CEB Minutes 03/18/2004 WMarch 18, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WORKSHOP
Naples, Florida, March 18, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board Workshop in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:00 AM in WORKSHOP
SESSION in Conference Room 609-610 of the Development &
Environmental Services, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Clifford Flegal
Roberta Dusek
Gerald Lefebvre
Albert Doria, JR.
Raymond Bowie
Sheri Barnett
ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board; David
Weigel, County Attorney; Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney;
Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney; Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director; Janet Powers, Operations Director; Shanelle Hilton,
Code Enforcement Board Coordinator; and Rebecca Paratore.
Page 1
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WORKSHOP
AGENDA
March 18, 2004
10:00 o'clock A.M.
Community Development and Environmental Services, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida, in Conference Room 609 and 610
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO
SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY STAFF PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION
OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION
FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION
OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380.
1. ROLL CALL
2. PRESENTATION
A. Florida Commission on Ethics
B. Proposed Revisions to Code Enforcement Board Procedures
· Modifications to packet submittal
· Modifications to the Hearing Process
o Timeframes for Testimony
o Enhance the Pre-hearing Meeting Process / Pre-hearing Conference
· Reduction of Fine Process
· Recordation of Orders
C. Proposed changes to Rules and Re~,ulations
County Attorney's Office
Michelle Edwards Arnold
Shanelle Hilton
3. COMMENTS
4. NEXT MEETING DATE
March 25, 2004 at Board Room
ADJOURN
March 18, 2004
WORKSHOP
Roll Call was taken - a quorum was established.
Presentation
Florida Commission on Ethics - David Weigel, County Attorney
Mr. Wcigel gave a presentation to thc members on parts of thc Sunshine Law
and Ethics.
· County Attorneys' office is always available.
· Three clements on the Sunshine Law important:
1) Reasonable notice of two or mom members is given with reasonable
notice.
2) Meeting is to bc held in a public place with public access.
3) Minutes arc taken.
He elaborated on the above.
Properly noticed, faxcd, c-mailed or news print. Whether they choose to
print thc notice is up to them.
· Meeting is held at a place with adequate access to the public. Meetings in
restaurants of two or more members problematic.
· Communication - can communicate one way, but not back to each other.
· Hc does not advise communicating a particular thought on something. If
there is an answer back it is considered a meeting under thc law.
The handout packet is a revision from two years ago.
· Don't stray into a conversation if two or mom members are present. Need
to absent them from the discussion.
· Public Records
· Florida has the strongest open requirements nationwide.
· Most notes qualify as public records (margin notes taken on material)
- require they be kept. Keep in one spot.
· When term is finished, should be turned over to staff liaison.
· Fines
· There are penalties - civil infraction - $500 to a misdemeanor and/or 6
month j ail.
· Ethics
· Ordinance - October 2003 (Edification)
· County requirements are at 3 levels - to this Board 2 levels.
· Do not accept any material of any kind to alter decision making - a bribe
is a bribe. Pertains to spouses as well.
· Tighten Up - gave examples of lobbyists - have to report anything given
from $25-100.00. Committee member has to report anything over $100 -
self-incriminating.
· Be careful of what they are receiving - examples given.
· No gill Ordinance - up to $4.00. Examples given.
· Lobbyist Registration was discussed.
Page 2
March 18, 2004
B. Proposed Revisions to Code Enforcement Board Procedures - Michelle
Arnold & Shanelle Hilton
Modifications to Packet Submittal
· Reviewed standardized items - combine -Statement of Violation
and Notice of Hearing together. They all repeat the same
information. Better information of violation.
Notice of Hearing is sent out first - then Affidavit of Violation, then Statement of
Violation.
Ms. Rawson agreed the Statement should go with the Notice. The documents are
repetitive and say the same thing.
Rules should go with Notice of Hearing and Violation before the Hearing not
after.
Mr. Flegal had concerns of combining the forms.
Ms. Rawson stated the Notice of Hearing should be short and sweet with the
attached Statement of Violation.
Discussion followed with examples given.
Modifications to the Hearing Process
Timeframes for Testimony
· Michelle suggested time frame of 20 minutes. Ms. Rawson states
they are not violating anybody's rights.
· Tell them in the beginning verbally. Can be put on Notice of
Public Agenda.
· Ms. Dusek had a problem with a time limit - not sure everything
can be said in 20 minutes. Discussion followed.
· Using the word "may" would be helpful. The opportunity can be
given. Ms. Rawson gave examples.
Enhance the Pre-hearing Meeting Process/Pre-hearing Conference
· There is the ability to use the pre-hearing conference to work
through issues or violations and then propose it to the Board.
· Shanelle discussed modifying the Agenda - as per page 3 of their
packet. Under "New Business" - "a" would be "Non-contested &
present at the Hearing", "b .... Contested & Present at the Hearing",
and "c .... Cases of Individuals not Present at the Hearing".
· Would speed up the process. Would encourage settlement.
Reduction of Fine Process
· Ms. Rawson sated they need the Attorney Generals opinion. Can
draft letter.
· When imposing the fine it becomes a lien. If they need
modifications, they need to complete the document for reduction
Page 3
March 18, 2004
or abatement of the fine. When they do the imposition of fine,
they record the document.
· Discussion followed on reduction of fines. Statute says Code
Enforcement Board has the authority to reduce fines. Confusion is
with the current opinion that is on the books now.
· The time to reduce it may be before it is filed. Shanelle stated
some give 30 days.
· Michelle stated they have 20 days before recording. They can pay
it or contest it within 15 days.
· Further discussion on the Massey case, imposition of the fines,
liens and plea bargaining.
Michelle can only negotiate a fine at the foreclosure process and
has to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
· Jeff gave monetary examples. The BCC has discretion and final
approval.
· Cliff suggested writing a paragraph stating the Board has a right to
reduce fines when the County comes before to impose the fines.
(OR when the County comes before the Board to request
imposition upon liens - respondent has the right to request a
reduction "before" the Board imposes.)
· Ms. Rawson referred to Article 12, Section 1. (page 9)
· Will write to the Attorney General after talking to Mr. Weigel.
· Hearing to impose fines on Agenda.
· Consider putting stipulations on the fines for payrnent
· Jeff discussed- if reducing the fine they need to pay it - actually
paying the fine and - contingency on payment.
· They have payment schedules - can pay full amount or opt for
installments.
· The Board can okay or reject a plea.
Recordation of Orders
· Michelle felt the majority of the Board was of the opinion the way
they are doing things was correct. She asked for legal services
asking whether or not they can move from the "Order" and
whether a violation was found, and if so, how to correct it and
what the fine amounts would be and when they would accrue. She
asked the question of combining it into one process where the
"Order" is self-executing. (no need to record)
· She didn't think this is the direction the Board wants to go - so is
taking it off the table.
· Mr. Bowie reiterated what Michelle was saying; unless the
respondent comes forward with a request for adoption, they
wouldn't need any separate vote at that point. It is already done.
· Jeff stated the decision of a Pre-meeting will dispose of a lot of
matters.
Page 4
March 18, 2004
C. Proposed Changes to Rules & Regulations · Page 3 - discussed earlier
· Page 4 - incorporated change - "3 days" packet being delivered to alleged
violator.
· Cliff remarked (Section 4) if they tell the respondent to do it in "x" days -
so does the County. Both sides should submit their materials.
· Discussion followed on restricting the County, getting the material to the
Board is important. Ms. Dusek didn't care when the materials are
provided to the County as long as the Board gets it in 3 days.
· Staff felt it was too short a timeframe.
· Mr. Bowie didn't feel they should require something that is impractical.
The timeframe was discussed. Problem is violator getting materials.
· Ms. Dusek asked if the County can have all their materials 5 days before
the hearing. The answer was "yes."
· This is a policy for the Board not the County.
Article VII - Section 3
· Add "Code Enforcement & the Alleged Violator" after the word
"the". When noticing someone - both parties should be noticed.
Article
IX
· Suggested after first sentence under "hearing" put "Shall"
Conflict with regulations
· Attorney get information into the record
· Board without jurisdiction
Suggested take out "will not hear."
· Take break to digest information if given that day.
· (b) discussed - changes agreed upon
· (g) Suggested: Stipulation of parties and/or Proper of testimony
may be presented - will work out
· (f) All witnesses -add (OR) all those or anyone providing
information concerning the alleged violation.
Article XI
· Eliminate date - All orders etc.
Article XII
· Section 6 - doesn't apply - take out
Article XIII
· Section 3 - Owner/Tenant
· As a Board they do not have the right to tell the County who they
can bring the violation against. If, when in session, and something
Page 5
March 18, 2004
comes up, the Board can ask if these people can be included - but
cannot order the County to do anything.
Jeff talked about fining the tenant, not the owner and suggested
they leave the language as is.
Will have copies of changes next week, and then vote at their meeting. They will also be
e-mailed along with the minutes.
There being no further business for the good of the County the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:15 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WORKSHOP
Chairman Clifford W. Flegal, JR.
Page 6