Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/26/2007 R April 26, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 26, 2007 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Bldg, Room 609/610,2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Lionel L'Esperance Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring (Absent) Gerald Lefebvre Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Horseshoe drive, Naples, FI. 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITlED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. 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 ANI> 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 MINUTES - March 22,2007 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS Motion to Continue I. BCC vs. Donald and Jo Coleman 2. BCC vs. TW Management of Naples, Inc A/KIA Naples Investments. INC CEB 2007-30 CEB 2007-36 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. BeC vs. Frank Fernandez 2. BeC Ys. Jobani A. Gonzales 3. BCC ys. Pipers Crossing. LLC 4. BeC YS. Domenic P. Tosto and Joanne M. Tosto 5. BeC ys. Paul Skipper a/k/a Paul Skipper Trustee 6. BCC YS. MMB of Southwest Florida LLC and Bonita Media Enterprises LLC 7. BeC YS. Roilan Perez CEB 2007-22 eEB 2007-26 eEll 2007-28 CEB 2007-32 CEll 2007-33 CEll 2007-35 CEll 2007-37 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens I. BCC ys. Daisy Arrazeaeta 2. BCC YS. Calexieo Ine CEB 2006-15 CEB 2006-47 B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. BCe Ys. Dalila Grimaldo 2. BCC YS. Rober! and Cristina Ferris 3. BCC YS. Marlene Santilli CEB 2006-37 CEB 2007-07 CEB 2007-12 6. NEW BUSINESS- 7. REPORTS- 8. COMMENTS- 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 24, 2007 10. ADJOURN April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting of the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts rules of order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need for ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which is the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have the roll call, please. MS. MARKU: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Sheri Barnett? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Present. MS. MARKU: Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MS. ARNOLD: Let the record show that Mr. Kraenbring was here but had a conflict and he had to leave. So it's an excused absence. Page 2 April 26, 2007 MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Here. MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: With the attendance, should we have one of the alternates act as a voting member? So I believe Mr. Martin, you'll have full voting rights. Okay, approval of the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. I do have some changes to the agenda. Item number 4-C- 7 needs to be added under request for continuance. And we have several stipulations. Item 4-C-2, there's been a stipulation. 4-C-3. 4-C-6. And so those items will be heard first, prior to the other hearings. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So 4-C-4 has been moved for continuance? And 2,3 and 6 are to be stipulated, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: 4-C-7 is to be moved to continuance. So we've got three items on the continuance list: We've got Board of County Commissioners versus Donald and Joe Coleman, Board of County Commissioners versus TW Management of Naples, and then Board of County Commissioners versus MMB of Southwest Florida. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. With those changes, may I hear a motion to approve the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 3 April 26, 2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Approval of the minutes for March 22nd. Do we have any corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Abstain. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess we'll move to motions to continue. First one being? MS. ARNOLD: The Colemans. And you should have received a letter from Mrs. Coleman, I believe, requesting a continuance. She had a conflict with this particular meeting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have an investigator, or -- MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to speak to this? Do you have the letter dated April 11 th, 20017 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes, I was just perusing it real quickly. MS. ARNOLD: And the county has no objections to that Page 4 April 26, 2007 continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I guess I'll close it to public input then and opinions from the board. Anybody want to entertain a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to move it to the next meeting. MR. DEAN: Second. MS. ARNOLD: The request is to move it to June, I believe. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: June? MS. ARNOLD: June, 2007. MR. DEAN: I withdraw my second. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve to the June meeting. MR. KELLY: I'll second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. RAWSON: What's the date of the June meeting? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we're going to talk about that. We actually have it set right now for the 22nd, but we're -- I have a conflict and so does Bendisa, and we're trying to see if we can move it to the 18th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. The next one is BCC versus TW A Management of Naples. Page 5 April 26, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. You also should have received a letter reflecting that request for continuance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Give me a minute. I didn't get these. Okay. Does the county have any objections? MS. ARNOLD: No, no, we don't. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure what time they're looking for to show up in front of the board, being that they're going to be away, if I'm not mistaken, next meeting and then away for the summer. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. They had an illness in the family. They had to go out of town. They will be back May 2nd. And I've had dialogue with them, so we're going to get this resolved. The violation has abated. All that we need to do is pay operational cost, so we'll get everything squared away. They just didn't know -- they were uncomfortable; they wanted to be here. MR. LEFEBVRE: So continuing to the next meeting you'll probably have it resolved by then? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to continue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 6 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then BCC versus MMB of Southwest Florida, LLC and Bonita Media Enterprises. MS. ARNOLD: You received a letter, and the counsel for MMB is present, so they can speak to their request. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. INNUNZIATA: Good morning. My name is Richard Innunziata (phonetic). I'm an attorney with the law firm of Brennan, Manna and Diamond on behalf of MMB of Southwest Florida, LLC and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC. Weare requesting a continuance of this hearing until -- well, the hearing is scheduled today until -- either the next available hearing before the board or as soon as reasonable thereafter. Because we received our notice of this hearing on exactly 10 days before this meeting. We did not have -- according to the notice of the hearing itself, it provides that we have to give and prepare a response to the alleged violation at least 10 days and prepare our packets and information and witnesses, et cetera. And we did not have sufficient time to do so. A letter was sent to you by my partner, Scott Duvall on April 17th. And I know for a fact that we have -- we did not -- effectively outlining the reason for this continuance. And it's in our packets marked as Exhibit F. Effectively asking again -- you know, objecting to the notice because effectively to do so in our opinion would be to -- we want to have at least a meaningful opportunity to be heard and appropriate notice before the -- before any hearing before the board. So we respectfully request for a continuance to the next -- again, either the next available hearing or soon thereafter as reasonably possible. And also, in addition, to whatever extent the board feels it's able Page 7 April 26, 2007 to do so, we would request that we have additional time, a little more than 20 minutes, if possible, to present our position with regard to n if, you know, ifthere is another hearing. My understanding also is there is no objection, this is unopposed by both -- by the director. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just have a question. This isn't your complete packet then? MR. INNUNZIATA: I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: This is -- the packet that you were unable to complete, it's not complete? MR. INNUNZIA T A: In the time line that we had, based on the notice provided, we pieced together what we could. It's as complete as it can be in the notice -- in the time lane that -- in the time we were given in relation to the notice given, yeah, that's what we have. MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff Klatzkow for the county. Couple of issues; one, we don't object to a continuance. In fact, we join in with the request on the condition that they waive any further notice. MS. ARNOLD: Our next meeting is May 24th. MR. INNUNZIA T A: I have no objection to attending the meeting on the next available -- I would ask that notice be sent, but I'm fully aware that that would be the next hearing date within which we have to attend. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just asking that you waive notice. MR. INNUNZIA T A: You're asking to waive notice? I have no problem with that. MR. KLATZKOW: Then we have no objection. In fact, we join and request that continuance be granted. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I look to the board. MR. PONTE: For personal reasons, I will vote too that the request be granted, because I received this 36-page document 10 minutes before sitting down here. And I can't handle that. Even Page 8 April 26, 2007 though I'm a speed reader I can't handle it. So yes, let's continue it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, we'll see you next month. MR. INNUNZIA T A: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If I'm correct, that closes the motion to continue. So we should move into our stipulations. The first one being Jobani A. Gonzales, correct? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is an agreement we stipulated to. Board of County Commissioners and versus Jobani A. Gonzales and Elizabeth Diaz. The violation is of Section 2.02.03 of Ordinance 2004-41; Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, and described as prohibited uses. Specifically for storage of vehicles on Estates zoned property. And also possible repairing of vehicles on Estates zoned property. We agreed that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $498.35 that accrued in the prosecution of this case. Also, the respondent will cease and desist using the property or any other estates and residentially zoned property for a storage lot and to repair vehicles immediately. Owner must use the Estates zoned Page 9 April 26, 2007 property only as allowed under the Collier County Land Development Code. Owner shall comply by removing all stored vehicles and/or equipment by April 30th, 2007, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Owner must allow code enforcement investigator on the property to validate compliance. And number three, the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out to the property to perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is Mr. Gonzalez present, or has he left? MR. BALDWIN: Mrs. Diaz was here on behalf of Jobani Gonzalez and herself. She has left. She signed the agreement, witnessed by Lieutenant Scott Stamos (phonetic), and she needed to go to work. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. MORGAN: Has the place been cleaned up? MR. BALDWIN: The vehicles have been removed on the 30th. Monday I will go out there to see. So far the violation she states has been abated. MR. MORGAN: Okay, but you're going to make an inspection on Monday, right? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. MORGAN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as read. Page 10 April 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, is there some way for this to be displayed on our screens? Is there a little switch or something that can be -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is yours not working? MS. ARNOLD: I'll come up and assist you. MR. KELL Y: The second button down. MR. DEAN: The second button down. MR. L'ESPERANCE: On this right here? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next stipulated agreement is Board of County Commissioners versus Pipers Crossing, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This is a stipulation agreement reached between Pipers Crossing LLC and the Board of County Commissioners. The violations of this section are 10.02.06(B) (2) (a). 1O.02.06(B) (2) (d) (ix), and described in the Violation of Ordinance 00-41. And 16 (2) (j) of Ordinance 2004-58, sign without a permit. The agreement has been reached. Pay operational cost in the amount of $410.75 incurred in the prosecution of the case. Abate all Page 11 April 26, 2007 violations by: Submit a complete and valid sign permit within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until sign submittal process is complete. Upon issuance of a valid sign permit, all inspections through certificate of C.O., or certificate of completion, must be completed within 60 days of the issuance of said permit, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation's been abated in order to conduct a final confirmation of abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can you put that up on the monitor for us, please. Yes, sir? You are? MR. LAPIDUS: Mike Lapidus. I represent Crifasi Real Estate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michael, what capacity do you have the right to represent the company? MR. LAPIDUS: As far as getting the ordinance changed and the permitting uses. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What is your relationship to -- MR. LAPIDUS: Consulting. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Do you agree with this? MR. LAPIDUS: Yes, I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? MR. PONTE: I just have one clarification. As a consultant, do you have legal authority to agree to this? MR. LAPIDUS: No, I do not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Are you here today as his authorized representative to enter into a stipulated agreement for Pipers Crossing LLC? MR. LAPIDUS: I do. Yes, I do. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 12 April 26, 2007 MR. LAPIDUS: You're welcome. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Close it to the floor and open it up to the board. Discussion? Motion? MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LAPIDUS: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is the next one Tosto? MS. ARNOLD: No, it's six. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because I have a stipulated agreement. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah, it is five. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case we have is Board of County Commissioners versus Domenic P. Tosto and Joanne Tosto. I hope I said that correctly. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-32, Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Domenic P. Tosto, also known as Domenic Tosto, and Joanne M. Tosto, trustee of the family Page 13 April 26, 2007 living trust. This case addresses violations of Collier County's housing and property maintenance Ordinance No. 2004-58, Section 6, Paragraph 12. Section 11, Section 12, Section 15, and Section 16. And Collier County's litter Ordinance No. 2005-44, Section 7, Section 8, and is described as no progress and a continuation of neglected maintenance and unsafe conditions relative to a storm-damaged two-story concrete and wood framed multi-domed shaped residential structure, located on Cape Romano Island. All same premises left unattended and a potential hazard. Also, litter and abandoned property consisting of but not limited to fire-damaged, weather-damaged structure elements, plumbing installations, construction materials, metal, plastic and paper items left uncontained and unattended throughout the entire area in question. The Respondent, Domenic Tosto, entered into a stipulated agreement with Collier County Code Enforcement on April 9th, 2007. And the terms of the agreement are as follows: Pay all operational costs in the amount of $1 ,295 .34 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And to abate all violations by: Respondents must apply for a Collier County demolition permit for the removal of all elements attributing to unsafe and unattended environmentally harmful conditions existing on the -- and this is an acronym, A-ACSC/ST zoned property in question. That acronym stands for area of critical state concern, special treatment, for the record. And all seaward affected property by May 28th, 2007, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. 2-A of the stipulation is respondents must obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County demolition permit for the removal of all elements attributing to the unsafe and unattended environmentally harmful conditions in question by June 27th, 2007 or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Paragraph 2-B, respondents must execute said demolition permit Page 14 April 26, 2007 by receiving all required inspections through issuance of a certificate of completion for the removal of all unsafe, unattended environmentally harmful conditions and all resulting debris to an approved site for final disposal, and provide Collier County Code Enforcement with copies of receipts for all same disposal by October 28th, 2007 or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Paragraph 2-C, respondents must also remove all weather-damaged and wind-driven structural elements, construction materials and other foreign materials originating from the wood frame stilt residence previously owned by a Mr. John Kotula -- and that is spelled K-O-T-U-L-A -- and currently located throughout adjacent neighboring lots to an approved site for final disposal. Or arrange to remove all same by other lawful means so as to comply with all Collier County housing, maintenance, litter and land development requirements by October 28th, 2007, or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent's remedial efforts must comply with all Collier County environmental requirements. The paragraph 2-C of the stipulated agreement, I visited the location in question April 10th with Mr. Tosto and his son, and the site visit confirmed that the respondents have already complied with paragraph 2-C. And I have a photo, if you wish to see that. MR. MORGAN: Yes. MR. MAZZONE: Would that please the board? MR. MORGAN: Yes. MR. MAZZONE: These -- this would be a before photo, what we had seen at this site. These items are a result of wind-driven debris that probably came from the structure through several storms, or could have been washed up, in fact, some of it. This being an island and a popular place to visit, other people have contributed to the litter and debris there on these premises. Page 15 April 26, 2007 I have to say that the Tostos are doing a good job of maintaining the island as far as cleaning it and removing the litter. This next photo shows some of the construction litter that was found on the site at our first visit. And these photos show as to why it was culled out as being unsafe, or at least some of the elements being damaged to a very serious extent. This is from the ground looking up through what was a wooden floor into one of the dome-shaped structural elements, part of the -- which was part of the residence at one time. These next photos are a set of photos of the same areas. And you can see that there has been a lot of cooperation here as far as cleanup. These are the same locations I initially looked at. And these were completely occupied with litter and debris. It has since been removed. Or as you'll see in this next photo, there is some lumber now properly secured out of the wind -- out of the force of the wind so it won't be strewn throughout the island. They've cleaned it up very well. This next photo might appear to be litter, but it's in fact usable materials. Something that could be utilized in further development or n by the owners of the property, if they wish to do so. If not, they could arrange for its removal. To continue, those photos are the result of my visit -- my last visit to the island. The last paragraph is that n of our stipulated agreement, is that the respondents must notify Collier County Code Enforcement to schedule a re-inspection of all premises in question within 24 hours after abatement. And as I had indicated, the Tostos had signed the stipulated agreement and have been cooperating. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I've got a question for you, but I'll wait in just a minute. Mr. Tosto, do you understand this agreement? Page 16 April 26, 2007 MR. TOSTO: Yes, I do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And you do agree with it? MR. TOSTO: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: My question for you, and maybe because I'm dense, but what's the difference between paragraph 2-A and 2-B? MR. MAZZONE: 2-A, respondents must obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County demolition permit. Obtain the complete and sufficient permit and remove all the elements attributing. Paragraph B, respondent must execute -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says obtain. MR. MAZZONE: Paragraph 2-B? Must execute. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, okay. I'm sorry, I'm kind of losing it. MR. MAZZONE: The time frame's actually -- it's not going to be an easy task for the Tostos to obtain a permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is there anything in here that if they decided not to tear it down, is there any way to salvage any of this that they could reconstruct it? Because you were saying they could reuse some of the -- MR. MAZZONE: Certainly. They're working on that plan right now as we speak. They're very busy with -- they've already contacted, from what -- I believe Mr. Tosto can speak at this better than I can, but it's my belief that they've already contacted Mr. Hammond, who wrote the initial report. They wish to use some of these structural elements to reconstruct. And they have contacted their engineers to make sure that this will work for them. And they have to also contact the state to get their approval for that. MR. MORGAN: The reinforced columns below this second level, they're going to remain, right? MR. MAZZONE: This is something that's better addressed by Mr. Tosto. Page 17 April 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: They're going to construct from there on up. MR. MAZZONE: Correct, sir. MR. MORGAN: And then they have to get a new permit for the addition? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, sir. Everything would have to be permitted, not only by Collier County but get state approval. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that correct, Mr. -- MR. TOSTO: No, actually, that's what was wrong with the structure. The columns and the footers failed. So we're going to -- what we are going to propose to do is to drive new columns around the perimeter of the structure and raise the structure according to code, to the new code limitations. Because the structures are actually four levels below the new code, which I believe is 15 feet. We're going to raise the structures, all five of them, to that elevation is what we're going to propose to do anyway. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The only concern I have about this is this also is demolition, demolition, demolition. It doesn't say anything about potential for reconstruction. MS. ARNOLD: Well, he just indicated he's going to raze his structure, meaning they're going to take it down. So they have to get a separate permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I thought you meant that he was going to raise it to a different height. MR. TOSTO: Yeah. What they want us to do -- see, we were notified by the state they want us to get rid of the structure and we don't want to get rid of the structure. We want to rebuild the structure is what we're trying to do here. So we're trying to comply with Collier County in any way we can at the time -- while we're going through our permit process with the state, the environmental committees and with you, you know, is what we're trying to do. We want to make it safe so nobody's going to get hurt out there and it's not a hazard to the beach or to anything else, Page 18 April 26, 2007 turtles included. So that we can keep it safe until we go through the permit process. And if the end they say no, then we'll have to remove it. MS. ARNOLD: But Mr. Tosto, did you indicate that the structural components failed so you're going to have to put new -- MR. TOSTO: No, just the footers failed. The structure itself is in fine shape, which we will have -- I will have an engineer's statement documenting that. And I will have also a small detailed plan and design of what we intend to do. That should be here. I thought it would be here by now, but it hasn't arrived yet. Before the end of the meeting, I will have that here. MR. MAZZONE: May I just say also that the case came into us as an unsafe structure. And the report read in such a way that we addressed the verbiage in the report that stated it was irrepairable. So we weren't going for obtain a permit to fix it because the terms of the report read in the opposite of that. But it appears as though the Tostos have contacted their engineers and its way beyond my scope of expertise. But part of the structure at least can be salvaged and utilized in new construction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's my concern. Because this stipulated agreement strictly says demolition. It does not give them any leeway to reconstruct anything. So we either need to discuss amongst the board or let you guys go back to the drawing board. MR. MAZZONE: We gave them the stipulated time frame in which to obtain these permits and execute them. Now, within that same time frame they can also -- they could -- there will be a demolition involved to a certain extent as to -- that will have to take place before they rebuild anything. So they'll have to execute that part of the stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I don't know if anybody else has any comments. MR. MORGAN: The way I look at it, the stipulation covers the Page 19 April 26, 2007 cleanup of all the debris and the part ofthe structure that's not usable. MR. MAZZONE: That's correct, sir. MR. MORGAN: Okay, he has to get a new building permit with all the structure calculations for the part that he's going to rebuild. That comes under a new building permit. MR. MAZZONE: Correct. Or remove that also. MR. MORGAN: Right. And that's going to be issued by the county. And he has to have an architect design and a structural engineer to certify that what he's planning to do structurally is sound. And he's going to raise the elevation, which comes under the building permit. MR. MAZZONE: Correct. MR. MORGAN: That's the way I look at it. There's two different elements: One, the stipulated agreement covers the cleanup and demolition of the existing structure that can't be used. MR. MAZZONE: And that's what we designed it to do. MR. MORGAN: The new building permit will cover all the improvements. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And they would not be considered -- if they obtain a permit to rebuild portions of that, then that would not be part of what we're bringing to you, because we're bringing to you a violation of unsafe structure. So that portion of the structure that is not permissible would be what we would be considering under this. MR. MORGAN: That's correct. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the county. Given the fact that this is an attractive hazard and an unsafe structure, I don't understand why the county is recommending four months between the obtaining of the demolition permit and the completion of the demolition in October, the end of October. MR. MAZZONE: Well, we ask questions of our building department as to an approximate -- MR. PONTE: Four months? Page 20 April 26, 2007 MR. MAZZONE: Well, this is out in the Gulf of Mexico, and they would have to hire a barge and such to accommodate their needs, I would believe. And we also solicited two or three bids from local contractors if in fact the Tostos are -- the owners at that time didn't elect to clean this location, we were going to see what it would cost and what was involved in it. And there's quite a few activities that have to take place prior to cleanup. MR. PONTE: Is the island posted? Is the property posted to ward off visitors and children? MR. MAZZONE: It wasn't at my last visit, but the Tostos had expressly stated that they wanted to post this, and I don't know if it has been yet. MR. PONTE: Should that be part of the stipulation agreement? MR. TOSTO: Y es. Well, we did post the structure itself. The island -- on a weekend, there could be 300 people out there. And I really can't -- they've been doing it there for a lot of years. And we have no intentions of throwing them off of there unless they make us throw them off. I mean, they use it for a campground out there and it's a beautiful area, and I hate to say no, you can't use it because we want to build a house here. You know, if we're forced to do that insurance-wise or county-wise for permits, then I will have to do that. But I really don't want to do that. MR. PONTE: My concern is that with 300 visitors to the island on a weekend, certainly some of them with children, that you have an attractive hazard that you're just allowing it to exist their for four months gives me concern. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ken had a question. MR. KELL Y: Actually, I have a couple of questions. Mr. Tosto, it's my opinion that you should not enter this agreement. You are leaving yourself wide open to third-party situations causing you to have to pay $250 a day. Because it says in Page 21 April 26, 2007 this agreement that you would not allow litter to remain on the property. And if any of those 300 or so people at anyone weekend decided to leave behind a beer can, its $250 a day until you pick it up, SIr. MR. TOSTO: Well, we do. We clean it daily. MR. KELLY: Sir, are you willing to take on that kind of liability? MR. TOSTO: No. MR. KELLY: Not only that-- MR. TOSTO: No. MR. KELLY: -- if I may, this has been going on for a number of years. It's not likely that you'll change that kind of activity any time soon without police involvement, without some kind of barricade to block it off. It's a beautiful area. I know it. I frequently visit it myself. MR. TOSTO: Do you leave any beer cans there? MR. KELL Y: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, on bay days, my family did help to clean it up. MR. TOSTO: Really? MR. KELLY : Yes, sir. MR. TOSTO: Well, I appreciate that. MR. KELL Y: You're welcome. But what I will say is this: I would say that this has been going on for a number of years trying to get the structure rebuilt. It's been torn apart by a number of storms and hurricanes. The debris that washes up is now your responsibility. The debris that's left behind is your responsibility. They're requiring you to take down every aspect of the existing building and not allowing you to reuse it. And the reason why is this: If you don't get it all out of there in four months, okay, you're in violation $250 a day. There is no way you will get a new permit, you will get the state's approval, environmental protection and everything else to rebuild this structure in the time that this is Page 22 April 26, 2007 allowing. Sir, I would not sign this agreement. MR. TOSTO: Well, my understanding was that I would have to remove all the unsafe debris and make the buildings so that people couldn't access them. MR. KELLY: No, sir, they are telling you to remove everything. Not make it safe. They're telling you to demolish the building or remove it. MR. TOSTO: Well, they're saying that it's un-structurally sound. And I have an engineer here sitting here that says that the parts are structurally sound. Now, that's what the stipulation is that we're trying to enter into. We want to safe the parts. We know that the foundations failed, but we want to save the parts. We want to elevate the parts and make them structurally sound to make a residence out of them. That's what we're looking to do. MR. KELLY: The geodesic polyurethane foam core of the domes themselves I'm sure are sound. But they're asking you to remove them within four months, period. Are you going to take them off site, store them somewhere and then -- MR. TOSTO: No. MR. KELLY: -- bring them back when you do get the permit? MR. TOSTO: No. MR. KELLY: Mr. Mazzone, am I wrong to say that you are asking for everything to be removed? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says demolition. It doesn't say rebuild. That was my question. MR. MAZZONE: Weare asking them to remove all weather-damaged and wind-driven litter and debris. The structural elements that are unsafe and unfit for use. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. MR. KELLY: Would you consider pilings that are actually in the water and partially sticking up or partially hidden unsafe? Page 23 April 26, 2007 MR. MAZZONE: I personally cannot deem anything unsafe. I can only go by the letter from Mr. Hammond. MS. ARNOLD: Right. The intent is to coordinate with the building department, which we've been doing all along with this process, to determine what's unsafe and what is not -- what is safe. And as a part of that building permit process, which they are pursuing, that determination would be made by the building official. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could we put something in this stipulated agreement that stated with the exception -- demolition of all -- and removal of all the elements attributing to the unsafe and unattended environmentally harmful conditions, excluding those that are deemed safe through the building department? MS. ARNOLD: I don't have any objection to that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm just trying to give him something. Because the way I read this, this only gives him the latitude to demolish the project. It does not give him any leeway to rebuild or utilize any of the elements. MS. ARNOLD: Ifhe obtains a building permit for the structure, we can't require him to remove it. But if the board decides to put that language in and if you feel more comfortable with putting that language in, I don't think we have any objection to doing that. You'd have to ask Mr. Tosto as well. MR. JOHN TOSTO: That sounds great. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll need to have you sworn in if you're going to speak. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess at this time I'm going to go ahead and close the public -- MS. ARNOLD: You can't if you're going to hear from him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. MR. JOHN TOSTO: Do you have this? It's a structural drawing from a -- it's a rendering of what the building will look like after it's Page 24 April 26, 2007 renovated. I do appreciate looking out for our interest on that, and I would love to implement that into the agreement, if possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: Couple of questions. First of all, what is your time frame, expected time frame to have all approvals to start rebuilding? Is it within this time frame of demolition? MR. JOHN TOSTO: Well, that would depend on -- right now the state is on their fourth request for additional information. We've satisfied that. They have to reply within 30 days. If in fact we get their approval within 30 days, then it would be on Collier County's table. How long Collier County would take from both the environmental and the building permitting, I don't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: The thing is, you're tied into this agreement that if you don't have all your permits in place to build, then you're going to have to do the demolition. MR. JOHN TOSTO: We should -- four months should be more than enough time. But I would like to also put something in there that if for some reason they tied me up, I don't want to loose the building. I don't want to have to take the building away. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the-- MS. ARNOLD: Well, and this is no different from any of your other building permit cases where if there is a delay on the part of, you know, someone other than the property owner and that information is provided at the time that we're imposing fines, that is considered for your imposition. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. The other question is, it might be a moot point, but 2-C, it stated that you were responsible for going onto other people's property. I assume that other person's name, it was someone else's property that you would have to go on to clean up? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Their debris belonged to -- Page 25 April 26, 2007 MR. JOHN TOSTO: I've cleaned -- I mean I've pretty much taken responsibility for the whole Cape Romano. Yeah, most of the property is owned by the state. Some parcels -- very few parcels on the front side are owned by private individuals still. Yes, I have gone on other people's property and cleaned up the beach. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we put that in the stipulated agreement that someone can go on someone else's property to pick up debris? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It didn't state that. It stated that he was picking up the debris from someone else, probably, that had blown onto his. MR. JOHN TOSTO: It's actually if it's below mean high water, it's the state's property. So floating debris would typically end up on the state's property as opposed to a private individual. MS. RAWSON: I believe the investigator said that 2-C is in compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'm going to close the public part of this and open it to the board for discussion as to whether or not to accept this stipulated agreement as it's written. MR. PONTE: Well, for matters of discussion, I will repeat my concern about the four-month delay in getting the demolition accomplished. The building, from the photos that we saw with that second floor flooring torn away, pile of bricks, we've got a serious attractive hazard, particularly in a place that's visited by 300 carefree people drinking beer on a visit. And I don't know what the solution is, but certainly the time frame of four months is way too long. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, on the flip side of that, the demolition and the removal of the items isn't simply just bringing a dumpster Page 26 April 26, 2007 on-site. MR. PONTE: No, that's true. MR LEFEBVRE: And two, they want to use some of the components for a rebuild. So in light of that, I think __ CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What if fencing __ MR PONTE: Well, just as with anything else, whether you're getting a dumpster or a barge there, you arrange for it, schedule it and its there on-site until it's filled. As for the items that are left behind for a future use, just like any other site, it should be in a safe and secure place so the property is up to standards. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, on construction sites when they're building and renovating, they usually fence it off and put no trespassing signs. They have said that they put no trespassing signs up. MR MORGAN: The salvageable material, you can store it, you can build a fence around it with a gate with a lock on it. That will secure it. You've met your obligation. The other thing was all the debris, I wonder, does it have to be barged to shore, put in a dumpster and barged to shore? MS. ARNOLD: Urn-hum. MR MORGAN: That takes time. You got to arrange for a barge, a dumpster and a tub to push it -- or a push boat to push it. But if you -- the salvageable material, put it in an area that's not __ where a lot of people don't go. Build a fence around it, put a lock on it with a gate and you've met your obligation. MR PONTE: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And I still am uncomfortable with this strictly stating demolition. MR MORGAN: I'm not uncomfortable. I think we're making something complicated out of something that's simple. MR KELLY: It doesn't say build a fence and store material there. It says remove it from the property. Page 27 April 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Well, I think that's the obligation of the contractor. He knows what he's doing. MR. JOHN TOSTO: Well, one thing I'd like to say. We are ply- wooding right now. In other words, we're completely closing off. Nobody can get into the structure anymore. It's completely ply- wooded off, all windows are boarded up. At this point we're just about done with that. MR. KELLY: Well, according to this agreement that's more material you're just going to have to remove, sir. MR. JOHN TOSTO: Okay. Okay. MR. KELLY: If you know what I'm saying. They're asking you to remove every -- I know it's closed to the public, I apologize, Sheri, for continuing this. But they are asking you to remove every bit of debris, every bit of construction material from this site within four months. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Madam Chair, I think we have a misunderstanding here. They're not asking them to do that. They're asking them to remove elements, not the complete structure. Am I misunderstanding that, Michelle? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It says all elements. MS. ARNOLD: I think there is a misunderstanding, absolutely. I mean, the investigator has shown you all debris that if we were taking it literally would have to been removed from the site. And we have told you that they're in compliance. So to take this agreement and read more into it than we have intended I think is objectionable. I think that -- I think you all -- if you all have a problem with what the stipulated agreement is, you all should change it to reflect what your concerns are, and the record would show what your intent was. I think, you know, to state that we're going to require somebody to remove something that they're not required to remove is wrong. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, maybe it's because if it's unclear to us that sit up here on a monthly basis, maybe it would be Page 28 April 26, 2007 unclear to someone else, Michelle. You know, just as a point of contention. MS. ARNOLD: And the record would specify. The record is available verbatim to whoever would have a question about the interpretation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm not trying to fight you on it, I just wanted to make sure that we were all understanding. Because you thought he was going to raze it, meaning he was going to demolish it. And he's talking about raising it footage-wise by putting new pilings under it. So there was a miscommunication there as well that reflects in the record. I think he's trying to salvage the upper structures. MS. ARNOLD: I understand what he's trying to do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But I don't see that being accommodated in this. I see that it says demolish. MR. MORGAN: I think the stipulation's simple. It comes to the point. There's two different things: One is the stipulation covers demolition of the structure that cannot be used, hauling it away and obtaining a new building permit for the new structure that's going to go up, regardless of what it -- we don't have anything to do with a new structure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Rather than saying remove of all elements, why don't we say unusable structure? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think we should stick with the terms where it says elements. Elements do not mean structure. Structure means an entire building. Maybe we can clarify the term elements so we're not getting confused with the fact that some people think that we're requiring him to remove the entire structure. We're not. We're requiring him and he's agreed to remove the elements that are unsafe. The debris, the portions, the segments, the tiny pieces of the building that are unsafe or broken, not the entire structure. MR. KELLY: To do such a thing, I really think we need to have Page 29 April 26, 2007 some kind of testimony from the people who make those decisions to determine, and this is straight out of the agreement, removal of unsafe, unattended environmentally harmful conditions and resulting debris. Give me a definition of that, explain what has to be removed exactly, and then maybe you have an agreement. But right now this is objectionable on all sides. I agree, Michelle, with what you were saying, it's objectionable on yours, but it's objectionable on mine. And there needs to be a lot more clarification. MS. ARNOLD: And the clarification will be provided at the time of permit. I don't think you're going to get anyone that is going to be able to give you specifics as to what is -- because we have an engineer's report from the Tostos that needs to be submitted to the county for their review. MR. KELL Y: I'm not comfortable fining someone $250 a day and then relaying upon the will of the board to abate those fines possibly. The agreement, I don't believe, takes into consideration all the facts here, and I'm not going to support it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, we can revamp it because that's what we're up to. MR. PONTE: Well, I think that revamping it so that we understand what we're really saying. Because when it says remove all elements attributing to unsafe and unattended yackety-yak, we need professional guidance, and it should be up to the county to redraft this. It should not be up to the board to decide what's safe and unsafe and trying to make a list of items. If I cut myself on a beer can, it was an unsafe item. It has to be prepared, and certainly vague terms have to be more precisely focused and described. MR. KELLY: There are pilings in the water. A boat could strike them. That can possibly be unsafe. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We can't talk. Page 30 April 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: We can't judge that. That's a structural engineer that's going to examine that. MR. KELL Y: Somebody would say that that is structurally sound, yet it could potentially cause a hazard to someone. MR. MORGAN: That's up to a structural engineer to determine. MR. KELL Y: Correct. It's not up to the board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Guys, let me just stop you here. Because first off, we're going to give Cherie' a heart attack because we're all talking at the same time. Let's see if we -- we have the right to do one of two things: We can revamp this to our comfort or we can not accept it and we can hear the case. So that's where we're at. MR. PONTE: I make a motion to reject the stipulation as written, with a recommendation that it go back to the county for reworking. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's not one of the choices. We have the right to make the changes and approve it. MR. PONTE: Or not to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Or hear the case. MR. PONTE: Or not to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Or hear the case. MR. PONTE: Or not to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Or not. To accept it and hear the case. Where we would be crafting it, not the county. MR. PONTE: Dangerous. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Those are our choices. MR. MORGAN: You could say remove all the elements not intended for new construction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That would work for me. Would that work for you, Ken? MR. KELLY: I don't even believe the respondents nor county know what elements are going to be used for construction. Page 31 April 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: That's to be determined by someone else, not us. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Nobody knows that at the time, so if we put it in there, at least they have the safeguard of they can use it. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about put in there removing all the elements attributing to unsafe and unattended environmentally harmful conditions based on an engineering report provided by either the county or Tostos? MR. MORGAN: I think you're getting too complicated. MR. DEAN: Michelle, do you still have that stipulation paper? MR. LEFEBVRE: We have it in our packet. MR. DEAN: I know you do. I want to see it up here. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Our alternate down on the end, do you have any suggestions? MR. MARTIN: I would allow this order to go as written and give the gentleman four months or whatever it takes to get his permits together. Because each little piece of concrete is very valuable when you've got to ship stuff in. You may think it's, you know, a piece of junk or something but it's, you know, a building material. Even a piece out in the water or whatever it may be. MR. DEAN: That's your motion? MR. MARTIN: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's his opinion, is to leave it as it is. MR. DEAN: Are you making it a motion? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, he just said his opinion. MR. DEAN: I'm asking him. Are you going to make a motion? MR. MARTIN: I'll make a motion to allow it like it's written. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as its read. And a second. Page 32 April 26, 2007 All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: That's opposed, four? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Four. MR. DEAN: Three against? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Um-hum. So it does not pass as it is currently. And we want to revamp it or do we want to hear the case? MR. PONTE: Well, my feeling is we've heard the case. We'd just be going over old ropes. So I don't really know if that's the question. It wouldn't solve much. MR. LEFEBVRE: With my comments that I made regarding the engineering report, would that verbiage take care of someone's concerns -- most people's concerns? MR. DEAN: I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to answer that one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can the attorney help me here at all? I'm going to get you in on this. MR. KLATZKOW: I apologize, I was out of the room for a few minutes there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The majority of us are uncomfortable with the stipulated agreement as its written, because we're taking it to -- I guess basically state that he has to demolition everything. They're stating that it says all elements that are unsafe. We don't know how to determine what is and what isn't safe, and we Page 33 April 26, 2007 have no engineering background, nor do we have any engineering proposals at this time in front of us to declare that. MR. KLA TZKOW: You can give staff direction as to what you would like to see and put this off until the next meeting and then perhaps with that direction staff and the citizen can get together and come forward with something that's more to your liking. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the agreement that's before the board is what the county and the property owners agreed to. And it's the board that is uncomfortable. So I don't know, ifthere's something that is in it that you don't like, you have the ability to change what you don't like. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree. MS. ARNOLD: So I don't know how we can bring you back an agreement that is determining what you like. I don't know. MR. PONTE: The County could certainly prepare an agreement that is more specific. The problem that I'm having with this is that it's filled with vagueries (sic). MS. ARNOLD: Well, the county -- the specificity with regards to what specific elements are is something that is not determinable at this time because they have to go through a permitting process. And at the time of the permitting process is when those elements will be defined. And you're asking us to put something down that unless they're going through that process, we can't determine it. MR. PONTE: No, but in effect you're asking us to do it. MS. ARNOLD: No, I'm not. MR. PONTE: You're not? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're asking him to sign something that doesn't specify what he has to tear down and doesn't. But yet you'll fine him $250 a day if he doesn't take care of it. MS. ARNOLD: Because we will be coordinating with the department that would be providing those permits to determine what elements are going to be used as a part of the construction and what Page 34 April 26, 2007 are not. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I think that's where my problem is in a nutshell. Because you're asking him for something that's not determined to be responsible for until we get it determined. MS. ARNOLD: And we do that with every permit case. We ask them to obtain a permit. We don't tell them what elements they should be using for construction and what they don't. We -- at the time of the permit -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, but here you're telling him he has to demolish what isn't acceptable. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. Because we have a determination from the building official indicating that the structure is unsafe. That's what we're going by. If there's a document that's presented after that says something otherwise with regard to a structural engineer saying that these things are sound, that would replace what we have, because that's the process. That's the only process that we have. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You just helped me click in. What if we constructed this utilizing your verbiage at the top and add to it, unless the structural engineer's information precludes specific items? In other words, they don't have -- MR. MORGAN: Michelle, I think you're absolutely correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Maybe I'm being bullheaded. MR. MORGAN: You are. I think what you're saying is absolutely right. Demolition is one thing that the inspector's going to take care of. The building permit and the structural elements is another item that his structural engineer, his architect and the building department will take care of. What he removes out of there -- if you make a list of elements, you'll have a list 20 miles long. You can't list everything. That's up to sound judgment. And what you're saying is correct. All that these people are doing is adding to the confusion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? I'm looking for direction, Page 35 April 26, 2007 because I really -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you basically have rejected the stipulated agreement. So you've got two choices, as you properly pointed out: You can change the agreement to satisfy what all of your concerns are by further defining, you know, what we're talking about is an unsafe and unattended environmentally harmful condition, or you can hear the case. But you've already voted 4-3 not to approve the stipulation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Ken? MR. KELLY: Well, the litter was -- according to testimony, the litter is cleaned up and it's boarded. So you can't enter an unsafe structure. So the basis behind the stipulated agreement has been achieved to an extent. Why don't we table it, let them get the engineer's report and see where we're going to go from there. MR. PONTE: When you say table it, what you mean is to continue this to another time to hear the case? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: When will the engineering report be in? That's the question. Ifwe look at this agreement as it stands, we are hoping that the engineering report would be in by May 28th to determine what is to be demolished and what's to remain. So I don't think that's a date that is agreeable. But I just don't want to leave this open-ended. MR. KELLY: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I really understand what the county's trying to do with the permit request for the demolition. I just need something in there that states that he has the right to utilize some of the materials that are not deemed unsafe. And I would be able to accept this. MR. MARTIN: Well, the only elements of value that they have there is the concrete and the dome. And the rest of this stuff is debris. Page 36 April 26, 2007 He's already cleaned up the debris, so -- MR. KELL Y: And he's boarded it up. MR. MARTIN: He's boarded it up. So nobody's -- MR. KELL Y: So what's left to agree upon? MR. MARTIN: That's correct. MR. KELL Y: What do you need the agreement for in the first place? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, I guess we'll have to move to hear the case then is the only thing I can suggest, because we're not coming to agreement on this. MR. PONTE: I think we're going to have a very long case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We may have. Okay. Sorry. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Madam Chair, could we break for a few minutes, please? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. Give us a break till -- 10 minutes, five minutes? How long do you want? MR. PONTE: Ten. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ten minutes. So 10:17. (Recess.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Time is 10:17. We'll reconvene. I'd like to call the Collier County code enforcement hearing back. And it looks like maybe during the break we had some work, so we can rather than rehear this case, go back to looking at a new stipulated agreement, if I'm guessing correctly. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The county met with your attorney, Jean Rawson, together with the respondents, and we think we've come up with a possibility that you might find acceptable. It's on the screen. What it says is -- my handwriting's terrible, you have to forgive me, but n CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I can read it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can read it. MR. KLATZKOW: It will be paragraph four to the stipulation Page 37 April 26, 2007 that's before you. And what it says is that the parties agree that respondent may petition the Code Enforcement Board to modify the stipulation based upon the findings of the engineer's report of the premises. The engineer's report must be substantially completed by May 28th, 2007, unless otherwise extended by the Code Enforcement Board. The idea being that if the engineer's report comes back and something gets salva -- or can't get salvageable, we'll work with that report. And if the respondent isn't happy with the way he's been treated by the county, based on the report he can come back to you for the guidance by this board. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All right, do we want a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. PONTE: No, go ahead, make the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make the motion to accept the addendum and the original stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Very well done, thank you. Page 38 April 26, 2007 MR. DEAN: One paragraph. Thank you, Attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next stipulated agreement, hopefully it will be easier, is the Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Paul Skipper as a/k/a Paul Skipper, Trustee. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, there's no stipulation for that one. I misspoke on that. That's just a general case. So we are done with the stipulations and we are -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Actually, I thought it was for a continuance that I had in my packet for that one. MS. ARNOLD: They originally had a continuance, but they withdrew it because they don't need it because they're in compliance. MR. MORGAN: There's the letter. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Then that's all of the stipulated -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- agreements. Okay, then we will move towards the public hearings. The first case being Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Frank Fernandez. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to ask if the respondent is present? (No response.) MS. MARKU: The respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the package. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 39 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41 as amended, Section 1.04.01. Description of violation: The illegal storage of vehicles and materials on unimproved property. Location/address where violation exists: Folio No. 39658240005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Frank Fernandez, 11987 Southwest Sixth Street, Miami, Florida, 33184. Date violation first observed: December 2nd, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: December 5th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 28th, 2006. Date ofre-inspection: Final re-inspection on January 26th, 2007. Results of re- inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Thomas Keegan. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case started on December 2nd. Investigator Joe Mucha went out to the property. It came in as a complaint. He observed two vehicles, three recreational vehicles being stored on vacant residential property. Page 40 April 26, 2007 The case was turned over to me. I went out there on the 5th, which I observed the same. I posted the Notice of Violation, sent it out by certified mail, regular mail. I made numerous site visits to this property. It was always the same. I ran the tag numbers, the VIN numbers and the license plate on the vehicles. They all came back to the property owner, Frank Fernandez. I had just numerous site visits to this property. And some vehicles would be removed, new ones would be moved back on his property. He was -- from what I got from the neighbors, he was coming down there on the weekends, week nights, and just setting up a campground. And then I guess he would go back to Miami after a day or whatnot. I do have pictures I'd like to enter in as evidence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would that be Exhibit B? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, please. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: May I entertain a motion. MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: That's from the front view of the -- actually, that's the rear of the property. As you can see, it looks like just a campground. They went up there and hung out and whatnot. Page 41 April 26, 2007 Generator; all the loose material was stored in the middle of the property . That's another picture. That's also on the -- all the way in the rear of the property. That had a phone number for sale, I called it, there was no -- not in service. That's in the center of the property. That's yesterday's photos. I was out there yesterday. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is that still yesterday's? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, ma'am. On the last hearing date for the board, Mr. Fernandez was here and he requested additional time. I received a letter from Jose Lago, and which is stated that he is not representing Mr. Fernandez. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORGAN: Have you had any contact with Mr. Fernandez? MR. KEEGAN: Just at the last hearing. That was it. MR. MORGAN: Oh, he was here. MR. KEEGAN: I did have -- Notice of Violation was posted at the property. MR. PONTE: Of the vehicles on the property, are they all untagged? MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are there any permanent structures on this property? MR. KEEGAN: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Any permanent structures on adjacent properties? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And that's probably or possibly where the complaints initiated? MR. KEEGAN: I've talked to the neighborhoods numerous times about it. No, they were not happy about it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What size of a lot are we speaking about Page 42 April 26, 2007 here? MR. KEEGAN: I'd probably say 30 frontage, 200 deep. It's a big lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this in the Estates? MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said 30 by 200? MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's got to be minimum 75 by -- or 660, probably. 1.1. MR. KEEGAN : Well, it's a couple of unimproved lots. I don't know. The way I could get in, that's what I'm going off of. On -- actually I received a call on February 21st, 2007 from the neighbor, Jackie, and she stated that Mr. Fernandez asked her to put the vehicles on her property, which she denied. And the next morning she woke up and there was some items on her property, which she had removed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How long has he owned the property? MR. KEEGAN: 1998. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for discussion. For a finding of fact. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 43 April 26, 2007 MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Resolution? MR. KELL Y: Wasn't there some discussion at the last meeting as to whether or not even to grant an extension? The gentleman -- didn't they have a hard time getting in contact with him the last time and he just kind of showed up and he said oh, I have an attorney now who's going to take care of it? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And that was the reason we granted him the extension was because he didn't have his attorney present. MS. RAWSON: I spoke with his attorney. He doesn't even know who he is. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that's just a line I think to stall now. Okay? Somebody want to craft a motion as to how we want this -- MR. PONTE: Let's hear from the county. MR. KEEGAN: The County recommends that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of 386.82 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by removing all vehicles and materials from unimproved property within 14 days of this hearing or Collier County will abate violation at all costs to be assessed against said property. MR. L'ESPERANCE: In what method will Collier County abate the violation? MR. KEEGAN: They will have a company go in, tow everything out. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And ifhe were to accomplish it in 14 days, does he need to notify you? MR. KEEGAN: The respondent must notify the code Page 44 April 26, 2007 enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And if -- okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's no dollar amount if they do not abate. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, because if they don't abate, then the county's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- going to do it and he'll get charged with whatever the cost is. MR. KEEGAN: We're just looking to get it cleaned, get it out of there. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the county's violation agreement. MR. DEAN: Second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Okay, so now we would call Board of County Commissioners versus Paul Skipper, a/k/a Paul Skipper, Trustee. MS. MARKU: I would like to ask if the respondent is present. (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. Page 45 April 26, 2007 The respondent and the board was sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance No. 2004-58, Section 6, compliance with housing standards. Par. 12, exterior and interior structures of dwelling units; Section 11, method for designation and elimination of hazardous buildings; Section 12, standards for repair or demolition of hazardous buildings by the county; Section 15, responsibilities for property maintenance; Section 16, responsibilities of owners of vacant structures. Also, Ordinance No. 2005-44, Section 7, unauthorized accumulation of littler; and Section 8, abandoned property/prohibited. Description of violation: No progress. And a continuation of neglected maintenance and unsafe conditions related to a storm-damaged, wood-framed stilt-supported residential structure. All same derelict structure and related wood and support elements and storm-damaged, wind-driven debris remains unattended and a potential hazard. Also, litter and abandoned property consisting of but not limited to weather-damaged and wind-driven construction elements, Page 46 April 26, 2007 construction materials and other foreign materials left uncontained and unattended throughout this entire seaward and landward area of critical state concern/special treatment, (AlACSC/ST), zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: Township 53, Section 10, range 26, parcel number 34, lot B-2. Folio No. 01198840003, also known as seaward and landward property, Morgan Isle, Cape Romano, Collier County, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Paul Skipper, Paul Skipper, Trustee, Morgan and Island Land Trust. Date violation first observed: January 20th, 2005. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: February 22nd, 2007. That's the date of certified mail receipt. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 15th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: February 21st, 2007. Results of re-inspection: Violations remain. All documents and notices with regards to this matter were served pursuant to Section 162.12, Florida Statutes. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Dennis Mazzone. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: For the record, Dennis Mazzone, Collier County Code Enforcement. I hope we do better with this one. This one -- these both take place on the same island. MR. LEFEBVRE: Almost next to each other. MR. MAZZONE: Almost next to each other. In fact, I have a-- it's very difficult to show the exact property boundary lines, but I did my best to try to show approximately where they are. And I'm going to point to the location of where this particular wood frame structure was located. And I did note it on the -- on this exhibit. Page 47 April 26, 2007 MR. MAZZONE: That was where it once was located. On February 2nd, 2005, Collier County Code Enforcement received an inspection report from Collier County's Building Review and Permitting Director, Bill Hammond, informing us of unsafe conditions relative to the uninhabited wood-frame residence in question. At the time of this report, which was dated January 24th, 2005, the structure was owned by a Mr. John Kotula, Jr. His name is spelled K-O-T-U-L-A. On September 27th, 2005, our office learned that Mr. Paul Skipper had become the owner of the property in question. On October 23rd, 2005, and October 24th, throughout that period, Hurricane Wilma had completely destroyed the wood frame structure in question, scattering its debris throughout adjacent properties. And those properties would be not just the ones shown in this exhibit but some of the areas beyond that. On April 10th, 2007, I made a site visit with John and Domenic Tosto, the parties that had just left this chamber, confirming that Mr. Skipper's violation had been abated. Let me just clarify that. The previous owner is associated with the Tostos. They are either -- I don't know if they're family, but I think he's part of their efforts on the island in a professional way. I made the site visit with the Tostos, and I confirmed that Skipper's violation had been abated. I'm going to put a couple of photographs on the viewer. My initial visit showed this -- the debris that I'm about to show you was lodged in various trees and shrubberies that are on the island. These are panels of construction debris, lumber, probably siding from what was the wood frame stilt house. This photo shows a foam insulation type of debris, construction debris. Page 48 April 26, 2007 And this next photograph is going to show you upon my revisiting the island what had been -- everything has been removed. I took a photo of the typical location of where these -- this is where the lumber was located. It's completely removed. All of the styrofoam is removed from the island. The Tostos have -- they took it upon themselves to remove all of these materials. Therefore, Mr. Skipper is in compliance with what the initial investigation was looking into. Mr. Skipper also paid -- because we had asked him to pay all our operational costs, he sent a check to Collier County in the amount of $1,182.29. If you'd like, I can put this on the view master. He had sent that in full payment of all our operational costs. And at this time we do not have any problem with Mr. Tosto's (sic) property -- or that individual. He is in compliance and he has come -- MS. ARNOLD: Skipper. MR. MAZZONE: I'm sorry, I get the names mixed up. Mr. Skipper. I keep saying Tosto. Excuse me. We have no problem with Mr. Skipper's property, and we could close this case. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I'll close the public hearing and look to the board for a motion as finding of fact. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess this is a quick question for Mike. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry, I have to reopen it, because -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Just one quick question. The reason the county's bringing the case before us is so if there's any repeat, then the fines could be increased? I'm just wondering why if everything's been taken care of it's been brought in front of us. MS. ARNOLD: We have a department policy, even when cases have been found in violation, if it got to a certain point, and this particular one did, we would bring it forward anyway. We already -- Page 49 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I was going to say, we've done that in the past. We find a finding of fact and then we close the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there's a finding of fact that there was a violation. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. And basically operational costs were incurred and paid, so that was the fine. And I think we're done. MR. PONTE: Case closed. MR. MAZZONE: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Looks like the next case we have is Board of County Commissioners versus TW Management of Naples, a/k/a Naples Investments, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: We've already resolved that one. That was continued. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, was that -- No.8 was continued? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And we're at item number nine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I missed that somehow. I didn't write it down, I guess. Sorry. It is the Beijing Restaurant, okay. Page 50 April 26, 2007 The next case then is Board of County Commissioners versus Roilan Perez. MS. MARKU: I would like to ask if the respondent is present? (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence and I would like to enter that package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the county's package. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. Section 10.02.06(B) (1) (a), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article II, 103.11.1. Section 106.1.2,; certificate of occupancy. Description of violation: Interior and exterior conversion and non-permitted construction. Location/address where violation exists: 1974 46th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Roilan Perez, 1974 46th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Page 51 April 26, 2007 Date violation first observed: October 27th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 1st, 2006. Date on which violation to be corrected: January 1st, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: January 12th, 2007. The results ofre-inspection: Violations remain. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: How are you doing? This investigation started on 10/27/06. Somebody had called in a complaint stating that they felt that the residence was being divided up into single units. And I got to the property sometime around 5:00 where I seen a-- I observed a gentleman that was actually doing work on the home. He didn't want to state his name, so I was unable to get his name. But at that time I asked him where the owner was, and he had called him on his cell phone and had the owner come down. And I had placed a stop work order on the property. Here's the picture of it. After -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We need to enter that as an Exhibit B. I'd like to entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to enter this as Exhibit B. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 52 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PAUL: After the owner appeared at the residence, he really didn't speak any English, so we were having a little communication problem. But he did sign an entry consent and did allow me to go into the residence. I have a photo here I'd like to enter as another exhibit to explain what he's actually done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion for Exhibit c. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept Exhibit C. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KELLY: Are we accepting the entire packet then? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He's been doing it piece-by-piece. MS. ARNOLD: Well, didn't we-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We've already accepted hers, but these are in addition. MR. PAUL: Right, yeah, these are an addition. As you can see, when you walk into the front door, there is a wall to the right, which this gentleman clearly stated to me that this wall shouldn't be there, and that he actually put the wall up. So that was an Page 53 April 26, 2007 add-on. And then if you move towards room number four, okay, there's another wall to the left of that. That wall shouldn't be there either. To the left side of that residence, he pretty much made a single -- he made a single unit out of it. He put in a kitchen, has its own restroom. But that room itself does not go into the main room. There's a door to it and that's the only way in and out of that part of the residence. If you look towards the back where the lanai is supposed to be, he took the lanai, split it in half and made two rooms out of it. To the right, to the front right side, that is also a single unit. That unit -- it does go into the living -- the family area, but I don't know how to get that door open, and he wasn't able to get the door open also. So that's also a single unit that also has as kitchen in it. So he has three kitchens in this residence. And he's also placed windows in the lanai area. And I'll hand in a couple more exhibits that just show the new windows that he put in the lanai area. That picture shows a picture of the left side of the lanai. That was the window on that side, and he's got -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Excuse me, I need to have this entered as evidence D. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 54 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PAUL: And this is the right side of the lanai that was split in half. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we combine both of those into D. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. DEAN: Correct. MR. PAUL: Well, due to communication problems with the gentleman and he didn't really speak any English, I had to return with an interpreter the second time around before I'd serve him the notice. So I came back on 11/1 with Eddie Ybaceta. He's an investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement. And at that time we explained to him what his violation was with all the conversions and him doing it without any permits. And he explained that to him in Spanish. And he signed the Notice of Violation. And he knew he had till January 1st of'07 to obtain permits for everything that had been converted. From that time, January 27th, after phone conversations with Mr. Perez, he came into the office. At that time I was with Investigator Carmelo Gomez. And he needed to have surveys done and so on on the residence so that he could bring that to permitting, which was explained to him by Carmelo Gomez. And at that time he said he'd get those things to the other and then he'd come back to the office. On 12/11, I had Mr. Gomez wait in the office for this gentleman to bring the paperwork. He never showed up. On 12/18, went back to the property, spoke with one of his tenants, Arturo, who said the gentleman was at work and he had called him on the phone and he said he'd be coming to his office, but he never showed up. 12/29, his phone number was disconnected, the one he had given me, and I haven't been able to get a hold of him since. Page 55 April 26, 2007 4/10/07, I did a posting of the property, or a notice of hearing. We did get a green card back signed from Hialeah, stating that he obviously lives in Hialeah, Florida. And I'll enter one more exhibit, the green card signed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, may I have an acceptance of exhibit -- I think this is E. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PAUL: So he is aware of to day's proceeding, but he didn't show up. And we're here today. So there's really nothing else. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Have you been back in the house since and has anything changed? MR. PAUL: I was there yesterday. There is no one living there. Everybody has vacated this residence, and so there is no way of contacting him by anybody else. Just for the court's record, this gentleman has another residency here, 652 Pompano Drive, where he's done this same exact thing to, that residence there, which there's no one residing there either. And we have an open case on that also. MR. MORGAN: So he's using this for rental property; is that correct? MR. PAUL: Correct. But the one time I was there, he did tell Page 56 April 26, 2007 me he was living at this address. MR. MORGAN: But it's not zoned for rental property. MR. PAUL: No. No, it's not. Well, he can rent the residence out, but because of what he's done to it, he's created quad-plex out of it, when it's a single-family home. MR. MORGAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is Estates zoning, correct? MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's a single-family use with a guest house zoning, correct? MR. PAUL: I believe so. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there's no way you could get this permitted. MR. PAUL: No, this is Golden Gate City. MR. LEFEBVRE: Golden Gate City, okay, sorry. MR. DEAN: Just one quick question. On the bottom right of this form, it says -- does that say notice of hearing, BM 5/24/07? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. DEAN: That's May 24th? MR. PAUL: Yes, I believe that's what's written on there. MR. DEAN: So are we saying that's when he was supposed to be here, as opposed to four -- MR. PAUL: That's Bendisa. MS. ARNOLD: 5/24? MR. DEAN: That's next month. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, you want to tell them that? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: The date of 5/24, because first of all, he was scheduled to go for May 24th, that was the notice of hearing, for May 24th. But then we had some changes and we removed some changes in the agenda, so we placed him under this hearing. But he had sufficient notice. So that just -- Page 57 April 26, 2007 MR. DEAN: But he has a notice to be here today? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: He did have notice then? MS. MARKU: He had notice. His notice is -- that was just a misprint on the green receipt. He had the actual notice for today's hearing. MR. DEAN: So I hope he went by that one and not this one, right? MS. ARNOLD: Did he have two notices or one notice? MS. MARKU: He only had one notice. The notice that he received was for April 22nd. The notice of hearing stated it was for April 22nd hearing. That green receipt was marked for May 24th because he was first scheduled for May 24th. So that was just a misprint on the green receipt. MR. PONTE: The date of delivery is April 19th; is that right? MR. PAUL: That is correct. MR. PONTE: Today's the 26th. MS. ARNOLD: He picked it up on the 19th. That's when he -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's when he signed the green card. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If there are no other questions, I'll close the public hearing, open it for finding of fact. Would anyone like to make a motion whether or not a violation exists? MR. PONTE: Well, I think clearly a violation exists. I'll make a motion that a violation exists as described in the charging documents ofCEB Case 2007-37, Collier County Board of County Commissioners verse Roilan Perez, the respondent. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 58 April 26, 2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the county have a suggestion? MR. PAUL: Yes, we do. County requests that owner pay all operational costs in the amount of $366.67 incurred in the prosecution of this case. Abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits, all required inspections and certificate of occupancy for all non-permitted improvements within 60 days of this hearing, or obtain a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections, certificate of completion within 90 days of this hearing. Failure to comply with one of these options will result in a $200 a day fine for each day any violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Could you place that on the overview for us, please. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it possible to have four units on this property? MR. PAUL: No. It's zoned single-family. MR. LEFEBVRE: Then obtaining permits for this structure the way it stands is probably -- MR. PAUL: Not going to happen. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- not possible. Page 59 April 26, 2007 So in all respect, we could probably get rid of that portion of it and just having a demolition permit, correct? MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. PONTE: Or restoring. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Well, demolition of the walls that were constructed is what the demolition would be. Not of the structure but -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Demo of all non-permitted improvements. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KELL Y: May I point out to the board the safety hazard that may exist here, due to the number of occupancy, number of occupancy potentially in the building versus the square footage of the home. Taken to the fact that since there's been no inspections on the improvements, we don't know egress, we don't know fire safety, electrical, plumbing. Maybe 90 days for a demo, which was suggested by county, might be too long. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you been able to ascertain if all these units are currently occupied? MR. PAUL: There's no one living in this residence. It's vacant. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Is it secured? MR. PAUL: Not really. Well, all the doors are shut, but there are no locks on the doors or anything. They've removed all of them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That makes a different story. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: What time frame would you be looking at? MR. KELL Y: Well, if there's nobody occupying the place, then we can probably put in the agreement that no one will occupy it until the improvements that were made are abated, removed. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about securing it in a shorter period of time and maybe giving 60 days for the removal of all? So maybe Page 60 April 26, 2007 within seven days secure structure. MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think that is -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that's probably the first and foremost item that we should be addressing. MR. DEAN: I agree. MR. KELLY: Agreed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me see. Re-crafting this. How about respondent will receive -- do you want to do just a straight 45 days for demolition? Receive permit and demolish all non- permitted improvements within 45 days of this hearing or a $200 fine will be -- will result if the violation remains? And then within seven days, number two -- or number one. Number two let's say within seven days the structure must be secured. And if that is not attained, then a $200 fine. MR. PAUL: Okay, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also, the respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we also put in there to remain unoccupied within that -- after it's been secured, you know, within the seven days and to remain unoccupied? MR. KELLY: Well, if! may, if it's a single-family dwelling and there was only one family living in there and it was rented to only one unit owner or renter, would we be allowed to not allow them occupancy? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's nobody in there right now, he said. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about if the unit may not be rented out by more than one family, or-- MR. KELLY: Never mind, strike that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: No, because we don't know what the safety issues are. Page 61 April 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: If we have the latitude to do that, then yeah, let's not allow anyone in there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we do that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, ifthere's no one in there now. I don't know if there are safety issues to prohibit one family from living there. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about putting in there the residency may not be occupied until all violations have been abated, at which time no more than one family can live in the residence. MS. RAWSON: But you're asking him to demolish it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Demolish whatever improvements. MR. DEAN: Just the walls. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The improvement. Because he's built walls inside. MS. RAWSON: Right, I understand. Okay. So what you're saying is that nobody can reside there until the violation is abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Abated and been inspected. MS. ARNOLD: Maybe it would be helpful to include language for him to restore the property to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Its original condition. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. Because it was originally permitted as a single-family home. MR. LEFEBVRE: So 45 days to restore it to its original single- family residence and then also to add to that that it shall not be rented out or lived in, period -- I don't want the owner to come in and live there -- until it has been restored to its original condition. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And secured. MR. LEFEBVRE: And secured. MR. KELLY: I have another question, real quick. I'm sorry, George. MR. PONTE: I was just talking on the matter of securing the property. If it's not easy to communicate with the owner, then telling him that he's got seven days is like whistling in the wind. Page 62 April 26, 2007 But I think if we could craft something that simply said that the respondent is directed to secure the property within seven days and if that not being done, the county will take the appropriate measures to secure the property at the cost of the respondent. MS. ARNOLD: I was going to make that very suggestion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion, too. If Jean's getting this all down. MS. RAWSON: I'm trying. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know I talk fast, so -- MR. KELL Y: The other question is if he added a window or two or maybe an interior wall. But yet a single-family residence, you can have an added wall, you can create another room, as long as you have the permits and the approvals by county. So to go back to the original building design or -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The way he has restructured this, he has at least three different units within one single-family dwelling. I believe he needs to be directed to go back to a single-family residence. MR. KELLY: Very good. MS. ARNOLD: And I just want to clarify that Mr. Kelly is correct, he can build walls, but the unit has to flow together. You have to be able to go from one room to the other. What he's done is blocked it off so you're unable to do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So we're just telling him he has to be able to go back to a single-family dwelling. MR. KELL Y: But if we don't put number one back in there as stated originally by county, we're just telling him to demolish the improvements. And I'm wondering if that gives him the latitude to keep maybe one or two of those walls as long as he puts some kind of flow-through to open it back up. If we say go back to the way it was, that's the original site plan that was -- you know, how the house was built. Page 63 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's currently the only thing that's permitted. All right, so you're saying that ifhe were to obtain building permit -- MR. PAUL: Correct, he could probably keep some of his wall. MR. LEFEBVRE: And to get the permit approved, he'd have to have obviously natural flow. But he's added kitchens. Has he added bathrooms? MR. PAUL: Yes, he has. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, I mean, all those improvements -- MR. DEAN: You cannot occupy the property until you have the proper permits. MR. KELLY: Until it's passed the C.O. One way or the other. Michelle brings up a great point. You know, he is allowed to build a wall, as long as it's permitted and approved. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I agree. Keep working. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How about obtaining Collier County building permits and all required inspections with a certificate of occupancy, or return it to the original permitted-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I guess I'll amend my original motion and stay with the 45 days. And-- MR. MARTIN: Bring the structure up to compliance with single- family regulations. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And then number two would be to secure the dwelling within -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Seven days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Seven days, or have the county secure the dwelling. MR. LEFEBVRE: Um-hum. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And costs go to the respondent. Page 64 April 26, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Then he still has to notify the code enforcement officer when it's done. Is that your amendment -- or your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: That is my motion, amended a couple of times. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: I just had a question about operational costs. I didn't recall hearing anything about that. MS. RAWSON: 366.67. MR. LEFEBVRE: With operational costs also included. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we need to revote on that then? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to amend my -- MR. DEAN: Motion to add. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to add operational costs. MR. DEAN: 366.67. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 65 April 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We will get this down, guys, we promIse. I think we're done with all of the hearings, however. So we move into old business. Request for reduction of fines. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Okay, you should have received a package from Daisy -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Arrazcaeta. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And she's requesting reduction or abatement of fine. If they're here, if they could speak to that? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sure. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. ARRAZCAET A: Would the board like me to start? MS. ARNOLD: Let me just state for the board that in this particular case we've already imposed fines. And I think that there is a question about the notice that was provided. It was sent to another address, but they can speak to that. And so they're asking to make modifications to what's already imposed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'm going to go ahead and let the investigator speak first, just to give us an overview, call us back to mind what the case was. MR. BONO: Investigator Bono, Collier County Code Enforcement. I actually inherited this case from a previous investigator. And I Page 66 April 26, 2007 think the reduction of fines needs to be considered. There were some delays in permitting, as well as, as Michelle stated, there was an incorrect communication to another address, as well as Ms. Arrazcaeta did provide documentation that there was a sickness in the family as well. She had provided that to us, and under those factors I would ask that you consider a reduction of fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. ARRAZCAETA: Well, in the beginning, you know, when we bought the property, I know that it's our fault. We didn't know that the problem was there, you know. As soon as we get notified about the problem, we tried right there, you know, to begin to fix it. There was a problem of distance, because we live in Miami to find here an architect, the engineer, the people to make the plans, they took too long. But we -- by May 31 st, we present the permits. Then we come several times and talk to Ms. Petrulli, and she said that, you know, that we didn't end we cannot do anything. But we come like at five, six times. One of them my wife come and she has to take to the hospital by the rescue. Then we have our teenage daughter, you know, she get pregnant, left the school. And we have a lot of personal things. We know the problem, and we try to resolve as soon as was possible. But the frame time was not enough to do it. But that one, you know, I just -- and we are working. We are having in this moment problem with the property because we rent to the people, we have to evict. They living nobody on the property. It's possible now we have to begin to clean again, because I seen that the property now where inspected is maybe is not in good shape. We have to pay the water. We have been, you know, paying the architect, the engineer. You know, we have to had a lot of expenses trying to resolve the problem. It was a problem that we are responsible. We didn't create it. Because at the time when we bought the property, we make a loan with the bank. But the company, I seen Page 67 April 26, 2007 that they didn't do, you know, the right job to check everything well. And then we just inherit the problem. But that one, you know, I just like that you take in consideration, you know. And then, you know, remove the -- the fine because the problem is already resolved and inspected. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. ARRAZCAETA: My name is Jose, and my last name is Arrazcaeta. A-R-R-A-Z-C-A-E-T-A. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So basically your wife had an illness, your daughter had an issue, and you had a time -- additional time needed for your permitting, et cetera, in order to get this accomplished, correct? MR. ARRAZCAET A: Correct. And even that one, the 31 st that we gave the permit to the city, you know, to try to correct, the permit was not approved till September the 19th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Till September 19th? MR. ARRAZCAET A: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? MR. KELLY: I had one. Investigator? MR. BONO: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Right now they're faced with 17,000 and change. What would be your recommendation of adequate abatement or reduction? MR. BONO: I would go with half at this time given the issues that they have encountered. If the board, you know, sees to reduce that further, then that would be your call. I would agree with his testimony. And again, we're not here to readdress the case at this point in time. Everything he said, you know, certainly from a personal issue does go with what we have in our narratives here. So again, moving forward, my recommendation would be to Page 68 April 26, 2007 consider the reduction, half at this point in time. What I'm saying and I'll leave it up to the board to move it further or upward. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And they actually didn't get the permit until the 19th? MR. BONO: Yes, absolutely. They are in compliance. The permit was in spec. status for quite some time. I don't know why. Again, there were permitting issues that did crop up during the time of this case. And then finally it did go to a C.O. status and then I was there to issue an affidavit of compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: When did it go into C.O. status? MR. BONO: November. MR. ARRAZCAETA: November the 20th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is when the -- MR. BONO: And the affidavit of compliance was issued on November 22nd. So that would certainly culminate with that date. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Michelle, just for -- because I don't have a calculator with me, can you tell me how many days it would be from September 19th to November 20th? MR. KELL Y: Can I also add that when the permit was secured, it took them one month to make all improvements and get the inspections passed, which was less than the time that was originally allotted on the original stipulated agreement. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just wanted to start with a dollar figure. MS. ARNOLD: What was the date, September what? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 19th. MR. BONO: Actually, the permit was in ready status on September 18th of 2006. And I was monitoring that permit for it to be issued for CL status. In retrospect, they would have to pick up the permit and pay for it for it to go into an issued status. The fact that it's in ready status pretty Page 69 April 26, 2007 much means nothing until it's been paid by the respondent, and then obviously the action that needs to be further taken with that permit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When did you pick up and pay for the permit? MR. ARRAZCAET A: We have some person that he pick it up, because we left the money and pay. There was a Maria that was the one. But I think that that one was taken almost right there. I think that was in the -- almost in the -- not the same day, the other day, you know she-- , CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: On the 19th? MR. ARRAZCAET A: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Sixty-one days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Sixty-one days? So at $100 a day, that would be 6,110, correct? Do we have any other thoughts? MR. MARTIN: I would reduce the -- instead of half, I would even reduce it another half. Sixty-one days at maybe $50 a day, due to circumstances that these people have went through, and they complied so quickly to it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So the 6,100 down to half of that? MR. MARTIN: Three thousand. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 3,050. MR. DEAN: It's still a lot. MR. PONTE: I agree with my colleague, but it does raise a question in my mind, in any event, the way we're going. Is there really truly a need for a fine of any kind? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'll get the input from the county. Michelle? What are your feelings? MS. ARNOLD: For this particular case? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. PONTE: Yes, sure. Page 70 April 26, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: I'm leaving it to the board. It's at your will. You determine the fine amount. We've asked for the operational costs of $272.96. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So you wouldn't be -- MS. ARNOLD: And it's already been paid. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You wouldn't object (sic) if we dismiss the fine altogether then? MS. ARNOLD: I wouldn't have any objection. MR. BONO: Neither would 1. MR. PONTE: I make a motion we dismiss the fine and the respondent pay -- has already paid operational costs. So there is nothing other to do. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: I second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. ARRAZCAET A: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You're welcome. The next one for reduction of fines is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Calexico, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: This is also a request by the respondent for a reduction of fines. And this -- these fines have also been imposed. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Again, I'll start with the investigator first and then we'll move to you. Page 71 April 26, 2007 MR. KEEGAN: This case was heard on July 26th -- I'm sorry, August 24th, 2006, in which the Code Enforcement Board found the owner in violation and ordered to obtain permits within 30 days and to get a C. O. within 60 days after issuance, which the respondent did sign the stipulation agreement. The permit was applied for November 15th, 2006, approved 11/21/2006, issued, 11/22/06, and C.O.'d 12/13/2006. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mr. Calexico (sic), why do you feel we should reduce your fines? MR. OSORNIO: I have Mr. Coleman speak for me. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. COLEMAN: My name is Robert M. Coleman, Jr. I'm a CPA at Immokalee. Santos Osornio has hired an attorney, Patrick White, to come and gather these facts, and he asked us to come before the board and request to be rescheduled for next month. His schedule would not allow him to be here today, he's out of state. And there are circumstances that he needs to organize, along with Jackie Williams, who was the contractor involved in this case who used to be one of the board members. He did the work, he did the permitting. Jackie Williams told me that he didn't feel that there was even a permit required in the beginning. There was a lot of confusion going on. Santos has a speech impediment. He's afraid of this board. He's trying to do everything he can in his power. He resorted to an attorney to speak for him. He'd like just a continuation to get the truth out and get this thing resolved as quickly as possible. He has no problem with any kind of operational costs. The fines he had a problem with. MS. ARNOLD: I believe Bendisa can provide information to the board regarding this request. This request came in by Mr. Santos, and he requested this April 26, 2007 specific date. We weren't provided information with anything regarding an attorney until last week. Or was it this week? And the information that Mr. Coleman is bringing up with regard to the violation is not the issue at hand. It's -- what needs to be determined is what mitigating circumstances prevented them from complying with your order. And as the investigator pointed out, Mr. Santos signed a stipulation. And if you look at the information, there wasn't any delay on the county's part with regard to getting this permitting done, it was more on the respondent's side. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think he asked for a motion to continue. So I think you have to deal with his motion to continue first so that he could have Mr. White here. And then after you vote on whether or not to continue it or not, you know, then we'll get into the evidence. And I'll be happy to go through the mitigating stuff with you. MR. KELL Y: Sheri, I have a question. If facetiously we were to deny the continuance and we continued to impose the fines, is there a way for him to come back again with counsel, or once we decide no, we're not going to reduce or abate the fines that's it? Is this his only shot? MS. RAWSON: He's already been fined. His fines are continuing, you know, no matter what. So he's in compliance. So they are what they are. And, you know, I don't know that he's precluded from not coming back. MR. KELLY: The only reason why I say that is because, to the board, there is a time to bring motions for continuance, and that time was earlier in the meeting on our agenda. This is kind of last minute. There was no notice to staff. I think we could hear what his arguments may be, and whatever happens, happens. And what I'm looking for is an answer as to Page 73 April 26, 2007 whether or not if his attorney's available at a later date, maybe he can bring it back and request a reduction or -- MS. RAWSON: Well, if you hear it, if you hear the motion for reduction or abatement of fines today, you're going to make a decision. So I think that's going to be res adjudicate. MR. KELL Y: And that's it. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Also, just a question. Would we be giving him his due process ifhe's asking to have an attorney represent him and we don't? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's a very interesting legal question. I'm sure his attorney will argue one way and the county attorney will argue a different way. Obviously you are correct, that it should have been brought to our attention sooner because we hear the motions to continue first. I will say that this is not the first time somebody comes up on an order to impose fines and say I want an extension of fines or I want a continuance. It actually happened last month. So I think you have to rule on the motion to continue first. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. KELLY: Mr. Coleman? MR. COLEMAN: Can I make a comment? I don't know if this is permitted or not. On April the 12th, you sent a fax over to the county asking for a continuance. I talked on the telephone to Michelle Arnold a few days after that asking, because of the circumstances, let him have a chance with his attorney to come back and put this in a proper perspective. You assumed it wasn't in context. It was in context. Whether it was legal or the procedure was met, I don't know. But he did it in good faith. MS. ARNOLD: No, the discussion that I had with Mr. Coleman was about the process. And we also were discussing a negotiated Page 74 April 26, 2007 amount. And Mr. Coleman indicated to me that Mr. Santos would be paying that amount and proceeding to this hearing. And-- MS. BARNETT: Can we see the fax? MS. ARNOLD: There was no discussion about Mr. White representing Mr. Santos while we spoke. MR. COLEMAN: That's true about Mr. White, that telephone conversation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we put the fax on the overhead? MR. PONTE: Thank you. MS. RAWSON: Procedurally this is his request. And so he can either go forward on his request or not go forward on his request. You don't have to, you know, grant him a motion to continue. It's not the county's motion, it's his motion. And so if he wants to take it off the agenda, he's got that right. You don't have to agree or disagree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So he can just take it off the agenda? MS. RAWSON: Well, he can, it's his motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So the county has no latitude in it. MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm sure they'd like to see it go forward, but it's his motion, it's not the county's motion. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't particularly understand what the procedure is on this one. I don't think he's got the right to do it anyway. But the way I see it is this way: He can go forward and ask you for the reduction, okay, but ifhe wants the continuance, then what he's really saying is I'll come back later, in which case he withdraws his motion at this point in time for you to reconsider. And if and when he comes back with counsel, at that point in time he can come before you and make another motion and you can decide whether to hear it or not. Page 75 April 26, 2007 There's nothing to continue is what I'm saying. MS. RAWSON: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Apparently he is asking to -- would he like to withdraw his request for a reduction of fines? MR. COLEMAN: We're not attorneys. We don't know this-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I understand. MR. COLEMAN: --legal process at all. We-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm asking you a question. MR. COLEMAN: -- just want to get to the truth and get this addressed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm asking you a question. MR. COLEMAN: That's all. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm asking you a question. MR. COLEMAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would he like to come back with his attorney? And if he does, would he like to request to have his reduction of fine removed off the agenda? MS. RAWSON: Today's agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Today's agenda. MR. COLEMAN: He'd like it removed from today's agenda and get a chance to have his attorney to address this very quickly and without waiting the board's time and be done with this. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. I guess in that case we just withdraw it. MS. RAWSON: And it doesn't require a vote. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he'll have to come back with the attorney's date to request the reduction of fine. MS. RAWSON: He'll have to file another motion. And maybe his attorney will file a motion using our form and, you know, spell out all of the reasons for the motion. MS. ARNOLD: The time frame doesn't apply anymore? MS . RAWSON: Yes, it does. It's in the rules. Page 76 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So is he going -- in other words, does he have any time left? MS. RAWSON: I don't think there's a time limit. MS. ARNOLD: For a request? MS. RAWSON: If you look at your rules, Article 10, Section 1. Section 6 prohibits him from filing a new motion once you've heard it. But I don't see a time limit. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So if we were to hear it today, then he wouldn't be able to refile. MS. RAWSON: He would not. His appeal time's gone. Because you have to appeal within 30 days. But Section 6 says if you -- you can't rehear it once you make a decision on a previous motion for reduction of fines. But I'm looking at Section 1 about all the things that you need to allege. But I don't see a time limit in Section 1. And I'll bet this is not something we discussed at the workshop. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's not. But it might be something we need to make a note of. MS. ARNOLD: I'm wondering, because I recall a time frame of like 20 days or 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If it's not there, though, that's the ones that we voted in. MS. ARNOLD: I'm looking at the ones that we have already adopted. I don't see a time frame. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So ifthere's no time frame, then just if he withdraws it then he can make another motion with your attorney to request to come back. MR. COLEMAN: Does that mean we're allowed to tell the attorney to get this case back next month and petition as soon as possible? MR. PONTE: Or whenever. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that all requests need to be in a Page 77 April 26, 2007 reasonable time. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. COLEMAN: Mr. Osornio wants to get this thing done as quickly as possible. It's making him sick. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I am sure. Yes, that is what we understand. MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And the date of the next meeting? MR. DEAN: May 24th. MS. ARNOLD: May 24th. MS. RAWSON: May 24th. But Mr. White would have to go ahead and file his motion and send it to Michelle so that he could be on the next -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Agenda. MS. RAWSON: -- agenda. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So he needs to get that done ASAP. MR. COLEMAN: I'm sure he knows the rules. We'll do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Coleman, I just wanted to note for the record, we never received this fax. It has a fax number on it that doesn't go to the county. So do you want your fax back? MR. COLEMAN: Yes, ma'am. What is the fax number to your office? MS. ARNOLD: It's 403-2343. MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Next we're going to the request for impositions of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on July 27th, 2006 at which time the board found a violation to the case. And the order recorded by the board is attached to and provided to you in your packet. Page 78 April 26, 2007 The respondents have not complied with that order. At this time we are asking that fines be imposed for items number one, two and three and four of the order at a rate of $200 per day for a total of 189 days, which totals $37,800. Additionally, there is operational costs for 633.22 for a total of38,433.22. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Somewhere when I was reading through this, Michelle, I put a notation on this. I had a question, number of days of fines. And I think it has to do with the very last date, being that the inspector actually inspected it and you're including that on the 11 th, and you're having the fines go through to the 12th. Just one day, but -- MS. RAWSON: For the record, we probably ought to mention the case we're talking about. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry. It's Board of County Commissioners versus Dalila Grimaldo, CEB 2006-37. MS. ARNOLD: Are you saying the number of days from September 26th through April 3rd is not 189; is that what it is? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There's something about -- said that -- MS. ARNOLD: January 11th. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Um-hum. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, that affidavit was -- it shouldn't have been included in there. It was filed in error. The one that applies is the second one of non-compliance. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I guess I was having some issues with this because it was in compliance, not in compliance. MS. ARNOLD: Right. The investigator shouldn't have filed that, because compliance had not been obtained. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. But I guess it was concerning because it said that it was on the 11 th, and then we fined him through the 12th. MS. ARNOLD: We're fining through April3rd. Page 79 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, I guess I'm misreading my documents somehow. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the January 11th shouldn't have been included. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. We've got --looks like the respondents and also the code enforcement officer. Would you like to swear them in, Cherie'. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll go with-- MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Let me start. July 27th, 2006, the case was heard before the Code Enforcement Board. They found a violation. Ordered to pay operational costs of 349.29 and obtain, if obtainable, valid permits by 8/10/06 and C.O. by 9/25/06, or apply for a demo. permit by 8/3/06 or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. Numerous site visits. Violation still remains. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Ms. Grimaldo, do you have something to say? MS. GRIMALDO: Yes. Okay. I don't think I'm going to be able to talk, but I have a lot of things to say. This is my son, Candelario. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Candelario. C-A-N-D-E-L-A-R-I-O. Rodriguez. I guess she's probably not going to hold up to speak. So I'm her eldest son. Basically what's going on is every since the hurricane, it knocked my father's business down. He has a terminal illness right now. He's been fighting for his life for the past seven years. And every time we -- she gets to the point where they save enough money to start doing stuff, he falls back in there. At the beginning of the year she was -- we were starting to go through demolition and stuff. Instead we were more planning for his funeral, which was in January. But miraculously he recovered, so he's back out again. So it's just been a long-going battle with my father's illness coming into part. Page 80 April 26, 2007 I mean, she's already hired them to do -- basically to remodel or to build a new business there, which is what my father wants. We've been there 20 years. I mean, you know, we're known through the community. Unfortunately me, myself and my other two brothers, we all have separate jobs with our separate families and, you know, we can't always be there, which we would want to. But unfortunately every time -- obviously she didn't graduate from high school, but they made a long life working and they finally paid off that property. In 15 years they fought hard and paid off the property. Right now she is in the process of maybe even selling her home that she's lived in 20 years just to start the process of getting the permit and paying people to come in and destroy whatever is left of the business there. Her thing is now that -- she's got the dilemma either wasting that money of selling her house either paying you all or starting the process. That's where we're at right now. I mean, I've offered for her to move in with me. That's basically where we're at right now. Unfortunately that's their only income that they have. She has found a place where they're willing to rent it to her, but they give her like 30 days for -- the owner's going to fix up the place and it's an old body shop that she's willing to transfer over there. Other than that, I really have nothing else to say. I mean, I -- that's just what she's been going through. And I took a day off today and came over here, so -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you have something, the gentleman behind you? MR. MORRISON: For the record, my name is Scott Morrison with Morrison Engineering, and I have been retained to provide a demolition plan and a civil engineering site plan to be submitted to Page 81 April 26, 2007 Collier County. I also wanted to apologize, I'm new to the process and they're very new to the process as far as submitting documents to the board and requesting the reduction of fine or abatement items. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the county hold a position? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know. I wasn't -- I'm sorry, I wasn't listening to the whole thing. It sounds like you're going to be relocating or are you staying on that particular site? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am, we -- she just got a notice last week from a friend of hers who has another building. Which in Immokalee it's kind of hard to find a commercial building to -- you can't just relocate because there's really nothing there which has also held up the process. And she talked to one of her good friends and they're going to vacate the building. And he has offered her to go ahead and move, the ability for her to move over there so that she can start the process. I mean, she obviously was confused. They issued her an occupational license in November, which she went to the courthouse thinking that she would just go there. And they gave her the license, so she kept working. Obviously, you know, she doesn't really understand the paperwork. I mean, unfortunately. And she hasn't been really mentally stable as for all the stuff that's been going on. I mean, the building got knocked down, the hurricane, my father's been in and out of ICU and everything. I mean, it's no excuse. Obviously there's no excuse. There's no reason why we should be excluded from following the laws of the county, you know. I mean, that's -- I'm not asking for anything like that. But right now her only goal is to either -- she's only got a little bit of money saved up. Because, I mean, these are all the prescriptions she has to buy for my dad. I mean, he has to take 30 pills a day just to live. Right now she just wants to use the little bit of money she has to Page 82 April 26, 2007 start the demolition process. But she's like, I have to pay the county. So then I -- I don't know what I'm going to do. So that's basically where we're at. MS. ARNOLD: I guess the board has the ability to give an -- extend the time on their order if -- I guess for her to relocate from the current property to another location. Once they demolish what's on that site then they would be in compliance. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I mean, basically she wants you all to -- and if you all could just help her reducing what she owes right now or whatever. That's basically her goal right now. Because, you know-- MS. GRIMALDO: Could nobody help me. Not even FEMA. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. I mean, she tried. She always got rejected. MR. KELL Y: But, sir, technically right now you don't owe anything. This hearing is to decide whether or not they are going to charge you. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, see, that's -- that's what I'm saying, you know. So I-- MR. KELL Y: Michelle, could you explain that again, what you're talking about extending? MS. ARNOLD: Your current order gives them until a certain date to comply. Which has been -- you know, it's passed, substantially. I guess you all have the ability to go in and change that date from September 26th, '06 to whatever date in the future that you feel is necessary to comply. Then that way no additional fines will accrue. I don't know how much time they believe it's going to take them to relocate and demolish. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That was the question I was going to ask the -- MR. MORRISON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- the engineer. Page 83 April 26, 2007 How long do you think it would take for you to get the demolition plan to the county and get it approved? MR. MORRISON: I'm sorry I'm laughing. My business is located in Labelle now, but I worked in Collier County for four years, so I couldn't help but laugh when you asked me actually get it approved. Preparing the documentation and having it submitted to the county, I could have that to them within two weeks. Their time in reviewing it and approving the actual demolition plan, I would only be guessing at how long it would take to do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: When were you -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask the engineer a question? Because the site that we're referring to where they're located now is not a substantial structure. Are you having to submit a plan to show how you're going to remove that structure? Is that what you're thinking that you should be doing? MR. MORRISON: Well, in combination with a site development plan submittal. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. I guess what I was recommending is that -- the site plan process is a much longer process. If they're planning on relocating from their current location to another location, that's the time period that I would recommend to the board that you modify your order to reflect, rather than the site planning process. Because once they actually leave that current site and remove the makeshift structure that they put on there, they're in compliance. We wouldn't have to go through the site planning process. MR. MORRISON: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: See what I'm saying? MR. MORRISON: Yes, I do. They will need to go through the site planning process, though, as far as reconstructing the -- Page 84 April 26, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: For reconstruction. But that's a different issue. MR. MORRISON: But in working with the code enforcement-- I'd like to commend the code enforcement officer for working with them on that -- it stated that they were required to have a demolition permit. And that is a documentation -- I would like to specifically cull out items on there that they need to remove so they fully understand what exactly needs to be removed, and note those on a site plan to submit with the demolition permit application. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Which shouldn't take long for the county to approve. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Because basically what we need them do at this point in order to get into compliance is get the building demolished properly with the permit. From there you guys can then go to the re-siting and rebuilding. But that would stop the fines from accruing and get him into compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't like changing our original order. I like to see people come into compliance and then come back to the board and ask, or in previous cases today, explain why they were not able to come into compliance. So to change your order at this point, I'm not in favor of doing that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But if we rule on this, as Jean has pointed out, then we're done. So the only thing we could do is ask them to re-- MS. ARNOLD: They can come back for a reduction. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: They can come back for a reduction? MS. RAWSON: Because if you impose the fines, they always -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. A reduction -- MS. RAWSON: -- have the right to come back for a reduction or abatement. Or you can turn this into a motion for an extension of time, which he properly pointed out is a change in your first order. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Right. Page 85 April 26, 2007 And it's been since September of '06. I understand there's a lot of issues when someone's in the hospital, it takes up your time first. Having gone through it with my own mother. So I do have empathy for you there. I'm going to leave it for more discussion from the board. MR. MARTIN: Well, they should get a demolition permit and then come back for imposition of fines and bring that up. MR. MORGAN: Best thing to do is to demolish the thing and then come back and ask for a reduction in fines. That includes -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Remember that you have the right to come back to us for a request for a reduction of the fines after you've come into compliance. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We may say that we're going to impose these fines today. That means that they're out there. But once you get into compliance, you need to let us know and you need to ask for a request to come back for a reduction. Looks like the -- MR. KELL Y: Sheri. I think what Michelle and Jean are pointing out is if we extend the time of the original order, there wouldn't be any fines to impose yet. If our intent here is to maybe possibly reduce them down the road when we extend the time, give them a few extra days so there is no fines and then they'll just be done, in compliance. We won't have to see it again. MR. MARTIN: They need to get a demolition permit, not a site plan permit. Get it out of the way, get it knocked down and come back. MR. KELLY: Unless we impose the fines and makes sure it gets done. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm afraid to let them off completely without -- and changing our order, because this has been hanging out there since September of '06. That's my personal feeling. I also understand that they have had some issues. And I think this Page 86 April 26, 2007 board is pretty understanding when it comes to that, if they were to come back. But it's up to the majority of the board. MR. DEAN: So one nice thing to do is an extension of time, is what you're considering? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: There are some people considering an extension of time. There are others that are saying impose the fine and let them come back for a reduction. And those are options. MR. MARTIN: Well, if you give them an extension of time, they can get the demo permit and then come back then. It would be reheard. MR. KELL Y: If they got an extension of time and they did get the demo permit, they wouldn't need to come back, it would be done. MR. LEFEBVRE: The problem I have is this has been ongoing. They've been out of compliance since September and they're coming to us basically nine months later. If we give them an extension of time, what is it to say that they're going to actually proceed with the extension of time? I feel as a board member we should impose the fines and once they do come into compliance then come in front of us and then ask for a reduction or abatement of the fines. MR. KELLY: Is that your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be my motion. MR. KELLY: I second it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. Page 87 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do you understand that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not really. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, what we have done is we have said that these fines do exist. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We're telling you and giving you direction that you need to get the demolition permit and get the building demolished, even prior to doing your site review, necessarily. Let's get that done so that you're in compliance. As soon as you're in compliance, make a request to the board to come forward again at a meeting similar to this and ask us at that time for a reduction in the fines that we have imposed. That's where we will take into consideration all the issues that you've brought up today. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right. Yeah, I completely understand what you're telling me. That is the same thing I was kind of telling her and him. I didn't know -- he's the one that's rebuilding. I said first let's take the problem at hand. Let's clean the place out, let's move you out of there, mom. Let's get the other place settled. Open up the place you have an income and let's get the demolition permit, take everything out of there and then -- to show that we're doing something, I completely understand that with all the -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: You need to work as quickly as possible with getting those things done. And then again, once you get that done, come back to us and we will look as reducing the fine that we just said exists today. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, the fine is still ongoing. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And as long as -- until you get that done, it's still accruing. Page 88 April 26, 2007 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I understand that. Thank you. MS. RAWSON: You have to impose the fine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Oh, we didn't make the -- we had the motion. We voted on it. MS. RAWSON: To impose it? Did you? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: Sorry. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm like -- MS. RAWSON: I was thinking about the extension. Well, we already imposed it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We didn't do the extension. MS. RAWSON: I know. We'd already imposed it, so we probably couldn't have anyway. MS. ARNOLD: Your motion was to impose. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. PONTE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Robert and Cristina Ferris? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on January 25th, 2007, and an order was entered into for violations of conversion of an existing garage to office space without valid permits. The respondents have complied with your order, and they complied as of March 30th, 2007. At this time we're requesting that fines be imposed at a rate of $50 per day for the period between March 23rd, 2007 and March 30th, 2007, which is a total of seven days for 350. Additionally, operational costs in the amount of $627.90 for a totalof977.90. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We have both the investigator and I believe -- Page 89 April 26, 2007 MR. FERRIS: Robert Ferris. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Robert Ferris. So Cherie', if you'd like to swear them in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let's start with the investigator. MR. GOMEZ: Ma'am, this case started-- THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. GOMEZ: Carmelo Gomez, Collier Code Investigator. This started in April 6th, 2006, at which time a complaint came in that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anything that's pertinent to -- MR. GOMEZ: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ferris came into compliance. He received the C.O. on the 30th. Let me just double check here. On March 30th, '07. And an affidavit of compliance was submitted to Ms. Marku, Bendisa. That's it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Ferris, do you have anything? MR. FERRIS: I think I would respectfully mention two things: I contacted Mr. Dennis Mitchell, asking him to please review the date of the 23rd for compliance. He seemed to feel that because February had fallen in the middle, as I had, reduced my amount 60 days, so he gave me an extension until the 26th for finishing. I do realize that I went past that, did not finish appropriately on time. Though it was not significant, there was a little bit of illness on the prior weekend, which killed my time to get things finished appropriately. That would be point number one. Point number two: Due to the fact that my small business has basically failed, addressing the fines is extremely difficult for the family. If I'm not approved for refinancing our home, we may very well lose the home. So there are financial difficulties that we're facing. Basically the two points I would like to make to the board's Page 90 April 26, 2007 attention. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Discussion or questions from the board? MR. KELLY: I'd like to know from county if Dennis did grant the extension, just to confirm. And then also, should the 30th be counted, since that's the day it was confirmed compliant? MS. ARNOLD: I don't think the 30th is included. Yeah, it's not included. MR. KELL Y: And did Dennis grant an extension? Is there any record of that? MS. ARNOLD: Unfortunately I was trying to pull up CD Plus to see the permit information, and it's -- there's an error on the system, so I can't pull it up. And I don't -- I'm not aware of any extension. I can call him and ask him. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Would you? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We'll take a five-minute recess. Come back at 12:05. (Recess. ) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I will resume the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, Code Enforcement Board to order. And Michelle, do you have a response? MS. ARNOLD: I did speak with Dennis, and he does recall having a conversation with Mr. Ferris with respect to the order of the board. The hearing was heard on January 25th, and the board granted 60 days for compliance. And the question was whether or not that March 22nd date that was included on the order was a full 60 days. And I don't -- I was getting ready to look at that right now. But I think the conversation that Dennis had was that we would, you know, give him until the 25th Page 91 April 26, 2007 rather than the 22nd to comply. And his actual compliance was on the 30th. So there are a couple of days that we could probably play with with regard to the fines. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: We could take the 30th off for sure. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the 30th is not included in that amount. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Three from 30 is seven. MS. ARNOLD: Well, if you do days, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, that's eight days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And the computer calculates it for us automatically the right way. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he would be down five days. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, if we gave him two more days. So it would be -- MR. LEFEBVRE: $250. Five times 50. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that should be easy. MR. LEFEBVRE: $250. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, do -- MS. ARNOLD: So the total fines would be 877.90. MR. KELLY: Does county have a position about waiving anything any further? MS. ARNOLD: No, we don't. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm kind of leaning towards just going with operational costs. I think the gentleman tried to come into compliance as quickly as he could with some of the issues that he had. MR. DEAN: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But that's just my personal opinion. And I don't normally venture it because I'm the chair, and I don't want to sway anybody. I want everybody to speak up with their own feelings. Page 92 April 26, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: And another couple of questions. What's the typical -- is it 30 days if they have to pay operational costs and everything? They have a 30-day time frame to pay it, or set up a plan or -- MS. ARNOLD: It's based on what you all would say. The only thing in your rules that I just read today is that if you do a reduction of fines, then they would have 30 days to pay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I thought I saw. MS. ARNOLD: So I guess, yes, in this case because you're reducing fines to nothing other than the operational costs, then he would have 30 days to pay. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do we have any other discussion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it possible to structure the payment of the operational costs for other than a 30-day time period? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I was going to get towards. Would that be possible? MS. ARNOLD: I'd rather, rather than you all-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Let the county do that. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's their job. We don't have anything to do with operational costs. They have to get with the individual and discuss that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I make a motion to impose operational costs only in the amount of627.90. MR. DEAN: I second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 93 April 26, 2007 MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. FERRIS: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: The next case is the Board of County Commissioners and Marlene Santilli. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and we got-- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: A spiel did everybody get? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you should have received a very long e-mail. And Ms. Santilli originally asked that I call her during the hearing so that she could speak to you all as well, and has since sent me an e-mail indicating that she's not going to be available. I would like to try to contact her anyway to see whether or not she's available to hear these proceedings before they kind of go on, okay? MR. PONTE: Michelle, before you do that, just a question. How will we verify that that in fact is who we're talking with if we -- MS. ARNOLD: I have spoken to her a lot. MR. KEEGAN: We know. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean, just for clarification, once someone does an e-mail, e-mail becomes public record, correct? MS. RAWSON : Yes. It's part of your packet that was introduced at the very beginning. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. Because in the e-mail she specially requests that the county only share with us like one or two lines. MS. RAWSON: It's in your packet and your packet always comes into evidence. MS. ARNOLD: There was just a recording. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So she's not present. Okay, we'll go ahead and let you get sworn in again. Page 94 April 26, 2007 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Okay. This case -- MS. ARNOLD: Before you go, let me read this. This case was heard by the board on February 23rd, 2007, and a violation was found. If you recall, this was some litter left on this person's property and there was questions about a police report and that -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That police case was actually on it. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And we did get verification from the police department before, you know, we proceeded. I think there was some question about the comply by date. We did get verification. There was no -- they could not find who placed the items on the property. In any event, the property is now in compliance and the fines had accrued -- actually, we've modified it from what's stated on your order from the March 26th, '07 to April 10th. We changed that to April 6th, because Ms. Santilli did send me an e-mail indicating that she came into compliance on the 6th. So the actual fine amount was $550. The operational costs have been also modified from what is stated on your order, from $342.26 to $269.51. So let me recalculate that for you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: 819.51. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. I need one of these. I can't do it by myself. MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, I'd just like for the record that Michelle Arnold did try to get in contact with the respondent and did receive a voice mail. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It appears that Ms. Santilli is not real happy with us. Page 95 April 26, 2007 MR. KEEGAN: No. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And from her e-mail, she's feeling like she is the aggrieved party because someone's dumped litter and stuff, and she's the one that's getting in trouble. And she's tried to comply and now she's being fined. Is that pretty much the discussion in a nutshell? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I didn't see anything there other than-- was the factor that there was water on the property originally, did that come into play with being able to remove some of the debris? MR. KEEGAN: This case was opened for six months prior to even the court case, the court hearing. It's been a long time. There's no excuse, I believe, why those vehicles, boats, cars, could not be removed. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. MORGAN: Was there some question about the property line where -- I remember seeing an aerial photograph and some correspondence that said this line was over here or -- MR. DEAN: That's not the one. MR. KELLY: Jerry, this was the one where there was an open police investigation. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, it's not the same case as this. There were some abandoned vehicles on her property. Okay, any other discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. I'll entertain motions. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we impose fines in the amount of$550 and operational costs in the amount of$269.51 for a totalof$819.51. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 96 April 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That concludes impositions of fines. And moving into new business, I'd like to say that I think we need to go back and revisit our rules and regs and put in a time frame. MS. ARNOLD: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Not necessarily pertaining to the particular case that was just here, but for future cases. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's not good to have that open-ended that way. MS. RAWSON: It seems to me that in the past we did have a time limit in there. MR. PONTE: I think so, too. MS. RAWSON: And I don't know how in our changing of our rules and regulations it got changed, but I'm sure we did before. And I'm thinking it's just an oversight. We do need time limits. MR. PONTE: Was it perhaps when we tried to merge it with the master's rules that -- MS. RAWSON: It could be. MS. ARNOLD: No, it actually wasn't in -- I looked at an older version, the one that was signed. It's not in there either. So I don't know when it occurred. I do recall there being some sort of time frame. Whether it was related to, you know, the whole imposition of fine process as it relates Page 97 April 26, 2007 into the statutes. There's time frames for -- MR. PONTE: There was definitely something there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Jean and I both are coming up with like 45 days was the number that hit us both. MR. PONTE: There was definitely something there. MS. ARNOLD: I don't know how it came out, but it's not there. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Well, we need to look at that as something we need to take care of. MR. PONTE: Do we do it now or do we do it next year? Is that -- are we going to live with this for a year or do we do it now? MS. ARNOLD: Well, the board hasn't -- we have a document for your signature today. MR. PONTE: I know. MS. BARNETT: I thought we had signed it. Some of us have signed it. No? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to put this on the agenda to have that changed, or could we just do a motion now to have it changed for like -- MS. ARNOLD: I think you can do it. Because we had it ready last month, but there was a good suggestion to include some language with regards to the Sunshine laws, and so we've done that. And so you can handle it the same way as you did the last time before, actually accepting the rules formally. MR. PONTE: Ifwe signed it as is today and then want to just add something at the next meeting, can't we make it an amendment and just have -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Can we do that? MS. RAWSON: You could, except that it's kind of like amendments to the Florida constitution. We can go crazy. It's a lot cleaner, especially since you haven't signed these, if you make a motion, if you want to make a change let's do it now. And then Michelle can bring you next month a clean copy with the Page 98 April 26, 2007 amendment in it and you can all sign it. MS. ARNOLD: And I can send it ahead of time as well so you all can see it. MR. PONTE: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I'm getting good at this. I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we do it 45 days or 30 days, just like the appeal period for the hearing? Should we keep it the same, 30 days? MS. ARNOLD: I'd like to look at the statute to see ifthere's any guidance there with regards to reduction of fines. If there's -- I know that there's language in there that speaks to, you know, reduction of fines, but I don't recall whether or not there was a time frame. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, then we can't take a vote today if you don't know what the time frame is. MS. ARNOLD: You can. And I could always give you information over e-mail as well. Because when we bring it back to the next hearing is when you're going to accept it. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: How about if we have someone make a motion that says that we will put in the time frame based on -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The state statute. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: -- the state statue. MS. RAWSON: Ifthere is one. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifthere is one. MS. RAWSON: Ifthere is not one -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: If there is not one, then we will proceed with "X" amount of days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we insert the verbiage to reflect state statutes. And if there is no verbiage in there, that the appeal period would be 30 days. MS. RAWSON: Technically it's the time to file a motion for reduction or abatement of fines. Because the appeal period is 30 days Page 99 April 26, 2007 and that is in all of your orders. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So I amend my order. MR. KELL Y: Should that language be added to the bottom of the appeal, to the imposition orders? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Absolutely. It should be right in that same paragraph where it tells you what the grounds for a motion for reduction, abatement of fines are. Right probably in that first sentence. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I just -- would you give me the rationale for making it 30 days again as opposed to 45? I personally have always thought the 30 days is tight. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah, I prefer 45 too. But his feeling was to keep it in a similar -- MR. PONTE: Just for the consistency? I think 30 days is very tight. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion to 45 days, if that would get a second by you. MR. PONTE: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. So we now have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Forty-five days, or unless the statute states otherwise. Okay, with that done, do we have any reports or committees? Page lOO April 26, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: I do have some other language that I'd like the board to consider as part of your rules. And I guess we don't really have to modify the rules to do this, or the ordinance to do it. We have -- we believe that we're going to need the ability to subpoena witnesses to these hearings. And the way it's written currently, we have to bring the -- to the full board and the full board has to make a decision and the chairman signs. My question is whether or not the board will relinquish that authority to the chair person so that in the event we do have witnesses that we want to subpoena, we don't have to wait a full 30 days before we have to do that. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: What brought that to light was they actually asked me to sign the subpoena for someone that was I believe a former employee or something for a case. And I thought about it and I remembered we had the one case with the attorney that was wanting to bring forth I think four or five witnesses and we actually held up that case till the following month to give him the right to subpoena his witnesses. And we refused as a board to let him subpoena Neil Dorrill. And I remembered that just before I -- after, actually, I had said that I would sign the subpoenas. And I thought, no, wait a minute, I can't. MS. RAWSON: The way it's presently written, all of you have to vote whether or not they can subpoena witnesses. Now, interestingly enough, the respondent also has to come to you and have you vote whether or not he can subpoena witnesses. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And so if we -- if you give the authority to the chair person, they would just need to file their subpoenas and she would actually keep them. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So both the respondent and the county would have equal -- MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That's up to you guys. Page 10 1 April 26, 2007 MS. RAWSON: It basically saves 30 days. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Yeah. And I had thought about well, maybe we could do a telephone, but we can't because we have to be in the Sunshine. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So that would have ended that one, too. MS. RAWSON: Unless you have our court reporter on the phone. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Ifwe wanted to do an emergency hearing by telephone to get -- MS. ARNOLD: And we'd have to notice that as well. MS. RAWSON: Yes, you would. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: So it's up to you guys. Because I'm not always going to be the chair. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we authorize the chair person to have the authority to subpoena witnesses? MS. ARNOLD: To sign -- MR. PONTE: I'm not too comfortable with giving that authority to one person. So if we could say the -- if you want to say the chair person and the vice chair? I mean, let's just get a -- just something in here other than creating a dictatorial kind of I have subpoenaed. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that would require a meeting, a Sunshine. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Does the special master have the right to subpoena? MS. RAWSON: She does. But she is serving as a quasi judicial officer of the court. And she doesn't have a whole board so she's not plagued with the Sunshine Law in the same way you are. MR. KELL Y: Why was it put in there originally to have the entire board act upon subpoena requests? MS. ARNOLD: Actually, initially it used to be the clerk. It had language in there that the clerk would be the one that signs the Page l02 April 26, 2007 subpoena. And he didn't want it. MS. RAWSON: In the court oflaw, it's the clerk. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And I think we just amended the rules or the ordinance to include that it's the board -- we just said the board. MR. PONTE: Well, just an interesting question. Because the Clerk is issuing the subpoena on the order of the court. MS. RAWSON: No. MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. PONTE: Not unilaterally. MS. ARNOLD: No. It was the Clerk of Court. MR. PONTE: Unilaterally? MS. RAWSON: Yes. If you want to subpoena a witness to come to your case in, let's say, the small claims court, you just go to the clerk to get the subpoenas issued. MS. ARNOLD: Or you go to a judge or whatever. You don't -- but in our case, it said the Clerk of Courts. It wasn't before a body, it was whoever is the clerk of court. MS. RAWSON: But we don't file our orders with the clerk of the court. So it made no sense. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: And he didn't want to take on another job that he wasn't really attached to. And I can understand that. So it fell back on -- at that time we probably just said the board. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It's a matter of signing a piece of paper that says that you're going to tell this person that they need to be here. MR. PONTE: Yes, I know. MR. MARTIN: I think the motion that Gerald made is a good motion. MR. DEAN: I'll second Gerald's motion. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page l03 April 26, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PONTE: Opposed. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to let you all know that what I'll do is because the consolidated ordinance is being brought before the Board of County Commissioners and that is May 8th, just so you all know, I'll bring this up as an issue as well and see what their feelings are on it. Okay? CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And we'll get their blessing. MS. RAWSON: And obviously because it's not a violation of the Sunshine Law, the chairman of the board could consult the board's attorney before deciding whether or not to issue the subpoena. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: That might be a good point to put in there with it. MS. ARNOLD: With consult of the -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, if you put that in and just amend it, I'd say okay. MR. DEAN: Too late, George. MR. PONTE: Oh, no, it isn't. No, it isn't. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: It was voted and passed. But -- MR. PONTE: But I think you can bring it back. We've already had this discussion. As long as we haven't adjourned, we can bring it back. MR. KELLY: You could amend that motion. Page l04 April 26, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: I would like to amend that motion with the language stating that you would consult the -- the chairman would consult with the board's attorney. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Board's attorney. I think that would make everybody feel a little more comfortable. Including the chair at the time. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion also. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Gee, that's unanimous this time. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And I just had another item, as I brought up. Our June meeting is now scheduled for Friday, June 22nd. And myself and Bendisa are both going to be attending the FACE conference from Wednesday through Saturday. So we were hoping that we could reschedule the meeting to June I 8th, which is the only available date for this location. MR. DEAN: The 28th is not available? That's like our fourth Thursday. I gear everything for the fourth Thursday. MS. ARNOLD: They actually booted us out of here because the room wasn't available June 28th. That's why we had to reschedule it. MS. RAWSON: June 18th is fine for me. MR. PONTE: Do you happen to know what day it is? MS. ARNOLD: It's on a Monday. Page l05 April 26, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Monday. MR. PONTE: It's Monday? Fine. That works. MR. DEAN: I'll be at the White Socks game in Chicago. MS. RAWSON: You think that's an excuse? MR. DEAN: Well, my grandson's graduating, that's my excuse. MS. ARNOLD: All right. So the 18th, do you all want to look at your calendars and -- CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Mine's fine. MR. PONTE: Mine's good. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I just wrote it in. June 18th. MR. DEAN: You can talk to me then. MS. ARNOLD: We do have a subpoena that we wanted to execute in the event. It's for -- and so you all can consider it. It's for the Coleman case. And it's for an employee -- she's still an employee of the county, but she's in a different department right now. So it's Susan O'Farrell, for that particular case. And I believe we continued that to next month? June, the June 18th meeting. MR. KELL Y: Because she's not in your department you have to subpoena her? MS. ARNOLD: We don't have to. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: But she doesn't have to necessarily attend. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: I personally don't have an issue with subpoenaing her, as she was the investigator, right? MS. ARNOLD: For the bulk of the latter part of the case. We'll have another investigator and another investigator has gone out. But, you know, just some of the major testimony is mostly what she's done rather than the newer investigator. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Somebody want to entertain a motion for that? Page l06 April 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we approve the subpoena. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KELLY: I have new business. You might have already planned on saying this. But next Wednesday here in the chambers at 2:30, there's a Sunshine Law review. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Might behoove us all to attend. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I did send that all to you all, and it's a very good -- it's nice to be there, rather than submitting your questions and having them talk about it and reviewing the recording. Just because you can actually be there interacting with the county attorney's office. Very good thing for you all to attend, if you haven't done it in the past. And even if you have in the past, it's -- MR. PONTE: Are there any changes, any significant changes that would affect, you know, the way we operate? MS. ARNOLD: I don't think so. MS. RAWSON: I don't know of any significant changes. They may -- what I find interesting always is the case law. Things that have come up and cases involving code enforcement boards. Unfortunately I can't be there either, but I hope that you'll all attend and bring me a packet. MS. ARNOLD: And if you can't, they will be providing -- you can get a CD or DVD or whatever they call it. Tape. Page 107 April 26, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: I have another quick question, I guess, regarding e-mails. Do we have e-mails yet for-- MS. ARNOLD: Nope. I haven't got anything from IT. I have made that request. And, you know, I meant to check that before this meeting and it slipped my mind. But I will check it again. And I provide them all your information and I haven't heard back from them. So I will do that and report back to you. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: New business? Reports? I'm waiting for -- MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Any opposed? (No response.) Page l08 April 26, 2007 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 12:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, CHAIRWOMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected , Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page l09