Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/24/2011 S March 24, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida March 24,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION at in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: . Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Tony Marino Ron Doino (Excused) Larry Dean (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) James Lavinski (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Brenda Garretson, Special Magistrate Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA FOR WORKSHOP Date: March 24, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34104 Building F, Third Floor, Board of County Commissioners Chambers 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. AGENDA ITEMS a. Review Rules & Regulations b. Miscellaneous Issues open for Discussion 4. COMMENTS 5. ADJOURN March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hello, good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board special meeting to order. This is a review meeting to go over our rules and regulations. We have a combined meeting today with the special magistrate. Good morning. MS. GARRETSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Welcome. On our agenda real quick, if I could, we'll just get a roll call. And if you want to do that. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Ms. Brenda Garretson? MS. GARRETSON: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Ron Doino, Mr. Jim Lavinski, Lionel L'Esperance, and Larry Dean all have excused absences today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Also we have a real quick agenda. Can we get an approval for the agenda, please? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 2 March 24, 20] 1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. So the first item on our agenda is to review the rules and regulations for our board and for our special magistrate. Is there any questions or changes? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one under Article V, Section 2, in can find it. I think it has to do with the location. And I was wondering, since we are meeting occasionally over on Horseshoe, if that needs to be added there, at Horseshoe Drive. Section 2, regular meetings, "The Code Enforcement Board shall be held on the fourth Thursday," et cetera, at the chambers. There's no mention of -- on those times when this facility is booked up. So we may want to add that in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Instead of maybe adding it, maybe just change -- maybe appropriate location or something to that effect, because we've met at the library in previous times, too. So -- instead of just being specific. MS. BAKER: We could just put the statement where it says, "In the Collier County Commission chambers as available," and then that would give us the option to go somewhere else if we needed to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or public venue as available, yep. MR. KAUFMAN: This way-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Location being deemed appropriate. MR. KAUFMAN: So that somebody isn't heard at a different location and then says you violated your rules. That was one I had. Shall we do them one at a time or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we need motions on each one? MS. BAKER: I don't -- I think just at the end. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does everyone agree with that? I Page 3 March 24, 2011 do. Good? MS. GARRETSON: It sounds good. MR. MARINO: Good. MR. KAUFMAN: The next one I have is Article VIII, Section 1. I believe what we generally do there is a half hour, not an hour. And I must be right because Mr. Kelly also has a note on the same thing, so CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in agreeance there? Good. MR. KAUFMAN: How about if you take the time out and just write down "prior to?" MS. BAKER: You can do that. MR. KAUFMAN: Less is better. Especially with my weight. MS. GARRETSON: Don't go there. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a lot of weight on this committee here. I had a note on Article IX. And since the magistrate is here as well, we hear sometimes similar cases, and sometimes we are -- for the same exact violation, we're sometimes miles apart as to what the motion is. So I was looking, if there was any way that -- naturally anything can be changed, but that you start at a particular point. For instance, if you have a green pool, a green pool is a green pool whether it's a $200-a-day item or a $1 OO-a-day item; ifthere was some way that we could be more consistent on some of the cases that we hear. MS. BAKER: Well-- MR. KAUFMAN: Just thought I'd throw that out for discussion. MS. BAKER: Well, we leave it up to the board to decide what the time frames and the dollar amounts are; however, we do have in our office what's called a suggested fine guideline sheet, and I can provide that to you guys again, and you can use that as a reference for when you're doing those cases. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that would be very helpful. MS. RAWSON: Use it as a reference, but just be careful that Page 4 March 24, 2011 you're not predetermining the order, you know, because every case, remember, is different. So you can have a reference but -- and you want to be as consistent as possible, but just don't predetermine what you're going to say. MS. GARRETSON: I didn't know we were very far apart, so I am interested in knowing that, because certainly I don't want it to appear that if you get one venue it's one way and if you get another one, it would be going in a different direction. Because one of my primary considerations when it comes to pools is whether it's a health, safety, and welfare issue because, you know, children, not having barriers around, the things that can grow in pools, as we know, that can be very damaging to even the environment. And those are the kind of things usually they'll tell you I'm asking about. And I'm very focused on, how quickly can we get it fixed. And so, you know, if you -- MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's more than just between what happens at the -- in front of the magistrate. And we are different in our own board, and it can be as much as -- depending upon who makes a motion -- from one case to the other on the same day, so -- MS. GARRETSON: Wow. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I was referring to, not necessarily between the two. MS. GARRETSON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, you do make a good point. You know, if we're charging $1,000 a day and you're at 250, that's quite a disparity. MS. GARRETSON: It absolutely is, and maybe it would be helpful for me to see the minutes from theirs, not so that we are the same, but just so that we are aware that there are different viewpoints that are being taken, because I'm always interested in -- I'm sure if I have the opportunity to read some of the discussions that you have, it's Page 5 March 24, 2011 going to enlighten me. Because, you know, old ladies get stuck in ruts, so it will be helpful to have all you young men here giving me some new ideas. MS. RAWSON: If you'd like, I can email you the orders. MS. GARRETSON: That would be great. MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to do that. After Colleen and Jen grade my paper and we get them signed by Mr. Kelly, I'll email them to you. MS. GARRETSON: That would be great. MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe it should be both ways. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: Then our orders go to you and your orders go to this board. MS. GARRETSON: Jean, is there anything you can see that somebody would be critical about us doing that? I don't want it to appear, again, that we're, you know, trying to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, yeah. We do have to be careful about that, because we cannot predetermine, you know, if you do this, then this is what's going to happen to you, because we have to let the respondents tell us their particular problems and their particular case. But when we've got a foreclosed house with a green pool and nobody's living there, you know, they're probably all about the same. MR. KAUFMAN: Unless it's just a different shade of green. MS. GARRETSON: Well, it may be that we don't have to do it on a -- you know, for the next-year basis, but certainly to get a flavor for each, you know, have that kind of an exchange would be, I think -- MR. KAUFMAN: Well, both venues are public -- they're televised, so there are no secrets. MS. GARRETSON: You're absolutely right. MR. KAUFMAN: So I don't think there should be any -- any concern. You can watch it or get it as an email. MS. GARRETSON: And those emails are also public, aren't Page 6 March 24, 2011 they? MS. RAWSON: Yes, they are. MS. GARRETSON: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd like to also reiterate that we share the same concern that you do when it comes to public safety. MS. GARRETSON: I know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that certainly dictates our fines and time frames. Do you have anything else, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Nope. I'm done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Kaufman's resting. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm all set. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. MARINO: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a couple. If we go back to Article VI under the rules, Article VI, order of business in our agenda, No.4, under public hearings, all the way down to D and E. I believe those should be reversed in place. I believe that we either need to hear the motions first or at least while we're going through the cases rather than after we already rule. Is that okay with everybody? MR. KAUFMAN: That's good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The next one, if you just continue on, go down to No.7, ifthat was the case, then No.7 has a duplicate motion for imposition of fines under the consent agenda. That's certainly not the case. We hear all of those individually. Now, there was a push about four years ago to try to get them onto the consent, and I think we passed them in our rules, but it never actually took place. We just ended up keeping it in both areas. And we found that passing them on the consent and then later having to re-amend was a big issue. So can we have Letter A under consent agenda stricken since it's Page 7 March 24, 2011 already under level-- okay, great. Any comments there; everything okay with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then Article VII, under Section 3, about three quarters of the way down, there is a sentence stating, the secretary to the board shall provide notice to the Code Enforcement investigator and the alleged violator as in here -- as herein provided at least 10 days prior to the meeting at which the violator's case is to be presented to the board. Now that language -- just for clarification, that is just the communication between the respondent and the investigator. That doesn't have anything to do with the communications to us, correct? MS. BAKER: No, that's the communication. That's the notice of hearing that we provide and the backup documentation with that of the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Because that point of clarification then moves to another point that I have later on, so that's why I wanted to get that clear. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Does that mean if you find a severe violation is found someplace, can that time frame be waived? MS. BAKER: If it's an emergency case, the notice requirements basically go away, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In Article VII, Section 5, it does state, in emergency situations, the time lines set forth in the paragraph can be abbreviated or set aside to address the alleged violations in order to avoid further damage to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County. Perfect. And then if we go to Article VIII, Section 2, midway through the paragraph, it's talking about the board's attorney and the board's Page 8 March 24, 2011 secretary and the opposing party, their counsel, if applicable, at least five business days prior to the meeting. Is that, again, notice to us as well? Is that for like motions and whatnot? Because if a person was to show up at our meeting and they did not file five days prior, we would still hear that motion. MS. BAKER: Right. We -- what we require is if they have -- say they have an extension of time request, they have a continuance request, in order for us to place that on the agenda in the different area, we have to have that five days prior. Ifwe get it after the five days, we still proceed with that at the hearing at the chair's discretion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And so the last line in that paragraph would cover those situations even -- MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- even though they may not be exceptional circumstances. MS. BAKER: Right, right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. On Article XI(a), in a non-contested case, the only evidence heard shall be the Statement of Violation and any stipulated agreement. I don't believe we follow that completely. There are times where we ask for additional details from the respondent or maybe from the investigator, and if the stipulation seems to be a little out of line as far as time frame goes, as a board we often go in and say, is it okay if we give you some more time, and the respondents are usually okay with that because it benefits them. But under this rule it strictly says that we can do nothing except for listen to the statement of violation and what was agreed upon. It really says that we have to either turn it up or down, not modify it. Although when the respondents are here and if county's okay, we get them to initial and change. MS. BAKER: We could change that "shall" to a "may." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is that okay? Page 9 March 24, 201 ] MR. KAUFMAN: When I'm looking at that, it almost seems to me that we're talking about when there's nobody here. The only one that's here is an investigator. And when the only person that's here is an investigator, naturally, that's all you're going to hear. MS. BAKER: But you do still get pictures and other kind of evidence as well. MR. KAUFMAN: All from the investigator. MS. BAKER: Right, right, which is not stated. In here it says, "The only evidence shall be the statement of violation." So that wouldn't include the pictures. And for -- and I think those are very beneficial for you to make your decision on your case. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, absolutely. I agree. MS. BAKER: I think if we just change that "shall" to a "may," we would cover that. MS. RAWSON: I would agree with Jen, because lot of times you guys want them changed even when they're not here. So we need to make that a "may." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Under same area, Letter E. Again, it's a "may" issue. I think it's a good one. "If the respondent/alleged violator is not present and is represented by a person other than an attorney, the respondent may submit a notarized letter to the chair of the board granting that individual permission to represent him or her at the hearing." I think that that's very light, if you will. I think that maybe we should add something at the end of that that says at some point the person representing needs to publicly admit to the record that they have been given permission if no letter exists. MS. GARRETSON: Under oath. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Under oath. So, you know, it's not somebody just arbitrarily standing up, that they can be purged if there was an Issue. MR. MARINO: And we've done that. Page 10 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MR. MARINO: We did that a couple meetings ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've done that, but it's not part of our rules. I don't know how we would word that, but -- MR. KAUFMAN: It quite -- I think more than likely what happens -- and it's happened many, many times -- is somebody shows up and they don't have the notarized letter, and then the question from the board to that person is, do you represent them, yeah, it's my mother and she's sick and she can't be here or something to that effect. So any way that you can make that as the board's discretion on whether they're going to hear it or not, I think, will benefit the public. MS. BAKER: Well, we can put a statement in there that says the individual must also testify at the hearing under oath to represent the respondent. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. That sounds good. MS. GARRETSON: In their capacity. Sometimes it's an estate, their different corporation -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MS. GARRETSON: -- whether they're a manager or not. MS. BAKER: We'll just --I'll add, "and their relationship to the respondent. " MS. GARRETSON: The capacity of the representation, maybe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. GARRETSON: I always worry when they have to do the enforcement part of an order. That's the time when somebody's going to attack it when you haven't gone through that due diligence. So that's a really good point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: True. In Article X, Section 1, first paragraph, about midway through, in parentheses it says, "In the event that the violation cannot be abated by the respondent, the respondent shall include in the motion for reduction/abatement of fines a detailed description of the efforts Page ] 1 March 24, 2011 undertaken for abatement and an explanation as to why the violation cannot be abated, and provide support/documentation to that effect," and then it says, F, "mitigating factors which the respondent believes warrants a reduction or abatement of fine," and then, G, "and other factors that may be considered by the board, a signature of the respondent, and all supporting documentation." I didn't really want to change any of that. I just thought that it was interesting that it was in our rules seeing as how it's not necessarily a policy of the board, more or less just a recurring trend that we don't abate fines or reduce fines unless -- I'm sorry. We don't eliminate fines or reduce them unless the violation has been abated. I just thought it was interesting that it was actually in our rules that we could. But the next sentence I thought it was the -- the important one. "The respondent should provide the secretary of the board 15 copies of the motion of a reduction or abatement of fines. Attach the supporting documentation. " Now, is this specifically talking about any motion for reduction or abatement? Because we don't get those in writing. Often the respondent stands up and -- MS. BAKER: Right. And nine times out often, we don't get anything until the date of the hearing. We don't know that they're going to request this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And is the word "should" one of those open to where it's okay if they don't? MS. RAWSON: I think that's why we put "should" in there, because you can't say "shall" because they'd never do it. You could say "may." But I think we've put "should," as I recall the discussion, because we kind of wanted to encourage them, in case they read the rules, to do it. Sometimes you abate fines when there's no one here and the county says you don't have any problem with your doing it. MR. KAUFMAN: In addition, one of the questions that's asked Page 12 March 24, 2011 quite often is, have you paid the court costs. So the two main questions that are asked -- and I think it's almost been universal -- is has the situation been abated and have you paid the costs? Because I remember checks going over to the county for that before the board would consider abating the fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, what's funny is, you know, when you look into these rules very closely you realize that they're well written, because just after the section we were talking about -- and I can find it if I need to -- it does explicitly say that if the -- if those fees were not paid within 30 days, the fine amount reverts back to the original before we abated or reduced it. So if they -- they do have that 30-day window. Do you want me to bring it up? MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think that's -- I think that's a good idea to bring it up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically what we've done in the past is if we wanted to reduce fines because they came into compliance and just took a little longer but they didn't get the chance to pay court costs, we would not reduce. Instead, county would usually withdraw to the next meeting, giving them the chance to pay, or the checks would go across. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in here it does say that we -- if that was the case -- if a -- this is Section 5 under Article X. "If a reduction is granted, the reduced fine must be paid within 30 days unless otherwise specified in the order or unless staff, in its discretion, negotiates an installment plan. If payment is not made within the specified time, the fine shall revert to the original amount." So does that mean we can go ahead and give them the reduction even though op costs haven't been paid, and as long as they're paid within 30 days, everything would be fine? MS. RAWSON: I've never known you to give them a reduction Page 13 March 24, 2011 if they didn't pay the costs. I recall a couple of instances when they're here when you say, go pay the costs right now, and we'll do it. But I don't believe we ever do that if they haven't paid the costs. I don't think I remember that you've ever done it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me that that's part of the original order. MS. RAWSON: It is. MR. KAUFMAN: It is. So you need to fix the problem and pay the costs. And when you get to the imposition of fines, if one of those two things is not done, then the fines are imposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I think it's important also to let anyone in the public know that these costs we cannot reduce or abate. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They are, you know, county costs that-- the Board of County Commissioners are the only people who have the authority to waive those. And so we've actually tried to help the public rather than have liens and whatnot placed against them for a $30 bill. We've put things back in the agenda, given them the chance to run and get their checkbook and come back just trying to help out. So I just thought it was interesting that there is an option in our rules. For the sake of, I guess, clarity, we don't exercise it often. MS. GARRETSON: And the public should know as well that when the county does the abatement on behalf of the respondent, we make sure that that money gets back, too. In other words, we don't want the taxpayers to be on the hook for anything that has had to be put out, even in those situations where people are being helped out. And I think that's the same policy. MS. RAWSON: We've got a couple of those today that-- because the costs go right back to the respondent and become a lien on that property. Page 14 March 24, 2011 MS. GARRETSON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all I have. MS. BAKER: Before we end that discussion, it may be a good idea to take that Section 5 out because that's not something that we ever do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, be careful though, because although we're talking specifically about op costs, operational costs, I think that statement also applies to reductions. In other words. Let's say somebody went over their time frame that we allotted, and we decided for whatever reason to not completely reduce the fines to zero, instead to leave a $500 bill. This also says that if you don't pay that 500 within 30 days, then it will go back to the original amount, and I think that is important that it stays. MS. FLAGG: The challenge with that is, though, is that you have an order that's recorded, and the first order would either reduce or waive the fines. And the reason that I believe you-all haven't been using this section of your rules is because if then the order's going to change, it has to go back and we have to amend the order. And it becomes very confusing with the number of cases that we're dealing with and the orders in the court and the calls from the attorneys and the title companies about orders and releasing orders, that if you -- if you establish your rules to follow the pattern that you're using now, it's much more straightforward for all the parties involved when it comes to a piece of property. So if you add to your Section 1, perhaps, that it has to be in compliance and the operational costs have to be paid, then it keeps it clean for everybody. MR. KAUFMAN: I agree with that. And that's how we've been operating, so -- sometimes it's easier to write the rules for what you're doing rather than try to change them and then adhere to them. MS. FLAGG: Particularly when it works. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But where would you like to put that, Page 15 March 24, 2011 Diane? MS. FLAGG: It's up to you-all, but you may want to just add it to the section where it talks about that it has to be in compliance and the operational costs have to be paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Section 10. Probably Section 10. MS. BAKER: If you look at Article X, Section 1, under motion of abat- -- motion -- reduction or abatement of fines, we could do it under -- it says, a motion for reduction/abatement of fines may be made after a violation has been abated and all costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Including operational costs? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or should we just put all operational costs have been paid? MS. BAKER: And all operational costs have been paid. MS. GARRETSON: And abatement costs? MS. BAKER: Right. And abatement costs. That's why I said "costs," because there could be county abatement costs as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That's go. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else? Do you have anything? MR. MARINO: No, I don't have anything. Do you have anything? MS. GARRETSON: I don't have any changes in my rules. They have been operating very smoothly. You know, these folks take really good care of the process, and it makes my life much easier. And I just get to come in and hear the cases and give people their day in chambers. And I'm very happy with them. And my staff has not told me that there's something that we need to change. But ifthere is, this would be the opportunity, Mrs. Baker. Page 16 March 24, 2011 MS. BAKER: (Shakes head.) MS. GARRETSON: Nothing. No, it's been going along as smoothly as I think it can, and I'm very happy that way. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. MS. GARRETSON: But happy to be here and getting to participate. I always enjoy coming along, and I always learn something new, as I did today. So thank you for the invitation and getting to participate in the workshop with you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we're honored to have you. MS. GARRETSON: Well, you're very nice. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifthere's no other miscellaneous items, any open discussion items from anyone? In that case -- oh, one more? MS. BAKER: I have one thing that was just brought on the special magistrate rules, because we kind of have changed our process a little bit in the past year or so. MS. GARRETSON: Okay. MS. BAKER: Article III, meeting requirements, regular meetings -- under Section 1, regular meetings of the special magistrate shall be held twice monthly on the first and third Friday. MS. GARRETSON: Very good point. MS. BAKER: We should probably amend that. We're not adhering here to the first and third Friday. We're doing it as we can schedule things, and we're also only doing it once a month. MS. GARRETSON: We don't have any provision in here for the dangerous dog ordinance either. MS. BAKER: No. MS. GARRETSON: So we need to conform to what we're actually doing. So we are having regular meetings once a month, and we are trying to be consistent with it being -- MS. BAKER: Right. I think we could say that the special magistrate -- regular meetings of the special magistrate shall be held at least once monthly, and we could take out the first and the third Page 17 March 24, 2011 Friday. MS. GARRETSON: At least once monthly and at such additional times as the -- MS. BAKER: Right. MS. GARRETSON: -- volume of cases requires. MS. BAKER: Right. MS. GARRETSON: Volume or type of cases. Sometimes we have special settings for cases if we know we're going to have a lot of witnesses. You folks have a lot of witnesses all the time. We have them less often. More volume of cases and maybe fewer witnesses. That's a good point. Thank you, Colleen. Anything else? MS. BAKER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In that case, 1'11-- do you have anything, Diane? MS. FLAGG: Just to let you know, what we'll do is make the revisions to the rules, and then we will take them to the Board of County Commissioners as what we do once a year to have them review the rules. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Shall we give you one vote saying that we approve -- MS. FLAGG: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- the items discussed? Somebody want to make that? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we approve the changes that we discussed today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 18 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Very good. MS. GARRETSON: And should I say on the record that I do make a motion and second myself that I would like my rules changed to accommodate this modification as well? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. And in that case, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. We'll see you back in about 30 minutes. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:31 a.m. Page 19 March 24, 2011 These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 20