Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/26/2004 R August 26, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 26, 2004 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 9:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Sheri Barnett Raymond Bowie Roberta Dusek Nicolas Hemes Gerald Lefebvre George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Shanelle Hilton, Code Enforcement Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: August 26, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Location: 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, 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 IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF RULES AND REGULATIONS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 22, 2004 and July 15,2004 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue B. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: 2004-036 2802 THOMASSON LN, NAPLES FL DEL ACKERMAN EVERILDO YBACET A ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.8.3.5.12.3.1 A COMMERICAL STRUCTURE PAINTED PREDOMINANTLY BLACK WITH WHITE TRIM IN CONFLICT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 2004-041 1633 MORNING SUN LN, NAPLES FL ANNE E MILNE AND TELMA B GARCIA CAROL SYKORA VIOLATIONS: ORD NO 89-06 AS AMENDED BY ORD NO 99-58, SEC 6 F AlLURE TO REGISTER RENTAL PROPERTY 3. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 2004-038 4818 DEVON CIR, NAPLES FL A VIN NOEL AND MARIE CHA VANES JOHN OLNEY ORD NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED SEC 2.6.7.1 AND 2.6.7.5 FENCE ERECTED WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED BUILDING PERMIT. 4. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 5. CASE NO: CASE ADDR: OWNER: INSPECTOR: VIOLATIONS: 6. NEW BUSINESS 2004-039 125 5TH ST SW, NAPLES FL LARRY & CORRENA MCVEY JEFF LETOURNEAU ORD NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 IMPROVEMENTS (ENCLOSURE OF BOTTOM OF STILT HOUSE WITH UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, A METAL SHED AND A METAL CANOPY) ERECTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS. ORD NO. 99-51, THE LITTER, WEEDS AND EXOTIC ORDINANCE, SEC 6, 7 AND 8 LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO VEHICLE PARTS, METAL, WOOD, PLASTIC, PAPER AND VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. ORD NO 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1.1 UNLICENSED AND/OR INOPERABLE VEHICLES WITHOUT VALID TAGS POSTED. 2004-037 37 CLARY ST, PLANTATION ISLAND, FL FRED & NORMA KOWALKE CAROL SKYORA AND JOHN SANT AFEMIA ORD NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED, SEC 2.6.7.1, 2.6.7.5 AND 2.6.7.5, PARAGRAH A IMPROVEMENTS (A DOCK, SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND A GLASS ENCLOSED WORKSHOP) ERECTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMIT. A. Motion/Request for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Nove10 2. BCC vs. George & Sandra Parsons CEB NO. 2004-007 CEB NO. 2004-025 1. BCC vs. Fracasso B. Motion/Request for Rehearing CEB NO. 2004-029 C. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Premise Richard 2. BCC vs. Blocker 3. BCC vs. Robert Lockhart 4. BCC vs. Chris Posada CEB NO. 2004-034 CEB NO. 2004-008 CEB NO. 2004-026 CEB NO. 2004-016 D. Request for Reduction/Abatement of Fines (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) E. Request for Foreclosure (no requests submitted at the time of preparation) 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Affidavits of Compliance 1. BCC vs. Premise Richard CEB NO. 2004-034 B. Affidavits of Non-Compliance 1. BCC vs. Blocker CEB NO. 2004-008 2. BCC vs. Robert Lockhart CEB NO. 2004-026 3. BCC vs. Chris Posada CEB NO. 2004-016 8. REPORTS A. County Attorney Quarterly Report 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE September 23, 2004 11. ADJOURN August 26, 2004 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 is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Roll call, please. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. Clifford Flegal? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Present. MS. ARNOLD: Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. ARNOLD: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. ARNOLD: Albert Doria? Let the record show that Albert Doria is not present and did not call in. Raymond Bowie? MR. BOWIE: Here. MS. ARNOLD: And Nicholas Hemes? MR. HEMES: Present. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think we have six permanent members and one alternate. Our alternate will participate fully in all proceedings today so that we may have a seven-member board. Page 2 August 26, 2004 Approval of our agenda. Do you have any changes to the changes -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to the revised agenda that was handed out recently? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. What you have been handed out recently reflects the changes that I'm going to go over right now. We're requesting that -- well, there has been a motion submitted to us for continuance for the Board of County Commissioners versus Kowalke, and that's CEB No. 2004-037. I just wanted to let you all know that that submittal wasn't timely, but I think it's something that the board needs to consider. So that would be item 5(A)(1). There's also been a motion for rehearing. It was on your agenda, but we're moving it up because the motions should be moved up, so that should be 5(B)(1). And there are also two requests for an extension of time: That's Board of County Commissioners versus Parsons, CEB case 2004-025, and Board of County Commissioners versus Novelo, and that's CEB case 2004-007. And those will be 5(C)(1) and (2). With respect to the public hearings that were on your agenda, we have two stipulated agreements: That is Board of County Commissioners versus Del Ackerman. And the' second one is Board of County Commissioners versus McVey. So those items will be heard first. Other than that, there are no additional changes. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the revised agenda. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the revised agenda as submitted. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying Page 3 August 26, 2004 aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next item, approval of rules and regulations. Do we have something to do on that? I thought we did something on that on our last meeting. MR. BOWIE: We did that on our last meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Was there something else that we're supposed to be doing? MS. ARNOLD: I don't think so. It shouldn't have been on the agenda, so that's an additional change. MS. BARNETT: Actually I thought -- were we going to sign something, because we were changing our time frames? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but I think you all discussed it the last-- at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We discussed and voted on it at the last meeting, so, I mean -- it was passed around to sign. MS. ARNOLD: So we have the original-- right, and you just sign it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can sign it at any time. But there are no additional changes to the rules and regulations that I'm aware of being presented; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll skip that item, since there's really nothing to discuss. Page 4 August 26, 2004 Approval of minutes. The first item is our July 22nd meeting, minutes from our July 22nd meeting. Are there any changes, revisions to the July 22nd? That's our standard board meeting. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the July 22nd meeting. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to approve our July 22nd meeting minutes as submitted. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The minutes of our July 15th workshop. MS. BARNETT: Cliff? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: I would like to bring to the board, in reviewing these, I felt that they were incomplete. It did not talk anything in there about the stipulated agreements, and there was quite a bit of discussion at that meeting in regards to that. All it did cover was the new master's position and the overview that we saw on that. There was no dialogue within those minutes between the parties, so I felt that they were incomplete. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note that the workshop minutes Page 5 August 26, 2004 are not verbatim like the public hearing minutes, so -- but if there's -- MS. BARNETT: It didn't even bring it up or mention it. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, if there's no information -- information that should have been submitted, then, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the minutes were incomplete, as far as I was concerned. And having minutes submitted that are incomplete, our only course of action at this time, and Jean can correct me if I'm wrong, is to make note that the minutes are incomplete and we're approving them as submitted, knowingly that they are incomplete. Is that what we do, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's true. Because it doesn't have to be verbatim and we didn't have a court reporter there, as you recall, we just had somebody taking notes. If there's any errors in what you read other than the fact that it's incomplete, you can discuss that. But, you know, you note that it's incomplete. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So with that understanding, if somebody would like to make a motion to approve the minutes submitted, with the stipulation that they are incomplete, that would be the motion that we need to work on for those. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, we have a motion. A second, please? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second on the workshop minutes of July 15th. MS. ARNOLD: I have a question for clarification. Should we then make a request of the Manpower service to revise them and resubmit them? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If they have them. I'm curious as to why they weren't submitted as minutes. I mean, if they have such a thing, why they submitted only a portion. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I didn't -- unfortunately, I didn't get a Page 6 August 26, 2004 copy of them at all, so I didn't see what was submitted. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The only thing submitted was your discussion on the special master process, period. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, that's an option, because, I mean, you don't necessarily have to approve them today. I can talk to the service and find out why the complete, you know, minutes weren't submitted and have them revise them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the pleasure of the board? MS. BARNETT: I would rather see that, because I'd rather have complete minutes, if we can obtain them. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, being a -- yes, being a public workshop, I'd like something to be on the record that reflects what we actually did talk about. Whether they're verbatim or not is not as important as our records should reflect what was actually discussed in a public meet -- in a public forum. MR. LEFEBVRE: I ask -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if you withdraw your motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And your second, George? MR. PONTE: I will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we'll ask Michelle if she would please contact the court reporter (sic) that was there, or Manpower, whoever it was, to see why they weren't submitted completely and then respond to us at our next meeting. MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay, now we move to the public hearings. First item, motions to continue, BCC versus -- is it Kowalke? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I hope I'm saying that right. MS. ARNOLD: This particular item, you have a motion for continuance and notification of time, more time needed for hearing Page 7 August 26, 2004 from Attorney Doug Rankin. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Basically he's asking us to continue this to our October meeting. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that what I'm reading? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. BOWIE: Has there been a continuance in this case ever before granted? No? MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. DUSEK: I have a question. Ifwe grant the continuance as it is written, Jean, it also mentions in there that they want two or three hours rather than the 20 minutes that we have now stipulated. MS. RAWSON: Well, under your rules, I think we tell them they only get 20 minutes, unless they let us know something different. If he wants two or three hours with witnesses and documentation, you almost have to do a special setting for him. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, he also states here that he wants to, Item 9, subpoena witnesses, which he can't subpoena witnesses unless he comes and asks us to subpoena them. MS. RAWSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which they're not -- you know, if we grant it now, these people aren't going to magically appear out there, so it will be for the November meeting. MS. RAWSON: I presume nobody's here on this case. MS. ARNOLD: Correct, there's no one here. MS. RAWSON: He would have to come in next month and ask you to issue the subpoenas, tell you who he wants to subpoena. And then because he's asking for so much time, he needs to understand that you're almost going to have to do a special setting for him. MR. BOWIE: Or we simply don't grant him all of that requested time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that was going to be my next Page 8 . -_..'-~~- August 26, 2004 question. Can we grant a continuance under certain conditions? In other words, that we grant the continuance but the continuance is that it will be handled as a normal item on our agenda under normal conditions; there will be no special concessions made, as requested, in this motion for continuance. Can we do something like that? MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can violate his due process rights and limit him to 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What I'm trying to get at is, he can come in in October and say -- and tell us, you know, this isn't going to take 20 minutes, I really want a -- MS. RAWSON: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- special hearing or something like that. MS. RAWSON: I think you need him back here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, we haven't heard his reasoning yet other than something written on a piece of paper and -- MS. RAWSON: No, I think you need to put him on the agenda for next month, have him come back to ask for his subpoenas and explain to you why it's going to take almost a special setting for his case. MS. DUSEK: Now, that bothers me in some respects, because here we've set this new time frame, and there will be other people out there who feel like they're due a longer period of time as well. So I guess what we have to do is listen to his reasons -- MR. BOWIE: Right, we -- MS. DUSEK: -- and make a decision from there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we haven't granted him the two hours yet. What Jean is saying is we order -- if we grant this continuance, it's on the basis that Mr. Rankin appear next month, which is September, and explain why he needs the time and also at that time to request us to issue subpoenas for witnesses. And if his reasoning next month is sufficient, then next month we would grant Page 9 August 26, 2004 him a special "X" time period for his presentation in October. Is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to make that a motion then. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a question. It states that they are not able to defend themselves. And with Mr. Rankin coming in as their attorney, could we possibly schedule for next month instead of two months out? The respondents do not have to be here, correct? MS. RAWSON: The respondents don't have to be here ifMr. Rankin is here to explain to you that he wants witnesses subpoenaed and that he needs more time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think October is a little bit -- you know, asking a little bit much. If the respondents can't defend themselves, I mean, there might not be a reason -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, but I think what he wants to do is present witnesses in their defense, even though they may physically not show up to defend themselves. So I think that's where -- to get his witnesses, he first has to ask our approval to issue a subpoena and then the following month those -- we order those witnesses to show up and he can put on his case to defend the Kowalkes. So it is going to be October, because we can't get witnesses here before then. We'd have to subpoena them today for next month, and that's not possible, because he's not here to tell us who he wants. So I think at best we order him to show up next month -- MR. BOWIE: That's going to be my motion then, that this matter be continued until our September meeting, for Mr. Rankin to appear, arrange for the witnesses he wishes to have subpoenaed, and to justify or explain, at least, his request for an extended period of time to present his case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I second the motion. Page 10 August 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to grant this continuance on the basis of the motion. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody understand what we're doing? Hearing that, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next is a motion request for a rehearing, and that is BCC versus Fracasso. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. LOUKONEN: I'm Rachel Loukonen and I represent Guy Fracasso. And we're here today just to request a rehearing. I understand Michelle doesn't have an objection. Simply put, he wrote a letter June 17th to the board, to Shanelle Hilton, requesting that it be continued, since he was going. to be out of town on business. MS. RAWSON: Would you be sworn in? I know attorneys don't usually get sworn in, but we do it here. MS. LOUKONEN: Don't trust attorneys? (Speaker sworn.) MS. LOUKONEN: It's L-O-U-K-O-N-E-N. Should I start from the beginning? Is it necessary to put that back on the record or -- Page 11 August 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we have to do is consider -- on the record I think we can -- let's not repeat ourselves. MS. LOUKONEN: All right. Wonderful. Essentially he wrote a letter to Shanelle Hilton requesting a continuance; he was going to be out of town on business. And he was told that that would be fine, that he would be heard at a later date. The hearing was held, an order was given, and Fracasso was not there to defend himself. So what we're requesting today is that we be heard next month. If you would like at this time -- I don't want to belabor the point, but if you would like at this time, I would be happy to share with the board some of the facts and reasons that we feel that it's pressing that it get heard verbally before the court -- or before the board. MS. DUSEK: If I remember correctly, this was a repeat violation. Am I wrong on that, or -- MS. LOUKONEN: That's what's contested. For one, it's -- we contest that it is a repeat violation. We feel that he did comply to begin with, based on the board's original order. The original order cited two violations: The first violation was that the dumpster was in a right-of-way and it needed to be removed. The other violation was that he was using the permitted location, which was next door to a restaurant area, for outside seating. The restaurant doesn't serve people there, but they let people sit there before they -- while they're waiting on a table. So the board's order essentially gave him two choices. And what a reasonable person would believe when they read the order was that he could either submit a site development plan that amended it to show a new location for the dumpster and to correct all of those violations, or he could remove the dumpster altogether. And it said if he didn't comply with that, which was number one on the order, then at that point he would be charged $100 a day for each day the violation continued. So Mr. Fracasso looked at his property, realized he couldn't move Page 12 August 26, 2004 the dumpster to the previously permitted location because he then had a larger dumpster at that time and it wouldn't fit into that area. And he looked and said, well I can just go -- I can't remove it, that's not an option, but I can go and get an amended site development plan. And he did. And he had that approved and the dumpster pad has been erected, the dumpster has been moved. My understanding after speaking with him this morning is that the table and the four chairs that were outside have been removed as well. And so for that reason, we feel like it does deserve a hearing so that the board can understand what he did or did not do in their eyes to comply with their order. MR. PONTE: Ms. Loukonen, does your request for a new hearing, a rehearing, mean that the document of the 20th of July in which you asked for either a rehearing or, alternatively, a request for abatement of fines, are you now not asking for the and/or? MS. LOUKONEN: My understanding is that what we could do is go forward with the rehearing, let the board hear the evidence, let them hear what has happened based on his understanding of the order. Because after he rec -- after he got the site development plan amended, at that time he did receive an affidavit of compliance showing that he was in full compliance with the board's order. So our client believed he was in full compliance. My understanding, after speaking with Michelle, is we could have the rehearing and then at the later date discuss the imposition of fines, based on -- because he's already paid from the first order -- based on the fines that the board is planning to assess in the second order, which is the 2004-029 case. MS. ARNOLD: If the board were to rehear it and decide that -- you know, to modify their previous finding, then there would not be any fines, is my understanding. MR. PONTE: I understand that, but it sort of takes away one of the options of the board, in that if we were to go forward and the Page 13 August 26, 2004 decision of the board was to abate the fines, and just in the interest of speeding things along and making everything move faster for everybody, this move removes that option so that we must have a rehearing. We don't have an option. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm -- at this time I guess my recommendation to my fellow board members is we do one or the other: We either have a request for a rehearing or a request for an abatement of fine. We're not going to flip a coin and do one or the other. I think that's wrong. Pick one. Since the respondent's attorney submitted it, it's not a flip of the coin. What would you rather do, take the fine or a rehearing? MS. LOUKONEN: I'd rather us go forward at the next hearing and discuss abating the fine -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. LOUKONEN: -- and showing what actions he's taken that would -- would allow for an abatement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Then before -- MS. LOUKONEN: It would remove that intermediary hearing, I believe is what you're saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So the only option before the board is they would like to request a rehearing because they felt that there was something wrong with the evidence, which is the two -- there's only two bases for a rehearing: It's something to do with the evidence they have, in my mind, or a violation of the law or -- is that it, Jean? MS. LOUKONEN: Exactly, that's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think that's the only two conditions. MS. LOUKONEN: And we're basing it on the fact that the affidavit of compliance showed that he was in full compliance and then later was cited for the exact same violations, although he was under the understanding that he was complying by pushing forward with getting a building permit, building the new location. So that's where we feel that we are entitled to a request for rehearing. Page 14 August 26, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Was there any reason why he didn't appear or have you appear for him in June? MS. LOUKONEN: We weren't hired until he received the latest order from the board. We were not hired. He was doing this on his own because, you know, his belief is that this is a people's court. And I respect that opinion. He felt that he was in full compliance. He had gotten the building permit. He felt that by contacting code enforcement several times and telling them we're getting the building permit, this is what's going on in the planning and development, the site development plan has been amended and approved, he felt that he was telling them what they needed to hear, that he was in compliance. So that's where we are today. MS. DUSEK: Michelle, I have a question for you. I don't recall the site development plan. Did it allow the dumpster to be in the right-of-way? MS. ARNOLD: No. The reason why he obtained a site -- he didn't have one previously and he obtained one to come into compliance and it showed an alternate location for the dumpster. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But when he was cited the second time, wasn't it still in the right-of-way and on the other person's property? Wasn't that the -- I'm trying to remember back, but -- MS. DUSEK: That's correct. MS. ARNOLD: When we brought the case back the second time, the dumpster remained in the original location that it was when we -- when the case was brought to you the first time. So it hadn't been moved at all. MS. BARNETT: Wasn't the site development plan possibly in review or something like that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. It hadn't been approved at that time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Okay, so we have a request for rehearing. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that we schedule this matter for Page 15 August 26, 2004 hearing next -- at our meeting next month for abatement of fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. She's asked for a rehearing. She didn't ask for abatement, she asked for a rehearing. MS. ARNOLD: She asked for both. MS. LOUKONEN: I asked for either/or. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I told her she couldn't get both. She has to pick one. I don't want to flip a coin. MR. BOWIE: I thought she told us she would prefer to go with the abatement -- MS. LOUKONEN: I would prefer to go with just arguing an abatement of fine. I prepared a packet today that I think will be helpful that shows a schematic of the actual location. And it gives you a factual overview of every date, everything that has occurred and what my client has expended to date, which is close to $20,000, to take care of this violation. MR. BOWIE: So the preference is to go with the abatement? MS. LOUKONEN: The preference is to go ahead and skip the rehearing and argue for an abatement of fines because that's logically the next step. MR. BOWIE: So let the motion stand then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the floor to schedule this for consideration of abatement of fine for our next hearing in September. Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. Page 16 August 26, 2004 MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. LOUKONEN: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Next is a motion or request for extension of time. First case is BCC versus Parsons. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Parsons is here. This particular case was heard by the board and there should be a letter in there from Mr. Parsons and some -- I have some photographs that he submitted that I can put on the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. (Speaker sworn.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Mr. Parsons, please. MR. PARSONS: Good morning. How are you? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning, sir. MR. PARSONS: The reason for a request has changed just a-- just a little bit. Recently I got hurt on the job. I work for Collier County public schools. And I'm on light duty. I have a neck injury, and I have a neurologist I go to, which in fact I have to go back to work today and go to for an MRI this afternoon. That's part of my reasonIng. The other part is that this particular job, if you look at the photographs, you're looking at between six and eight inches of solid concrete, certain areas one-inch rebar, which requires burning, not just sledgehammering. I've rented electric jackhammers, I've rented 90-pound air jackhammers, I've rented -- this is all verifiable through Page 17 August 26, 2004 Nations Rent -- I rented a machine that's 1,500 pounds per square inch jackhammer that you ride on to tear this thing down. Still haven't got it down. I've got two-thirds of it. I'm down to sledgehammers and out of money. I'm working on it. I've made a lot of progress with it. As a matter of fact, my neighbor and another friend has been helping me. My neighbor's sitting back there, the boy with the arm. He just had, I believe, it's seven stitches inside and lIon the outside. He cut it on a piece of jagged tile on that property sledgehammering. So he's out of commission. So I'm down to myself and one other person. I need more -- I'm asking for more time; I cannot meet the -- what is it, September 9th? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 4th. MR. PARSONS: 4th. I can't meet that. There's no way I can meet that deadline. I tried. I gave it my best shot. The pictures, I hope, show that. But that's about where I stand with it. MS. DUSEK: Mr. Parsons, how much time do you think you'll need? MR. PARSONS: Oh, I'm sorry . Well, I requested till December the 15th. I should have it down for sure by then. Absolutely. Hopefully in November. But my neck is -- I can't swing the sledgehammer until I get released from the doctors here now. So that puts me at a complete standstill. I didn't expect that. I got injured on the job at Lely High School. But that wasn't on my agenda at all. On my agenda was to get this nightmare over with. But it's not happening because I -- I mean, I just can't work. I can't -- I'm swinging the sledgehammer and picking up all that block and stuff. I can't do it. I'll just damage my neck worse. So that's one of my major concerns right there. But even with a good neck, I don't think I could have made your September 4th deadline. Even though I gave it all I got. MR. BOWIE: Just to confirm one thing, he does have a Page 18 August 26, 2004 demolition permit for this? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. BOWIE: When does the permit expire? MR. PARSONS: That was a question I'd like to ask, if I may. The permit-- MR. BOWIE: We wouldn't know. Perhaps somebody else might. MR. PARSONS: The permit -- from what I read of the permit, now of course I forgot the dates, but from what I read of the permit, I can re-up that, if you will, every six months. Now, does that still apply? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PARSONS: No, it doesn't. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it does. MR. PARSONS: It does? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. PARSONS: Then what am I doing here? I don't know what I'm doing -- why wouldn't I just re -- MS. ARNOLD: Because your -- there's an order from this board giving you a certain amount of time to come into compliance. MR. PARSONS: Does -- that overrides the demolition permit. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the permit is valid for six months. MR. PARSONS: Uh-huh. MS. ARNOLD: But you have certain obligations to this board to try to come into compliance, so -- MR. PARSONS: Which I think I've fulfilled, yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PARSONS: But I mean, can I extend that demolition permit? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First you have to separate the two. And this may be difficult, but we'll try to explain it. The board has ordered you to do something by a certain date. If Page 19 August 26, 2004 you don't do it, a fine is going to kick in. To do what we've ordered you to do, you have to get a permit. We don't issue the permits, and therefore, "X" period of time. Even though they're for a longer period of time, the permit doesn't override our order. Our order is like an order from a judge: Get it done or get fined. MR. PARSONS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So -- the permit's laying there, and that's great that it's six months. We gave you three months. N ow what you need to do and you're here to do is say three months wasn't long enough, I need more time. MR. PARSONS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, if we grant an extension of some time and your permit starts to run out, to be safe with the county, you'll need to get that extended. We don't extend that. You've got to keep it separate, okay? MR. PARSONS: All right, I gotcha. Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you, sir. Any more questions? MS. BARNETT: I have one question for him. Have you gotten any prognosis from your neurologist as to your neck? MR. PARSONS: No, I go for the MRI today and then I go to him tomorrow morning at 9:30, and then I'll know. At least I'm hoping I'll know. He should have the results by then, I guess. MS. ARNOLD: The investigator did go out yesterday and took the picture that's on the visualizer and -- showing the recent progress. And that's the other side of the structure. It was raining. MR. BOWIE: Well, it appears to me the respondent certainly is proceeding in good faith. Ultimately, sir, I hope you can meet the December 15th deadline doing this all yourself. MR. PARSONS: I think I can. MR. BOWIE: You may ultimately have to hire a contractor to Page 20 August 26, 2004 assist you. But I think, given the progress that's made and the demonstration of good faith, I would like to move that he be given the extension through the requested date of December 15th in order to comply. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to amend our order extending the time period to December 15th, rather than September 4th. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: December 15th, sir. MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much. May I ask just a quick question? Do I need this in black-and-white? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You'll get it in black-and-white. MR. PARSONS: Will it be mailed to my house or something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir. MR. PARSONS: Excellent. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one is -- request for extension of time is BCC versus Novelo. (Speaker sworn.) Page 21 August 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am, Ms. Novelo. MS. NOVELO: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here to defend myself and of course my house. I been having a lot of problem with my roof, and I been trying to get it fixed. But I have four childrens and I don't make enough money. I'm trying to struggle a lot to have my roof fixed. I went through a lot of the estimates to see which ones was more affordable. But unfortunately I am just getting like big high prices. And I'm really trying to get my roof done. But I have a fine already of $5,000 for fixing the roof, and I cannot afford that one. My cousin right there, she's my witness, and my other cousin, they staying in the house. And the inspector has been harassing me on my phone and calling me all the time. And I'm doing what I can. And it's not a matter of I need more time, because the fine keeps going up. And I got this paper right now that says that fine was for 5,000, is $50 a day. And right now it's 7,500 because I'm not complying. I'm still not comply. I am trying to save my house. I don't want to lose my house. That's all I have. I need the house for my childrens. And I don't know what to do. If I need more time, then the fines going to keep going high and high, and I can't afford. So I'm in your hands. And I don't know if to ask you for more time or to ask you that I probably could do it in six months. But I want you to please tell me about removing this fine for me, because I cannot afford. Or even if I afford the fines, I cannot afford to fix the roo f. So I'm not lying about this. My cousin, he doesn't work, and she doesn't work either, so I'm helping them. I'm helping them, you know, to -- she makes the food for other people, she sells food, but she doesn't help me with the rent. And I'm not lying, I have problems before. I rented the house, but I came and I eviction the people. I have a copy of that. I got to get. Page 22 August 26, 2004 In August, '03, I came and I file in the court for this person that was living in my house. He was a terrible man that was selling drugs and basically destroy my windows and my walls. And it was terrible. So I came and I went to the court and I had to eviction him. I kick him out because he was destroying my house. And I am just asking you to remove this fine so I can fix my roof and continue. Because I have family, and I'm helping these people. And I swear to God, I'm not lying. I'm not lying to you. I am trying to __ I'm trying to work and I'm trying to fix my roof. And the prices are really, really high. I don't know what is your decision, but I'm not lying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ma'am, have you -- did you go get a permit to fix your roof yet? Have you done that yet? MS. NOVELO: Yes, sir, I did. I have a copy here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you got that when? MS. NOVELO: I got it recently. I got it on August 2nd. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because we asked you to do two things: We asked you to get a permit within 30 days of the hearing, which was back in March, we hoped you would get the permit, and then get the work done 90 days after that. So you just now have got your permit and that's what you're telling us? MS. NOVELO: Yeah, I was trying to get some people to do it for me, but unfortunately -- well, my cousin doesn't speak English and doesn't read and doesn't write. And my other cousin, he -- he's -- basically he have a tumor. He was working okay, but I think something happened at work. I think, you know, those golf balls hit his head. He have a tumor so he can't work right now. And he doesn't __ he's staying in the house because the goodness of my heart, I wanted to help him. But also, I'm like -- I cannot kick these people out, because where will they go, you know? And -- but I also want to fix this problem with my house. MR. BOWIE: Well, ma'am, you have a permit now? Page 23 August 26, 2004 MS. NOVELO: Yes, sir, I do. MR. BOWIE: And in your letter you asked for a 90-day extension to get the work done. MS. NOVELO: Yes. MR. BOWIE: But you're also telling us that you don't have the financial means to get the work done. If we were to give you 90 days extension, how would you plan on getting it done? MS. NOVELO: Okay, I spoke to somebody that knows the work, and he say if we get this permit first, and if you permit for me to do the work, he can do it and he can do a good job. MR. BOWIE: Is he a licensed roofing contractor? MS. NOVELO: I think so; I'm not sure. MR. BOWIE: Well, you need to make sure. MS. NOVELO: Okay. Yeah. But he is the one that is -- I mean, everybody else is so high priced. And I'm trying to -- I'm trying to do it myself. Not myself personally, but I'm trying to get, you know, somebody to help me. MS. BARNETT: Cliff, I don't know if I'm out of line here, but I really think that in this situation, because she has just received the permit, that was already against our order, I would rather let her go through, get the work completed and come back to us to abate the fines rather than -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, that was going to be one of my options. Because if we grant a 90-day extension, it's really not 90 days, because we're going to have to go back to our March deadline and grant from there and move everything up. So it would be easier for her to just do the work and come back when she's all done, and -- MS. BARNETT: Let us hear her case then. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- let us hear what she's just said, and hopefully we can do something about it. I think that's probably a better option. I don't know if that's true, but I think it's a more comfortable option maybe for the board. Page 24 August 26, 2004 What we're thinking, ma'am, is do what you have to do and when you're all done, when you get your roof fixed, even though the fines have built up, you are allowed to come back to us at that time and say rather than pay the fine of "X" -- and it will grow more than the $5,000 right now, it will get bigger -- but come back to us when you're all done, tell us that you've fixed your roof and ask us to waive the fine because of all these factors, okay? And then see if we won't be able to waive the fine. We have the power to waive the fine but not the administrative costs. So there is some cost you're going to have to pay . We can't waive it all, but there will be some cost you're going to have to pay. MS. NOVELO: Let me pay you the cost now so I don't have to build up and then lose my house. I don't want to lose my house. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You're not going to lose your house until we're all done and we make the determination whether we want to ask the county to proceed that way. So forget that part of it right now. Don't worry about losing your house right now. What we want you to do is fix your roof, okay? MS. NOVELO: I'm scared. I am. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We want you to fix your roof right now. Just worry about that part of it. Okay? Get that fixed and come back to us, okay? When you're all done, come back and ask us if we wouldn't abate the fine portion of our order. Okay? MS. NOVELO: But you think when I come back, you might not remember me that I am begging you -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd say we'll remember. We'll have all these papers, because they're kept in a file, it's public record. And when you come back, it will all be given back to us, okay? And when you want to come back, you'll contract the county and tell them why you want to come back, that you have complied and you want to waive the fine. In other words, write them another small letter and state why you want to come back to us, okay? Page 25 August 26, 2004 MS. NOVELO: Okay. And will that be like sooner or as soon as I fix the roof? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: As soon as you get your roof fixed, whether you fix it next week, next month, in two months, or whenever you get it fixed. MS. NOVELO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? Then you want to write and get in contact with Michelle and tell her you'd like to come back before the board and ask for an abatement or a waiver of the fines, okay? And she'll put you on our agenda and you can come back before us and say yes, I've done it now, and the reason it took me so long is, you know, what you've just told us. And I'm sure our memory will be refreshed, because we'll have all your documents. Okay? MS. NOVELO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, and just to keep our records straight, Jean, would we, in recommending this process, for lack of a better way to call it right now, do we need to make any kind of a motion that's our recommendation to her, or is just a recommendation fine? MS. RAWSON: It's just a -- well, you've got to act on her motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we've got to deny her request for an -- MR. BOWIE: Extension. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- extension. MS. RAWSON: You know, in your packet, there's already an order imposing fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. And the fines keep running, so -- but we can, when it's all done, since the fines are still running, abate all the fines. Not the administrative costs, but all the fines; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 26 , August 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: The only thing you really need to act on is her motion for an extension of time. And, you know, the advice that you gave her, it really wouldn't be part of the order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOWIE: Fine. With that, ma'am, you understand the advice we've given you, that you need to focus as soon as possible on getting the roof repaired by a-- MS. NOVELO: Yes, I-- MR. BOWIE: -- properly licensed contractor? MS. NOVELO: -- I understand. MR. BOWIE: With that understanding, I'd like to move then that the motion for an extension of time be denied. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to deny the request for extension of time. Any further discussion? MS. NOVELO: But, Your Honor -- I'm sorry. You're not giving me extension of time since August, right? So I -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have nothing to do with the permit process. That's by itself, okay? I don't know how long that's good for, but it will say on there, I would think, does it not, Michelle, how long her permit for a roof is good for? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it should have an expiration date on there. MS. N Y give me six -- MS. ARNOLD: But -- yeah, it's six OVELO: It's six months. The months from the -- she got it on the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yeah, we have nothing to do with that. That's good. Okay? MS. NOVELO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're telling you is this is only on your request asking us for an extension of the order that we gave you Page 27 August 26, 2004 to get everything done, a permit back in March and then get your roof fixed 90 days from that, which I think makes it June or something. And you haven't done that yet. So that's why all the fines have kicked in. And we're denying a request to extend any of those times. What -- your permit's fine. There's two different documents, okay? MS. NOVELO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MS. NOVELO: So for the next meeting, will I have to contact Michelle? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you won't -- the next meeting will be whenever the roof gets fixed. When that's all done, once your roofs completely fixed, then contact Michelle or the investigator and ask them if you can come back before the board for a request to waive the fine, okay? MS. NOVELO: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you understand that? MS. NOVELO: Yeah. And the investigator will continue coming to my house? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, now that he knows you're working on it, I don't know how often they come. That's -- they work for Michelle and we have nothing to do with that. MS. NOVELO: All right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay? MS. NOVELO: Thank you so much. MS. ARNOLD: He'll probably still come to check on the status. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm sure he'll check on the status to see that you're doing something or not doing something. Hopefully it won't be daily, because one would know you can't fix a roof in a day, but -- especially in the weather, so -- MS. ARNOLD: We don't do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir? Page 28 August 26, 2004 MR. PONTE: Mr. Chairman, I just feel this is so open ended. And we've said whenever you've finished getting the roof on. We ought to give her some sort of encouragement in the recommendation that it should be done as quickly as possible, and hopefully by the end of the year or some sort of -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the fines are still accruing, so she's already in violation of the order. And that's really the encouragement. The fines keep getting larger, and they're going to get astronomical if she doesn't do something. And we will have to -- MS. BARNETT: And I think it would behoove her -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're already -- let's see, it was June something I think was the date. So June to July, to August, to September. So about the end of September, say our November meeting is the normal course of three months have passed when fines have been imposed that we would recommend normally to the county attorney to do something. So in that event, that's still hanging out over here. That's why I told her, get it done and come back. And hopefully that's the incentive. MR. PONTE: Ms. Novelo, do you understand that you are urged to complete this task as quickly as possible? MS. NOVELO: Yes, sir, I do. MR. PONTE: Okay. MS. DUSEK: I also want to make the comment that when you do request to come back, that it's not automatic that we will waive the fines or reduce them. It will be a request by you and then a decision whether we do either one of those. It's not automatic. MS. NOVELO: I'm begging you if I could. Do you want me to make you a letter or something? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you'll need a letter asking to come back and why you want to come back. And that will be -- the letter will explain you want to ask us to waive the fines for the following reasons; and they will be reasons just like you said here, Page 29 August 26, 2004 okay, just now. Basically it will be the same reason, it just took this long period of time. Okay? MS. NOVELO: Okay. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second on the floor to deny the request for an extension of time. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, ma'am. Just please get your roof fixed rapidly. MS. NOVELO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, ma'am. That's all our motions to deal with. Now we're dealing with non-contested cases. The first one being 2004-036, BCC versus Ackerman. MS. HILTON: Yes. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Del Ackerman. We have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the Couno/'s Exhibit A. Page 30 August 26, 2004 MS. BARNETT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the County's Exhibit A. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The respondent is present in the courtroom. And at this time we'll turn the case over to the investigator, Eddie Ybaka (sic), to -- all right, I slaughtered that -- to take over. MR. YBACET A: That's Ybaceta. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ybaceta. Okay. (Speaker sworn). MR. YBACET A: My name is Eddie Ybaceta. I'm a code enforcement investigator. I received a complaint, a citizen's complaint, on Del Ackerman's warehouse and supermarket. Basically it was painted predominantly black. In my investigation I found the structure to be in violation of the Land Development Code Ordinance 91-102, Section 2.8.3.5.12.3.1, which says that you cannot paint your buildings -- your commercial buildings black, gray or any fluorescent colors. We met with Mrs. Ackerman and her attorney, Ray Bass, and we've come to a stipulation. They signed an agreement. They've agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of $572. They've agreed to hire a paint contractor to repaint the structures within 60 Page 3 1 August 26, 2004 days. If they don't pay it within 60 days, then a fine of $100 a day will be imposed. MS. ARNOLD: Eddie indicated the respondent's attorney, Mr. Bass, is here. And he's here to confirm that they've agreed to that. MR. BASS: Yes. For the record, my name is Ray Bass and I'm a lawyer in private practice here in Naples. And Mrs. Ackerman is present as well. And she's been given Mr. Ackerman's written authorization, which the staff has, to represent him here, if necessary. We do confirm that that is the agreement that we reached the other day in a meeting with the staff. We would ask that the -- I guess there's a joint motion here to -- on our part for the board to accept that. MS. DUSEK: I have no problem with that. I think that the stipulation covers everything that we would have asked. And so I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as agreed by both parties. MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement between both parties. Any further discussion or questions? MR. BOWIE: Do we need to recite as part of this motion the terms of the order? MS. DUSEK: Jean, do we have to specify that, since it has been put on record by -- MS. RAWSON: It's been put on record by the inspector. I think he said exactly 60 days or $100. And they've stipulated and agreed to that, so that will -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Plus the administrative costs of 572. MS. RAWSON: Right. So you can make that your order. MS. DUSEK: The operational costs were how much again? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 572. MR. YBACET A: 572. MS. DUSEK: Well, then I'll include in my motion the operational costs of 572 to be paid by the respondent. They will Page 32 ---. August 26, 2004 repaint within 60 days. If not, $100 a day fine will be put into effect. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you both. MR. BASS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next non-contested case is 2004-039, Larry and Correna Mc V ey. MS. HILTON: Yes. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Larry and Correna McVey, Case No. 2004-039. And we have previously provided the board and the respondent with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the board's Exhibit A. MR. HEMES: I'd like to second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The County's Exhibit A. MS. BARNETT: Yeah, County's Exhibit A, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Page 33 August 26, 2004 All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: And I would now like to turn the case over to the investigator, Jeff Letourneau. (Speaker sworn). MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. On May 4th, 2004, I received a phone call from the property appraiser's office, saying that there might be some violations out at Mr. McVey's property, 125 Fifth Street Southwest. I went out there that day and I observed vehicles, litter and permitting issues, including a canopy, a shed and the enclosure of a stilt house. Posted the property. Went through all the things I needed to get Mr. McVey notified. As of yesterday, Mr. McVey came in the office and signed an agreement with my supervisor, Dennis Mitchell, agreeing to pay for the operational cost of $826.75, and either getting a permit for the improvements or removing them. And also removing the litter within 30 days and getting the vehicles taken care of within 30 days. I went out there and did a site inspection yesterday, and Mr. McVey has already taken the canopy down, he's taken the shed down, and he's made big strides in getting the litter and the vehicles off the property. Page 34 August 26, 2004 He's also agreed to meet me out there in a couple of weeks to do an inspection. And he's stated that he will either take care of the enclosure of the bottom of the house or have it removed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Jeff, this 30-day limit that was agreed to, what happens after the 30 days? Was there any fine discussed? MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, yeah, there was, excuse me. For the litter, if after 30 days, there would be a $50 a day fine. And for the vehicles, there would also be another $50 a day fine. And for the permitting issues, within 60 days he needs to get a permit application in or it would be a $50 a day fine, and then another 60 days he has to get the -- let me see, let me read this real quick -- have the inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within 60 days after he gets it applied for or another $50 a day fine win kick in. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to see something in there that if potentially he can't get permits for the structure underneath his house, that he would need to get a demolition permit in a certain period to have those items removed. MR. LETOURNEAU: Actually, in here it -- you guys don't have a copy of this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, your executive summary that has a recommendation is exactly how the stipulation reads. MR. LETOURNEAU: It reads: Alternatively, respondent may within 30 days from the date of hearing obtain a demolition hearing and remove all non-permitted improvements and related debris to an area intended for such disposal, and convert the bottom of the stilt house to its originally permitted condition, and follow through with all the required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion for each structure or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions for Jeff? Page 35 August 26, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. McVey? MR. McVEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you agree with all these -- MR. McVEY: -- absolutely. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the agreement? MR. McVEY: Absolutely. MR. BOWIE: I've never seen such an enthusiastic respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, it's different and nice. All right, sir, so you don't have a problem in complying with these? MR. McVEY: Not at all, no. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All right, sir. Any questions for Mr. McVey? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement between the county and Mr. McVey. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. MS. DUSEK: And -- do I have to read every bit of this, Jean, for the record, or can we just go by what -- MS. RAWSON: You could go by what he said. I don't remember what the operational costs were, though. MS. DUSEK: 826.75. MR. BOWIE: 826.75. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MS. DUSEK: And it's following the recommendation as given to us. Is that correct, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulated agreement between the parties. Is there any further discussion or questions? (No response.) Page 36 August 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, Mr. McVey. You'll get a copy of the order. MR. McVEY: No problem. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You too. Let's take 10 minutes right now. It's 10:33. Let's make it 10:43, please, to reconvene. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We'll call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, please. We're still on our public hearings. MS. HILTON: Yes. Our next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Anne J. Milne, M-I-L-N-E, and Telma B. Garcia. CEB Case No. 2004-041. At this time we'd like to ask if the respondent is present in the courtroom. (No response.) MS . HILTON: The respondent is not present. We have previously provided the board and the respondents with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. MS. BARNETT: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the Page 37 -..- August 26, 2004 Collier County Board's Exhibit A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Collier County Code Enforcement Department. MS. BARNETT: Code Enforcement Board, sorry. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, department, not board. MS. BARNETT: Okay, department. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We're not submitting the package, they are. MS. BARNETT: I'm sorry. Get me straight. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the county's exhibit. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended, by Ordinance 99-58, Section 6. The description of the violation: Failure to register rental property . Location of violation: 1633 Morning Sun Lane, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Anne J. Milne and Telma B. Garcia, 140 Thompson Street, Apartment 3-E, New York, New York. Date violation first observed: January 30th, 2004. Date owner given notice of violation: An amended notice of violation was provided to the owners on June 22nd, 2004 by certified Page 38 August 26, 2004 mail, return receipt requested, and regular U.S. Mail and posting of property and the courthouse. Date on which violation was to be corrected: July 13, 2004. Date of reinspection: August 25, 2004. Result of reinspect ion: As of August 24th, the respondent had paid her rental registration on August 24th. And the CEB notice of hearing was sent out certified mail, return receipt requested, which has not been returned. And it was sent out regular U.S. Mail and posting of property and the courthouse. And at this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Carol Sykora, to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. On January 30th, 2004, former investigator, Chris van Lengon (phonetic) received a citizen complaint and researched the computer records and observed there was no rental registration certificate for 1633 Morning Sun Lane. He also verified the unit was not owner occupied by speaking to a Julie Nedelak (phonetic), who confirmed that she was the tenant of the unit. On March 11 th, this case was turned over temporarily to Investigator Larry Schwartz, who tried unsuccessfully to contact the property owner by phone. Investigator Schwartz also made contact -- he finally made contact with the property owner on March 18th, 2004, to explain the violation. He also sent a copy of the notice of violation and faxed it. On April 22nd, the case was reassigned to myself, as I had gained that territory. So I took this case over. On June 22nd, 2004, I posted the property, the courthouse and mailed the notice of violation to the owner regular and certified mail. The original notice of violation sent to the owner was returned unclaimed, and the original notice of violation was amended by me to Page 39 August 26, 2004 include a correct ordinance. I also faxed this -- the copy of the rental instructions and a copy of the rental form to the owner and called and was verified that they did receive this. However, no rental registration was obtained until August 24th, 2004. Therefore, I ask that operational costs be due on this matter of $776.50, due to the fact this case has been continuing since January 30th, 2004, and it was just paid. Thank you. Any questions? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm confused. You're saying this case. Have we issued an order on this? MS. ARNOLD: No. This is the first time that you're hearing this matter. But the -- I think what she was referring to is the case internally has dragged on for some time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But there hasn't been an order issued by this board? MS. SYKORA: No. I meant my case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But there is in fact a rental registration on file now? MS. SYKORA: Now, at -- just the other day, August 24th. Probably after they received this Code Enforcement Board packet, I guess they decided to -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, and the board has the ability to hear cases, even though they've come into compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. Any questions for the investigator? MR. PONTE: Just one. Carol, how many units are involved? MS. SYKORA: This is one unit. MR. PONTE: Just one unit? MS. SYKORA: One unit. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Page 40 August 26, 2004 Board of County Commissioners versus Anne Milne and Thelma (sic) B. Garcia, CEB Case No. 2004-041, that a violation did exist. The violation was of Ordinance No. 89-06, as amended by Ordinance No. 99-58, Section 6. The description of the violation: Failure to register rental property . MS. BARNETT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation did exist. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Order of the board. I'm a little -- I don't want to say confused, concerned, but I mean, the people have complied with what the county wanted. Yes, it's taken some time, but it's not out of the ordinary, based on past history of how long it's taken some people to comply. MS. ARNOLD: I think what staff is requesting is that the operational costs be imposed. MR. PONTE: Period. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm just having a hard time with that, myself. But what's the order of the board? MR. PONTE: I make a motion that the respondent be ordered to Page 41 "--~_.-<- August 26, 2004 pay all operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case, which we've been told is $776. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. MR. BOWIE: And 50 cents. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion on the table to order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $776.50. Is there a second? MR. HEMES: Yeah, I second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we have a second. Any further discussions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any opposed? Opposed. Okay. Next case, 2004-038. MS. HILTON: Yes. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Avin Noel, and that's A-V-I-N, and Marie Chavanes, (:-II-J\-'1-J\-N-E-S. At this time, we would like to ask if the respondents are present in the courtroom? (N 0 response.) MS. HILTON: The respondents are not present. We have previously provided the board and the respondents with a packet of information that we would like entered as Exhibit A at this time. Page 42 August 26, 2004 MR. BOWIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to accept the County's Exhibit A. Do I have a second? MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. HILTON: The alleged violation is of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 2.6.7.1, and 2.6.7.5. The description of the violation: Fence erected without first obtaining the authorization of a building permit, having all of the required inspections, and receiving a certificate of completion. Location of violation: 4818 Devon Circle, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner: Avin Noel and Marie Chavanes, 4818 Devon Circle, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: February 25, 2004. Date owner given notice of violation: February 26, 2004 by certified mail, return receipt requested, claimed on March 5, 2004. Date on which violation was to be corrected: March 19th, 2004. Date of reinspection: August 25, 2004. Result of reinspection: The violation remains. And this CEB notice of hearing was sent certified mail, which has not been returned yet, regular U.S. Mail and posting of property Page 43 --" August 26, 2004 and the courthouse. And at this time, I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, John Olney, and that's O-L-N-E-Y, to present the case to the board. (Speaker sworn.) MR. OLNEY: Good morning. For the record, I'm John Olney, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. We've had the dates pretty much put in the record. I'll try to hit most of the highlights. I responded to an anonymous complaint about a fence being erected without a permit on February 25th. I went to the residence and saw more or less what you see there now. It looked a little better on that day than what that picture shows. Noone was home, so we mailed a notice of violation to them, which was later claimed and signed for by the owners. Nothing happened. And as of about April 28th, I mailed them a citation, since I again could not find anybody home. And this was paid around the 1 st of June. On June 10th, I happened to be driving through the area and saw a car in the driveway, so I stopped in and spoke with Mrs. Chavanes. She said, oh, everything is taken care of. My husband went and paid the $105. I tried to explain, no, ma'am, that was a citation. You still need to get a permit for the fence or get a permit to demolish it and get rid of the fence. We then discussed that her husband works and there was a problem getting a permit. And we finally decided he could probably get to the community development after work some day and get it taken care of. Again, nothing happened. Here, I don't know what happened, but I got an e-mail from one of our customer service technicians in permitting, a Wanda Moore, asking me for some more information about this matter so she could discuss it intelligently with the property Page 44 August 26, 2004 owners. I never heard back from her from this. Whether that was prompted by a contact from the owners, I do not know. On -- this matter then continued on and on with no resolution. On August 12th, I posted at the residence the CEB notice of hearing, which included the supporting documentation. August 17th, Mr. Noel came in to see the community development and obtained a building permit, which is now in issued status. So the violation for which we're here today has partially been abated, other than -- to completely do so, we must go to a certificate of completion. The recommendation which we then came up with, I will have to change somewhat as I go along here, because it's somewhat different than what was submitted, because what was submitted to you did not take into account the fact that the permit is now issued. So we recommend that they pay operational costs in the amount of$746.75, and that within 10 days of the date of this hearing they obtain a certificate of completion for the fence, or that a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day thereafter that the violation remains unabated. Or as an alternative, they can come back and get a demolition permit and remove the fence. We also request that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Board that the violation has been abated and myself or another investigator be asked to come and verify same. Thank you. MS. DUSEK: In your request, if we do find a violation, a certificate of completion within 10 days, does that also mean or a demo permit within the same 10-day period; do one or the other within 10 days? MR. OLNEY: I think that would be appropriate, yes, ma'am. MS. DUSEK: I'd like to make a motion that in the case of the Board of County Commissioners versus A vin Noel and Marie Chavanes, in the CEB Case No. 2004-038, that a violation does exist. Page 45 -.-- August 26, 2004 The violation -- and I have to review -- that 91-102 is for permitting? They already have the application for the permit; is that correct? MR. OLNEY: Yes, ma'am, it has been issued. MS. DUSEK: So I think that 91-102, Michelle, correct me if I'm wrong, will be eliminated? Or will that -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, you can find that-- MR. BOWIE: Well, that was a violation at that point in time. MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. MS. DUSEK: All right. We'll continue and we'll say is and was violation of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 2.6.7.1 and 2.6.7.5. Description of violation: Fence erected without first obtaining the authorization of a building permit, having all of the required inspections and receiving a certificate of completion. MS. BARNETT: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second that in fact a violation did exist and does exist, because it's two different sections. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 46 ----" -.~-_....-_. August 26, 2004 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Order of the board. MS. DUSEK: I make the motion that we order the respondent to pay the operational costs of $746.75, get a certificate of completion or a demo permit to remove the fence within 10 days, or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed. And that the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and to request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Did you cover the administrative costs? Maybe I missed it. Okay, thank you. MR. BOWIE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose administrative costs and request for a certificate of completion and/ or demolition permit within 10 days or a $50 fine, plus notification to the inspector to come out and check. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last case, 2004-03 -- no -- didn't we do that one? MR. BOWIE: We continued that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We continued that one. Okay. That ends the public hearing section of the board. Page 47 August 26, 2004 We're now into new business, which is imposition of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. First item is for Richard Premise? MS. HILTON: Yes, the first name is Premise. Premise Richard. MS. ARNOLD: Premise Richard. And this particular case was heard by the board on July 22nd, and the board at that particular time found the respondent in violation and ordered to come into compliance within 14 days or fines of $35 per day would be imposed. The respondent is now in compliance. And at this particular time, the only thing staff is requesting is the imposition of operational costs in the amount of $697.50. MR. BOWIE: I'd like to move that in the Case No. 2004-034, Board of County Commissioners versus Richard Premise (sic), that the board impose fines, liens, in the amount of $697.50 for operational costs incurred in the prosecution of the case. MS. DUSEK: The name is Premise Richard. MR. BOWIE: Yes, Premise Richard and Rigaud Calixte. MS. BARNETT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the operational costs as requested. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one is BCC versus Blocker. MS. ARNOLD: The -- this particular case was heard by the Page 48 August 26, 2004 board -- or actually, there was a stipulation approved by the board on April 22nd, and the stipulation was where both parties agreed that the respondent would submit a site development plan to the county within 90 days and obtain all of the permits and inspections associated with that within 18 months after the approval of the site development plan. Failure to do any of that, $100 per day would be imposed each day the violations, both violations, were not met. At this particular time, the respondent has not complied with that stipulation agreement, and we are requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $3,600 for the period between July 21 st through August 26th, with a continuing accrual of $100 per day, plus $968.25 for operational costs. MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we accept the recommendation from the county, as stated. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion to impose the fines and operational costs, as requested by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Next one is BCC versus Robert Page 49 August 26, 2004 Lockhart. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case was another stipulated agreement. This was done on June 24th. The parties agreed to stipulate to the violation and order the respondent to either provide information with -- for permits that the structure was actually permitted or obtain permits within 45 days. And the respondent was given another 180 days to commence and complete the improvements and obtain certificate of occupancy. The failure to do that would require fines being imposed, $50 per day for each violation. Respondent has not complied with the board's order, and staff is at this time requesting that the board impose fines in the amount of $800 for a period of August 10th through August 22nd, with continuing fines to accrue at the rate of $50 per day, plus operational costs of $1,209.75. MS. BARNETT: Michelle, was that August 22nd? Because in our packet it says the 26th. MS. ARNOLD: August 26th, yes. MS. BARNETT: I'll make a motion that we accept the staffs recommendation to impose the fine lien for the operational cost and the $50 per day for the time period of August 10th through August 26th. MS. DUSEK: I second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine and operational cost, as requested by the county. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 50 August 26, 2004 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Last one is Chris Posada. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This case was heard by the board on June 24th, and violations were found. The board ordered that all of the litter on the property be removed by -- within 45 days. There was pretty much a 45-day comply by period, with $50 per day being imposed each day the -- each violation continued. Paragraph 3, however, which related to permits and construction, imposed $100 per day fine. And the respondent is not in compliance. And staff is at this particular time asking that the board impose fines in the amount of $850 for a period of August 9th through August 26th at a rate of $50 per day, plus $1,700 for -- from the period of August 9th through August 26th at a rate of $100 per day, which relates to the permit. And each fine would continue to accrue until compliance. Plus an additional $914.25 for the operational costs. MR. PONTE: Michelle, let me just ask you a question. If -- in the executive summary it says that the dwelling is creating an immediate safety and health hazard to occupants and adjacent neighbors due to lack of maintenance, et cetera. Is there anything that the county can do in addition to -- if this is an immediate safety problem, is there something the county can do to button it up? MS. ARNOLD: The safety issue related to the occupants is something that the county can try to probably contact other agencies, such as the health department. I'm not sure if the rented property is still occupied. I can check with the investigator. But the respondent also lived on the other side. I'm not sure there's much that we can do with respect to him -- his occupancy in his own home. Page 51 -.--. August 26, 2004 MR. PONTE: Okay, thanks. MS. ARNOLD: We will look into the rental property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We also gave the county the right to remove all the litter and everything as an option. I don't know what it costs for the county to do that, but has the county thought about that or just passed on it? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know whether or not staff has looked into, you know, bidding that out. We can bid that out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. That was just an alternative we gave the county just in case it was -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. And I'll look into that as well to see whether or not we -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a really bad situation, we gave another out. Right now we have a request by the county to impose the two fine amounts and the operational costs. Do we have a motion on the floor, please? MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to advise the board, Shanelle just whispered in my ear that the investigator has been out and noted that some of the -- most of the litter has been removed. So it's just not completely in compliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Someone like to-- MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation to impose the fines, for operational costs as well as fines, in the amount of $3,464.25. MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to impose the fines and operational costs, as requested by the county. Any further discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 52 -"~"'..'.". August 26, 2004 MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have no abatements. We have no requests to foreclose. Affidavits of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: As a result of the prior case, the imposition of fine for operational cost, the Premise Richard case, we will be filing an affidavit of compliance. And one affidavit of noncompliance will be filed for the Board of County Commissioners versus Curtis Blocker. Another for the case against Mr. Lockhart. Another for the case against Chris Posada. And that's it. Those are -- all three are noncompliance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Reports. We have submitted to us a report from the assistant county attorney on our foreclosure status. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Jeff Klatzkow is here from the county attorney's office. MR. KLATZKOW: Good morning. Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney. I'm the guy who at the end of the day collects on the fines that this board levies, that aren't voluntarily paid, anyway. Last report was back on April 7th, 2004. At that time our office had 32 active cases. Since that time, we received an additional seven cases for a total of 39 active cases. We've settled 11 cases since April, 2004, giving us a total current active cases of 28, so we're going down a bit. Page 53 August 26, 2004 Since April 7th, we've collected $25,314.50. Year-to-date, $48,789.97. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Which all sounds very good, I think. It looks like we're averaging 20,000 plus every quarter. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, it's really not our job to be an income generator for the county -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand that, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- but hopefully people will be more inclined to voluntarily pay their fines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good. Thank you, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: You're welcome. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to add that Jeffs doing a very good job, at least getting people to respond back and then come up with payment schedules and those types of things. So these may not reflect full payments of the -- some of the fines, but at least we are getting some payments in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Under comments. Jean, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I noticed two of our cases where we just imposed fines were two where we had stipulated agreements that they had agreed to and failed to honor them, for lack of a better word. MS. RAWSON: I noticed that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess my question is, when we have these stipulated agreements and the parties agree to do something within a specified time and if they don't they get a fine, is there a process or a -- is there anything we can do to them for not following the stipulated agreement? MS. RAWSON: It's the same as an order. It's just an agreed order. An order is an order. So it's the same, you know, enforcement that you have, powers that you have, whether they agree or whether we have a hearing and you order. It's the same. Page 54 August 26, 2004 By the way, while we're on comments, don't forget to take Kowalke home with you, because we continued it till next month. And I think Shanelle has the Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations for your signatures before you leave here today. And those that are not here -- well, I guess everybody's here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we just -- Albert's the one that's not here, but -- MS. RAWSON: Albert. We'll get him next month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you can catch him next month. So everybody remember to sign the order before -- I'm sorry, the rules before we leave, for Shanelle. Any other comments from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have our next meeting September 23rd, same time, same place. Remember ours is at -- to be here at 9:00. And the actual meeting starts at 9:30, but we need to be here at 9:00. Any other comments? If not, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. BOWIE: So moved. MR. PONTE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have multiple-- MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- motions and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOWIE: Aye. MS. BARNETT: Aye. MS. DUSEK: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Aye. Thank you kindly. Page 55 August 26, 2004 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11: 18 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 56