Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/28/2002 RFebruary 28, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, February 28, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Roberta Dusek Kathryn M. Godfrey-Lint Peter Lehmann George Ponte Diane Taylor Kathleen Curatolo NOT PRESENT: Rhona Saunders Darrin M. Phillips ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Assistant County Attorney Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA D ate: Location: February 28, 2002 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. 3301 E. Tamiami Tr., Naples, Florida, Collier County Government Center, 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, ,ad,ID THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH 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. 2. 3. 4. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 24, 2002 MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. CURTIS D. BLOCKER and CURTIS D. BLOCKER JR. B. BCC vs. CURTIS D. BLOCKER and CURTIS D. BLOCKER JR. NEW BUSINESS Request for Imposition of Fines/Lien A. BCC vs. BARRY, JOHN and SHEILA B. BCC vs. PORTAL, LEONARDO C. BCC vs. BERTELSEN, ERIC B. OLD BUSINESS Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. BARRY, JOHN and SHEILA 2. BCC vs. PORTAL, LEONARDO 3. BCC vs. BERTELSEN, ERIC B. 4. BCC vs. PALLIS, FRANCES L. Request for Reduction of Fines 1. JUAN and VERONICA BARNHART Authorization of Foreclosures/Collections 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE March 28, 2002 (WITHDRAWN) (WITHDRAWN) CEB NO. 2001-02 CEB NO. 2001-03 CEB NO. 2001-052 CEB NO. 2001-065 CEB NO. 2001-084 CEB NO. 2001-052 CEB NO. 2001-065 CEB NO. 2001-084 CEB NO. 2001-027 CEB NO. 99-030 10. ADJOURN February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Call the code enforcement board to order, please. Please make 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 ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal's to be based. Neither Collier County, nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call, please? MS. PETRULLI' For the record, Patti Petrulli, supervisor code enforcement. Ms. Rhona Saunders did call in with that she will be absent today. Clifford Flegal. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. MR. MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. MS. MR. MS. (No MS. MS. Present. PETRULLI: Peter Lehmann. LEHMANN: Present. PETRULLI: Roberta Dusek. DUSEK: Here. PETRULLI: Kathryn Godfrey-Lint? GODFREY-LINT: Present. PETRULLI: Diane Taylor. TAYLOR: Present. PETRULLI: George Ponte. PONTE: Here. PETRULLI: response.) PETRULLI: CURATOLO: Darrin M. Phillips. Kathleen Curatolo. Here. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have one regular member absent Page 2 February 28, 2002 so, Kathleen, you will participate fully today since you're our alternate. This is a reconvene of a previous meeting, but I notice we may have some new agenda items, so we need to amend that so can we present the new agenda, please. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. We've added to your agenda and it was distributed to you today the withdraw of the public hearing items, and that's Items 4-A and 4- B, CEB Nos. 200102 and 200103. And we've also added to the agenda authori under old business authorization for foreclosure and collection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reduction in fines is in addition, I believe. It's not on the original agenda back last month? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, from last month, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, this is a reconvene of that meeting, so anything that wasn't approved then must be approved now. MS. ARNOLD: We've also added 6-B, production of funds. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And the affidavit of compliance for Pallis as an addition. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So we have three items added. Plus the county wanted to withdraw Blocker; correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other additions? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the amended agenda. MR. PONTE: So ruled. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve the amended agenda. Page 3 February 28, 2002 All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? Approval of our minutes from the last meeting. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, I have a change or a correction in the minutes. Page 66 on my testimony, fourth line down on the testimony, "but once a touch of structural membrane." The word should be "member" instead of "membrane." It doesn't make much of a difference. Also on page 77 in Mr. Spiller's testimony he had referenced fourth line down in his last excuse me, second-to-last-testimony, he referenced structural repairs of under 750 do not require a permit. If that had anything to do with this prior deal, it's a correction. It's not something I had indicated to him, but it might have been his testimony, though. Other than that, nothing else. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any additional corrections? MS. GODFREY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I did call in last month and did state that I would not be able to attend the meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If not, I'm going to entertain a motion to approve the minutes as submitted and corrected. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve our minutes as submitted and corrected today. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 4 February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: withdrawing the item. Those opposed? Public hearings, there's been talk of Could we have an explanation just for general information? It might help us. MS. ARNOLD: Well, you-all received a copy of the request for withdrawal, and I don't believe there is a need for any action on that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Or notice of withdrawal. MR. PONTE: Just out of personal information, say of the number of man-hours that have gone into this, I'm curious as to why the sudden withdrawal. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the county's still looking into that particular case, but we are at this point withdrawing it, and it may come back to this board if we are unable to get resolution with the property owners. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The item is withdrawn. Public hearings is therefore closed since there is no business. New business, request for imposition of fines or liens. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And I apologize for the late handouts. That's what the executive summaries that you were just being passed out are the three items that are on the agenda. The first one is Board of County Commissioners versus John and Sheila Barry. This item was previously heard by the board on July 16th at which time the board found a violation and asked for the removal of the storage of a fuel tank and ceasing the storage of vehicles and equipment and employees traveling to the location. The Respondent was also at that hearing advised that he would have to pay operational costs, and if they did not comply with the board's order, that fines of $50 per day per violation would be Page 5 February 28, 2002 imposed. Staff is at this time requesting that imposition of fine for the operational costs of $644.30 and no fines because the Respondent complied with the board's order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I'm assuming that on our order, since we don't have it in front of us, that the line was there where we imposed the prosecutorial costs? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would entertain a motion to impose the fine for the $644.30 as requested by the county. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. CURATOLO: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The other item is board of County Commissioners versus Leonardo Portal, and this item was, again, heard by the board on July 16th, and the respondent was found in violation. The board ordered that all building permits for the subject improvements that were discussed be obtained or the same improvements be removed. The respondent was also advised at that time that operational costs would be imposed for prosecution of the case, and that if they did not comply with the board's order, that fines would be imposed at the amount of $50 per day per violation. The Respondent is now in compliance with that order, so there are no additional fines that are going to be assessed. However, the operational costs of $576.70 is Page 6 February 28, 2002 being requested at this time to be imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And, again, that was in our order? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I would entertain a motion to so impose the fine. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. CURATOLO: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine as requested. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: And the third item, Board of County Commissioners versus Eric B. Bertelson, and that hearing occurred on November 29, 2001, and, again, the Respondent was found in violation and ordered to obtain a valid license plate for the unlicensed vehicle in storing the same in an appropriate location or removing the structure. The Respondent was also advised that if they did not comply with the board's order, that a fine of $25 per day per violation would accrue each day after the order date. The Respondent was also advised that operational costs would be imposed, and the Respondent is now in compliance, and we are asking that the board impose operational costs of $325.82. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would entertain a motion to so impose the fine as requested. MS. TAYLOR: So moved. MS. GODFREY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 7 February 28, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That concludes old new business. Old business, affidavits of compliance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. These are Items 1, 2 and 3 are the affidavit of compliance that have been filed for the three cases that we just imposed operational costs for. The other, Item 4, Board of County Commissioners versus Frances L. Pallis, is a DOT case that the board heard and ordered that the violation be abated by January 26, 2002, and the Respondent complied with that order, so we're now requesting an affidavit of compliance be filed for all those, and we'll do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: The other item on I don't believe we need a motion for those, do we? MS. RAWSON: Not on the affidavits of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: The other item on your old business agenda is a request for reduction of fines, and that is one of Veronica Bamhart, and Ms. Bamhart is here. In your packets you should have a letter from the Bamharts, as well as the executive summary and the order opposing fines and the actual order for that particular case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Michelle, would you refresh our memory on the case, please? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This particular case was one where there were trailers that were being moved in on the site, and we found that they didn't obtain building permits or development order approval from the County prior to making modifications to the site, and the board found that there was a violation. They ordered them to go through the site improvement plan process. They have now done that. They've gotten building permits for all the improvements, and I Page 8 February 28, 2002 would have to add that the condition of the park now is 100 percent better than it was at the time of the hearing. It was a very lengthy process for the Respondents. The County was developing a new program for the Immokalee area, so we were trying to come up with the guidelines for this, so I think that took a little bit longer than it normally would have. And I think Ms. Barnhart is here to kind of talk to the board about why the fine should be reduced. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, is it your opinion that they moved in a timely fashion and were following what we had asked of them? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: When did they get the site improvement plan, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I know we have that if you give me one minute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I want are three dates, because we told them to do three things; obtain the site improvement plan, and the required permits, and the CO. So I'd like those three dates, and then my next question after we have those three dates is fine imposed. MS. ARNOLD: Was for $5,000, I believe. But it's quite up there right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. And we haven't received we submitted a letter of compliance affidavit of compliance yet? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we have one we have one bearing the date of February 20, 2002. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: February 20th. And that states compliance was achieved by when? In your letter of in your affidavit of compliance, doesn't it give the date that they complied? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it actually gives the date that the investigator went out and verified that the work was done, and that Page 9 February 28, 2002 was September 13,2001. And that was, I think, the last CO. There were a number of certificate of occupancies for each mobile home that was required. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: And the last one was obtained on that date, September 13,2001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: and I didn't calculate it here. Since our order gave them, roughly I just looked at it real quick it seems like we gave them 40 days or so, 40, 45 days? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And you say the County was instituting a new process. How much time did the County add, do you think, in your estimation? MS. ARNOLD: How much time did the County add? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. You said part of the problem is that it took longer than anticipated because the County was instituting some new process? MS. ARNOLD: Guidelines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if we gave them 45 days and that wasn't enough, what should it have been? MS. ARNOLD: We actually came up with new guidelines for this Immokalee Initiative sometime in 2001, and I and the board officially the Board of County Commissioners officially adopted it in the Land Development Code January of this year, but we were utilizing those guidelines prior to that adoption because they accepted the policy January 2000 1 think it was January or February 2001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. From the county's side, what I'm trying to get a handle on for us before we hear the Respondent is, since this is rather a substantial fine that they're going to ask us to reduce, what's the County position on reducing this? I mean, if you help contribute to it, are you recommending that we do this? Give us Page 10 February 28, 2002 some guidelines from the county's side. MS. ARNOLD: Based upon the you know, our contributions to the I can't talk today maybe I had too much coffee to the delay, we would support a reduction of fines. Now, with respect to the time frames, it wasn't until about January 2001 that we had more concrete guidelines for them to follow. I'm trying to find that date when they submitted the site improvement plan to give you a better idea of where they were from the time that you asked them to comply and the time that they actually submitted the site improvement plan. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. What will be helpful to us is, from the County standpoint is and not knowing what they're going to ask yet, but rather than, like, trying to waive everything, the county's opinion that, "Gee, we really contributed and we think a 10 percent, 50 percent, 75, whatever reduction would be in line, rather than us trying to make a judgment call without knowing the dates and the help from the County. MS. TAYLOR: May I say something, please? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: I just want everybody to look at when this all started. It was in 1998, August of 1998. That's when they were first notified of violations. Now, this is two and a half years ago. That took a long, long time to get this resolved. We just need to remember that, that they were first notified in 1998, August of 1998 that they were in violation. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: They didn't do anything. MS. CURATOLO: But I think we also need to look at the role that the County played in this process and the time frame involved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Everything has to start what you need to remember, everything starts with the date of our order. Page 11 February 28, 2002 What happened prior to that doesn't count. We wrote an order April 12th of'99. From that day until they complied is all that's relevant. How long it took to get to April 12th is immaterial. MS. RAWSON: Michelle, what's the total of the fines and costs as of today's or as of the day of compliance on September 13th? MS. PETRULLI: I don't have that information. MS. ARNOLD: Do we have that? MS. PETRULLI: I don't have that information. I don't have that information. MS. ARNOLD: I don't have that number. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well MS. ARNOLD: It's CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Our order was 12 April of'99 MS. ARNOLD: It's in excess of $100,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: to September 13th. So we've got from '99 to 2000; that's 365 days. And then you've got the 12th of April to the 13th of September, which is roughly what? April, May, June, July, August, September, another six months, which is another 180 days. And then if you deduct the roughly 45 days we gave them, that's 545 days less 45 days we gave them; that's 500 days of fines, roughly. I may be off a day or two. So that's what we're dealing with. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. At $250 a day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $250 a day. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $125,000, roughly? MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And then what we have to deduct from that is what the County feels that they have attributed to taking up some of that 500 days. That's what I'm looking for. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Chairman, could you summarize again Page 12 February 28, 2002 how you get to $250 a day? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. Our order was dated the 12th of April of 1999, which is the start date. They say their compliance date was September 13th of 2001. MR. PONTE: Are you missing a year to do that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. April of'99 to April of April 2000. April to April is 365 days. That gets us to 2000. From April of 2000 to September of MR. PONTE: 2001. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2001. Okay, yeah, sorry. Then from yeah, then the 180, sorry. Terrific, George. See, I haven't had any coffee, so Michelle's had too much, and I haven't had any. MS. ARNOLD: I do have an October 6, 1999, date for the site improvement plan approval. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, please, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: September sorry, October 6, 1999. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And then for building permits CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $216,250. Is that what you get, George? MR. PONTE: (No audible response.) MS. CURATOLO: It's over two hundred. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: $216,250, is that what you got? MS. CURATOLO: I'm not going to judge that that's necessarily the exact amount. I'm only going to say it's over two hundred thousand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Thanks to George we recalculated. Okay, while we're trying to find some of these other dates and the County is trying to assess their position, let's have the respondent come up and talk to us. Page 13 February 28, 2002 Good morning, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Jack Williams, and I'm the contractor for the Barnharts on the job. When they first bought it, it was my understanding that they had three trailers that was really in violation, and we need to get those three trailers with a CO, and I've started with that. Then after I got those three trailers permitted and CO'd, went to get the other COs, the other permits for the rest of the trailers, there was a 40-foot discrepancy that the code enforcement people had found in the survey that I was using. So they wouldn't issue me the other permits. There was about a six-month delay in getting this resolved. One of the code enforcement guys went out with a little wheel and measured it and said, "Your survey is wrong about 30 feet, so we can't accept it." We later got that resolved, and then I went ahead and got all the permits and got it taken care of. So there's about a six-month delay there that was caused by the County. MR. LEHMANN: Sir, how did you resolve that? Up here, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Excuse me, sir. MR. LEHMANN: How did you resolve that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How did the 30 foot get resolved? MR. WILLIAMS: The two surveyors the one that did my survey, Veronica's survey and the one that did the one for next door finally admitted that there had been a 30-foot mistake that they had made. And John Morris, I believe, was the investigator that came out and did the measuring had absolutely no reason, no bearing for doing what he did. I mean, there's a letter someplace I sent to the County attorney resolving this. MR. LEHMANN: So the error was on the part of whom? MR. WILLIAMS: I feel like that 30-foot error was never there. Page 14 February 28, 2002 It was John Morris' interpretation of what went on, and that was an error caused by the code enforcement. MS. CURATOLO: Do you feel like there was not an error, or are you certain there was not an error? MR. WILLIAMS: MS. CURATOLO: MR. WILLIAMS: I'm certain there was not an error. You have the facts? Verified facts with the survey. I have CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What you're saying is your original survey is, in fact, correct? MR. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And that took about six months to resolve it? MR. WILLIAMS: That's about a six-month period there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other items to cut the time down? MR. WILLIAMS: Not I don't know of anything special. Construction is not a 45-day deal. I mean, with getting all the work attended to that you have to do for seven trailers, it takes more than 45 days. So I don't think that was originally was an unrealistic view of how soon it could be accomplished, but the six months is the main thing that I have a problem with. I think the Barnharts complied starting complying as soon as they could get organized in their own mind that that's what to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We gave them three specific things to do. So starting to comply doesn't fulfill our requirements. You have to complete everything. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just saying they started getting on the road going in the right direction as soon as they could. MS. DUSEK: When did you get to begin to get the COs for the trailers? Do you remember the dates or an approximate time? MR. WILLIAMS: Just a second. I started with the first permits was issued November 27, 2000. And then the next group was issued Page 15 February 28, 2002 April the 4th of 2001. That's the six-month delay that I'm seeing there. When I originally went down to get permits for them, I was told that they would have to pay impact fees on all of them, and I remember from the site development plan that the impact fees had been waived. There weren't any impact fees because the trailer was already there. And this delayed getting the first permits. I'm not sure how long. That had to be resolved before the permits would issue then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything else, sir? MR. WILLIAMS: I believe that's all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for MS. DUSEK: Do you remember approximately when the Barnharts contacted you to get these permits? MR. WILLIAMS: Not exactly. I could tell you the date that I have a contract with them to start the work. They had talked to me a few days before that. The only date that I have would be for the second one. I would have talked to them somewhere probably in October of 2000 to get this thing started. MS. DUSEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other questions for Mr. Williams? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, sir. Michelle, have you got some kind of a ballpark for the MS. ARNOLD: I don't think this is for the last CO for all of the buildings, but I have a February 23,2001, as the COs for some of the first trailers. I think it was late in September 2001 when they finally got the final CO for the whole thing. Am I correct, Mr. Williams? MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, I've got a February 23 of 2001 for the first three. Page 16 February 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. WILLIAMS: And September 12th of 2001 for the last ones. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And I think that's corresponding with the September 13th date for the inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Now, as far as holding up the progress to get started, do you have some kind of ballpark that in other words, right now, from his side, he has these six months that are in question, and from the county's side is there some kind of time limit that you feel the county might be responsible for? MS. ARNOLD: Well, there obviously was more of a delay from the building permit side of it and the confusion with the survey, because when we were starting to check there was some discrepancy with the site improvement plan documents and maybe the survey that was submitted with the building permit. And that's the six-month delay that I think that we have contributed to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So you're both using the same six months; is that a fair statement? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Now, they submitted their site improvement plan, which is one of the things that the board ordered to do CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, that's one of the three things. MS. ARNOLD: by October 1999. CHAIRMAN' FLEGAL: But full compliance wasn't achieved till this September which is the date we're using as the end. So rather than the April 12th date as the beginning, if we took six months off because of the, quote survey and permits and such, and then started the fine, basically six months equals about a $45,000 credit. Page 17 February 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If we use 30 days in a month, so ballpark. So really, I guess, the fair statement is a reduction because of problems would be about $45,000. MS. ARNOLD: If we are using the six-month period. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, if we accept the six months and I don't think we're here to argue do we have specific dates because we may or we may not, and I'm willing to accept that since the County has already stated that they had some responsibility, and I think that's ' probably fair to both parties. So as I see it, a six-month reduction would be an acceptable reduction. If the other members of the board are interested, then I would entertain a motion to reduce the fines by that amount. MR. PONTE: By $45,000? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if Ms. Barnhart wanted to CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Barnhart, do you want to speak to us? MS. ARNOLD: Just for the board's information, they have paid the $5,000 that we did first imposition of fines for. We haven't gone back and imposed additional recorded an additional document because the fines continue to accrue, but they have in good faith paid the $5,000 that was on the record. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Arnold, I'm trying to understand the six- month delay a little bit better. Are you telling me that it takes six months to figure out that we have a 30-foot discrepancy in a survey? MS. ARNOLD: I think it probably took six months just because of, you know, people dropping the ball kind of thing. MR. LEHMANN: Who dropped the ball? Is it the county that dropped the ball, or is the Page 18 February 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Probably a little bit of both sides, but we're accepting the six-month responsibility as well. MS. DUSEK: Maybe I missed it, but what amount are we working from, or do we know? Are we saying it's around $200,000? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: It's about $217,000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Barnhart, do you want to say anything, or are you satisfied with Mr. Williams' presentation to us? Is that all? MR. WILLIAMS: If I might speak to you again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: I honestly feel like with my experience with things that, first, the $250-a-day fine was a pretty steep fine imposed to start with. The trailer park is probably not worth the $150,000 that you're talking about fining her right now. So in case unless Collier County is ready to accept the fact that they are going to become mobile home renters and stuff like that, I would suggest that you reduce and accept their $5,000 fine as a penalty to start something they thought they were doing right to start with when it was started. The people right next door to them have sat there and blatantly ignored any rules and regulations that the County has told them to do. The next-door neighbor is not doing a dag-gone thing and getting away with it. And I feel like this whole thing with the Barnharts has gone completely out of hand. I mean, they tried to comply with everything that you people are asking them to do. They had some confusion to start with as to what they were supposed to be doing. They thought they could do it on their own. They didn't know they had to have a contract to do it. That's the reason it took them so long to get around to starting stuff. And they originally started they didn't move trailers into the Page 19 February 28, 2002 park. They moved the trailers out of the way of the park so they could cut down an Australian pine tree that was in violation of a County ordinance anyway. And they got caught moving the trailer back where it was originally. MS. DUSEK: I might just add a personal feeling to this, and that is, yes, we're calculating six months here and there, but I also think the fact that these people have improved the property 100 percent and even though it might have taken them a little longer to do it, I think that we have to take that into consideration and give a dollar amount to that besides the six months that we have been talking about, which is just a black-and-white figure. I think that we have to consider the intent of the party and their willingness to make this work. MR. PONTE: That's a good point. I'd like to ask if we have a before picture. We have the after pictures on the monitor. MS. ARNOLD: This is what it was (indicating). MR. LEHMANN: Can you put them side by side, Michelle? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or at least close. MS. ARNOLD: (Complying.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There you go. MS. ARNOLD: This is what it looked like before (indicating). The conditions of the trailers were pretty poor. And there was no as you can see, there was no driveways or CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Walkways. MS. ARNOLD: or pads or anything for the people out there. The utilities were pretty poor as well, and now we've got a park that looks like this (indicating). They've got walkways, and I was recently out in the area and saw that the Barnharts are taking on an additional expense beyond this photograph and paved a roadway for the residents out there. MR. LEHMANN: Have the rents increased out there? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know anything about the rents. Page 20 February 28, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: No idea. MS. ARNOLD: But it's much improved over what we used to have. MS. DUSEK: I'd also like to add that this is an example in that area of what people are willing to do, can do, and if the other landlords see this and see that the County has worked with them, they may be more inclined to do the same. So I really think that we have to look at this very hard and make a very substantial reduction in fines, and not just 45,000. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. MR. PONTE: If I've got this right on this rehearing, the actual contract wasn't agreed to until October of 2000; is that correct? MR. WILLIAMS: Probably somewhere in that area. MR. PONTE: So that what we're looking at is, even though the result is very good, no action, as I understand it, from April 12, '99 until October of 2000? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if Ms. Barnhart could speak to that, but I think there was coordination with the county. The actual approval of their site improvement plan was October. So there had to be some work to be done to get to that point because they have to meet with the county, and then they also have to submit a plan, and the plan goes through a review process, and then the actual approval was October of'99. MS. CURATOLO: Do you have any idea what that time frame might be? MS. ARNOLD: The actual meeting? MS. CURATOLO: Prior to the approval of the site improvement plan. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. I know that Mireya Louviere was the one that submitted the site improvement plan, and I don't know what transpired between the planning department, unfortunately. Page 21 February 28, 2002 If Ms. Bamhart could give some information on how long that process took. MS. BARNHART: It took about MS. ARNOLD: You need to speak in the mike. MS. BARNHART: It took about three to four months for results for her results. Nobody knew what was going on. Every time we tried to go to the Court, you know, to start our process, nobody knew what was going on. They were giving us run-arounds, run-arounds. That's when we the third time we went there, they said, "Well, you need a licensed contractor." That's why we hired this man. Because we didn't know, we were doing it on our own. We were doing everything on our own, trying to anchor the trailers and everything, that was wrong. Somebody with a license had to do it, so it took Mireya about three to four months for her to get me a result. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Based on comments from the board members, I guess what we we're in a position that would one of them like to make a recommendation to the other board members on a number to reduce the fine from approximately two hundred and seventeen thousand to some length (sic)? MR. LEHMANN: Before we do that, Michelle, has your office received any comments from any other County office regarding these improvements? Immokalee Housing Authority or the Commission itself or any other entity? MS. ARNOLD: No. I'm not really clear what kind of comments you're referring to. In a positive way or recommendations for reduction? MR. LEHMANN: Either. MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. CURATOLO: Would that be a likely thing to happen, though? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. Page 22 February 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Not likely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That would be a really bad precedent for the County to do. MR. PONTE: How many mobile homes on this site? I don't remember. MS. BARNHART: I was eleven. MR. PONTE: Eleven. MR. WILLIAMS: Now, you reduced that to eight. There was eleven. MS. BARNHART: When we bought the place, there was eleven in there. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me speak for the young lady. Had she waited until today, she could have actually gotten permission to have left all eleven trailers on that site because of the way the things the way the ordinance has finally been worked out to help the people. I mean, by going ahead and getting started early with her, she's actually lost four trailer spaces than she could have had she been brought before the thing today. As far as rent increases on her site, there, as far as I know, she hasn't increased any rent. The same people live there, and it's the same rent that she was charging before she spent she paid me around $50,000 to do some of the improvements there, and she's done some of them herself. Plus, she paved the road. I don't know what it cost. Probably another $20,000 for her to pave that road. She's already spent approximately $70,000 improving the thing to where it's one of the nicer, older mobile home parks in the Immokalee area. And Michelle will tell you, it's as good as it is over there right now, even though it does have old trailers in it. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, in the $5,000 that they have already paid the two hundred and seventeen that we're talking about is in addition to the five thousand? Page 23 February 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: No, it would be total. MS. DUSEK: Okay. This is a tough one. MR. PONTE: Just throw out a figure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to move on, so somebody needs to. MR. PONTE: Let me throw out a figure and move from there. The figure is based on a lot of assumptions which is dangerous, but assuming that the trailer rental is $1,000 per trailer per month for eleven trailers is $11,000 per month income and, let's say, six months of fining time, so you're talking about a fine of $66,000 or thereabouts. Now, there's a start. MS. DUSEK: Now, of course, I was thinking of something even less because I think they have I am so pleased to see how hard that these people have worked in putting this all together, and that's weighing a lot on my decision on a very reduced fine. MS. CURATOLO: I would have to agree. In essence, they started working from the very beginning. There was some confusion, yes, but the end result is such an improvement that if we set a precedent and determine that the fines should be so high that others aren't even going to consider complying, then what's the result? What have we accomplished? MR. PONTE: Well, the reason the fine was high to begin with is because of the terrible conditions that you saw in the first photo. MS. CURATOLO: I understand, but I'm looking at the results. MR. PONTE: So that compelled them to correct the violations that existed. It did take a long time to get there. MR. LEHMANN: And, again, the fine set by the board was based on many factors of which being the progress made prior to bringing the case before this board. MS. CURATOLO: I understand. MR. LEHMANN: The seriousness of the situation. So that is Page 24 February 28, 2002 why the fine was set at the level it was. MS. CURATOLO: I understand the facts. MR. LEHMANN: The board, obviously, was very concerned about this case as being a very bad case. MS. CURATOLO: I do understand the facts in the case, but in the end if we set a high fine, are others in that area going to necessarily comply with improvements? And I think the bottom line is to improve the entire area. MR. PONTE: You're right, but the other side of that coin is, if you don't have a fine that's meaningful, then you're inviting MS. CURATOLO: People aren't going to improve, true. MR. PONTE: So it's a MS. CURATOLO: But I'm tending to lean to the other side in looking at the improvements. MS. TAYLOR: But it's now just what it should have been to begin with. It's no miracle; it's just exactly what it should have been from the start, from the get-go. It's finally what it should have been all the time. MR. WILLIAMS: IfI might interrupt you just a minute in your discussion, the Barnharts had just purchased this property at repossession from the bank. They haven't owned it for many years, and they were just starting to improve it when the County came up and caught them doing stuff that they didn't have a permit for. MS. CURATOLO: When did they purchase the property? MR. WILLIAMS: I was looking through here trying to find that. Do you know when you got that from the bank? MS. BARNHART: '92 or '93 no, '98. MR. WILLIAMS: Give me just a minute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: While he's looking, one thing the board needs to keep in their mind and I understand what everybody is Page 25 February 28, 2002 saying, and a lot of terrific comments and especially when these people have done such a great job, but when we set these fines based on a set of parameters and the people do improve, which is what we're trying to get them to do, you're almost setting yourself up for the board that every time you issue a fine and it gets I want to say to a large dollar amount but that the people felt, "Oh, well, I did improve it, it took extra long," they're going to come back and want to waive the fines. So you're going to do the work twice. You're going to fine the people because they have a bad product. Then the fine is imposed, and they're going to come back and say, "Well, we fixed what you wanted us to fix. Now don't charge us." You need to keep that in the back of your mind that you're going to go through all these possibly twice. MS. CURATOLO: I'm not saying, "Don't charge them," but I'm looking at this nebulous period of six months, plus a period where the first permit was requested. I'm wondering how much time exactly was involved here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, right now we're dealing with. MS. CURATOLO: And I'm CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: two years and six months. So how much of that do you want to throw out? MS. CURATOLO: But it would be my opinion to sway more on the side of the individual who has improved the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying. MS. DUSEK: What you've said, Cliff, is correct. And although there have been times when people have come back and asked to have their fines waived and we have not waived it, we look at each circumstance individually. I think that these people, it sounds as though, they started fairly soon after we imposed the fine or gave the order thinking that they could do it on their own. There was some confusion there. Page 26 February 28, 2002 They did finally hire someone, and all of this takes time. And we know that, in all fairness to the people, and with all due respect to the County, the County doesn't always move as quickly either. So I think we have to weigh the end result and the time it took, and the end result is even better than what we had asked for. So I think the $250 fine was a wake-up call, and I think they heard it and they performed. They didn't do it in a timely manner, but they did perform. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, and that's where you have to be very cautious because understanding it took two years and six months to comply with the order and the result is extremely appealing, you can't let the appealing part erase the fact that it took two years and six months to get there. MS. DUSEK: Perhaps our original order of 45 days was not a good suggestion of time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's where I'm leading. If you say, "Gee, we didn't give them enough time, you have two years and six months," if you took a year out of it, you still have a year and six months to impose fines. MS. TAYLOR: Could I ask a question? MR. PONTE: Just try this another way. Rather than focusing on the length of time, whether it's 6 months or 18 months, we'll come up with a time that's realistic and reduce the fine so that and then we'll have a realistic framework for the time period and a reduced fine so that on a per diem basis so we're not wrestling with this $250 a day and then the time frame becomes so important, was it six months or was it nine and a half months CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All we want to do here we don't want to rewrite the order. All we're willing to do is say, "We're willing to reduce the fine to X." MR. PONTE: Okay. Page 27 February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, all we're basically doing here is, how do we get to that X. MR. PONTE: Okay. Well, let's do that in a workshop and say, "If the fine was $100 a day, how many days are we talking about, apply that and say, all right the fine is X." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I just got through saying because everybody seems to be and I'm a little there too that the property looks very appealing, but we can't hypothetically say, "Well, since it's an appealing piece of property, let's waive the fine." I mean, it took two and a half years to get there. MS. DUSEK: I don't think any of us are saying, "Let's waive the fine." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it was MS. DUSEK: But I think we're all looking for a MS. CURATOLO: I'm not saying, "Waive the fine." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, but it was down low, and then you wanted to go lower you never did say how much but substantially, so that to me is, I think, you're probably even under $50,000 is probably what you were contemplating. MS. CURATOLO: I have a question. MR. LEHMANN: I think the board is losing sight up here is that when we issue an order we mean business. MS. TAYLOR: Right. MR. LEHMANN: And I think you're losing sight of that. The reason the order was issued in the manner it was is because this board was very serious in its desire to achieve compliance in a very quick manner and very heavily enforced manner. Now you're going back and saying, "Oh, we're very pleased with what's happened." You lose sight of the fact that it took an extended period of time for any action to occur and, in fact, no action occurred until it physically was brought before the board. Page 28 February 28, 2002 MS. TAYLOR: Right. MR. LEHMANN: Then, even after the board said, "You will do this or else," it still took two and a half years to get it done. The end result is pleasing, there's no doubt. I'm very happy that we now have a particular community or parcel of land that looks this way. This is great, but don't lose sight of the fact of what it took to get here. It literally took arm-twisting to get here, okay? If you want to waive the fees associated with delays the county may have caused that is out of the respondents' hands, that's understandable. Hold the respondents responsible for what they can do. But, regardless, it still took an extended period of time and arm twisting to physically get to this point. I think we've lost sight of that. MS. CURATOLO: I have a question. In Veronica's letter dated December 13,2001, she states, "It is our understanding that I would only be assessed administrative costs if an approved site improvement plan was obtained. Also, I was not aware that fines were being charged accrued daily until we were attempting to purchase another property." Can somebody explain to me how she should know that she was being assessed more than administrative costs, in fact, fines being accrued on a daily basis? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: She got an order. MR. LEHMANN: She didn't read the order imposing fines. It states specifically. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's real specific. Our order says, "If you don't comply by such and such a date, it's $250 a day." MS. CURATOLO: Which was when? What was that date? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It said she had to do this by the 27th of May 1999. MS. ARNOLD: We did an order imposing fines. Page 29 February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but forget that a minute. So she had in writing that if she didn't do it by the 27th of May 1999, it's $250 a day imposed for every day the violation continues to exist. Pretty straightforward language. So she knew. MS. GODFREY: And they can't come back. MS. CURATOLO: May '99 to May 2000. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: To May 2001, and she didn't comply until September 13th of 2001, so then there's another X. MR. LEHMANN: MS. CURATOLO: MR. LEHMANN: In June of'99 Right. she received an order of the board imposing fines of $5,000. In that order it states, again, "The respondents are to pay Collier County a fine in the amount of $5,000 for non- compliance. It is further ordered that a fine of $250 per day will continue to accrue." It's specifically stated in the order. So she knows that these fines are continued; at least she's been notified of it. Whether or not she's reading what's been given to her or not, I have no idea, but at least the respondent has been provided notice of this. So I can't say that the respondent wasn't given the information that this was happening. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to state that I take very seriously the orders that we give. I'd also like to state that the longer I'm on this board, the more I learn about the orders that we give; and looking back at this order I think the 45-day period was not fair to the homeowner. I also believe that the home that Mrs. Barnhart did know about her fines accruing, but in thinking about that, the 45-day period and all she had to accomplish in 45 days, I think, was not fair now looking back. I'd like to suggest a $50,000 fine, and I will make that as a motion. Page 30 February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a flat we have a reduction or a flat fine of $50,000 for this MS. CURATOLO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: on the table. MS. CURATOLO: I'll second it. MR. PONTE: This isn't an auction, and that's what it's starting to sound like. We have to come to the figure with more logic than just a motion. MR. LEHMANN: I agree with my colleague. MS. TAYLOR: I agree too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: At this point we have one course of action. We have a motion with a second. We'll call for the question. If it doesn't pass, then we can get to some additional discussion, but right now we have a motion with a second. All those in favor of flat $50,000 fine signify by saying aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MS. CURATOLO: Aye. MS. GODFREY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, two, three. All those opposed like sign. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEHMANN: Aye. MS. TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. One, two, three, four. Four against, so it fails. MS. ARNOLD: I have some, I guess, information for consideration by the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Anything that will help. MS. ARNOLD: The 45 days probably was not a reasonable amount of time. Considering the six-month delay that we're all agreed upon to the County and considering what the a more Page 31 February 28, 2002 reasonable amount of time that it could have that it would have taken to go from scratch, getting the site improvement plan, getting all the building permits, all the way through to CO for the final building permits, it's probably more of an 18-month, 24-month period with delays. And if you want to consider that time frame for a reduction or deduction, I think we're dealing with about 28 months. And that would leave about a four-month period for which penalties would be imposed at $250 per day. MR. PONTE: Well, I'm not comfortable with that because there was a year in which nothing was happening. By their own testimony here, it was a year of trying do it themselves. And it should have become quite clear that this was not a do-it-yourself job for anyone in the business of running a mobile home park. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. I thought they obtained Ms. Louviere's assistance to get the site improvement plan, but Mr. Williams was hired in January of 2000 or February of 2000? MR. PONTE: He was hired in October. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, of 2000, okay. MS. BARNHART: Because Louviere couldn't do anything. She wasn't a licensed contractor. So I kept her about four or five months. MR. LEHMANN: Mr. Williams, can you give us an appropriate time period in which you expect construction or repairs to be done? MR. WILLIAMS: I've dealt with some of these site improvement plans for the Immokalee mobile home parks. I've got one that took over 18 months just for approval on the thing. MR. LEHMANN: We're not talking about approval; we're talking about physical construction. MR. WILLIAMS: You probably Michelle's guesstimate of two years is probably not far off. MR. LEHMANN: Again, I'm not talking about anything other Page 32 February 28, 2002 than how long does it take you to physically do the repairs or the construction that was involved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On this park when they told you to do whatever had to be fixed, how long did it take You? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I started in October, and I got the CO on one in February; that was for three units. The other five would take the same length of time to do October, November December five months to do three. Probably in the same time frame you could do the other five. So you've got approximately ten months of actual work involved in doing all the things that had to be done. MR. LEHMANN: Can you give me a detailed scope of work that it would entail to do these first three? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it was tying them down, moving them, jacking them up, level them up, patching the bottom of the trailers up so they would pass the codes under there, putting in the wood, replacing siding, hooking up all the plumbing, and doing all the stuff that had to be done. MR. LEHMANN: So it took, basically, five months to reposition, resecure, and tie down the trailer? MR. WILLIAMS: MR. LEHMANN: MR. WILLIAMS: Each, yeah. You have to We're only talking about three trailers now. Some of the people were living in the trailers. around those people there. You have to move them around. You have to coordinate Okay. And you hooked up plumbing and MR. LEHMANN: electrical MR. WILLIAMS: MR. LEHMANN: It took five months MR. WILLIAMS: MR. LEHMANN: Right. and so on and so forth? to do that scope of work? Right. Does that not seem an exceptionally long Page 33 February 28, 2002 period of time to do that amount of work? MR. WILLIAMS: Possibly it is. I don't know how familiar you are with things that happen. I'm a small contractor. I only have a small work force, and some of the times I probably wasn't working directly on this job every day. I had other things that had to get tended to. MR. LEHMANN: ~ MR. WILLIAMS: Was there Probably five months would be a month to a building would be more realistic is what it would actually take to do each one of them if you stayed with it day in and day out. MR. LEHMANN: Were there any specific delays that you could attribute that would cause you not to be able to work on the project during that five-month period? MR. WILLIAMS: There was rain period during one of the MR. LEHMANN: Besides the weather. MR. WILLIAMS: Three or four days at a time of weather. But a month would be a realistic figure for doing each one of them, doing all the patchwork inside. I heard a comment there a while ago that kind of aggravates me in the assumption that these people draw $1,000 a month rent on these places. I have rental property there myself, and $1,000 is figured off the Naples rental. Over in Immokalee I'm lucky to get $350 a month out of a two-bedroom house. They're renting these trailers, I understand I don't know personally, but that's what she just told me for $350 a month. It takes a long time to get your money back. MS. DUSEK: Excuse me, but I think what they're getting in rent is immaterial to this, and I don't think we should dwell on that at all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It is. The rental of the trailers is immaterial. Page 34 February 28, 2002 MR. WILLIAMS: It was just a feeling that I got out, that you're assuming something that's totally unreal. MS. DUSEK: And I think we have to accept what you're saying to us as fact. It took you around ten months. And Michelle is saying around two years to complete all of this. MS. ARNOLD: Well, considering the delays that occurred was a suggestion that I had. MR. LEHMANN: Is there the reason you're saying one month for each trailer, that's assuming you're working on one trailer at a time; is that correct? MR. WILLIAMS: Right. MR. LEHMANN: Is there a reason why you would be unable to work on more than one trailer at a time in any one phase of this? Such as, can you block up two or three trailers within one month and then go on to do other phases? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, then you after you finish blocking them up, you still have repairs to do on the inside part of it. MR. LEHMANN: I understand. MR. WILLIAMS: A one-month time frame to repair one of them completely would not be unrealistic. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. My question, though, is, could the delay in doing this over the ten- or eleven-month period be partially due to the result of just the limited work force that you had available to you? MR. WILLIAMS: It possibly could. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. So ifI increased the work force I could shorten that time period if I wanted to? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, yeah I mean, Habitat builds a whole house in one day. MR. LEHMANN: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's get back to try to resolve the Page 35 February 28, 2002 problem. We can, I think, manipulate the situation to death. We need to come up with something that the board feels is pliable (sic) to both sides; to the county, which is who we are trying to serve, and to the respondent because they did comply. Maybe not in a timely manner, but they came up with a great result. So I'm trying to be fair to both sides. We've already had one estimate put on the table that didn't fly, so is there some other number that somebody might have in mind that they feel is amenable to the situation? MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, could you reiterate, again, what the County's position is as far as time period that you're looking at? MS. ARNOLD: I was suggesting from the 28 months reducing it to about a four-month period and that would equate to about $36,000. MR. LEHMANN: And how do you arrive at reducing 24 months out of this? How are you justifying by saying those 24 months should not apply? MS. ARNOLD: My suggestion was looking at the site improvement plan process all the way to CO for final building permit. And then also considering the six-month delay that was mentioned in discussions today. My thought was the whole time frame from beginning you know, sitting down and talking to the County and getting the site improvement plan finally approved to applying for building permits and getting a final CO is about an 18- month period or could take that long. MR. LEHMANN: Repeat that again for me from getting where to where is about 18. MS. ARNOLD: From the beginning sitting down having pre- application meetings with the County to discuss what's required as far as the landscaping and the, you know, improvements for the utilities and drainage and all that for your site improvement plan, getting that Page 36 February 28, 2002 plan submitted and approved, and then all the way to getting building permits for each trailer to final CO could be an 18-month period. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. But, again, the only thing that's within the County'S control as far as that whole process MS. ARNOLD: Is the reviews. MR. LEHMANN: is the reviews to get the SIP and the review for the permit? MS. ARNOLD: And inspection. MR. LEHMANN: And then the inspection itself. The rest of it is literally in the respondent's ball court? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: So are you saying that the County is assuming responsibility for that period of time or no? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not saying that we're accepting any responsibility. I'm just saying, if you want to look at if we're considering what is a reasonable time period to go from Point A to Point B considering all the situations that you can come up with, 18 months would be a reasonable amount of time. MS. TAYLOR: That puts this board in a terrible dilemma for cases that are going to come before us in the future. MS. ARNOLD: Well and you-all have given people two years to come into compliance. I have to remind you of that. I mean, so it all depends on the case. Each individual case is specific and unique. There you know, there may be somebody that may be further along because they have started the process, so the time frame would apply differently in that situation from someone that didn't do anything. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. PONTE: Let me just try this. Using logic, we're all saying here the time frame that seems most common is the possibility of one year of non-compliance with no effort and nothing being done. If we take that and the new suggested rental figure of 385 and do it for the Page 37 February 28, 2002 12-month period of fining, you have $46,288 for a fine, which would translate to $126.81 a day, if you want to go through the logic of it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. First of all, you can't use what they get in rent for any kind of calculations. That's none of our business what they get for rent. MR. PONTE: Well, it's only our business in that CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's none of our business. MR. PONTE: Well, only in that, Mr. Chairman, we have to know the value of the money; $100,000 to one person is maybe a rather insignificant amount of money. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. PONTE: $100,000 to another could be a great deal of money. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. The amount of rent on a piece of property is immaterial and the value of the piece of property is immaterial, we've set a fine of $250 a day based on information given to us, back such and such back in April. MR. PONTE: What I'm trying to do is find a way out CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand, but you can't use the respondent's income from a piece of property to calculate how much you should fine them. MR. PONTE: All right. Forget everything I said, and let me just suggest that the fine should be $46,288. MS. DUSEK: Is that a motion? MR. PONTE: Sure. MS. DUSEK: I second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and second on the table that the fine be forty-six thousand MR. PONTE: two hundred and eighty-eight dollars. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: two hundred and eighty-eight dollars. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 38 February 28, 2002 MS. GODFREY: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MS. CURATOLO: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MR. LEHMANN: Aye. MS. TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Four to three. It carries. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those opposed like sign. Aye. The fine is $46,288. Okay. That closes that item. The next item on the agenda is the authorization foreclosures. Ms. Barnhart, do you understand? MS. BARNHART: Yes, I understand. I'll get a lawyer. MS. ARNOLD: A memo's been provided to you-all identifying cases that have been previously heard by this board and which fines have been imposed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Will you both please go outside. Sorry, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: The respondent's name, the code board case, and the hearing date are provided, as well as when the respondent was asked to comply and the approximate amount of fines that have been accruing at this point. All these cases that are identified on this memorandum have been fines have been imposed, and the three- month period have been passed from the date of imposition of fines, and we are at this time requesting your authorization to forward these to the County Attorney's Office for foreclosure, and depending on the fee amount or the fine amount, if it's not substantially below, like, $1,000, we're requesting that we forward those to a collection agency rather than foreclosure. There's also those that are homesteaded that we cannot foreclose on, so again Page 39 February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think and Ms. Rawson, you can correct me, but under that ordinance in the statute, we can only forward them to the County attorney for foreclosure, period, and then they can make a collection determination. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. It's up to them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can just say foreclose, and if they choose not to, that's fine. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Or whatever. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a couple questions in looking at your list. Stevenson, Combs, and Surin/Robinson. Just out of curiosity, why is it taking so long to ask us to forward these? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, I think those were on a prior list. I don't think they should be on this list. I think they were already forwarded to the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I would recommend that the board authorize you that everybody on the list be forwarded, and let the county attorney make this determination. MS. DUSEK: Do we need a motion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we ask the County attorney to proceed with foreclosure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On everybody on this list? MS. DUSEK: On everyone on the list. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to authorize the County attorney to proceed. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 40 February 28, 2002 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. That's everything under old business. There's nothing under reports having just done something on foreclosure, Michelle, isn't (sic) it been way over three months since we've had a report on the foreclosure stares of everything? We were, I think, going to get one every three months, and it's been, I'm pretty sure, more than three months since we've had a report. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We'll probably ask the attorney's office to give us something in March with our annual meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other items? We did get a MS. ARNOLD: I do have another item. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We've been discussing with the County attorney's office and Jean about your request, Mr. Lehmann, workshops. There is a desire to have one in March, and we have three dates that are being proposed. The 1 lth, which is a Monday, the 15th, which is a Thursday, and then the 25th, which is a Monday prior to your next hearing. MS. CURATOLO: The 15th is a Thursday? I thought the 14th was a Thursday. MS. DUSEK: It's a Friday. MS. ARNOLD: Well, then it's the 13th then. MS. DUSEK: The 14th is a Thursday. MS. ARNOLD: The 14th, sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it's the 14th, not the 15th. MS. ARNOLD: Whatever that date is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. In looking at those dates, Michelle, let me ask you a question I know because, I guess last Page 41 February 28, 2002 month we ended case load-wise, how are we? I know this: Today we set everything aside because we thought we were going to have one. Are they piling up, or do we need two meetings next month? MS. ARNOLD: No, I think we're okay. We're going to do I think we've got five scheduled for the 28th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. The 1 lth, 14th, and 25th; what's the best date for the group? MS. CURATOLO: I'm not available the 14th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The 14th is out for Kathleen. MS. TAYLOR: The 1 lth is good for me. MR. PONTE: No, I'm away for the month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Oh, that's right. You'll be gone for the month. Bobby? MS. DUSEK: I think either the 1 lth any of those dates, I think, right now. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Peter. MR. LEHMANN: The 1 lth and 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Kathryn? MS. GODFREY: 14th or 25th. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 14th or 25th. MS. ARNOLD: It sounds like the 25th. MR. LEHMANN: Sounds like the 25th. MS. TAYLOR: What date is the 25th? MS. ARNOLD: Monday. MS. TAYLOR: A Monday? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. How about the 25th for everybody? How's that sound? MS. TAYLOR: That's good. MR. LEHMANN: Michelle, is that hearing here is the workshop here or some other location? Page 42 February 28, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: We're going to do it at another location. I'm trying to see if the new library is available. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cool. Jean, how is the 25th for you? MS. RAWSON: Perfect. MS. ARNOLD: And that will be in the morning if you-all want to do it at nine o'clock or 8:30, either one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's fine. It gives everybody a chance, especially if we're going to go to that end of town. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. LEHMANN: Can I ask a strange question? MS. DUSEK: You'll get a strange answer. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: How about a strange answer? MR. LEHMANN: Can I ask a stranger question than the ones I usually ask? Is there anything that prevents us from meeting in the evenings on workshops? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, other than people wanting to do it. MS. TAYLOR: I'd like to do it. MR. LEHMANN: My preference on any meeting other than today other than the hearings would be to meet in the evening simply because this, again, takes time out from the working day for me. Unfortunately, I, like many members of the board, actually work for a living. MS. CURATOLO: What time frame are we talking about for the workshop? MS. ARNOLD: Probably a four hour because part of this one that we're scheduling will include the Sunshine of, quote, the county attorney's office is going to every advisory board and doing about an hour presentation on that. Page 43 February 28, 2002 MR. LEHMANN: I would suggest that the meeting on the 25th would be in the evening. MS. CURATOLO: My problem with evenings are that I have a lot of committee meetings in the evening, early evening. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why don't we for this particular one let's just do it normally at nine, and then if we're going to do some others, see if you can't work out to where we can pick a day where let's try to do maybe an evening one, too, because I'm sure we have enough items. Besides the County attorney and I think Jean has got some things for us, are we going to have enough to fill up the four hours, or do you need some suggestions from some of us? MS. RAWSON: I'd be happy if you would give me some suggestions about things that you want to talk about. I was basically going to talk to you about procedures and due process and, you know, Chapter 162, of course. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: But if you have particular things that you would like for me to cover, I would certainly appreciate you either faxing that to me or calling me and telling me or leaving the word with my paralegals, because if I know what you want to ask I'll be sure that I'm prepared to talk about it. And then, of course, I want you to ask all the questions you want to ask so we can have a real discussion. MR. LEHMANN: Didn't we have prior issues regarding subpoenas and so on and so forth that were questions regarding the ordinances and statutes? I personally would like to have some answers to those, find out exactly what are our responsibilities, our privileges or duties or responsibilities. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. PONTE: Jean, even though I'm not going to be there I can't Page 44 February 28, 2002 be there if you have the notes of your last session which was very helpful. I have the notes. MS. RAWSON: I have them. I plan to use those as illustrations. MR. PONTE: Very good idea. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So it will be the 25th at 9 a.m., and then Michelle will let us all know where. MS. DUSEK: I have one question for Michelle. Do you want us to keep all of the Blocker material? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It wouldn't be with not knowing what they're going to or if they're going to come back, it would be really immaterial. MR. PONTE: I charge storage. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They have to start fresh since they have withdrawn it. MS. TAYLOR: I do too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I would, from my standpoint Jean can correct me, but I would say none of that material will count down the road. They're going to have to start from scratch. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: So empty your book out because we're going to need to fill it again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if you brought it with you, you can leave it here and let the County dispose of it rather than taking it home. The only other thing is, Jean passed out to us, for those who remember Keyser (phonetic) and Southern Exposure and maybe she would like to tell us what happened. MS. RAWSON: Some of you were still involved in the board when this case was heard, although it's been years and there have been there was an appeal here to Judge Brousseau, and there were Page 45 February 28, 2002 briefs filed that we shared with you, and thereafter there was an appeal of Judge Brousseau's ruling to the Second District Court of Appeals, and on February 22, 2002, the Second District Court of Appeals has rendered this opinion that I passed out to you. And so those of you who might want to know what this means in layman's terms we call this a PC'd opinion. Per curiam means "by the Court." So what that means is, the Court in unison has affirmed Judge Brousseau's ruling. So, hopefully, this case is now over. That means that the County of Collier and the Code Enforcement Board's position has been vindicated, I suppose. Whether this is going to go any further or not, I don't know, but the County Attorney's office, in particular. Mr. Pettit, did a very good job of writing the appellate brief which I also think I shared with you. And I signed on your behalf, but I must give him the credit. He did most of the research and writing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other items? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The next meeting date is March 28th, understanding that we have a workshop before that that we will be advised of. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If there's nothing else, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. PONTE: So moved. MS. TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: (No response.) Those opposed? Page 46 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you very much. February 28, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the workshop was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 10:30 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CATHERINE A. FROMMER, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 47