board would make a motion or recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. RAWSON: And that's happened in the past. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Yeah. I think that it has to be in here again. It's a reminder of what we do or what we are allowed to do or our process. If someone gets on the board and they never come to a meeting, what process do we follow? I don't -- MS. ARNOLD: Maybe if we change the word "may." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just think the way it's worded is wrong. I'm sorry. Because it reads -- I mean, English is English. It says, "They shall forfeit their appointment." COMMISSIONER DUSEK: All right. Let's do "may." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This board can't forfeit anybody's appointment. We can recommend to the board of commissioners that they remove somebody, and that's all we can do. The board of commissioners may say, "No, I'm not going to remove them" because that man or lady may go to the commissioners and say, "Hey, I think they're being unfair." COMMISSIONER DUSEK: word "shall" to "may"-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Well, again, if we change the You can't "may" forfeit. We don't Page 98 June 18,2001 have any power to ask anybody to forfeit anything. I think it just needs to be reworded. Miss Rawson may have some words that would work. MS. RAWSON: Well, you can say rather than "he/she shall forfeit their appointment," you can say "the board will vote on whether to remove the member" or "whether to recommend to the commission to remove the member." MS. ARNOLD: If we just put "may" instead of "shall" -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: "May" would do it. If you'd just change it from "shall" to "may." MS. RAWSON: Well, it would because the process is that you recommend to the county commissioners to remove them. Like I said, that has happened in the past when people didn't come. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just have a problem with "shall forfeit" because it's -- we have no power to tell anybody they forfeit. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: words. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I think "may" covers it with fewer Me too. MS. ARNOLD: MS. RAWSON: board is. MS. ARNOLD: I have another question about that particular section. The way we're working on notification of absences right now, I think most people are calling my office. And the way it's worded without prior approval by the chair -- I mean, we're not really doing that, and is that something that we want to modify? MS. RAWSON: Maybe we don't need that in there because I think "A" says they'll notify the chair or the secretary to the board. Right. And I'm not sure who the secretary to the CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, right now I think-- it's Maria, and I think that's the way it's been since I've been a member. MS. RAWSON: And I think that's who they call. Page 99 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I don't have a problem with that. I'd say, "And without prior approval of the chair," because, I mean, you know, let's suppose you have a chair that says it's not a good enough excuse. I mean, I think that's kind of bad. If you have to be absent for whatever reason, you know, that you want to stay home and watch a baseball game, I guess, is not a good reason, but you're probably not going to say that. MS. ARNOLD: Most people -- mostly they're giving prior notice that they're not going to be there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Why don't we eliminate the words "and without prior approval of the chair." COMMISSIONER DUSEK: And then we're changing "shall" to "may." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: "may." How's that? COMMISSIONER PONTE: COMMISSIONER DUSEK: And then we're changing "shall" to That's good. Good. Let's go. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next page, Item D is added. If there is not a quorum, the first alternate -- I think we've already handled that in our new -- MS. RAWSON: It's going to be back in Section 1 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, which is still -- MS. RAWSON: Under "board," Article 5. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but we're still under Article 5. This is still part of Article 5. I don't think we need a Section 4-D saying -- we've already said that alternates are going to fill in. Isn't that what we decided to do? We're going to say there's seven members and two alternates? MS. RAWSON: Right. I'll put it in the same paragraph. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Page 100 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So we're eliminating D. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was confused under Section 5 with the words "unless otherwise specified herein." Do we say somewhere that you can vote on less than a majority or something? Am I not understanding the sentence? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I don't know where you are, Cliff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Section 5, quorum. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: "The quorum of the board shall consist of four members" and then "an affirmative vote of the majority of those present and voting shall be necessary to pass any motion or adopt any order." Then it says "unless otherwise specified herein." I don't -- I mean, why would we say that? I mean, if it's a seven- member board, a quorum is four. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that probably, again, language taken from other documentation with respect to the Board of County Commissioners. Certain items -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Supermajority. MS. ARNOLD: -- require different types of-- yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have a supermajority. MS. ARNOLD: So it doesn't really apply to this. MS. RAWSON: I'll take that out. I think we probably did get it from the County Commission's rules. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, you know-- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: What are we removing? MS. RAWSON: "Unless otherwise specified herein." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I mean, I don't -- we don't have a supermajority requirement. We have a board of seven, period, and Page 101 June 18, 2001 a majority is four, period. Now, if there is only four of us present, which that is a quorum of the board, we can have a vote, and it would take three. I mean, you know, that's automatic. We first have to have four people present. So I was confused by what that meant and why it was there. Section 6, voting, aye or nay, do we want to change "aye" or "nay" to "yes" or "no" or aye/yes and nay/no? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How about "yep" or "nope"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Whatever. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I mean, is it really necessary to make any change? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think in one case -- and we've seen it a couple of times. We may for our own protection-- I feel since we're writing this thing and you're giving it to people, you're giving them a document which they can turn around and use against you if you don't follow it. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And I don't like doing that, but that seems to be the way people want to do things. We do have from time to time -- because it is hard when you get seven people -- if you have a 3-to-4 vote, it's really hard to determine three nays, four yeas, I mean, so sometimes you've heard me say, Let's see a show of hands." Really that's not legal, but that's really the only way to know because you're trying to listen and get the vote right. But the way it's written, all you're allowed to say is "aye" or "nay." COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, can we just add to that "or other language that would mean the same" or something to that effect? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we increase that somehow, Miss Rawson, to -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Like "yes" or "no." COMMISSIONER PONTE: Actually, that makes it harder to Page 102 June 18, 2001 count if you have three people saying "aye" and somebody saying "yes" and the other one is saying "nope." Now you're really going to go crazy. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Also, I think we should be permitted once we have the voice vote if we request a show of hands just to make sure we're getting it right because it is difficult with seven people. MS. RAWSON: Well, you could do it "voting shall be by voice vote and show of hands, if needed, and may be recorded by the individual or group." You don't need to put "aye" or "nay." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Cool. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, good. MS. RAWSON: Let's just leave that out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Nobody ever uses those words anyway. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, if you were from England maybe. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're going to add what words now, Ms. Rawson? "Voting shall be by" -- MS. RAWSON: "Voice vote and show of hands, if necessary." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. My next question was in Item B. Where did we come up with this filing a memorandum of voting conflict? MS. RAWSON: Probably from the county commissioners. Let's change B. First of all, I'll take out "aye" or "nay," and then I think "he shall abstain from participation as a member of the board in that matter," period, because sometimes you don't know until you get here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Okay. MS. RAWSON: Then you need to just say on the record, "I have a conflict, and I'm going to abstain from voting and Page 103 June 18, 2001 participating in this matter." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: That's fine. As long as it's on the record, you're okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Cool. Everybody okay with Article 5 so far? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 6, there were no changes. Anybody got any recommendations for changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 7 -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Article 7 and onward in this document we keep referring to days, ten days, five days. It should be ten business days because we've run into holidays. We've run into odd situations. Mail is not delivered. So the phrase "business" ought to be inserted in several places. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What does the statute say, Miss Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Well, some of these are not in the statute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Is this one of them? MS. RAWSON: Yes. We made up these days, and we changed it, actually. Once it was 15. Once it was 5. It's always been days. If you want to do business days, then you need to make that suggestion, and we need to vote on that because what we're doing now is we're counting days. We're looking at the calendar, and if you've got 30 days, on the 30th day I'm going to say it's due. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, yeah, because it changes a lot of things. When people send your bills out, they don't say you have to pay in business days. COMMISSIONER PONTE: No. But if we meet on a Thursday and we're looking for somebody to perform something in five days, Page 104 June 18, 2001 we have a Saturday, Sunday in there. Do we really mean that? MS. ARNOLD: Well, that's different. Performing -- are you talking about the notice? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This is sending out a notice. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You have to separate a lot of things because we have a lot of different things. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: You should just have Sunday because Saturday delivery-- MS. ARNOLD: If you are doing an order and you want it to be only applicable to business days, you can state that in your order. If you're going to give them five business days -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's not this. Because under -- giving notice, as I remember, which is in the statutes, lets you post it and do all those other kind of things. So if you put it in the mail on Friday, and you post it on the courthouse steps on Friday, the fact that Saturday and Sunday are there are irrelevant because it's ten days. Under the law that's all you have to do. So I don't know that us changing a notice of a hearing and trying to give them more time is a big advantage. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I like keeping it at 10 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I like 10 days, personally. I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it would be very confusing, really. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Especially if you're going to start mixing them up. Oh, this deal is 10 business days, but this deal isn't 10 business days. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Well, go down to the next one. Page 105 June 18,2001 Code enforcement investigator has five days prior to the scheduled hearing in Section 4. Now, should that be five days or should it be five business days? MS. ARNOLD: Well, that's in your packet. I think that we should give them five days prior to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Before we get to the days, let me back up because I have a problem in Section 4. Why are we telling respondents to give anything to the code enforcement department and not to the board's secretary? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What? COMMISSIONER PONTE: I would second that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. It says the notice of a hearing, and if the violator is going to submit a package they've got to give the package to the code enforcement investigator for distribution to the board. Let's submit everything -- the board has a secretary. Why are we dealing with code enforcement investigators and further back here we get into the code enforcement director? The board has a secretary. We need to be using the secretary or clerk, which is what the statute say where all this information is supposed to go, and for some reason we got off track years ago, and we're giving everything to the code enforcement department. Let's get back to what the law says we should be doing, which says -- it says the clerk, if I remember correctly. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It certainly shouldn't be the investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. We shouldn't give anything to the code enforcement department. You should give it to the board's secretary and let her disseminate it the way she's supposed to. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I agree with you, Cliff. MS. RAWSON: I'll change all those code enforcement Page 106 June 18, 2001 investigator -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: with The county is supposed to provide us a secretary so, Maria, you're it. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Do we all agree with that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just make it the board's secretary, and then they can disseminate it. Now-- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Cliff, on this one -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. There's two changes in here which I hadn't mentioned yet, and one is 5 days and 20 copies. Again, we're talking about submitting 20 copies to the code enforcement investigator and five days -- I don't know where all that comes from and why so many copies. There's seven members of the board plus two alternates plus our attorney plus one for the record, so that's eight or nine. How did we get to 20 copies? Why is this board telling the violator that he's got to -- I mean, you know, let the county get their copy and make copies and charge it in prosecution costs. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Particularly if somebody is coming before the board and is not represented. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're sitting there shaking your head no. I mean, the law doesn't say we have to give you 20 copies. COMMISSIONER PONTE: No. Particularly if somebody is coming before the board not represented. That's a common situation. Twenty copies, twenty envelopes does seem a lot or quite a burden to put on someone who is a respondent and is only, you know, allegedly in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And dealing with the board, like I said, there's seven plus two. That's nine. Our attorney is ten. One for the main file to the secretary, which is eleven, so eleven out of twenty. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. There's nine board members. There is the attorney for the board. There is staff of which there's two of us that sit here. There's also the court reporter that needs a copy. Page 107 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What do you mean there's staff?. MS. ARNOLD: Plus the investigators. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under the statute we have a board secretary, period. You can give one to the county, and if you need 15 more copies make them. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we have always asked for information that the board also sees because we are a part of the evidentiary process. They should provide us with a copy that they give to everybody else just the same as we have to provide them with the evidentiary packet that you see exactly the same way instead of me telling them to make a copy of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. When they say-- and I don't know if it's ever happened, but if they say we need 10 copies, do you give them 10 copies? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we typically do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm just asking the question. I don't know. I'm trying to find information. MS. ARNOLD: As for what happened today, we always make additional copies because, for example, the respondent maybe didn't have a copy of the evidentiary packet -- two of the respondents today didn't have a copy. We had an extra copy, so that we can then provide it to them so they have exactly the same thing that the board has and review it. It's always the safer bet to have a couple extra copies. If you want to reduce it to 15, I think 15 would be -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think 15. I can understand the reasoning because if somebody were copying it with the staff and they might forget one page or something like that, then they're held liable, so let's let them present 15 instead of 20. COMMISSIONER PONTE: That not my point, whether it be 15 or 20 or 18 or 12. My point is, if you have the common man not Page 108 June 18, 2001 represented by counsel pleading his case, to ask him to put together 20 pieces of a document that may be two or three pages in length is just an unreasonable burden to be put on a person. He's not a company. He's not a law firm. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: How is he going to present his case? We have to see it. COMMISSIONER PONTE: He hands it to the secretary -- to the clerk. MS. RAWSON: You couldn't file anything in the county clerk's office unless you had copies and envelopes with stamps on them. They wouldn't even mail anything to me unless I give them a self- addressed stamped envelope and the proper number of copies, so it's not any different in the court system. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Couldn't we put in there five business days? We're closed on Saturday and Sunday, aren't you? Is the code enforcement department closed? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: What about adding five business days for them to get it to you? MS. ARNOLD: Well, that just cuts into -- I mean, that would then add more time for them to submit it to us -- COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Oh, okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- if you do five business days prior to the hearing as opposed to five days. They can deliver it on -- if you're having a hearing on Monday, they can give it to us that Wednesday or whatever. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Oh, okay. All right. MS. ARNOLD: If you put business days in there, they would have to give it to us the prior Monday. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Are we changing the 20 copies to Page 109 June 18,2001 157 COMMISSIONER PONTE: that point. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: MS. ARNOLD: It's up to you. I don't know. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I make that suggestion. It doesn't make any difference at Well, it does help. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. There's a couple other-- in that same sentence, the "code enforcement investigator" should be changed to "secretary" right before the five days. The next sentence says, "Code enforcement investigator shall distribute" -- I think everything should go to our secretary, not ten different people giving stuff to the board. We need a central location. We have a secretary. That's what it should be used for. MS. ARNOLD: I think the third notation there about code enforcement investigators should stay, though, because that's the evidentiary packet presented by the investigator-- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: -- not the secretary. COMMISSIONER PONTE: What's the difference in the special meetings in Section 5 and the special meetings in the section we just had? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, my comment for Section 5 is why is it even here? This has to do with initiation of actions before the board. We're allowed to have special meetings, and that's going to have to be brought before the board anyway, so this is either in the wrong place, or it's not required here at all. I think it belongs back in Article 5 where we already talked about "special meetings can be held," period. Is there some other reason we want to do this? I understand the health and safety and welfare and what you're saying, but that would be a special meeting that would be requested and that would be written that way when you request the chair to hold a Page 110 June 18, 2001 special meeting. So I think this is kind of redundant -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Redundant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- myself. MS. ARNOLD: I think it's in this section because we're talking about time frames of the submittal of notice of hearings and those types of things. It's saying that the time frames specified in this section would be waived or deemed not relevant if we deem that there is a need for a special meeting for emergency situations. So you wouldn't have to meet the five-day time period. You wouldn't have to -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: I see that. Then maybe it should be just repositioned from there to the section for special meetings. Just put it under Section 2 or 2-A, or whatever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, we can't do that. MS. RAWSON: I think why it's there is because if you had a special meeting to deal with something that had to do with damage to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County, you would allow a waiver of this notice rule. That's why it's there. It's a fail safe. MS. ARNOLD: We've had to use it once before at least since I've been here where we wouldn't have all the -- you wouldn't have to wait the time periods to provide the notice of hearing. You would have to show evidence that the respondent received notice and those types of things, but you wouldn't have that time period prior to the hearing because of the nature of the violation. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I understand that. Just bear with me. I guess maybe I didn't make myself clear. Section 5 as written is fine. I'm just suggesting that it be repositioned to page 2 under the section regarding meetings or a paragraph on its own so that it would be regular meetings, special meetings, emergency situation special meetings. Page 111 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I think the reason it's here is because of the time lines referred to in this article, and that's why it's there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, I guess my question would be, where does the board get the authority to waive time lines? The statute says -- I never saw anything like that, you know, whether it's health or safety or not that you could waive any notices. MS. RAWSON: These time lines you've imposed, because these are not in the statutes. You've made up these rules for ten days. What you're saying is, yes, we've made up these rules and that we want ten days; however, we're willing to waive that if there's an emergency situation. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the statute says that the board -- it does give the board the authority to have special -- or emergency meetings for-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Waive the time? I never saw that. Yes, we can have special meetings. I never saw anywhere where we could waive any kind of notices in the time that they have. MS. ARNOLD: I think it does say something with respect to prior notice. I can't remember exactly what the statute says, but I do believe it does say something when it's referring to health and safety concerns. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, if we have an emergency meeting -- how can you have time lines if there's an emergency to meet? It would seem to me you would have to waive those time lines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's something else that I guess we've done or do or put in here for whatever reason. I never remembered reading anything about, quote, unquote, an emergency meeting in the statute or the ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: We can review that and maybe bring it back to Page 112 June 18, 2001 the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We don't have anything talking about, quote, emergency meetings in our regulations. We have something talking about special meetings. We have nothing talking about, quote, unquote, emergency meetings. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Michelle, did you say that you have had an emergency meeting before -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We've had one hearing where the notice -- it was a hearing specifically for that particular item, and it was a health-safety issue, and the board, you know, went under that particular provision of the rules and regulations to hear that item. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I have a question. Our current rules and regulations in Section 5 is nearly identical to the one in the proposed rules and regulations except for the phrase "special meetings may be held." Why was the phrase "special meetings may be held" added? Why isn't Section 5 as it is written and as we're operating under now -- why isn't that sufficient? MS. ARNOLD: I think to clarify that under Article 5 where it talks about special meetings that an emergency situation would also qualify as a special meeting. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It just says, "In emergency situations the time line set forth in this paragraph can be abbreviated or ignored," etc. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Miss Rawson, could you tell us -- and I know you can't do it today, but this is something we can put a question mark by -- where we even have the authority to, quote, unquote, do emergency situations because I sure don't remember it, and I've read this thing I don't know how many times. MS. RAWSON: The only -- off the top of my head, the only place I can remember where the emergency occurs is in terms of getting the county to take action. You know, it has to do with the Page 113 June 18,2001 fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's in the fining. MS. RAWSON' The fining section. By the way, in 162.12, notices, it does say if you're going to post you have to post ten days prior to the hearing. So that's probably where we got the other notices for ten days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. So where we talk about in this section sending out a notice of a hearing, and then you mm around in Section 5 and say, "Oh, we're going to waive those times," we can't waive something that the statute says you have to post for ten days. You have to post ten days before a hearing. Now the board's turning around and saying, "Oh, we're going to waive all of that." You can't waive a statute. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Unless there's an emergency situation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That doesn't say that. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I know. I'm saying if there is somewhere where it refers to that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' I don't think it's in there. I must have read this thing 300 times. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Three hundred? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Three hundred? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Yeah, at least. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's a lot of times. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' I read it consistently. I read it probably at least three times a week because I think of something, and I go looking for it. I've been here for four years. I've read it a lot. MS. RAWSON: There is a section in the ordinance -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 114 June 18,2001 MS. RAWSON: I can't find it in the state statute, but there is a section in the county ordinance -- "If the code enforcement official has reason to believe a violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, the code enforcement official shall make a reasonable effort to notify the violator and may immediately notify the enforcement board and request a hearing. Under such circumstances the code enforcement official shall not be required to adhere to the notice requirements set forth in Section 14 of this ordinance." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But now my next question is, the county can waive a state statute? MS. RAWSON: Well, yes. The county can -- the county ordinance is much more replete than is the state statute. There's a lot more detail in our county Code Enforcement Board ordinance than there is in -- Chapter 162 is pretty general. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm just asking the question. MS. RAWSON: We got this from the ordinance, yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When the statute says 10 days and the ordinance says, no, you can waive all of that -- MS. RAWSON: It only says 10 days to post. This is a different kind of notice. It doesn't tell you how much notice you have to give them if you send it or tell them in any other way other than posting. The only thing in the statute is the 10 days to post. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I thought the statute says notices of hearings. MS. RAWSON: The only requirement for a time line under the notice in the statute has to do with posting. 162.12 says, "You can give notice by certified mail, hand delivery, leaving a notice at the violator's usual place of residence, leaving it with the manager if it's a commercial premises, and you also may serve it by publication or Page 115 June 18,2001 posting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: If you publish it, it's four weeks. If you post it, it's 10 days. But there's no notice requirement in terms of numbers of days under the certified mail, hand delivery, or leaving it at their place of business. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Having listened to everyone, I see no problem in keeping Section 5 as it's written and where it is. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: And I make a motion that we do that. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What are we doing? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: We're leaving Section 5, the emergency section. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The way it's submitted? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: The way it's submitted and where it's positioned. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second on this particular one. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.) COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next is Article 8, prehearing procedures. My big question is, why did we come up with this to start with? MS. RAWSON: There were two huge cases involving -- one of them had 13 attorneys. That's why we came up with this one. It Page 116 June 18, 2001 doesn't say that you have to do it. I don't know that we've ever done it in the last five years, but it says you may do it prior to the scheduled hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Well, it state here that the code enforcement investigator "shall contact the alleged violator." Again, we're telling the county what to do, and we don't have that power. MS. RAWSON: Well, first sentence says that they're encouraged to have a prehearing conference prior to the scheduled hearing, and so if you're going to have one they're going to contact the violator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Well, in the first sentence you're encouraged to, but then the second sentence says -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: Shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- "the code enforcement investigator shall contact the alleged violator to determine if a prehearing conference will occur." Again, we're telling the county they've got to do something, and I don't like telling the county that because they don't work for us. I just think it's an overstepping of the board's authority personally. COMMISSIONER PONTE: As long as you're on the shall/may observation, then the last "shall" in the same paragraph probably also should be changed to "may." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I haven't got down that far because I have some other notes. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Same paragraph. MS. RAWSON: This is a pretrial hearing. We haven't had the need to do that lately. You can't go to trial in civil court without having one. We've had some cases before the Code Enforcement Board that were likened to any trials that I've ever been to. The prehearing meeting certainly helped us not be here for a week. MS. ARNOLD' I think some of the information that's in here is Page 117 June 18, 2001 helpful to provide information to the board prior to the hearing as well as staff. I know that we've had a couple instances where there was counsel representing the respondent, and they didn't provide any information to staff or present to the board, then at the hearing there were certain facts alleged that we had no opportunity to even check and provide a response to the board on. So it's helpful to have some of this information in here -- with respect to getting everything, all the information, out prior to the hearing so that both parties are aware of what's being presented and can discuss it and determine how we can better make resolutions. I think some of this stuff in here happens informally. The investigator may be contacted or the investigator in one last effort to resolve the case will contact the respondent and hold a meeting with their supervisor or with me or whatever, and we sit down at the table and try to, you know, get things formalized before we get to the hearing so that some of the answers are made available to you when the hearing is actually done. I think that's the idea behind some of the prehearing procedures. Whether or not we want to make it a mandatory thing, you know -- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I think that perhaps we do. I see it as a procedural matter as the way Code Enforcement Board wants to operate. We want certain things to have been done before they're brought to us, such as we want the inspectors to go make a recent inspection of the property. I see this as the same thing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, our attorney feels it's necessary, and that's enough for me. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Ditto. MS. RAWSON: Well, I especially like Section 2. You know, they come in here. They never do this, by the way. They come in here and present you with motions -- sometimes they put them in writing and sometimes they don't, but I've never seen them and I Page 118 June 18, 2001 never had an opportunity to respond to them. Under this section they're going to make a prehearing motion. They're going to come in here, and they're going to say, "We want a motion to dismiss," like we had today, or "We want a motion to dismiss," or "We want a motion for continuance." We had motions in limine in that one case. It gives me an opportunity to have reviewed the motions and research the law and be able to better advise you if they had to give it to me five days before. Then I'm happy to give you 20 copies -- well, it's 15 now -- of any motions that are served on me. But if they're going to come in here and practice law without giving prior notice to your attorney, I mean, I don't -- I have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Let me -- without beating a dead horse, what I suggested a while ago was that we're looking at two separate items here. One is the rules and regulations governing this board and how it operates and then the guidelines for respondents and/or their attorneys. This is a guideline for respondents or their attorneys and some of the other things we are talking about here. I would think that the rules and regulations governing the board ought to be rules and regulations governing the board. The others are procedures that govern the other parties. It should be available to them in a brochure form or something of that nature, and that's how they are to operate, but that's really not how we operate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Miss Rawson, I think I've said this to you a couple of times or asked the question. What bothers me when we write specific rules and regulations and then we say that they are to tell the prospective violators what's required of them, this board is then required to follow them, and I can tell you we don't follow what's written in this document word for word. There is a lot of things we don't do. Yet we've got a lot of things in here that say, you know, you shall do this, do that, do this. That always bothers me Page 119 June 18,2001 when you get real specific on how you're going to do something because all you need is one person sitting there to just say, "Excuse me. I'd like a rehearing because you guys didn't even follow your own rules. You didn't do this. You didn't do that." They would have US. So I get real gun shy when we start being real super specific as to how we're going to do something and saying that other people have to do something specifically or we're not going to accept it. I get a little gun shy there. I like broader interpretations. If you want to submit something, submit it. The fact that you didn't submit it on our specific form isn't going to upset me as long as I can at least understand what you're telling me. The fact that you didn't -- you know, did you give it to Person A? No, they gave it to Person B. Well, under our rules if they didn't give it to Person A, we don't have to take it. MS. RAWSON: Well, what's interesting about the rules, although they ask people to give us things within so many days and they ask you to give so many copies, nowhere in here does it say that you won't hear them or accept their evidence if they didn't follows the rules. That's your discretion. We didn't put that in there. We didn't penalize them. But if we don't put it in here that this is how we operate, they'll never do it. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I agree with that. I think you do have to be specific with the public because they're so totally unaware of what -- even to go get a building permit, they just don't even know the process unless it's spelled out for them. Coming before this board, it's totally new to them. I think that we have to be more specific, and I like to have specific guidelines to follow myself. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, their whole attitude toward this whole thing is what's gotten them here to begin with, so you're Page 120 June 18, 2001 going to have to spell things out very clearly, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'll throw it out. When you get specific, it can bite you. I've been there, done that. Okay. That finishes Article 8. Article 9. There's lots of changes in Article 9, a whole lot, starting with the first sentence, "fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings." That's part of a sentence taken out of the statutes and ordinance, I believe, not the entire sentence. I think if you're going to copy pieces from things you should copy the whole thing. MS. RAWSON: I don't know that we copied part of it and not all of it. Basically, I think it's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the whole sentence out of the statute says, "Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings." MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't have any problem putting that in there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We got half of the sentence, not the whole sentence. MS. RAWSON: I don't think that's where we got it. I think fundamental due process has to apply because we have noticed it in a hearing, and the 14th Amendment applies. But if you want me to put whatever you just read in here -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if we're going to tell the respondents how we operate, they should know that formal rules of evidence don't apply. You know, you're telling them half of the tale, and just a little while ago everybody was interested in telling them everything, so I think you ought to tell them everything. Don't tell them half of it. Tell them all of it. Page 121 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Cliff, would you read what you want put in there? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just copied it. It says, "Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process" -- just what's written there. I just put the first half of the sentence back in. I mean, when you say "fundamental due process," the layman may sit there and think-- you know, maybe he talked to an attorney on the phone and they said, "Well, you're allowed to do this, this, and this." He comes here and that's not the way we operate. We don't -- we're not that formal, so you should tell him up front. COMMISSIONER PONTE' Before you leave that, there's linkage to similar language at the bottom of page 6. It says, "When ruling on questions of evidence, the board may not apply strict rules of evidence." Are we contradicting each other because I don't have it in writing to look at? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' No, that's not a contradiction. MS. RAWSON: It stated the same thing. He just added -- what he just asked me to add. It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' It's the same thing. Item 1 says, "formal rules of evidence shall not apply," and then down there it says, "The board may not apply strict rules of evidence," so that's the same sentence; different words but same meaning. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: What did we do with that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I just think it should be added, and Jean seems not to have a problem adding it. MS. RAWSON: I don't have a problem with it. It will now read, "Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process will be observed and shall govern the proceedings." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. That's a sentence copied right out of the statute -- or ordinance. MS. RAWSON: That's fine. Page 122 June 18,2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item B, the second sentence was added. "The respondent, alleged violator, shall state his full name and give physical residence." I don't know why that was put in there, but that's in addition. MS. RAWSON: That's in addition because we can't always find them. So when you want me to send them orders, you have no idea how many of them come back. When you ask the county attorney's office to foreclose on their lien, they can't find them. That's why. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, we obviously found them to get them here but -- MS. RAWSON: They move around. MS. ARNOLD: Item A needs to say the Code Enforcement Board secretary instead of investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Code Enforcement Board secretary. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, Item A, change code enforcement investigator to secretary. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Shouldn't it be, slash, secretary? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's just the Code Enforcement Board secretary. I think that's the way it's written, that we have a secretary. That's the way it is. Item C is a new paragraph. MS. RAWSON: If I use the word "may," that's when they come in here with 20 pages of things that we've never seen before. You may object, and whether to allow that evidence is your call. COMMISSIONER PONTE: My little margin note here is how can we rule on that if we haven't seen it. The evidence comes in and-- it happened a few cases ago. There Page 123 June 18, 2001 was a packet of stuff, and it's just deposited here. You start thumbing through it. Now, it's very difficult not to accept it or turn it aside. At the same time, if you haven't seen it, how are you going to make a judgement? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's why this rule is in here. Certainly, that will encourage them to bring the evidence in advance so that you can all have copies of it prior to the hearing. Now, when they dump all that on you at the last minute, it's very difficult for you to read it and make an informed decision about the case since you don't have time to read it. So what this section allows you to do is decide whether or not to allow the evidence or whether to say, "Well, you know, I don't have time to read all of this right now." Or maybe continue the hearing or tell them to come back after the break. You have a lot of discretion here. But the whole point of this paragraph is to encourage them to give you the evidence in advance. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Do we need to have that paragraph? I mean, we stated earlier that they need to submit it beforehand. Would people abuse that advance submission if they have an opportunity to come in here and take a chance that we'll accept it? MS. RAWSON: It's just a follow-up on that other rule. It just lets them know that, you know, the other side has the right to object. MS. ARNOLD: It's giving discretion to the board as to what to do with that evidence if it's not presented prior to the hearing. MS. RAWSON: I don't think we've ever rejected anything, but you still have the discretion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other questions about Item C? Anybody got a strong opinion that they want to delete it, or otherwise it stays? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: No. Page 124 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The next addition is Item H. That's been added. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know that we -- rebuttal evidence. I don't know that we've ever had, quote, rebuttal evidence other than questions back and forth. Are we talking about -- I mean, if you're here I don't know if you would know in advance what to bring other than standing there and saying it. MS. RAWSON: Well, rebuttal evidence -- most of our cases -- I mean, this is, again, part of fundamental due process, but what happens is the county presents their case, the respondent presents their case. All this is saying is the county has the right to get back up and say, "Now that I've heard what he said, this is my rebuttal to that." Now, we do that anyway, but it just never has been in here. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Should there be a time limit? Because sometimes it has happened where someone starts all over again, and Cliff has had to say, "We've heard that part." The little box on top of that podium is a timing device. Should they be limited to a five-minute rebuttal if that's going to be the case or something of that nature? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think in F we've limited the people in the public. COMMISSIONER PONTE: We've limited the public. MS. RAWSON: You know, that's going to have to be the chairman's call to keep the thing moving and to tell people, "Okay, we heard that, move on." But to say you can't talk but ten minutes, I'm not sure we want to get that formal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know if that would fly in court if somebody took us there and said, "Gee, I was only allowed to -- you know, I had a 20-minute presentation to show why the county messed me up, and they only gave me 10 minutes." I think we would be in big trouble. MS. RAWSON: I do too. Page 125 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: The Supreme Court does it. That's how the whole Florida election got decided. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's their privilege. They pretty much can do what they want. MS. RAWSON: Well, the appellate court and Supreme Court are the only courts that really adhere strictly to the time of your arguments, but what happens in a usual court -- it depends on the judge. It depends on you. "Well, we've heard enough. Move on," you know. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think, you know, in the past I've seen other chairmen do it. I think probably forthcoming chairmans will do it. It's easy to, you know, crack the whip and say, "We've heard that. Next item." So I don't have a problem with that. Item I is also an addition, limiting the introduction of evidence by either party, which I think really ties into Item C up above. Don't they kind of go together? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Just a personal question, not a suggestion to change. Just for me, what are strict rules of evidence? What does that mean? Even though we're not applying them, what are strict rules of evidence in a nutshell? MS. RAWSON: There's a Florida Rules of Evidence book that's about this (indicating) thick, and then there's a separate section in there if you practice in the probate court, if you practice in the family court, if you practice in-- you know, specific courts. There's another book equally thick if you practice in federal court. They tell you exactly how things should have to be done, exactly what your time limits are. It's jurisdictional. If you blow your time limit, you don't go to court. You lose. So that's strict formal rules of evidence. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's part of it, I think. It's also, like, where we listen to people and we get additional information given to Page 126 June 18,2001 us from staff, you know. Strict rules of evidence, unless we've asked for that information, them adding is really not permitted. You just don't stand up in court and say, "Oh, yeah, by the way, don't forget" - - you can't do that. Page 7-- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, let me remind you we have 55 minutes before we have to get out of here. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Probably less. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item J, I guess the only -- I had a question there. There's no changes to Item J. It's pretty specific. It says, "Each side shall be permitted to make brief closing arguments." I added "if requested." In other words, rather than say -- you know, right now it's kind of like a fact, they shall be given that time. I put in there if they request the time we give it to them or the chair gives it to them. MS. ARNOLD: I think you informally ask if you have any other comments. That's kind of how that is applied. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, this says closing arguments which, again, you're kind of back into the legal system, which we don't really do closing arguments. We let people have their say and say, "Do you have anything further to say?" That's not a closing argument. A closing argument is something different, as I understand it. MS. RAWSON: It's a summary of what's been presented. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Yeah. MS. RAWSON: So I don't have any problem with "if requested." Otherwise, they'll always want to do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Yeah, and I don't like having a document that says "shall be permitted" because then somebody can say, "you didn't permit me." So I like adding the words "if requested." Page 127 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Or does it make any difference to do "may" instead of "shall" again? I'm always for fewer words. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I agree. MS. RAWSON: That takes care of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Cool. Item K-- a question for Miss Rawson. It says, "The board shall immediately deliberate in open session." I know that's probably what we do and what we've always done, but the board is not required to do that, so do we want to make the board have to do that, or can you just say "the board shall deliberate in open session." Take out the word "immediately." MS. RAWSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, I'm just thinking -- MS. RAWSON: After we've had our morning break -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This way it's like you've got to do it right now, but under the ordinance and statute, if we can't we're allowed to make that determination later, you know. I don't like limiting it as to you must do it right now. Yes, we do it in open session, but why do it right now if there's -- MS. RAWSON: Generally speaking, we don't put it off until the next hearing. Generally speaking, as soon as we hear the evidence, then you deliberate and make findings of fact. That's probably where the word came from, but we'll just say "deliberate in open session before the public." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's safer. Starting with the quotation marks, tell me why that's there, those quotation marks and the next sentence. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Now where are you? COMMISSIONER PONTE: Cliff, where are we? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm still on Item K. I'm sorry. It says, "See Article 5, Section 6, for voting requirements." Why? I mean, Page 128 June 18, 2001 that's irrelevant. We've told the board how it votes way back in the beginning. Why are we bringing it up again? MS. RAWSON: Oh, what's in parentheses? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: I can take that out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then why is the next sentence there? "If the board determines that a violation has occurred, it shall deliberate" -- that's -- isn't that obvious that that's what we do? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: No. I think you have to spell those things out. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For the board, okay. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not a problem. I just asked the question. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: If somebody's reading it that's not on the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now we go to Item L which tells you what to do if you find a violation, so I was kind of curious as to why it's up there, but, hey, what do I know? Item L is -- in the center there we've added how we determine a fine. There's been a long sentence added. MS. RAWSON: Well, I added that right from the statute. I added that because -- to remind you as much as anything else and also to inform the respondents that is how you determine the amount of the fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One of the other items that I think should be in there is where you talk about -- on that next sentence you talk about $500 and all of that for repeated violations. The statute and ordinance say that a hearing is not necessary. I think if we're picking things out of the ordinance we ought to -- the board Page 129 June 18,2001 should know that you don't have to have a hearing if it's a repeat violation. MS. RAWSON: I can put that in there, but there's, like, a huge whole section on that that's coming up in Article 12. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A question on the last sentence on Item L. It says, "Orders shall be reduced to writing within 10 days and be mailed to the respondent violator." I think the "and be mailed" should be moved to after the word "writing." So "reduced to writing and be mailed within 10 days" because that's the way it states. MS. RAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You could be misconstrued, just to give you a little more leeway. You could reduce it to writing in 10 days, but you didn't mail it. Item M is a new addition. I don't have a problem with it. Item N, the addition starts after the word "order" and runs through the next sentence. My question would be, why do we tell them that they have to have a written motion for rehearing and we're going to give them an exhibit? MS. RAWSON: We were only going to give them a form, which I don't think we've written yet, to make it consistent and make it easier so that they all look the same, so they all know what exactly they're saying, and basically what they're doing is just telling you the reasons why they want a rehearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Can we say a request for a rehearing? Why does it have to be a motion for a rehearing? I know that's a lawyer's term. MS. RAWSON: You can call it a request. It doesn't hurt my feelings. COMMISSIONER PONTE: It's gentler. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I just -- you .know, we also say that this motion has to be sent to the code enforcement director. Why? Page 130 June 18,2001 They don't work for the board. MS. RAWSON: Probably the secretary to the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. I mean, I want to keep people dealing with the board. If they walk in here and say, "Gee, I was over to the code enforcement department. Didn't they tell you people?" That's unfair to them. If they're going to deal with us about their hearings and rehearings, they should deal with the board, period. The last sentence -- well, it's separate. I guess the last paragraph of N is new, and it runs over onto the next page. That's all new. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Did we change "motion for rehearing" to "request for rehearing"? Because if you did, just put a flag on it as another motion for -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, yeah, I -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'm just saying for Jean so that she sees we're going to do it. MS. RAWSON: It's in there, I think, three times. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. It's in there. I just think, you know, let's not confuse the layman who's sitting out in Immokalee that doesn't have the slightest idea what a motion is. MS. RAWSON: That's why we were going to give them a form to fill out. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: It's done. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know, we have to make sure we're dealing with people who may come from other countries and live here and don't have the slightest idea what we're talking about. Like I said, the next paragraph is all added. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Section O, just picking up where Cliff left off that we must use common language so everybody knows what we're talking about, can we change the legal writ of certiorari and hearing de novo to common language so that the layman knows what we're talking about? Page 131 June 18,2001 MS. RAWSON: I don't know how to do that, because if you don't -- if you want -- one of the complaints that I've heard in the past is nobody told me that I had a right to appeal. When I left here no one said, "Oh, by the way, you have the right to appeal." "I don't know how to do that." So that's one reason I added this. Now they can't say they didn't know that they have the right to appeal. Now, because they have to appeal to our circuit court and they have to do it within 30 days, what they have to do is file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court. I mean, that is the procedure they must follow. So if they don't know what that means, if they take this with them, you know, they can show it to the clerk, but that's what they have to file if they want to appeal. It doesn't go to the Second District Court of Appeals. It goes over here to our circuit court. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Should we take it that far and tell them what has to be done? MS. RAWSON: I think if we don't tell them that they have a right to appeal -- COMMISSIONER PONTE: No, no, just say file a petition in the circuit court. MS. RAWSON: You can do that, but then they call my office, and they ask me how to do it. COMMISSIONER PONTE: They'll really ask you now when they see a word they can't pronounce. MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to explain it to them and send them over to the clerk's office or tell them to get an attorney. If they're going to file an appeal and they're going to the circuit court, they're going to really be at a disadvantage without an attorney, and we have pro bono people over there that might help them. I direct them. I mean, this is just their basic right to file an appeal. Page 132 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: No, it was not the -- MS. RAWSON: Do you know what a hearing de novo is? COMMISSIONER PONTE: It wasn't any challenge to their right. It was just trying to make it as easily understood as possible. MS. RAWSON: Well, a hearing de novo means -- because they think they get their whole case heard again, and they won't. That's why that's in there. You don't get -- in a hearing de novo you don't get to start all over again. The circuit court only looks at the record that the court reporter gives them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's stated in the statute and ordinance. MS. RAWSON: Right. And they don't understand that. They think they get another bite at the apple. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Another shot. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what "de novo" means? MS. RAWSON: Right. It means that you're going to have a new hearing all over again. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's an awful short word for all of that. MS. RAWSON: Well, it's Latin. COMMISSIONER PONTE: A new hearing is what they're really saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that mean in total or something? MS. RAWSON: It means new, a new hearing. You will not get a new hearing all over again. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: You can't say new hearing -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I could. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: -- instead of-- which would make them understand7 COMMISSIONER GODFREY: So they know what that means. MS. RAWSON: Okay. Page 133 June 18,2001 COMMISSIONER GODFREY: So if they hear it over there -- COMMISSIONER DUSEK: They'll understand that. MS. RAWSON: Another hearing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Article 10, again, I reiterate what I said in the very beginning. We have an enforcement article and we don't have any enforcement authority, so why do we even talk about it? I mean, we have absolutely no enforcement power. We don't really care how the county enforces it. It's not our prerogative. We have nothing to do with enforcement, period. MS. ARNOLD: Well, there's certain things that I think the board has asked of staff with respect to the reinspection of property. One of the things that you-all asked us to do is make sure that we've gone to the site and reinspected it, you know, as early as we need to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I think that's a little common sense. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, it's some of the things that you- all have specifically requested of staff, and those are those guidelines that you're putting on paper and saying to staff, "This is expected of you," so when you're prosecuting a case at minimum we want to see these things. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I go back to my original problem. Section 1, "After an order has been issued by the board and a date of compliance has been set, the code enforcement investigator shall make a reinspection." We don't have that power. Why do we keep telling a department of the county what to do? Everybody seems to -- everybody here -- my partners in crime seems to think, "Oh, this is a good thing." I take you back to, if you don't have power to do something, why do you insist on doing it? Whether it's right or, you know, whether you want the information is immaterial. You don't have the right to order these things to be done. Page 134 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, then, change the words again from "shall" to "may." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, why is it even there? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I think it's giving us information, especially for someone new coming onto the board if they see all the things that can take place, what guidance we can give to the staff. It's not saying that they have to or that we have to do this, but it shows us what we have the ability to ask. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Well, it's also showing procedures, is it not, of what the board expects to be done? So we may not have enforcement, but we have the right -- if we are hearing a case -- to direct how the evidence comes to us and how it's followed through. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But this isn't evidence. This is an enforcement after you've made a decision. All you have the right to do is conduct a hearing, period. Once you make that determination, you're done. MS. RAW SON: MS. ARNOLD: Well, Section 4 has to do with the board. And the affidavit of compliance and noncompliance, those are all actions taken by the board -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those are administrative. MS. ARNOLD: -- to hear and have reported back. The fact that there isn't -- for noncompliance, for example, the board would, then, if there is a noncompliance do an imposition of fines. So that's -- procedurally it's just identifying when those things would occur, and it's expected to occur. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: We do get asked to issue fines and the rest. We're telling the staff, basically, or the department that we're not going to issue fines unless you've done a date of-- you know, set a date of compliance or have done an inspection or whatever. I think it's procedure for our board. I'm sorry. Page 13 5 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER PONTE: Well, it's procedure, but it's not for the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. COMMISSIONER PONTE: The code enforcement department -- as I've said, there are two documents here. I'll say it one more time. There are two documents here, one that's a procedure that doesn't govern this board, and the other is the rules and regulations governing this board, and this is another example of procedure. It doesn't belong here. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: But we've combined the two documents. For whatever reason we haven't separated the two. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Well, that's what I've been asking for the last two hours. Should we properly consider separating this into a procedural document and a rules-and-regulations document because there are two documents? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you make it really too complicated. Once we issue an order, we're done. The next thing that should happen is either the county should come before us with an affidavit of compliance or a request for imposition of fine. How they get to that point is immaterial. Whether they make inspections or whatever, they should bring the document here and present it, and we'll ask questions. It's not, as Section 1 says, after we issue the order they're supposed to do inspections to determine -- we don't care. We don't want to see you again unless you come back and bring us a compliance affidavit or request for imposition of fines. Why are we trying to micromanage all this stuff?. It's unimportant. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: I, actually, like to see the procedure. It's helpful to me. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Just in understanding what they do and what we do. Page 136 June 18,2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But it shouldn't be in the regulations of this board. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: As Rhona said, we've incorporated the two. For whatever reason it's there. It's not only in this article, but it's in other articles. MS. ARNOLD: I agree that it should go without saying that the inspector shall be conducting a reinspection to confirm whether or not the violation exists. It's just putting it down that that's procedurally what we do. I know that this board has asked several times -- when is the last time you went out as part of your decision- making process? It's not going to hurt this article if that particular section is removed. We do it as a matter of order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, everybody seems to lose sight of the fact that they want all this information. Why is it in how we run this board? That's what I don't understand. That's what these rules and regulations are for. How Michelle runs her department is immaterial. These regulations are how we run this board. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: In my opinion, it is in here and it needs to be in here because I don't want anybody coming back to me with a request for an imposition of fines unless you have done this. So I consider that a part of what the board is directing the staff to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can't direct the staff to do anything. You don't have that power. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I consider it an important administrative part of the board. I'm not going to say anything else. I think we'll rehash this forever. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You don't have the power. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Cliff, there's a disagreement. Accept that. Let's vote on it if you want -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Page 137 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER SANDERS: But, obviously, you've made your point 20 times, and so have the others. If we want to vote on that, let's vote on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My problem is -- I keep telling you -- when you write something in a rule and regulation, it's something somebody can use against you. You have no power to direct the county to do anything. Why do you want to put it in how you run your board? COMMISSIONER SANDERS: We've heard what you said, and there obviously is some disagreement on that. Respect the right that other people may not agree with what you're saying. I've heard what you said. I respect your right to say it. We're done. I mean, we either vote on this or we don't. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I'm not sure what we would be voting on. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I'm not either. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: To keep the language as it's written and keep the enforcement part in here. To me it's a matter of information for me. It's a matter of guidelines. I find no offense to keeping it in here. I don't feel that someone could come back and use it against me as a board member. I, quite frankly, like as much information as possible to help me. So I would make a motion that we keep it as it's written. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? No. Article 11, recording of an order. Again, the board has nothing to do with recording orders. Sorry. I don't even know why it's here. COMMISSIONER GODFREY: Maybe for information for us Page 138 June 18, 2001 on how the county proceeds. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I believe we have asked staff and the staff's attorneys to report to us on filings and foreclosures, so I believe it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Article 12, reduction and abatement of fines. Again, I think the motion should be -- MS. RAWSON: Request? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- request. MS. RAWSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess all this information is what this board wants before we'll consider a request to reduce? MS. RAWSON: In the perfect world, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So what if it doesn't happen? MS. RAWSON: It doesn't prevent you from considering others, but it's giving the respondent a way to make an application or request to reduce their fines that's more consistent, and it also gives you prior notice that one's coming and what the reasons are. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: My problem is the first sentence. "An application for a reduction or abatement of fines shall be in the form." What if it's not in the form? Does that mean the board can't look at it? The way this sentence is reading it says, "shall be in the form." So if it's in some other form, we can't consider it? MS. RAWSON: No. That's not the intent at all. Of course, I know you will consider the ones that are not in this form. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we change the word "shall" to "may"? MS. ARNOLD: Or we can say "substantially be in the form" or whatever. I don't know. There's some language that typically we put in ordinances when we're trying to specify that we want minimum information along with the name and address and certain information. MS. RAWSON: We can say, "An application for a reduction Page 139 June 18,2001 abatement of fines should"-- COMMISSIONER SANDERS: "Contain the following information"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, my main purpose is, I think get rid of the word "shall." Every time you say "shall" that to me -- at least the way I've been brought up in dealing with legal documents, that means you have to do it. It doesn't give you any out. I'm worried that if someone just writes down on a piece of paper and says, "Hey, I want an application for a rehearing," you know, you could say, "No, you didn't do it in accordance with the rules." So I think the word "shall" needs to be changed, at least, to "may." So if they don't give us all the information, we can still hear the request. COMMISSIONER PONTE: I like -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Most lawyers I run into when you say "shall," they drill it into you that you should have done it because it said "shall." I worry that you put the board in a position of "Oh, he didn't submit it, so we don't even have to talk about it." I don't like that. The poor little person that may not know what all this information is is just saying, "Hey, I want a chance to ask you to waive the money." "Okay, tell us why." I think we're getting way too detailed here. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: If we were to change in that first sentence "may," in the second sentence the "shall" -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: May. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Do you want to do that "may"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Because if you leave it "shall," if it doesn't have all this information, then you can't accept it. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Then where do you draw the line on what kind of information we're looking for? I mean, if they decide to use the application -- we're saying they may. Now, if they decide to, then that request should contain that Page 140 June 18, 2001 information. Do you see what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: If they choose not to use the application, then that next sentence doesn't mean anything. But if they're going to choose the application, then it should include these things. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But that, I don't think necessarily runs in the same vein. Again, you're dealing with some people who are very, very limited on their knowledge of how things works because they're from some other country, they've lived in the North 40 all their lives, and this is all Greek to them. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, then they have to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' So you need to make it as really simple as you can get it. If they just come in with their name and say, "You're going to fine me," I won't argue my case. MS. ARNOLD: I think that what you found is if we do have a form, it does make it a little bit more simple for respondents. At least they know what they have to or should try to provide, and we try to come up with something that we can hand out so that they at least have a blank to fill out. If they do have questions, they can actually say, "Well, I don't understand what you mean here." You know, "What do I provide here?" I think in absence of some sort of a format, we may or we'll continue to have where someone will provide you a letter like we did today for a reduction of fines when we didn't even actually impose fines yet. You know, with this form I think we're trying to help the respondent, provide what they need, and make it a little bit more easy for your review so that the things you're seeing is a little bit more consistent. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, I would go along with "may" in the first sentence, but I think "shall" should stay in the Page 141 June 18,2001 second sentence. That's when they're using the application. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So staffs going to make the promise that anybody that comes in to get this form they're going to explain in detail what each of these items mean in the form so that we don't have somebody walk in here one day and say, "Gee, they didn't tell me what mitigation means." MS. ARNOLD: I can't read someone's mind. If they don't understand something -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, see, that's the problem. If they come in and get a form and don't ask, you've told them it's no good unless it contains all this information. That's what I don't like. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Well, in the application do you think it should just be the names? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL' Leave it all there, "may" contain the information. If they forget something and don't give us Item F, cool. Who cares if they fill out everything else? I mean, just don't force them that they have to have something in every blank because they might not know what to put in that blank, and they may be afraid to ask. I don't know. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: So if we then went ahead and changed "shall" to "may," then that means -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. If they get the form and they fill it half out, fine. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's let them come and tell us in their own words. COMMISSIONER PONTE: Before we're thrown out of this room, let me just point out that this is another excellent example of procedure that doesn't belong in our rules and regulations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER PONTE: A separate document. Page 142 June 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER DUSEK: And we've discussed that, George. COMMISSIONER PONTE: And I'll keep discussing it because it has never come together-- it didn't come from another document. Nothing was combined. The rules and regulations have simply been expanded. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page 9 and 10 is all new. Top of page 10. Again, we're dealing with -- they've got to provide the code enforcement director-- I mean, it's the secretary. Once again, do 15 to be consistent. The next paragraph, everything on this page is new. Section 2 1 have a problem with. MS. RAWSON: That should be Code Enforcement Board, not director. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The code enforcement office doesn't have any power to dismiss anything. MS. RAWSON: You can put "may" in there if you want because if they don't comply, it may be grounds. And I'm changing all the "motions" to "requests." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MS. RAWSON: "May be grounds for dismissal of the request by the Code Enforcement Board, but that's not with prejudice, so he could always file another motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. We don't -- MS. RAWSON: The next paragraph is right from the statute again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. COMMISSIONER PONTE: What's the difference between "de novo" and "de nova"? MS. RAWSON: It's a misspelling. How's that? COMMISSIONER PONTE: That will do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is Section 5 out of the statutes, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 143 June 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The last article -- oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: On that Section 5, since George brought up "de novo," we put "new hearing" in the other section. MS. RAWSON: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last page, Section 13. We already redid Section 1. Section 2 has not been changed. I'm always concerned about Section 3. COMMISSIONER PONTE: "may"-- from "shall" to "may." COMMISSIONER DUSEK: was. I thought we had changed that to We did. That's what your concern CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In which one? COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Section 3 we changed "shall" to "may." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, like George, I don't know why we are telling a code investigator to do anything. Item 6 has been deleted. Okay. There's some forms that we haven't seen. What I would suggest is, since we've gone through this, that Miss Rawson clean this all up the way we talked about and get it to us maybe not at the next meeting, because that's in a week, but at our next month's meeting so we can see a nice clean copy. Everybody has their notes. MS. RAWSON: I'll have it to you when you get your packet. When are they going to get their packet? MS. ARNOLD: Thursday. MS. RAWSON: I can probably have it to you by Thursday. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be cool. One thing, speaking of the package, we need to do is when we're getting these packages, since we have two meetings now, we get them in loose form and there is no binders. Peter and I have talked about it. I know -- George, have I mentioned it to you? That's kind of unacceptable Page 144 June 18, 2001 because most of the members don't have the ordinances and statutes there in the book, and we don't get the book anymore, so you're going to have to find a book and get it to us. MS. ARNOLD: The book you keep? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a book. I never kept mine. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: We all did. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Peter didn't have one. MS. ARNOLD: We've given Mr. Lehmann two books. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'll mention that to him the next time he calls. I don't have a book so -- MS. ARNOLD: We'll make another book with the ordinances. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have all of my own, but with all the calls, people said they don't have them. So the next meeting is the 28th, 9:00 in this room. COMMISSIONER SANDERS: I'll be out of town at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll make a note because I'll probably forget. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask who needs a binder because we'll provide binders to everybody that doesn't have one. MR. PHILLIPS: I left my binder at one of the last hearings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The little binders aren't working for some people anymore because we are getting a lot of thick stuff. COMMISSIONER PONTE: If you keep the minutes of the meeting separate from the other stuff-- it just doesn't go in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: adjoum. Any other comments? Terrific. I'll entertain a motion to COMMISSIONER SANDERS: So moved. COMMISSIONER DUSEK: Second. Page 145 June 18, 2001 aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying Any opposed? We're done. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:40 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET A. SMITH, RPR Page 146