Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/22/1995 1995 Code Enforcement Board June 22, 1995 June 22, 1995 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 22, 1995 The Collier County Code Enforcement Board met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRPERSON: Jim Allen Charles Andrews Mireya Louviere M. Jean Rawson Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Asst. County Attorney Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGE N D A Date: June 22, 1995 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Administrative Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1 . ROLL CALL 2. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 26, 1995 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Charles W. and Joan Hicks - CEB No. 95-007 B. BCC vs. Rolando Reyna, Delilah Reyna, Raul Reyna., Jr. and Minnie Simpson - CEB No. 95-008 C. BCC vs. J's All Marine Service - CEB No. 95-009 D. BCC vs. John R. and Emily Landgrebe - CEB No. 95-010 6. NEW BUSINESS A. BCC vs. Wayne and Lisa Thibodeau - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Request for Imposition of Fines B. BCC vs. Deauville Lake Club Dev. Corp. - Affidavit of Non-Compliance and Request for Imposition of Fines C. BCC vs. Deauville Lake Club Dev. Corp. - Affidavit of Compliance D. BCC vs. Embassy Woods Clubhouse - Affidavit of Compliance 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE 8. REPORTS Discussion - Cost effective to abate violation existing at Ronnie Parks property - BCC vs. Ronnie Parks - CEB No. 95-006 Discussion - County Attorney to represent Code Enforcement Staff instead the Code Enforcement Board 9. NEXT MEETING DATE July 28, 1995 10. ADJOURN , , June 22, 1995 CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Good morning. We'd like to call to order the June 22 meeting, 1995, of the Collier county Code Enforcement board. 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 insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier county nor the Code Enforcement board shall be responsible for providing this record. We'll start with our roll call at the left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Louis Laforet. MS. RAWSON: Jean Rawson. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Jim Allen. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: With that in place, we'll start with, right now, our item number 2, the election of the chairman. MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Andrews. MR. ANDREWS: I'd like to make a motion that we elect __ nominate Jim Allen. Mr. Attorney, can I be vice president at the same time, or should it be separate? MR. MANALICH: My recommendation is you probably do it separate. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MANALICH: What you can do, though, and this is at the board's discretion, if you want to, simply at this time state all who -- you know, anyone who wishes to put a name and nomination ln, then there would be motions on any particular names. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. I make a motion that we nominate Jim Allen as chairman for the following year. MS. RAWSON: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. MR. ANDREWS: I would like to nominate, for assistant chairman, Jean Rawson for the following year. MR. LAFORET: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor? Any opposed? None. It carries unanimously. MS. RAWSON: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I thank you very much. MR. ANDREWS: I thought we ought to get it done before the agenda date. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you, Charlie. We will proceed with the approval of the agenda. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman -- and for the record my name is Page 2 June 22, 1995 Maria Cruz. There are a couple of changes on the agenda. Under public hearings, item number 5-C, we would like to continue this item to our next meeting, July 28. Item 6, new business, B, we would like to continue Band C, these two items, to our August meeting. And under reports, the first discussion, we would also like to continue that one to July 28. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I just would add, 6-D, as you know, Deauville and Elba are both related in a certain sense. The same developer was involved in both cases. I don't know if the board members had a chance yet to review, received any correspondence that was directed to me by the attorney for Elba and Deauville and my response to that. But in any event a request for a continuance was made by Mr. Reyna with regard to these items. That request came coupled with a request for discussion with my office and with staff about possible settlement discussions on the outstanding fines due in both cases. As you know, the Elba case is currently in the midst of an appeal. For that reason, I would add B, at staff's request, to continue since all of this is being discussed together with Mr. Reyna if this meeting takes place. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have any other comments or notations or additions or deletions? MS. CRUZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Go ahead. Do we have a vote on the approval of the agenda? MS. RAWSON: I so move. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have a second? MR. ANDREWS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor? It carries unanimously. We will move on now to the approval of the minutes of May 26, 1995. Do we have any corrections in the minutes that need to be addressed? MR. ANDREWS: I don't have any change in them but since we've got this new system where we've got the court reporter, since it has been in effect, it's very difficult for me to read these minutes. There's so many lapses in there. Even my own conversation, I can't __ it doesn't sound like that's what I was saying. And I just wondered, through my attorney, you know, this thing was aug- -- Are you hearing me? MR. MANALICH: Yes. MR. ANDREWS: -- augmented by the county Commission and I guess we inherited it, too, and I don't know if they have the same problem. Does anyone else have a problem with it? There's so many things left out and words left out and stuff, and it's real difficult for me. Maybe I'm just stupid. MR. LAFORET: I think parts of mine were left out also; yeah. MR. ANDREWS: We never had that problem before. I don't understand it. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Andrews, what specifically are you saying? Page 3 June 22, 1995 MR. ANDREWS: Well, I can't find out -- Tim Constantine, for some reason, some political reason I guess, wasn't satisfied. We got this whole new system over here. We got the tapes and the gal. You know, the gal's been doing it for years, and the notes of the minutes have been perfect. I've been on this board for seven years and this is the first -- this is the first time I've ever had a problem. MR. MANALICH: Well, I think what has occurred is that with the system that was agreed to, it's my understanding from the Commission and from the clerk of courts, basically what is being done is a verbatim transcript. And for that reason, the court reporter is obligated to literally put down whatever actually is said or not said, if there's gaps in the discussion, et cetera. And that's why I think you see maybe some of the dashes, and, you know, you're reading verbatim as people speak and people don't always speak with perfect construction, especially in the middle of a public meeting. Is that responsive to your question? I'm not sure if that's what -- Before, I believe, they were simply summaries. The minutes were summaries of what had occurred. And, of course, those were constructed, I think, with good punctuation and complete sentences and that. But now we have a word-by-word account. And if people don't speak with perfect punctuation or grammar, then that's going to reflect in the transcript. MR. ANDREWS: Well, maybe this lady can answer it for me. I'm not blaming you, okay. You haven't done one of these, have you? THE REPORTER: No. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. But there's dashes. There's quite a few, long dashes. What does that mean? Some words left out or you didn't hear them or what? THE REPORTER: Usually it's just a pause or a change of thought and some of the pauses in there. It's backed up with a tape also, so if there was a problem, we could check that for you. MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. Well, I guess I'm just old fashioned, I guess. That's the old fashion way. I'm sorry. It's no problem with it unless there's people who are -- or just forget it. And I guess there's nothing we can do to change it anyway, although they voted it for the Commission and not necessarily for all the boards. Do all the boards have this? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think the idea was this being a quasi-judicial board -- MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MANALICH: -- frequently there's a need for a transcript, a verbatim transcript for appeal purposes, and it was thought that a word-far-word account was necessary as opposed to a simple summary. MR. ANDREWS: Would you mind -- I've talked to everybody and it seems to be very secretive. Would you mind talking this over with Bettye Matthews and just see if there's a possibility that we could go back to the old system for this meeting? Page 4 June 22, 1995 MR. MANALICH: I'd be very happy to check. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Okay? MR. ANDREWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other comments? MR. ANDREWS: Therefore, I'll approve the minutes as I read them. MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: An approval and a second. Those in favor? Any opposed? It passes unanimously. We'll go ahead with our public hearings. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, the first public hearing is the board of county Commissioners versus Charles W. and Joan Hicks, CEB No. 95-007. The board, the recorder, and the respondent have been provided with the composite exhibit. At this time, I would like to mark this composite exhibit Composite Exhibit A, CEB 95-007, the board of county Commissioners versus Charles W. Hicks and Joan K. Hicks. I also would like to state that Mr. Hicks or Mrs. Hicks are not present at this particular time. MS. RAWSON: I move for introduction into evidence the composite package. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I'll second it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. MR. MANALICH: Ms. Cruz, approximately how many pages is that? MS. CRUZ: Fourteen pages. Mr. Chairman, Charles W. Hicks and Joan K. Hicks are the owner of record of the property located at Marco Beach, Unit 3, Block 101, Lot 13. They were requested to appear before this board due to allowing the continuing deterioration of a failed seawall with an accompanying loss of fill. Code Enforcement conducted several investigations at this property. These investigations revealed the above-mentioned violations existed at the subject location. Notices of violations and stipulations were mailed via certified mail to the property owners at the property of record, 891 Kendall Drive, Marco Island, Florida, 33937. These notices have now been received at the code enforcement department on January 23 -- I'm sorry, February 23, excuse me. These notices required a compliance date by February 23, 1995. An inspection -- a reinspect ion was conducted on April 14, 1995, which revealed violations remained. Because of the serious condition of this violation, staff thought it would be a good idea to request bids from different contractors. I have those bids at this time. I would like to present these and mark this as Composite Exhibit B. MR. MANALICH: How many pages, approximately? MS. CRUZ: Approximately four pages. MS. RAWSON: I would move for introduction into evidence Composite Exhibit B -- Page 5 June 22, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: I second it. MS. RAWSON: -- which is four pages under this case number. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. It carries unanimously. MS. CRUZ: As you can see on this composite, there's -- the lowest bid is for $15,812. I've requested Ray Peterson, the owner of this company, to come to this board and perhaps he can testify or give a better description of the details in construction to repair this violation. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Ray Peterson, would you please come up. WHEREUPON, RAY PETERSON, a witness, having being first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name for the record, please. A. Ray Peterson. Q. Mr. Peterson, you are aware of the property that's ln question? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And you did have a chance to go by the property? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Would you please tell this board the repair that needs to be done to the seawall to bring this property in compliance. A. Well, I have a little bit of a question there. Now, there's approximately 55 feet of the seawall that has fallen over beyond repair. Now, there's another 80 or so feet that is still standing, still vertical. So in one of my proposals, I mentioned reinforce that part. So basically just repair the 50 or 55 feet that's fallen into the wall and reinforce the remaining 80 feet for whatever it was. There's two ways to go. Now, it's definitely an old, bad seawall. I'd love to rebuild the whole thing, but it's common procedure to fix what's unrepairable and reinforce the remainder. And we've been in business for 30 years, and we basically pullout the old wall, put in a new one. It's two new county codes. Anything else? I'd love to fix the whole wall. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Who are you with, Mr. Peterson? MR. PETERSON: Garland and Garland Marine Construction. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: They're the low bidder at this point. MR. PETERSON: Apparently so. MR. LAFORET: I have a question, sir. MR. PETERSON: Yes, sir. MR. LAFORET: Let me find it. No additional fill included. What is your rate if you do need additional fill. MR. PETERSON: Well, then that's an additional charge. We can normally recoup what has fallen in as long as it's hasn't Page 6 June 22, 1995 dispersed too badly, and then we can scalp some from the lot. It's normally an additional charge if, in fact, we do need fill. A lot it hasn't -- MR. LAFORET: How do you make the additional charge. MR. PETERSON: Well, it's per cubic yard. You know, before we repair the seawall, we unload it to prevent any more loss of fill. We then load it and stockpile it on the lot. Then when we finish, we use that to backfill it. And normally, I think in this case, we can get enough off of the lot to bring it close to a grade level. MR. LAFORET: Thank you, sir. I understand about it, what you're talking about already. MR. PETERSON: Well, sometimes we do need additional fill. It's hard to say. MR. LAFORET: All right. Then what do you charge per cubic yard. MR. PETERSON: Well, it's about $7 a cubic yard. MR. LAFORET: And that's installed. MR. PETERSON: Yes. MR. LAFORET: All right. Would you have objection or added on this "no additional fill included" and change that to if additional fill is included, it be at the rate of $7.50 a cubic yard? I wouldn't like to leave an open-end on the contract. MR. PETERSON: All right. That's fine. MR. LAFORET: You could end up with $750 a cubic yard. It's possible. Forgive me. I'm from Washington, D. C. MR. PETERSON: Okay. It's possible, but, you know, at the most, I would say a hundred yards, $700, say. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you, sir. MS. LOUVIERE: No, I think that's a good idea, except I couldn't help but notice that in the proposal for Marco Marine Construction, he actually goes ahead and lists item number 7 as backfill with clean fill and property grade lot for drainage. And then his total is $16,725. Although you're the lowest bidder, and I really -- I think your proposal is very good, I would like to take that step further and actually have him put in that he's going to grade it and fill it for this price, because that's -- MR. PETERSON: We can do that. If-- MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah, because this is what this other guy is saying. He's saying for this price, this is everything I could do. MR. PETERSON: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: So you're really giving us an open-end bid when you're not telling us what this other item might cost. MR. PETERSON: Okay. Well, I'll -- If we'll go ahead with these, a hundred yards of fill, I'll include that in there MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. PETERSON: -- and take care of it. Sure. I'm sure it won't take any more than that. MR. LAFORET: And so you are including, as required by the code, that you will remove any earth that has gone into the canal; that will be brought back to the original canal. Page 7 June 22, 1995 MR. PETERSON: It depends on how long it's been in. Sometimes it disperses where we can't get any back. MR. LAFORET: Well, in -- MR. PETERSON: But certainly -- MR. LAFORET: In that case, if it's dispersed it hasn't interfered with the flow in the canal. MR. PETERSON: Right. Right. MR. LAFORET: That was my only point. I didn't want a heap of dirt in front of this -- MR. PETERSON: Oh, no. MR. LAFORET: -- repaired seawall MR. PETERSON: Right. MR. LAFORET: -- in the canal. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Maybe I'm confused, or maybe we're all a little off track here. I think we're all in agreement that we want this problem resolved. I don't think it's the order of the board today to employ Mr. Peterson -- I'm sorry. I don't think it's the board's position today to employ Garland and Garland. MS. CRUZ: That's right. Because the owner has failed to comply -- and the owner -- at one time he met with us, stated that he didn't have any money, that he was not going to be able to repair this. We felt that because of the condition of the violation, that in the future the county would have to repair this in order to prevent the dirt from washing off into the other adjacent properties too. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. But I'm asking you, Ms. Cruz and our attorney here, is it not our cause today to find the people guilty or not guilty and impose -- MS. CRUZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: -- an order of fine? And, therefore, it's up to Collier county to choose a marine contractor and assist ln the repairs. Is that not correct? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just as clarification: There is, under the new statutes from last year, a provision at 1.62.09 which says that if the violation is one that is a serious threat to public health, safety, and welfare or it's irreparable or irreversible in nature, then -- excuse me just a moment while I read here -- "The Code Enforcement board can notify the local governing body which can make all reasonable repairs and charge the violator with the cost". Now, I was looking at the underlying ordinance here, the seawall ordinance. It does say that this is a public nuisance. However, as I read through the seawall ordinance, unlike the litter ordinance, it does not set forth a procedure for actually notifying and going on the property to clean up and remove. I'd like to just ask staff under what approach they were planning to do this, because it would appear to me that under the statutes if they don't comply with the order of the board in the period of compliance, then we can avail ourselves of the statute that I just read and go forward and make the repairs and charge them. But that would appear, to me, under the statute, to be after the compliance period. I don't see, unlike Page 8 June 22, 1995 the litter ordinance and the seawall ordinance, even though it says it's a public nuisance, I don't find that it sets forth a procedure for immediately going in and doing that. It appeared that we had the ability to go into court and get a mandatory injunction to have it removed, but I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Under what approach were you thinking of going forward on this? MS. CRUZ: Staff would recommend that the owner -- allow the owner the minimum time to correct this violation because of the condition of the violation and then take this other action that you mentioned before. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Now, is it staff's position that the continuing existence of this condition will be a serious threat? MS. CRUZ: Yes, it is. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Then it would appear, to me, that what would occur, at least under the statute, would be that once the compliance period elapses, then we can go forward with a contractor and have that removed as staff is already preparing. MS. LOUVIERE: So we're making this decision now, it appears, whatever we agree to with Garland and Garland, that he'll -- the work can go forward. MR. MANALICH: I think you could include in your order today a provision that says that if after the compliance period you find him in violation after the compliance period, if they don't come into compliance, then you would direct staff to proceed under the statute for the necessary removal. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Thank you very much. That clarifies it for me. Thank you. MR. ANDREWS: I have one question. Once you get the order for this, if you do, how long before you could start working on it. MR. PETERSON: Well, we could start right away. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. PETERSON: The process, it takes about five weeks mainly because there's a curing time. We pour the slabs on site. There's curing time, and there's another two-week curing time before we can pour the cast. It's about a five-week process, and I can't see why we couldn't start two weeks after you give us the go-ahead. MR. ANDREWS: This -- Okay. Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Miss Cruz, would you like to -- shall we continue? MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Shall we continue? Were there any other questions of the board to Mr. Peterson? MS. CRUZ: No further questions from staff. MR. PETERSON: Is that it? MS. LOUVIERE: I have one question. It's not to Mr. Garland (sic). When -- usually when we repair seawalls or when we're talking about going to someone's property and cleaning that up or doing repairs, where do these funds come from? Do you have like a general fund that Collier county goes and uses to pay? You don't Page 9 June 22, 1995 know. MS. CRUZ: I don't know. MS. LOUVIERE: That's fine. MR. KIRBY: My name is Mike Kirby. I'm a supervisor for Code Enforcement. MR. LOUVIERE: Mm-hm. MR. KIRBY: For the record we have a fund that we use for the litter ordinance and -- to clean up litter and exotics. It's a fairly generic fund. So, you know, there's tens of thousands of dollars in that fund. So I suspect it would come from the litter and exotics fund, but I don't know. MS. LOUVIERE: I was just curious, because I keep hearing these funds that we're going to be expending, and I just wanted to know where they were coming from. Okay. I'll check into that a little further to see where the funds -- where the money comes to go into that fund, but I'll do that on my own time. MS. RAWSON: I have one more question of Miss Cruz. How long a period of time would you suggest that we give the owners to comply? MS. CRUZ: Because of the -- this violation is a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and it may cause a continual loss of fill and affect the stability of the seawall's adjoining properties, we recommend that the owner secures a contract within five days and, again, to work right after that. And if not, we recommend that $150 be imposed for every day -- each and every day the violation continues. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. MR. ANDREWS: How can he be notified in five days? MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry? MR. ANDREWS: How can he be notified in five days? He hasn't returned any answers to your correspondence, has he? MS. CRUZ: We can take every method that the ordinance requires, like sending him the notice certified, publishing it in the newspaper, posting it on the property. MR. ANDREWS: Aren't they both out of town? MS. CRUZ: Excuse me? MR. ANDREWS: Aren't they both out of town? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I just noticed that we haven't had much luck on the certified mailing that we just sent so far, and I just wondered how -- if we could go ahead with this thing before they are ever -- officially are notified. You know, if we just mail it certified, if it's not accepted, do we go ahead anyway? Maybe I'll leave that up to you. MR. MANALICH: Well, I think we need to have what would be a -- we have defensible in court as a reasonable period of time to comply. Now, obviously in setting that forth, you need to consider the gravity of the violation, how long it's been in existence, what's likely to happen, and in what time frame. It would seem to me that we're probably going to need a little more time than was suggested simply to allow them an opportunity to correct, but, you know, you can Page 10 r June 22, 1995 discuss at what point you want to fix that. MS. RAWSON: Has notice been properly secured? MR. MANALICH: For this hearing? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: I'd like to ask staff. Certified mail, return receipt was sent? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: And did we have a return of any kind? MS. CRUZ: No, no return of any kind. Plus the owner has been aware of this information since January 9. It's not like he doesn't know what's going on on his property. He knows the condition of this violation also. MR. MANALICH: How does he know that? MS. CRUZ: He met with staff at our office one time, and he advised that at this time he was going through a divorce and he didn't have any money, that he practically wanted to give this property away, and he was not going to be able to fix this violation. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, it seems that staff has really attempted -- that you've spoken with the violator. MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: You've served him. And now you're saying you're going to serve him through the mail again, through certified mail, and I feel that that's more than an adequate time. Like you said, Maria, he's been aware of this violation. MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. RAWSON: One more question for the attorney. If we have to publish, do we publish three or four consecutive times? MR. MANALICH: Give me just a moment to look at the ordinance. MS. CRUZ: The publishing requirements for the notice is four consecutive weeks. MS. RAWSON: This is not a notice. This is an order of the Board. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. MS. RAWSON: And that makes a difference. MR. MANALICH: Well, basically under the ordinance scheme, what it provides is that the notices under this ordinance will be by certified mail, return receipt, or by hand delivery. In addition, you can do it by publication for four consecutive weeks. Basically the way it works is if you do the return receipt and you do the publication, then it's considered conclusive that they had notice. If it's not, they could still debate whether it reached them or not. You know, it seems to me we've made the basic -- met the basic requirements for the notice. However, I would think that we would want to consider a reasonable time frame for action on this even if we don't publish but we simply send another certified mail, return receipt, of this order that if you entered today, you would send to them. It seems to me, though, that a five-day period is pretty minimal. I'm thinking more myself in terms of if -- you know, I'll have to hear from staff -- if the situation can wait, I would say 15 Page 11 June 22, 1995 to 30 days from the mailing of the notice. And I think we have a better position of defending that type of notice as being reasonable. But again, I would welcome comments from staff. Can the situation wait that long, or are we going to have other properties falling apart? MS. CRUZ: That's my worry and, see, I don't know much about what could happen. I haven't seen the seawall myself. But I don't know if this is going to break and just, you know, flow into the water, and then what's going to happen to the adjoining property? MS. LOUVIERE: Rick, aren't you an engineer? What do you think happens -- You're an engineer, right? MR. McCORMICK: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: What do you think happens? We're having a lot of rain. What do you think is happening to this retaining sea wall, that it's kind of -- I mean, you saw the pictures. And we're having a lot of rain now. This is the rainy season down here. MR. McCORMICK: Right. I agree that -- MS. LOUVIERE: What do you think? MR. McCORMICK: -- it needs to be taken care of as soon as possible, and I agree with staff's -- MS. CRUZ: These photos were taken yesterday. MR. McCORMICK: -- recommendation that it is deteriorating weekly, and I don't think we should wait 30 days, but my opinion would be that -- but we don't know if there are any extenuating circumstances of the owner as to why they're not here. They probably aren't, and I'm not saying that they are, but we don't know that. And a five-day time frame, I think, would just be a little short. And to be prudent, a time frame of 2 weeks or 15 days would probably be in our best interest. MS. LOUVIERE: But I don't think we should go beyond that. I mean -- MR. McCORMICK: No, I don't. I don't know that either. MS. LOUVIERE: -- we're looking at, just by the photographs I can see, what was in my agenda package and what handed to me today, this is deteriorating very rapidly. And rainfall I just -- I think we ought to move a little quicker days. So you say -- MR. McCORMICK: MS. LOUVIERE: MR. MANALICH: time? MS. MR. see. Do MS. them. MR. MANALICH: So they do have a local. What I would suggest would be if we can attempt some type of personal hand delivery to the local address in addition to the mailing. MR. KIRBY: That shouldn't be a problem. MS. RAWSON: I would move for introduction into evidence was with the than 30 I would say 15 days or a few weeks. Fifteen days. Do we know where the owners are at this CRUZ: No, MANALICH: they have CRUZ: We sir. They have a local address from what I an out-of-town address also? don't have an out-of-town address for Page 12 June 22, 1995 four photographs of the property, and case and court, that were taken on 6/21/95. MR. ANDREWS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. It carries unanimously. We have Exhibit C. MS. CRUZ: And if I may add, on January 23, 1995, the notice of violation was sent certified mail, and the owner signed for this notice. MR. MANALICH: Oh, so he did sign -- oh, the notice, not of the -- MS. CRUZ: The notice of violation. MR. MANALICH: -- hearing for the notice of violation. MS. CRUZ: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Shall we close the public hearing? Are there any more questions? Shall we close the public hearing? MS. LOUVIERE: I have no more questions. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Staff? Board members? Okay. We'll close the public hearings now. MR. MANALICH: Can we have the -- Do you have the photos there, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. MS. RAWSON: I'll make a motion. The findings of fact, the conclusions of law, and order of the Board. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on June 22, 1995. And the board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its finding of facts, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows: Findings of fact. That Charles W. Hicks and Joan K. Hicks are the owners of record of the subject property; Two, that the Code Enforcement board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondents and that neither respondent was present at the public hearing; That all notices required by Collier county Ordinance No. 92-80 have been properly issued; Four, that the real property legally described in the information and packet A introduced into evidence is in violation of Sections 2 of Ordinance No. 85-26, the Collier county Seawall and Revetment Ordinance in the following particulars: That the respondents have allowed the continuing deterioration of a failed seawall with an accompanying loss of fill. Conclusions of law. That the respondents are in violation of Ordinance No. 85-26 of Collier county, Section 2 of Collier county Ordinance No. 85-26 of the Collier county Seawall and Revetment Ordinance. That's my motion. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. Do we Page 13 June 22, 1995 have a -- All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? None. It carries unanimously. MS. RAWSON: The order of the board, based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier county Ordinance No. 92-80, it is hereby ordered: 1. That the respondents correct the violations of Section No. 2 of Ordinance No. 85-26 in the following manner: That they repair the deterioration of the failed seawall and the accompanying loss of fill within 15 days from today's date; 2. That the said correction is to be completed on or before 15 days from today's date. And if the respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then in that event the respondents are ordered to pay a fine of $150 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date, and that this board directs the staff to proceed under the statute with repairing the seawall since the deterioration of the seawall presents a serious threat. Failure to comply with the order within the specific time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondents' property sold to enforce the lien. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. MR. McCORMICK: One other suggestion. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: If I may, you said that the seawall would be repaired in 15 days, and I think we heard that the construction time would be about 5 weeks, and we were talking about securing the contract in 15 days. MS. RAWSON: I would amend my motion to read that the contract would have to be secured within 15 days and that the work begin immediately thereafter. MR. MANALICH: Are you going to fix a time frame for completion of the work also here? MS. RAWSON: Is five weeks reasonable? MR. PETERSON: Yes, that's fine. MS. RAWSON: Five weeks thereafter the work should be completed. MR. ANDREWS: I wonder, should we put the amount in? MR. MANALICH: We have; $150 a day. MS. LOUVIERE: No, I think he means the amount of the work to be performed. MR. ANDREWS: Should that go in it -- admitted in? MR. McCORMICK: I don't think at this point, because we're calling the owner to secure this contract and have the work done. So-- MR. ANDREWS: Then they can't -- Okay. MR. McCORMICK: You know, we're not involved in the costs right now. MR. MANALICH: And what I have here is repair the deterioration of the failed seawall and correction of the accompanying Page 14 June 22, 1995 loss of fill and that within 15 days of today's date, a contract be entered into for further repairs, the work to commence immediately thereafter and to be completed within 5 weeks. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. It carries unanimously. Let's proceed to board of county commissioners versus Rolando Reyna. Okay. We'll proceed now with the public hearings. Item No. B. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman? MR. McCORMICK: If I may, before we even get started, I just have one note of disclosure. I discussed this with our attorney earlier, and the exhibit which is in our case file, the survey exhibit, that was prepared by my firm, wilkison & Associates. I didn't have any involvement in the surveyor the surveying aspects of our company, but I thought that I for the record should state that in case there are any questions. MR. MANALICH: Are any of the respondents here? MS. CRUZ: Yes, they are. MR. MANALICH: Do any of the respondents have objection to Mr. -- I believe it's McCormick, right? MR. McCORMICK: McCormick, right. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. -- participating in this case because of the circumstances he mentioned? MR. MANZANO: No, sir. MR. MANALICH: And your name, sir? MR. MANZANO: My name is Rudolfo Manzano, Jr. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Are there any other respondents here? Sir? MR. LANDGREBE: John Landgrebe. MS. CRUZ: No. Excuse me, Mr. Manalich. (To Mr. Landgrebe) This does not apply to your case. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean for this case. The gentleman in the back. MR. REYNA: Rolando Reyna. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Mr. Reyna, do you have any objection to Mr. McCormick's decision in this case as far as participating in hearing the case? Okay. Let the record reflect he was gesturing no with his head. Okay. I think that the conflict would be pretty far removed here. He had no participation. It was merely his firm. There was no objection. I think he can proceed to hear the case. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: Case No. 95-008, board of county Commissioners versus Rolando Reyna, Delilah Reyna, Raul Reyna, Jr., Rudolfo Manzano, and Minnie Simpson. Mr. Chairman, these property owners -- we have a complicated case here. The Reynas own the land, the property. Simpson and Manzano own the mobile home in question. They are before this board because allegedly there's a violation located at 3303 Page 15 June 22, 1995 Carson Road, Naples, Florida. These violations are allegedly a violation of Collier county Ordinance 91-102, Section 2.7.6, paragraph 5, and Section 2.1.15, by unlawfully placing a mobile home being used as a residence without proper permits. Rolando Reyna, Delilah Reyna, Raul Reyna, Jr., Minnie Simpson, and Rudolfo Manzano, they've been provided with the notice of violation on January 25, 1995, ordering to remove this violation or obtain proper permits. This notice of violation required a compliance date by April 27, 1995. The last reinspection was conducted on May 30, 1995, which revealed the violations still exist. Mr. Rudolfo Manzano obtained a Building Permit No. 956361 to remove the mobile home from the subject property and place it on another property that is owned by him. At this time I would like to call Mr. Reyna to the stand, please. MS. RAWSON: Before Mr. Reyna takes the stand, I'd like to move for introduction into evidence the entire packet, which appears to be 19 pages, to be introduced in evidence in this case number. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: And before Mr. Reyna starts talking, can -- I'm sorry, maybe I'm confused, but Mr. Reyna owns the property; right? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. The mobile home is owned by Simpson and Manzano, right? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And you are serving all of them? MS. CRUZ: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. I just want to get all the facts just right, so. Okay. And now, you said that Simpson and Manzano have gotten -- and they're thinking about moving it somewhere else? MS. CRUZ: They've obtained a building permit to move the mobile home to another property. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. Who was it owned by? MS. CRUZ: Manzano and Simpson. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. Okay. Thank you. Got it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We should act on a motion. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. Thank you. WHEREUPON, RAUL REYNA, JR., a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name for the record, please. A. Raul Reyna, Jr. Q. Mr. Reyna, would you please tell this board when you obtained the property. Page 16 June 22, 1995 A. We bought it about September of last year, 1994. Q. And was this mobile home at the subject property? A. Yes, it was. Q. Were you aware that this mobile home was at your property? A. Well, at the beginning, no, until we moved in. That's when we found out. Q. You're aware that this mobile home was -- it has been placed there without proper permits? A. We do now. First, see, they were saying that it wasn't our property. Okay. Well, we asked them to move it out right after we bought it, and they were saying that it wasn't our property and it wasn't our property, and then we went to court before then and we stipulated -- all we wanted is -- I said, you know, we tried to have them remove the trailer, and they said, you know, that they wouldn't because it wasn't our property. So we were just asking for them to move their trailer. That's all that we're asking. MS. CRUZ: No questions. MR. LAFORET: Do you have a permit to reinstall a trailer on the new property site. MR. REYNA: Not yet. MS. LOUVIERE: He's not the one that's MR. REYNA: That's not our -- MS. LOUVIERE: He's not the one that's going to be removing the trailer. MR. REYNA: Yeah. We just want them to move the trailer. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: You have a legal survey of your lot now. MR. REYNA: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: You went and had it surveyed, so you know that this -- MR. REYNA: Yes, we did; correct. MS. LOUVIERE: -- is your land, and this person has his trailer on your land? MR. REYNA: Right. MS. CRUZ: On this Composite Exhibit A, there's a page 18. That survey is included in there. Staff has no further questions of Mr. Reyna. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any board members have any questions of Mr. Reyna? MS. LOUVIERE: How long have you been asking him to move his trailer. MR. REYNA: Since we moved in there. It's about ten months. MS. LOUVIERE: Ten months. MR. REYNA: Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And he just kept saying that MR. REYNA: At first, it wasn't our property, that it wasn't our property, so they weren't going to move it. MS. LOUVIERE: Mm-hm. Then what happened when you told Page 17 June 22, 1995 them that it is your property? "It is my property." said, "It's my property. Here's the survey." What MR. REYNA: Well, they're still there, so, you MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. McCORMICK: One other question, if I may. Have you received any rent or monetary compensation. MR. REYNA: No, nothing. Nothing. Nothing. At first, when we went to court the first time, they told us we couldn't do anything, because we didn't have any rental agreements or anything. So, you know, we haven't been able to do nothing there. You know, we're not asking for nothing. We just want them to move the trailer. That's it. MR. ANDREWS: court comes in -- THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, sir? MS. LOUVIERE: Charlie says it seems like this should be a civil case. He doesn't understand where the Code Compliance board comes in. MS. CRUZ: I believe -- Excuse me. I believe this case is taken to court, and perhaps Dave Hedrich, our investigator, can elaborate on that. Dave? MR. HEDRICH: The-- MS. CRUZ: You need to come up, please. WHEREUPON, DAVID HEDRICH, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name, please. A. My name is Dave Hedrich with the Collier county Code Compliance. When the case was brought to my attention, that was after the Reynas had a failed attempt in civil court with one of our local judges to attempt to have this removed. And the eviction process was halted by the judge and more or less referred over to Collier county Code Enforcement in the hopes that this would be handled in a land development manner seeing as there were no permits or anything else or any nature -- anything of that nature involved. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: But do you know why -- Why would they have done that -- MR. HEDRICH: Well, the CHAIRMAN ALLEN: -- in your opinion. MR. HEDRICH: The property -- In my opinion, the property was owned by one party. The mobile home was shown and proved to be owned by the other party. Therefore, the judge was not in his territorial boundaries, so to speak, to have the property owners evict the people from the trailer, because they proved ownership and they couldn't be evicted from their own property even though that property was on someone else's property. MS. LOUVIERE: But the Code Compliance board has the Mr. Reyna, you did he say then. know. It seems to me like a civil case where the Page 18 June 22, 1995 authority. MR. HEDRICH: That's not for me to say. MR. ANDREWS: I don't see where we do. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. HEDRICH: So I took it upon the issues based on the fact that it is an illegal land use. It was a prohibited use, and there were no permits issued for the mobile home to be there. MS. LOUVIERE: So basically, we have the authority because it is a prohibited use per the Land Development Code. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: All right. That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you. MR. HEDRICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any more questions of Mr. Reyna? Thank you, Mr. Reyna. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Manzano, would you please come up here? WHEREUPON, RUDOLFO MANZANO, JR., a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name for the record. A. Mr. Rudolfo Manzano, Jr. Q. Mr. Manzano, we're discussing the violation, the placing of a mobile home on 3303 Carson Road. You are the owner of this mobile home? A. Yes, I am. My wife is. Q. Your wife is the owner? A. Yes, my wife is a legal registered owner. Q. And you're acting on behalf of your wife? A. Yes, I am. Q. A representative of your wife? A. Yes, I am. Q. Okay. I understand you've obtained a building permit to remove this mobile -- A. I obtained a building permit to remove the trailer and install it on another piece of property which I have purchased. Q. And when would you be doing this? When would you be removing this mobile home from the subject property? A. Well, I was under the understanding when I called the Code Enforcement and I spoke to a person in the personnel there that the Reynas were responsible for removing my trailer for the simple reason that they were the property owners. So I was waiting for the Reynas to remove my trailer. Q. Who did you speak with? A. I don't recall the name. My wife spoke to them, and they told her that the Reynas were legally responsible to remove my trailer, because it was their property. Q. I understand that legally it's your mobile home and you're responsible for placing this mobile home in -- illegally Page 19 June 22, 1995 land. A. placed placed Q. A. Eldridge Q. right? A. Q. A. Q. have A. White -- Q. Could permit to have A. No, I Q. Okay. A. No, I Q. Okay. have a trailer property, they logical. MR. McCORMICK: I think maybe an interpretation would be that the Reynas would need to remove the trailer because as long as it's on their property, they're in violation. But as far as where it moves and how they move it -- MS. LOUVIERE: It's up to them. MR. McCORMICK: -- I don't think that would be in the same interest that Mr. Manzano has. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you understand what Rick is saying? He's saying that the Reynas, because the trailer is in their property, can move it anywhere they want as far as taking it to the dump site. Because, technically, isn't that what you're saying? MR. McCORMICK: Well, I don't know if they'd be able to do that as being he's the owner, but their interest is just to remove it, period. There's a conflict of the interest here obviously. But yet it appears that they need to work together, because they're both -- all parties are involved in this enforcement. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Manzano, your wife is Minnie Simpson? MR. MANZANO: Yes, she is. On this sworn statement here by Mr. Reyna, given to Code Enforcement by Mr. Reyna, this states here that Mr. Reyna spoke to me about moving my trailer. I have not spoken to Mr. Reyna at all since they moved into the trailer. The person that I have spoken to is his mother, and I have not spoken to any of the legal owners of the property, which I understand that doesn't matter because she lives there with them. I did not place that mobile home. That mobile home was there at the time when I moved into it. That trailer was there before 1987. Okay. Do you own the land? No, I do not. At the time when I moved in, Cecil and White lived on the land. Okay. So basically you don't own the land; is that I do not own the land. Okay. You own the trailer? I do. Okay. Which a permit to have When I spoke is in noncompliance. I mean, you don't that trailer there. with them -- I spoke with Mr. and Mrs. you just answer the question. Do you have a that trailer there? do not. You don't own the land; right? do not. I don't see anywhere where it says that if you that you do not have a permit for on someone else's have to move it for you. It doesn't even sound Page 20 June 22, 1995 But, also, on September 16th, it states here on this sworn statement that that's when they purchased the property and they moved in on the 17th. They did not have the property surveyed until November. So when he first moved into the house itself, he did not know that my land did not belong to him. The land that I'm living on belonged to him. And the real estate person now who sold the property to him at the time when they were trying to sell it, I was also trying to purchase the property where I was living on, and she told me herself that this property was not for sale, so I could not purchase it, that it did not go with the house property. Four months after they purchased the house, and they had the land surveyed. Then they found out that the land did belong to them. At the time my understanding was that the land belonged to Cecil and Eldridge White, and I had their permission to be on the land. And that's what I was telling them, that they needed to go speak with Eldridge and Cecil White, because they were still staking claim to the property. They showed -- They said to me that they still had papers showing that the property legally belonged to them, and I told them that the Reynas have papers legally showing that the land belongs to them so that they would have to get together and to talk. And they refused to do that. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, I still don't see -- that's very -- I appreciate all this information you're giving us. That's still -- It's not relevant to what is going on right now. Okay. Mr. Reyna is being fined, am I correct here, because he is the legal owner of this property? He has his property surveyed. You have a trailer on his property, and it belongs to the Reynas. We talked to his mother who is -- I am assuming is one of the Reynas listed here. MR. MANZANO: No, she's not. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So even if you go and talk with Mr. Reyna, the legal -- MR. MANZANO: I never spoke to him. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, even if he comes up and speaks to you now, I still don't see how any of this is relevant. You have been told and you can go by the Collier county records, land develop over there in the Clerk of Courts and find out who -- MR. MANZANO: It also shows that it belongs to Eldridge and Cecil White. MS. LOUVIERE: It does. MR. MANZANO: Yes, it does. MS. LOUVIERE: Then why are the Reynas being served if, according to you, somebody else is the owner. MR. MANZANO: You got me. MS. LOUVIERE: You're telling me staff is wrong. MR. MANZANO: No, ma'am, I'm not telling you staff is wrong. I'm just stating -- I'm stating to you what I've seen on court records also. MS. CRUZ: On page 17 of Exhibit A, there's a warranty deed that was recorded on September 16, 1994, showing Rolando Reyna, Delilah Reyna, Raul Reyna, Jr., as owner of the subject property. MS. LOUVIERE: That's what's in the records of Collier Page 21 June 22, 1995 county, sir. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do you have any other questions by the board or staff of Mr. Manzano? MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask our attorney: If we would have followed through on the prior question that the property belongs to the Reynas and they have been notified to have the trailer removed from their property, if this is their obligation and the owner says -- the trailer owner says, no, they are obligated to move the trailer off their property, would it be possible for the Reynas to move the trailer and put a lien on it for their cost in moving the trailer, move it to a storage yard and put a lien on it? MR. MANALICH: Possibly. The only problem -- and I don't see this board wanting to get into the middle of how the arrangements are going to be made, frankly. I think that's between them and for them to battle out in whatever form they choose. I do find, however, that under the ordinance, both of these parties can be deemed violators by the fact that that trailer is in that spot without the proper permit, because both of them are in violation by allowing that to continue there; one is the owner, one is the person that owns the trailer unit. So I think this board, if it finds that the violation has been proven, can direct -- find them both in violation and tell them both they have to do it and then leave it up to them as to how it's going to get accomplished and how they're going to sort out who pays what. MS. LOUVIERE: I have trouble with that in the fact that I don't see how -- Mr. Reyna obviously owns the property. He's obviously approached Minnie Simpson or these -- or Mr. Manzano. MR. MANZANO: He has not. MS. LOUVIERE: And I don't see He obviously knows that he has to move this trailer since he doesn't have building permits. I think that the person that should be fined and this board should concern itself with is Mr. Manzano and the Simpsons. They're the ones that own the trailer. They're the ones that do not have a permit for this trailer. I think that's what this board should concern itself with and fine them and give them a certain amount of time to go ahead and remove this illegal use from this person's property. MS. RAWSON: We've listed one, two, three, four respondents. All four of them are respondents, and so this board has jurisdiction over all four of them is my understanding. And basically, under the statute, we only have the right and the duty to find whether or not a code violation exists. And if we find a code violation exists, it's my understanding that all we can do is ask that they come into compliance. And if they don't come in compliance, that they be fined per day. It's my understanding we can fine all of the respondents per day; is that correct? MR. MANALICH: Correct. I mean, I commend Mireya for, you know, wanting to look at the equities of the situation. I think if you believe from the record made that, in fact, notice has been given to get off of the property, certainly the equities indicate that perhaps the party refusing to remove themselves from the property is Page 22 June 22, 1995 most at fault. But the question becomes -- from this board's perspective, your principal goal is to achieve compliance; that is, to not have a structure that is not permitted on that property. Your biggest lawful leverage that I see is to charge and if you find the violation against both parties and leave it up to them as to how they're going to sort out the costs or removal. I suppose, however, that, depending on how the board views the facts and the record, you could fine just one of them. I mean, clearly, I think my view is that they're both in violation by that existing there, but -- MS. LOUVIERE: Because maybe I'm -- I'm not an attorney. So that's why it's so good to have you here. But Mr. Reyna doesn't own the trailer. So if he takes it upon himself to remove this trailer off his property, can he legally do that? Say we start fining him -- MR. MANALICH: MS. LOUVIERE: find relief. MR. MANALICH: Right. I mean, but he can avail himself of legal procedures to secure that. I don't think this board is so concerned about how it's effectuated other than that it get done by one or both parties. And as the landowner it appears to me that if you find that -- from the record you can find that as the landowner he is charged in not allowing that to exist on his property, then he has got a duty to do whatever legal procedures he needs to do to correct or remove that structure. MS. LOUVIERE: So he would be within his rights, then, to remove it? MR. MANALICH: I believe he could institute legal proceedings to do that. I know Miss Rawson and I -- I don't know if you practiced landlord/tenant at all but -- MS. RAWSON: He could even though he's not a paying tenant, and I don't think that's exactly probably the action that he filed in the court. And I can understand what the judge's reluctance in this whole matter was before. I think that this board has to be careful that we don't go beyond what our authority is and play judge, and we probably need to leave some of that to the civil court system to do. I would suggest if they are all fined, everybody is going to have in their best interests want to get that trailer removed. I would further suggest that if they can't decide who's going to pay for what, that they avail themselves of a court mediator, Sal Gardino, and sit down and try and work it out with the help of a mediator. MR. MANALICH: The other point to consider, too, in response to your concern, Miss Louviere, is this board does -- it fines people. It does have the power to reduce fines depending on what later arguments are brought to bear to the board; that is, I could see a situation perhaps developing where this board, to achieve compliance, would enter an order against both parties, and, later on one or both parties come back to this board and say, "I've accumulated these fines and here's what I want you to know what happened. Here's what I tried to do and what I did." And I think at that point the Right. -- and obviously he's going to try to Page 23 ~ June 22, 1995 board would have some discretion as far as it could reduce any of those fines. I'm just projecting ahead as a possible alternative here. MR. KIRBY: I'd like to ask something MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. KIRBY: -- from Mr. Hedrich. Was the mobile home occupied the whole time? MR. HEDRICH: From the time I began this case, yes, the mobile home was occupied. MR. KIRBY: And it's still occupied by -- MR. HEDRICH: At this time, yes. MR. KIRBY: So wouldn't the owners have a hard time removing the trailer if it was occupied? That's why, you know, if the board, you know, can find one respondent, you know, more at fault than another, you know, staff would certainly agree with that, because, you know, how can you remove the trailer by order of the county if someone's living in it? You know, he came to us, to the county, for help for a code violation. And if we can include, you know, one person as the responsible party, which I think we can, I would -- you know, supervisory staff at code enforcement would prefer it. MS. LOUVIERE: That's what I would like to see; although, I keep getting told that we have the right to fine all these people. I'd rather see the people that are the owners of the trailer be fined. MS. RAWSON: Okay. What's the recommendation of staff in terms of what would make it easier for you? If we found the owner of the trailer? MR. KIRBY: Correct. We've done something similar to this before where a tenant had leased property and didn't keep up with current -- like landscape requirements, and we held the tenant responsible. And the owners kind of took a back seat, and this is different but similar situation where we found the, you know, the occupant's the responsible party and held them responsible for correcting the violation in the order of the Board. The notices can all be sent to all the responsible people. But, you know, the way I have read the ordinance and I believe the board can direct the responsible party to correct the problem. MR. MANALICH: I think if you wanted to honor that recommendation, I think you can do it. The only situation I see it possibly backfiring and it may not develop is suppose you have a situation where today that is the proper order given the equities of the situation. But then for some reason, I mean, strange things happen. For some reason an accord is reached of some type between the owner of the property and the owner of the trailer, and the owner of the property says to the owner of the trailer, "Go ahead and stay on my property with the trailer", but nobody gets a permit. At that point, I suppose the owner of the property would also have been properly in violation. But I think Mr. Kirby is correct; that if you only want to fine the trailer owner, I think you can choose to do that. You may lose some of your leverage on this case. But on the other hand, if the prosecutor, Staff, does not believe that that's Page 24 June 22, 1995 necessary, then I certainly think you can find the trailer owner in violation. MR. ANDREWS: Can I ask wheels or is it one of those trailer? Is it on wheels so MR. MANALICH: You mean something like that? MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: No, it is a mobile home. MR. ANDREWS: Yeah, but it's -- MR. MANALICH: Are the wheels still under it? MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. MR. HEDRICH: I couldn't tell you at this time if the wheels are still exactly in position underneath the trailer. MR. ANDREWS: The thing I can't understand is why this gentleman, if he knows -- he knows it's his home and he knows it's illegal property, why in the world if it's his home, why he doesn't move it. In other words, if he waits for the other -- The way I understand it, the owner of the property has the right, call it awkward, to destroy it or do anything with it to get it off his property. And I can't -- This would solve the whole problem. I don't understand this. MR. MANALICH: One question I would have to staff also, just to help clarify: Can, in fact, the trailer owner obtain a permit and come into compliance and keep the trailer on that site aside from, you know, the ownership issues of the land? I mean, just from a strict -- MS. LOUVIERE: In order to get -- I may -- you know, I permit things. In order to be able to get a building permit, part of it is you have to show ownership. He would have to show a warranty deed to the site. So as soon as he got to Collier county Development Services, they would say, "You want a building permit. That's fine. Show me warranty deed to this site." Therefore, he doesn't own ownership or some sort of documents showing that he has the right to place his trailer on this premise -- on this real property. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Correct. MR. HEDRICH: Even if they were -- Even if the property owner wanted to keep the trailer there, the property doesn't fall under -- or meet the criteria of being able to permit a mobile home on that section of land. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. TTVRC, which is a trailer. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: It's what? Residential? So he would have to go through a conditional use or some other -- obtain some other zoning method. MR. HEDRICH: Yes. Correct. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: You know, just to summarize this, aren't we arguing over a thousand dollars? That's typically what it a question? Is that trailer on built up on -- kind of a semipermanent that it could be hauled away quickly? like a manufactured home or And zoning does not contain a Page 25 ~ June 22, 1995 takes to spot a trailer, a thousand dollars. I think that our issue is, you know, if we're going to proceed today is that the fine, the imposing fine, as it probably will occur, are going to be far in excess of a thousand dollars, just the payment for the trailer. I think that's where this issue is going to boil down to. MR. MANALICH: Like I said, I think that -- MR. ANDREWS: Excuse me. MR. MANALICH: While he's coming up, I think you can follow staff's recommendation and choose only one violator if that's what you want to do. Whether that's advisable, that's for you to decide. MR. MANZANO: I would like to answer the question to him earlier about the trailer being on wheels. It is on wheels. And I didn't know -- we did not -- My wife and I did not know that the trailer was not in compliance as far as permits. From my understanding, Mr. and Mrs. White told us when we moved in, from my understanding, the trailer had been there already for about, from my understanding, about six years when we moved in and that the trailer was in compliance with the ordinances. We had no idea that it was not until the first day when Mr. Hedrich mailed us a letter, a certified letter, that it's here reported on the 27th, I believe, of March. That was the first we heard of it being not in compliance. And that was the very first time we ever heard of it. MS. LOUVIERE: So you've known that it's not in -- You know that it's not in compliance for -- MR. MANZANO: And since that day -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- six months, right? MR. MANZANO: Yes, ma'am. And since that day, we've been working on purchasing another piece of property to move the trailer to, and I have the permits right here in front of me to where I've been working on my trailer -- the land out there, to install septic and water, to have the trailer moved out there. And I just got -- MS. LOUVIERE: How long -- MR. MANZANO: I just got the permits Monday of last week I believe it was, I believe. MS. LOUVIERE: Good for you. I think that's great. I think that's wonderful. MR. MANZANO: And that's what I've been trying to do. MS. LOUVIERE: How long do you think it'll take you to get your trailer situated into this new land? MR. MANZANO: Well, I still have to get the septic tank and a pad for the trailer which I think would probably be about another week or two. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Are you still, Mr. Manzano, of the opinion that you want Mr. Reyna to move your trailer for you? MR. MANZANO: Yes. From my opinion -- I mean, not from my opinion but from what I was advised of, that Mr. Reyna was legally responsible because his land -- it was his. He was claiming the land. And like I said, I never knew Mr. Reyna didn't own the land, actually own the land, until they showed me the papers. And still to Page 26 June 22, 1995 this date, Mr. and Mrs. White are claiming that the land is theirs. And I've told them that they need to come speak with them, that I had nothing to do with the land. I'm not claiming the land. I've never claimed the land. All I claimed is the trailer. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I think your fight is with Mr. and Mrs. White, not with Mr. Reyna. MR. MANZANO: Well, I don't -- I mean, I don't see why I should have a fight with any of them. All I'm trying to do is just get my trailer moved. And I have never spoken with them to even advise them that I am trying to find a place, you know, that I have found a place and I am trying to prepare it to move. But to this date, I have not spoken with them because they have not spoken to me. MR. LAFORET: Are you going to pay for moving the trailer? MR. MANZANO: MR. LAFORET: MR. MANALICH: communication. MR. ANDREWS: You know, I'd like to continue it. I think we should continue this and let those guys get together on it. MR. McCORMICK: Well, I think we can take action today to determine whether they're in violation or not. I'm sympathetic to some of their discussions about the equities of who is more responsible or who is not. But my experience is that a property owner is responsible for their property being in compliance and the same with the owner of a trailer or a structure or a leaseholder is responsible. It's my opinion, and as the case is before us, that all parties are responsible, and I don't know why we should decide or should solve their problem at this time. I think that they both have an interest in getting this solved. And we're going -- And they have two choices, essentially, either we give you some time frame that it's resolved and you do it in that time frame, and you don't have any fines imposed. If you don't do it in that time frame, it comes back before us, we impose fines and you still have to do it. And another important point is I appreciate your pointing out that we would have some course of action to adjust fines prior to imposing them and prior to deciding if we needed to impose fines based on which party took the steps either through civil action or through negotiations to try and get this resolved. We would hear that information at that time. MR. KIRBY: Might I point something out, Mr. McCormick? Say Mr. -- Manzano? Say he doesn't move out of the trailer and the owner wants to move it, to sit -- MR. McCORMICK: You know, I understand they're in a bad predicament and maybe they can't do anything about that, but they also -- You know, they purchased the property. They have responsibilities as a property owner for that whole property that they own and that they purchased, that it has to be in compliance with our Land Development Code. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't see it like that. I see it this way. This person, Mr. Manzano, was served with a correspondence from If that's what it comes down to, I will. Thank you. It sounds like there's a need for some Page 27 June 22, 1995 Collier county Code Compliance that he's known for six months that this structure is in noncompliance. He has taken the time to go ahead and buy land, put a septic tank in it, put a potable water system in it, and all he wants -- he doesn't want to do is move his trailer. We have the authority or, rather, we have the authority -- the attorneys told us we have the authority to fine one party, not all of them. I think that we're going to continue to see this item come up to the board if we don't put pressure on one or the other party to resolve it. Also, we've heard from county staff who have said that it would be easier for them to bring this matter to a resolve -- to resolve this matter if we fine the trailer owner. Am I correct? MR. KIRBY: Yeah; that's our recommendation. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. I mean, we're going to -- I mean, this has been going on for six months. I don't see where if we start to fine everyone -- it's just going to continue and then we're going to have to hear it again to reduce fines on the other party. It's just going to continue to get even more messier and more complicated. MR. KIRBY: Let me add this. There is no lease arrangements between the two parties, so the owners could not evict, you know, Mr. Manzano and his family, because they have no lease arrangement. So, you know, he had to try this method, but the courts failed for him and it -- you know, it was one of those things that fell between the cracks. And, you know, once again, he's still -- MS. LOUVIERE: Mr. Manzano has even stated that if he had to, he would move the trailer. I mean, he's ready. He's got land. MR. MANZANO: I don't have a problem with that. I asked Mr. Reyna, Jr., his dad, I told his dad about a month ago that I was prepared to have my trailer moved, either way, that I was prepared to have my trailer moved, because when I spoke to the septic tank gentleman who was going to put the septic tank in for me, he told me that he could have it installed in one day. So my understanding was if he decided to move my trailer today, I could have the septic tank installed tomorrow and my trailer would be livable by the next day. So that was -- that was my only concern then and it's my only concern now is to have my trailer moved to my new property. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't have any further questions for this person. MR. ANDREWS: Where is your property in relation to this property? MR. MANZANO: My property is about twenty miles out of the tow~ of Immokalee. MS. CRUZ: If I may add something, and this may contradict with the recommendation that Mr. Kirby made. It shows -- The record shows that the Reynas purchased the property in September of '94 and a survey was not done till in November of '94, and that was two months later. I feel that there was negligence on the part of Mr. Reyna not to know that this mobile home was on this property legally. And I think, just like the ordinance requires it, that Mr. Reyna as well as Mr. Manzano, they are both in violation. They both should be ordered to correct the violation. How they do it is Page 28 June 22, 1995 not up to us, but I think they both should be responsible for removing this violation. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of those situations where reasonable minds can differ and, additionally, there may be different ways to approach the problem. Just for clarification from my viewpoint, in your deliberations I believe you could pursue an order and fines against both parties or against just one of the parties, and, again, the authority to do either of those. I believe that reasonable minds can differ as to what's the best course, and it's not necessarily for me to advise you on that. I think that all I can tell you on that point is that Ms. Louviere has pointed out certain equities that are in this case, and that's a valid point. I also would tell you as -- Well, I would also point out, as Mr. McCormick has pointed out, that perhaps the maximum leverage for the county can be by pursuing both parties. So I hope that helps you in your deliberations as to where we're at. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any more questions for Mr. Manzano from staff or from the board? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Manzano. Any other comments or questions? MS. CRUZ: No comments. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'll close the public hearing. MS. RAWSON: I would suggest before we go through our formal findings of fact that we simply have a vote among the board of whether or not we want to fine all or one of the respondents in violation, and that would make it easier for us when we do our findings of fact. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we only fine Minnie Simpson and Mr. Manzano who are the legal owners of the trailer and not the Reynas who own the land. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do we have a second for that? MR. LAFORET: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying Opposed? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: MS. LOUVIERE: have Celia. MR. ANDREWS: What was the count? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Three to three. MR. MANALICH: Well, motion fails. MR. ANDREWS: I was going to go along with you until the attorney came up with his final suggestion of fining them both and let them fight it out, so that's why I changed my vote. MR. MANALICH: I'm not saying you have to do that, Mr. Andrews. MR. ANDREWS: MR. MANALICH: MR. ANDREWS: willing to. MS. LOUVIERE: aye. We have a hung jury. And you know what's really bad? We don't No, I know. I'm just saying that you have options. If you want to take a re-vote, I'd be I make a motion that we only fine Minnie Page 29 .' June 22, 1995 I \,.' Simpson and Manzano as they are the ones that have the '189_1 us~ of the trailer. MR. LAFORET: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We have Ms. Rawson and Mr. McCormick opposing. We have 4 to 2. MR. MANALICH: Is that the vote, 4 to 2? MS. LOUVIERE: Mm-hm. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, sir. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Then it looks like the motion has passed. MS. RAWSON: Mireya, I think you should do the proposed findings of fact. MS. LOUVIERE: No, Jean, I'd rather you do it. I did in your absence, and I wasn't as good at it. And in all fairness, you're very good at it. MS. RAWSON: This is your motion, though. I make the following motion, findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on June 22, 1995, and the board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its finding of facts, conclusions of law and order of the board as follows: The findings of fact. That Minnie Simpson is the owner of the trailer on the land of the subject property; that the Code Enforcement board has jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, Minnie Simpson, and that Minnie Simpson was present by her husband at the public hearing. And all notices required by Collier county Ordinance No. 92-80 have been properly issued; that the real property legally described in the composite exhibit introduced in evidence in this matter is in violation as Minnie Simpson's trailer is unlawfully placed and being used as a resident without proper permit on the subject property which is in violation of Sections 2.7.6, Paragraph 5, and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended in the Collier county Land Development Code. Conclusions of law. That Minnie Simpson, owner of, the mobile home, is in violation of Sections 2.7.6, Paragraph 5, and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended by the Collier county Land Development Code. MS. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? We have one opposition by Mr. McCormick. Proceed with the order of the Board. MR. RAWSON: It is, therefore, the order of the board that based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Collier county Ordinance No. 92-80, it is hereby Page 30 June 22, 1995 ordered: 1. That the respondent, Minnie Simpson, correct the violation of Sections 2.7.6, Paragraph 5, and 2.1.15 of Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended, the Collier county Land Development Code, in the following manner: That the mobile home being used as a residence on the subject property without proper permits be removed from the said land within 30 days of today's date; 2. That said correction be completed on or before 30 days from today's date. And if the respondent, Minnie Simpson, does not comply with this order on or before that date, then in that event the respondent, Minnie Simpson, is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $150 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statute, which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce the lien. MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. McCORMICK: This was a separate motion, right, which I could support and for -- to be unified with the board? Is that right? It was a separate motion? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Correct. MR. McCORMICK: Yeah. Then I support it. MR. MANALICH: The motion was for removal within 30 days of today's date? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I believe he said he could do it within two weeks. I gave him 30 days. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Is that realistic, Mr. Manzano? Can you prepare to remove it, have it gone within 30 days? MR. MANZANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: It carries unanimously. MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification, Mr. Manzano, you are the husband of Minnie Simpson; is that correct? MR. MANZANO: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Miss Court Reporter, let the record reflect that he nodded and affirmed yes. And is it also correct that she is the owner of the trailer in question? MR. MANZANO: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: We'll take about a ten-minute recess and we'll reconvene at 10:40. Is that okay with everyone? Okay. (A short break was taken.) CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Everyone ready? We'll reconvene. We'll start now on Case No. 95-010. MS. CRUZ: Case No. 95-010, board of county Commissioners versus John R. and Emily Landgrebe. For the record Page 31 June 22, 1995 Mr. Landgrebe is present. He is the owner of record of the property located at 11621 Lafayette Lane, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Township 51, Range 27, Section 16, Parcel 99. Mr. Landgrebe is before this board for allegedly violating Land Development Code 91-102, Section 2.6.7.1.1 and Section 2.7.6, Paragraph 5. At this time, I would like to request that a composite exhibit marked Composite Exhibit A be admitted into evidence. MR. ANDREWS: So moved. MS. RAWSON: Seconded. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Landgrebe, do you have any objection to the admission of that exhibit? MR. LANDGREBE: What's the exhibit? MR. MANALICH: The exhibit is a composite which, I believe, staff has previously delivered to you. MR. LANDGREBE: You know, I have here -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir; that has been delivered to you. MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, no, that should be here. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Well, we have a motion and second and agreed to by Mr. Landgrebe that this be accepted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, this alleged violation is unlawful storage of unlicensed vehicles and mobile home. I should correct: I believe that unlicensed vehicles have been removed from the property. It's just the mobile home that exists on this property at this time. Mr. Landgrebe was notified via notice violation, certified, to both properties, the subject property and the property from the property records. The first violation, notice of violation, was sent to Mr. Landgrebe on May 22, 1995, with a compliance date of June 7, 1995. Reinspection. The last reinspect ion was conducted on June 8th, 1995, which revealed a violation still exists. At this time, I'd like to call Dave Hedrich to the stand, please. WHEREUPON, DAVID HEDRICH, a witness, having been previously sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Mr. Hedrich, I remind you that you are still under oath from previous cases. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Mr. Hedrich, you've had an opportunity to inspect the subject property? A. Yes, I have. Q. Would you please tell this board what you found on this during this inspection. A. Upon my first inspection of the property, I found the mobile home in question in back of the main residence on the property as well as unlicensed vehicles in various parts of the property. Page 32 June 22, 1995 Q. Was there a permit for -- I understand that these unlicensed vehicles are removed? A. Yes, they are at this time. Q. Okay. So the only thing that is still existing is the mobile home in question? A. Correct. Q. Was there a permit pulled for this mobile home at all? A. Yes, at one time there was a permit issued for the mobile home to be placed upon that property, to be converted from an existing living mobile home structure to a storage building. Q. Was this permit ever CO'd? A. No. No, ma'am, this permit never was issued a certificate of occupancy. Q. For the record that permit number is 94-9403. Have you had a chance to talk to Mr. Landgrebe? A. Yes, we spoke once, briefly, several months back and then once again yesterday. Q. What are Mr. Landgrebe's contentions? A. AS far -- Q. Removing the violation or -- A. Well, upon our conversation yesterday, we had a discussion as to who this permit was issued to at the time when the permit was issued. When I did a history check on the inspection, the permit history, I found the permit was issued to a J. Landgrebe and listed as owner/builder. Upon my speaking to Mr. Landgrebe of yesterday, he indicated to me that he had nothing to do with pulling the permit for the property for which he owns. He also gave some indication that it might have been his daughter, Julie, who obtained the permit on her own without her father's permission or consent. Q. What do the records show, though? Who pulled the permit? A. When we pulled the permit application yesterday, that "J. Landgrebe" did, in fact, stand for Julie Landgrebe but not John Landgrebe. Julie had signed in her father's place as agent and lessee, I believe. Q. Are you stating that this permit could have been issued in error? A. That wasn't for me to say. Just reviewing the' application, Julie Landgrebe did indeed sign for the permit which was okayed by several representatives of the building department at the time, one of those representatives being Bill Smith who was in charge of permitting as well as Dick Clark who was head of community development at the time, and they both gave their okay as far as the permit application goes for Julie to sign in place of her father. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of that application. I'd like to introduce this copy as Exhibit B. MS. RAWSON: So moved. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. MANALICH: Any objection, Mr. Landgrebe, to that exhibit? Page 33 " June 22, 1995 MR. LANDGREBE: What is it? MS. CRUZ: It's a copy of the application. MR. LANDGREBE: Could I have a copy of it? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir; I'll give you a copy. MR. LANDGREBE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: What is it, Ms. Cruz? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: It is a copy of the application for the building permit. MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, no, I have no objection. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. So moved by unanimous decision. BY MS. CRUZ: Q. Highlighted on this application down in the middle of the page where it says to -- order from the superior to go ahead and issue this permit without -- and the copy of the lease agreement will follow. Mr. Hedrich, do you know if this agreement was ever filed with the building permit department? A. No, a copy of the lease agreement showing Julie Landgrebe as the lessee of said property was never put on file with the Building Department. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. I have no further questions for Mr. Hedrich. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: A further question. Is it the intent to convert the mobile home to a storage trailer by gutting it? MR. HEDRICH: Can you -- CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Well, was the intent to gut the mobile home and turn it into a storage trailer? MR. HEDRICH: As far as his daughter was concerned, I believe that was the original intent. This was never done, though. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Mr. Landgrebe, could you come to the stand, please. I'd like to ask you several questions. MR. LANDGREBE: Sure. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Do you have anything else, Mr. Hedrich, before Mr. Landgrebe comes up? MR. HEDRICH: Not at this time, no. WHEREUPON, JOHN R. LANDGREBE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CRUZ: Q. State your name for the record. A. John Landgrebe, Sr. John R. Landgrebe, Sr. Q. Mr. Landgrebe, you are the property owner of the property located at 11621 Lafayette Lane? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Landgrebe, you did receive notice of the violations existing on this property? A. I did in, I think, December of '94. Page 34 June 22, 1995 Q. Do you intend to remove these violations, or do you agree that you were in violation of the county Code? A. I didn't place them there. They were placed there against my violent opposition, and that's why I blame the county for permitting it. I feel that it's the County's responsibility. Q. We want you to understand that, you, as a property owner, you're responsible for anything that is placed illegally or legally on your property. A. You mean, even if it's illegal? Q. Yes, sir. A. Someone else does it? Q. You are responsible for any violations that exist on your property as a property owner. A. You mean, whether I commit that violation or not? Q. That's correct. A. That's specified in the Collier county Ordinances? Q. Yes, sir, it is. A. If I trespass on leased property, I'm trespassing. I can be arrested for trespassing. Now, you say you could you're pressing charges against me for not trespassing. I called the county or county building department. My daughter called me on the phone and she says, Dad, he's gOlng to -- he's going to bring an old rickety -- this mobile home has been condemned by the county. It was supposed to go to the city dump. It was just a couple of blocks from the house. And my daughter called me and she says, "Victor is going to bring that old mobile home down here and park it." I says, "I'll take care of that." So I called the Collier county building department. Who I spoke to, I don't know. Now, Mr. Hedrich says that this happens every day. People call the county, the building department, to revoke building permits, which I -- I was in the county Building Department. It never occurred while I was there, and I don't believe that it happens today. But I called and said, "Do not issue a permit for that trailer." They moved it anyway. And the following day, the county went out and red-tagged it and they came in and got a permit, and the permit was issued against my opposition. Now, the only thing that's in the -- And, also, I'm down here just to answer this. They said that inspections occurred on June the 8th, and there was illegal automobiles and vehicles. There was none. I don't think they were parked on my property originally, because the pictures -- you have pictures of it that shows that -- I think you had pictures of two automobiles back up off of the driveway. That driveway is my property line. So they weren't on my property. Now, there was an old school bus on my property and I contacted the owner and insisted that he move it. So I think yesterday or the day before, he came out and he hooked onto it. Now, the owner moved it, and he moved it around the block and parked it on the property next to me. Now, am I still responsible? Q. If it's not on your property, you're not responsible. Page 35 June 22, 1995 A. No, it's not on my property. Neither were the automobiles, but I'm cited for it. Now, the mobile home was moved in the middle part of August. Everything was flooded about a foot- or two-foot deep in water. They wanted to put the mobile home back on the back part of the property. They got it partway and it got sunk down in the sand in the water, and they decided to let it go until the water table receded and which would be February or March is the dry part or April which is the dry part of the year and then they would move it back where they wanted it and then anchor it down. The only thing that's in noncompliance is there's no deadmen screwed in the ground with a Wlre around a frame. That's the only thing that's not in compliance. Q. Mr. Landgrebe, is this the only structure on this property? A. The only structure? Q. Mm-hm. A. I guess, besides the house. Q. There is a house on this property? A. Oh, yes. Q. Who lives in this house? A. My daughter. Q. Your daughter is acting as the agent, as your agent -- A. No. Q. -- towards this property? A. No. She didn't. She never did. Q. Your daughter -- A. I bought the house for a place for her to live. Q. She pays you rent? A. And then her boyfriend -- Huh? Q. Does she pay you rent for this house? A. No. Q. SO you're allowing your daughter to live on this property? A. Yes. But the chicken farm that was out in back, I opposed of and told them to get it out of -- Her boyfriend even, at one time, moved a little travel -- There's 2-1/2 acres and it's way out in the woods. He moved a travel trailer and ran water and electric over to it, and I think I talked to Mr. Hedrich about it. MR. LANDGREBE: Didn't you go out and tell him to get that travel trailer out of there? MR. HEDRICH: No, sir; that wasn't my case. A. Well, it was someone in the building department. And I kept on my daughter about it, "Get that trailer and get those fellows moved out of there, because I'd be liable in case of an accident." MS. LOUVIERE: I understand your daughter was the one who came in and applied for this permit for the placement of this mobile home. MR. LANDGREBE: She might have, but she didn't do it with my permission, and she didn't do it with me knowingly. I called and this was maybe, I think, a couple of weeks later or even when I came -- oh, when I came down here in January. Now, I guess my Page 36 June 22, 1995 daughter didn't want to say anything to me, because she done it without my permission. Then in January, I told Mr. Hedrich, I says, "I'll get in touch with you in January." Well, I came down and I went out and -- I was here for three weeks in January. There was no -- There was no abandoned automobiles or vehicles parked except the bus which was supposed to be moved immediately in January. And the only thing that was in noncompliance was that rickety mobile home sitting out there with no anchors in the ground, but they didn't anchor it, because it wasn't where they wanted it to go. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. LANDGREBE: And then when all the hassle started, they left it. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. I have no further questions for Mr. Landgrebe. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I have a question. Mr. Landgrebe, if the mobile home was condemned by the county -- MR. LANDGREBE: That puzzles me. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: -- if it's an unstriated structure -- MR. LANDGREBE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: -- okay, all it could ever be -- to do is convert it into a storage facility. It can never be occupied. MR. LANDGREBE: Why did the county allow it to be parked on my property against my opposition? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Well, according to the building permit that I'm looking at, you know, your daughter acted as your agent and MR. LANDGREBE: Doesn't she have to -- Doesn't the county ordinance say that she has to have a statement signed by me and notarized authorizing her to act as my agent? Mr. Hedrich? MR. HEDRICH: I can't answer that question, sir. I'm not with building and permitting. MR. LANDGREBE: It does. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Landgrebe MR. LANDGREBE: It does. MR. MANALICH: -- just for clarification then: Is it your testimony that this trailer was placed on this property without your knowledge and consent. MR. LANDGREBE: It was placed, yes, without my knowledge and without my consent and without my getting -- obtaining a building permit. MR. MANALICH: The land on which the trailer is located is your ownership; right? MR. LANDGREBE: It belongs to me. MR. MANALICH: Your daughter is living in a home with your consent -- MR. LANDGREBE: MR. MANALICH: MR. LANDGREBE: MR. MANALICH: Yes. -- on Yes. Okay. Have you considered removing this that land? Page 37 June 22, 1995 trailer? MR. LANDGREBE: Have I considered moving it? MR. MANALICH: Removing it or the property. MR. LANDGREBE: No, it doesn't have to be removed. MR. MANALICH: Okay. What is it that you want this MR. LANDGREBE: It just has to have a couple of deadmens screwed in the ground with a wire tied around the frame. MR. MANALICH: And that's what you want -- MR. LANDGREBE: Then it's -- The architecture is fine. The county approves of the architecture. They just don't approve of the structural. MR. MANALICH: MR. LANDGREBE: eventually. MS. LOUVIERE: By who? MR. LANDGREBE: Well, if it has to be, it'll be removed by me. I won't do it myself. I'll hire somebody to do it, because I didn't want it there in the first place. I didn't allow it to be parked there, but it's still sitting there. MS. LOUVIERE: So basically, I understand -- I'm trying to understand. You own the land and Collier county issued a permit because we have -- MR. LANDGREBE: MS. LOUVIERE: MR. LANDGREBE: MS. LOUVIERE: concerns. You issued a permit, because we have an application here. And now you're saying it's in noncompliance because it's not tied down? MR. HEDRICH: No, ma'am. The-- MS. LOUVIERE: Why is it not in compliance? MR. HEDRICH: The permit expired six months after the permit was issued. Any and all building permits will expire six months after any permit is issued if there are no inspections called in on that permit. If inspections are called in, inspections are made, inspections are passed, the permit will continue to be active all the way through to the very end. MS. LOUVIERE: I see. MR. LANDGREBE: But right now the county, the building department, I'm sure, has thousands and thousands of permits that have never been called in for a CO. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, that's -- We don't know that. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Landgrebe has two options. Either he can remove the mobile home from the property or obtain another building permit. MR. LANDGREBE: This case that was here previously, you said that when the owner was not at fault; you proceeded against the tenant. If you would, tell me why it's very plain that it's -- it is -- Anything that happened out there, I didn't do. It's the tenant's fault. Are you opposed to having it removed? No, absolutely not. It will be removed It was against my approval. I understand, sir. I understand. I'm sorry. That's okay. I understand your Page 38 June 22, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: In any case, it's a little bit different. The way I see it is because this is your daughter and you are allowing your daughter -- you have the verbal agreement with your daughter to use these premises. This is your daughter's. MR. LANDGREBE: That's all; just to live there. MS. LOUVIERE: Just to live there. I see. MR. LANDGREBE: She's not allowed to have a farm and MS. LOUVIERE: Have you approached your daughter whom you have an agreement with and you have told her, "I own this land. You are welcome to stay here. You are placing structures that I do not want to see on my land"? MR. LANDGREBE: She was under duress when she came down, and I told her -- MS. LOUVIERE: I see. MR. LANDGREBE: -- that I called the county. MS. LOUVIERE: Fine. But you could still MR. LANDGREBE: She was under duress with her boyfriend. MS. LOUVIERE: I understand. MR. LANDGREBE: Physical harm or what, I don't know, but I'm sure you could understand. You can't understand? MS. LOUVIERE: Of course I can. MR. LANDGREBE: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: I try to understand everyone. I try to understand. MR. LANDGREBE: youngsters. All of MS. LOUVIERE: issue. MR. LANDGREBE: But she is my daughter. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. The issue is that you own this land. This is your daughter who you're letting stay there, and you have a verbal agreement for her to stay there. You have a right, since it is your land, to ask your daughter to move this trailer. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, she wanted to hire -- She wanted a fellow to start yesterday -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. MR. LANDGREBE: -- tearing it down. And I go, "Wait. Wait till I go down before the Commission." MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you, sir. That's a good idea. MR. LANDGREBE: But to me, it would be, for just a few dollars, she could have a couple of deadmen screws in the ground and a wire put around the frame which puts it in compliance. MS. LOUVIERE: I think staff has said that that's fine. If you want to go down to Collier county Developmental Services and pull another express application -- MR. LANDGREBE: He didn't -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- then you're fine. MR. LANDGREBE: Originally, I'm sure the fellow that parked it there, which was her boyfriend, he didn't know that you would have to go down. He thought that by being buried in the water and unable to put it where he wanted it, that he didn't have to go But the boyfriend -- She got two little this is against my better judgment. I understand. But let's go back to the Page 39 June 22, 1995 down and renew the permit or extend it for 30 days or 60 days until he could move it back. It would be really unreasonable, not unreasonable but plausible to anchor it to the ground here and then, so to speak, a month later, pull up the anchors and move it 50 feet and anchor it again. And that's why -- That's why the mobile home wasn't anchored down in the first place. MS. LOUVIERE: I understand. So, Maria, if he goes back in and he pulls another express application for a building permit for $43.50, right? MS. CRUZ: Calls in for inspections. MS. LOUVIERE: And calls in for inspections. MS. CRUZ: And obtains a certificate of occupancy, he can MR. LANDGREBE: But that means that I approve of that thing parked out there, which I don't approve of it being parked on my property. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So there's really two options. One is -- MS. CRUZ: Remove the mobile home from the property or obtain the building permit. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, isn't there a third option? We could renotice the daughter -- MS. CRUZ: Mm-hm. MS. LOUVIERE: -- and get her in here in another month and order her to remove it just like we did in the last case. Is that possible, Attorney? MR. MANALICH: That's possible. MR. ANDREWS: It seems reasonable. MS. LOUVIERE: Is that what you would like -- MR. LANDGREBE: Reasonable? MS. LOUVIERE: -- for us to do, sir. MR. LANDGREBE: I think it's unreasonable but __ MS. LOUVIERE: Those are the three options we have. MS. RAWSON: You don't want your daughter to have to remove it? MR. LANDGREBE: The person that's -- I feel there's another option. The people that's responsible for it being there should be responsible for moving it out. That's what I" told Mr. Hedrich yesterday. He's responsible for it being there. Now, he says, "It wasn't me. I didn't work for the county in August." MR. HEDRICH: Mr. Landgrebe, I want to make it clear that you're not holding me personally responsible for it being there. MR. LANDGREBE: No, your department. MR. HEDRICH: Well, my department is code enforcement, not building department. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, whatever. I mean, it was all one when I was there, so I don't know the difference now. But I still feel like the county building department was the one. And I requested -- I telephoned from Illinois and I requested, "Please don't lssue a permit for that mobile home." Of course it was already there when I made the phone call. Page 40 June 22, 1995 MR. HEDRICH: You don't remember who you spoke to at the building department or who you gave numbers to. MR. LANDGREBE: I think it was Mr. Smith. He's the one -- It's like I talked to her, that as you go in, the desk is sitting there. The fellow that you could see right through the window. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, whether or not a permit would have been issued, it still would have been -- Let's say a building permit had not been issued, which is really, you know, here nor there. And let's say they put that trailer out there. Let's say your daughter would have still gone out there and put a trailer. She still would have been -- It would still be illegal storage. You still would have been fined. You still would have served her; correct? Do you follow what my thought is here? MR. HEDRICH: Not exactly. MS. LOUVIERE: I mean, it's not relevant whether or not she came in to get a permit. MS. CRUZ: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: Let's say she was thinking about doing this, putting this trailer out there. Whether or not Collier county had given her a permit or not, it sounds like your daughter was intent on placing this trailer out there. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, what the county had the county -- Well, I feel the county approved daughter. "Dad, the county gave me a permit. okay." And her boyfriend, he didn't care what was 1,500 miles away. MS. LOUVIERE: Mr. Landgrebe -- MR. LANDGREBE: But, of course, maybe that's one of the reasons he's in jail right now. MS. CRUZ: The county gave your daughter a permit to place this mobile home there but with the conditions that inspections be called in and that the CO would be issued. The reason we are involved is because this permit expired, so now this mobile home sits on this property illegally. So we're asking you either to remove the mobile -- to remove the violation or to -- MR. LANDGREBE: Don't you understand -_ MS. CRUZ: -- get a permit to make this violation legal. MR. LANDGREBE: Don't you understand why he didn't. finish it? All he would have had to have done was put a couple of screw anchors in the ground and put a wire around it. MR. HEDRICH: There was a little bit more -_ MR. LANDGREBE: Don't you understand why he didn't? MR. HEDRICH: There was a little bit more involved than that. There are other inspections that were __ MR. LANDGREBE: The permit is to -- The permit is issued. The permit as issued, which I have right here, it says __ right here. It says to make storage shed out of mobile home. That's all it said. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MR. LANDGREBE: It doesn't say anything about taking out all the interior partitions and so on. done was -- it because that's my The county says it's I thought, because I Page 41 June 22, 1995 MR. HEDRICH: That's so noted on the application. MR. LANDGREBE: There's fifteen thousand -- MR. HEDRICH: There was a condition listed on the application and was okayed by -- MR. LANDGREBE: Fifteen thousand dollars' worth of repairs to make that decent. MR. HEDRICH: No, we're not talking about making it decent. It was a condition listed on here in order to convert it from living quarters to storage, that the inside had to be gutted; more specifically, kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom facilities removed. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, you have a copy of that down there. It wasn't out there on the permit. It said convert mobile home to storage shed; that's all it said. It didn't say anything about tearing out the inside. MR. McCORMICK: Was the mobile home red-tagged prior to this application to the building department? MR. HEDRICH: Not to my knowledge. MR. McCORMICK: Do you know, sir, if it was? Was the mobile home placed on the property and then you received a red tag from the county. MR. LANDGREBE: MR. McCORMICK: MR. LANDGREBE: following day. MR. McCORMICK: That's really all -- in my opinion, this building permit just put this off for six months. It just bought you six months, and it's really not applicable whether or not this building permit should have been issued or was issued. The trailer shouldn't have been placed there in the first place. MR. LANDGREBE: I agree. It shouldn't have been placed there in the first place. It was against my orders not to, but still the county said go ahead and park it. And like I say, that made it legal. MR. McCORMICK: They said that you can make the improvements and then it could stay. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, I didn't know anything about MR. McCORMICK: They didn't actually say it could be placed there. MR. LANDGREBE: All I know is -- MR. McCORMICK: Just placed there. MR. LANDGREBE: -- it was parked there without my permission, and I own the land. It was parked without my permission. And then when the county issued a permit to park it, that made it legal, and that was their argument. MS. LOUVIERE: Have you talked to your daughter since and explained to her that she's not to do anything without your MR. LANDGREBE: Well, she knows that, and she wouldn't do it anyway. What could she do? MR. KIRBY: Sir, there isn't anyone living in the trailer, is there. MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, no; it's falling in. I didn't, no. Okay. But I think it was red-tagged the Page 42 June 22, 1995 MR. KIRBY: That's -- I want to bring that point. That's one of the differences from the last case. There was someone living in the trailer and the owner -- MR. LANDGREBE: Well, no. No. They were talking about -- You were talking about prior cases with people -_ MR. KIRBY: Right. MR. LANDGREBE: -- not these people. You weren't referring to these people. You were referring it to prior cases. You said something about landscaping where you proceeded against the tenant for the landscaping rather than the property owner. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Landgrebe, Miss Rawson made a good point earlier. I mean, we can either solve it here today or we can reissue, okay, and bring your daughter into this thing, too. So that's one of our three options, okay. You either remove the trailer, get a permit and bring it in compliance and we go back in and we do and all of a sudden it becomes Julie Landgrebe and John Landgrebe. So MR. LANDGREBE: CHAIRMAN ALLEN: property. MR. LANDGREBE: Yeah, but what did I do? What offense did I commit that I'm charged here with an offense? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Well, the offense occurs on your property, sir, okay, irregardless of who brought it there with or without permission since you're the property owner. The violation does exist on your property and you are the responsible party to remove the violation. MR. LANDGREBE: You mean, if I just go on somebody else's property and do some damage, that the property owner is liable? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's correct. MR. LANDGREBE: Rather than me for doing it? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: There is -- then we -- MR. LANDGREBE: When did that -- Huh? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: It then becomes a civil side. If you do damage to someone else's property, there's a civil court MR. LANDGREBE: Well, I say damage. If I parked a bus or an abandoned vehicle on somebody's property, it's the owner's responsibility. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: The other person -- MR. LANDGREBE: But not mine for the fact that I just drug it over there and dumped it. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Landgrebe, maybe I can clarify. As we discussed in the previous case, both individuals can be responsible. MR. LANDGREBE: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: One for doing it; the other one for owning the land on which it was done. Now, depending on the -- you know, the equities or the facts and the situation, this board has to determine who is in the best position to be charged and to be held What did I do? But you're still the owner of the Page 43 June 22, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: So don't you think, sir, that it would be in your best interest to maintain your property __ MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, it's -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- free and clear? MR. LANDGREBE: -- going to be. Definitely. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. LANDGREBE: If I don't do it, you're going to do it and charge me for it. And you know -- MS. LOUVIERE: And we as -- MR. LANDGREBE: -- that it will be probably tripled. MS. LOUVIERE: I cannot speak for the board but I as I do not want to do that. I would like for you to do it, because you want to keep your property free and clear and that perhaps you could go back and develop a better communication with your daughter. MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, it isn't a matter of communication. It's just that -- MS. LOUVIERE: MR. LANDGREBE: MS. LOUVIERE: MR. LANDGREBE: personalities. MS. LOUVIERE: MR. LANDGREBE: MS. LOUVIERE: understand. MR. LANDGREBE: And I didn't want to, but we didn't have much choice. I bought the property. And when we bought it, I still put an additional $15,000 to have a bulldozer come and clean it all up and haul the mess away, and then it wasn't six months and it was a mess again. MS. LOUVIERE: That's a shame. MR. LANDGREBE: And it wasn't anything that she could do anything about physically. MS. LOUVIERE: Isn't Mr. Valdez no longer in the picture? I understand that he's left. He's gone, right. MR. LANDGREBE: He's temporarily gone. They've lived together for ten years, so it isn't something that they're going to set aside. He's in the can right now. He's in jail. And he's in the county jail. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. MR. LANDGREBE: How long, I don't know. I think he's been in for -- He would have had something done on them. He would have complied if he would have been out of jail. I mean, you can fight things so long and then you just do it, go ahead. And it was like that mobile home. I have violently opposed it and tried to keep it from being parked there, and it was parked there anyway, so then I said go ahead. MR. MANALICH: See, what I don't know, members of the board, is with what in the legal term being apparent authority the daughter may have come to the county. I don't know if she led the county staff to believe that she was acting as the owner's agent or Don't you think. We have seven, and Seven is hard, isn't it? -- everyone has different I have two. It's still my daughter. Yes, sir, it's very difficult. I Page 45 June 22, 1995 responsible for it. MR. LANDGREBE: That's what I think happened. I mean, you charge my daughter or her boyfriend with anything you want to, but I don't think you can get much out of either one of them. Whereas, like I asked Mr. Hedrich, "Mr. Hedrich, there's a copy of the deed to me. She owns -- that there's no liens against the property. There's no mortgage at the bank. You proceeded against me so you can charge up a lot of money and then just charge it against my property." He says, "That's right. That's exactly right." That's what he said yesterday on the phone -- MR. MANALICH: And frankly, there's -- MR. LANDGREBE: -- whether I was at fault or not. MR. MANALICH: I mean, there's nothing unlawful that I can see about what he just described, because under the codes, the owner as well as the offending party can be found to be violators. MR. LANDGREBE: But if the offender doesn't have anything and the owner does, you -- it would be best to proceed against the owner, and that's what this case is. Mr. Hedrich readily admitted that I had done nothing wrong. I didn't permit that mobile home to be parked on my property. But I own the property, so, therefore, the Commission is going to proceed against me. I didn't do anything wrong. I committed no violations of any ordinances. MR. MANALICH: Well, the only violation that you commit is by being the owner, allowirig it to stay there __ MR. LANDGREBE: I-- MR. MANALICH: -- you know, by not doing anything to correct it. That's the only violation you have. MR. LANDGREBE: Okay. MR. MANALICH: But I mean, you know, I think everyone recognizes here from your testimony that you were not the initial party at fault. MR. LANDGREBE: MR. MANALICH: MR. LANDGREBE: MR. MANALICH: MR. LANDGREBE: daughter in it. MS. LOUVIERE: But the important thing to think about, I think, when I hear you talking -- I understand your position -- is that you seem to have a lot of pride in your property. That's what I see, I hear. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, you certainly wouldn't think so by looking at it, would you? MS. LOUVIERE: And, sir, it's in your best interests. You don't have any liens on your property. You don't have any mortgage that you own on your property. It would seem in the best interest -- and I understand your position, I truly do -- to go ahead and just remove it and that way your property is yours. It is unfortunate that your daughter and you do not have the communication that would not -- that would have prevented this, and I feel for you. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, there's other __ I'm not a part of it. Right. It was done -- by your daughter. I bought that property and put my Page 44 June 22, 1995 not. I mean, that's a fact question. But I can see a certain situation where if county officials are presented with what appears to be apparent authority, they might, in fact, issue a permit. Now, that doesn't mean it's not an error but I'm saying, though, that may be part of the circumstances. I don't know. MR. LANDGREBE: When we came down in January, she showed me the permit. And I said, "How did you do that? It's in my name." Well, she said, "I told them. I told them that I was buying the property and that I have the contract at home and that I'd bring it in and show it to them." But she says, "I never did go back. They gave me a permit. They parked the mobile home. That's all there was to it." But I'll tell you, I'll -- the mobile home has to be moved. I just -- I won't stand for it to be anchored down and converted to a storage shed. I'll go to the expense now. I'll, if it's all right with you, I'll do what's the least expensive to myself. There's a fellow that lives there right behind her that said he would tear it down for her. And I guess the metal that's in it and the plumbing, they resell that mostly for -- but I have a little mobile home park in Illinois, and I hired a fellow up there to tear one down once and he gave it up. He says the way they're put together, you can't tear them down. He goes, just to tear it, it -- they're glued together and put together with screws. And he says you can't -- you just can't tear them apart, so he gave up. And I'm sure this one here is probably similar. So it'll take some time. MS. LOUVIERE: How much time do you think you'll need. MR. LANDGREBE: Thirty days or so. But I'll tell her. I'll tell her, and tell her to get this fellow and get him started, and you can send someone out occasionally to see if it's being torn down fast enough or whatever. I mean, it's going to be out of there. I mean, I -- That's all there is to it. I just hate it that it's -- that it's just another thing that I have to pay for. MS. LOUVIERE: Seven kids, huh. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, you have to help your children and we do what we can. MS. LOUVIERE: MR. LANDGREBE: still yours. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: What's staff's recommendation on this? MR. HEDRICH: Whatever means Mr. Landgrebe chooses to have the violation removed, it's fine with us. If he chooses to tear it down and haul away the debris or haul it away all at once, either way is fine with us. MR. LANDGREBE: They can't haul it away all at once. There's no wheels or anything on it. MR. HEDRICH: There's means of putting carriages under them to do it, but -- MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, yeah. MR. HEDRICH: -- what I'm trying MR. LANDGREBE: Well, yes, but I much easier than paying five thousand You're her father. Yeah. That's -- Like I say, they're to express. just -- It would be so or ten thousand dollars, Page 46 June 22, 1995 whatever. MR. HEDRICH: Whichever way you choose to have it removed, that's fine. MR. LANDGREBE: But you can come out periodically and see that it's at least in the process. MR. HEDRICH: That's fine. MS. CRUZ: I think I'm wrong, but I understand that he may need a demolition permit? MR. LANDGREBE: Oh. MS. CRUZ: I believe the fee for that is $42. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: $43.50; yeah. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, how about the refund that you made the mistake on it in the first place then? Would that cover it? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I don't think so. MR. LANDGREBE: You were ordered not to allow a permit and you still accepted the $43 or whatever it was. MS. CRUZ: I'm just trying to protect you from committing -- being in another violation, Mr. Landgrebe. MR. LANDGREBE: I say, don't push me too far or I'll go to civil court. MS. CRUZ: The system requires it. MR. LANDGREBE: No, it doesn't. I issued a lot of permits without having the cash on the table when I was ln the building department. MS. LOUVIERE: Mr. Landgrebe, we have a suggestion. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Landgrebe, we've sort of -- we would like to -- I'd like to table this motion. I understand your duress, all the problems you've received. And maybe speaking as the board, we'd like to do nothing to you today and upon your word give you 30 days to do what you're -- that you're going to take that building down or that trailer park and get rid of it. MR. LANDGREBE: Thank you. I'm going back to Illinois, and I won't be here to personally supervise it, but Mr. Hedrich can see that it's in the process. If it isn't, tell my daughter. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I guess what I'm suggesting is we table this and continue it for 30 days. If we see proper demolition -- and I understand the hardship that you're seeing right now and occurring, but if we can table this and continue it and if you do . what you're supposed MR. LANDGREBE: It is a mental -- It's a mental hardship. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I understand sir, okay? MS. LOUVIERE: We understand. MR. LANDGREBE: Not financially, but it's a mental hardship. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, sir. MR. LANDGREBE: To think that I have to go -- I had to drive 1,500 miles to be here, and it was nothing that I had done. MS. LOUVIERE: We're asking you that -- MR. LANDGREBE: It was that I had permitted, nothing that I allowed. Page 47 June 22, 1995 MS. LOUVIERE: -- you work with us. MR. LANDGREBE: I will. MS. LOUVIERE: We appreciate you working with us. MR. LANDGREBE: All right. Thank you very much. That's why I said thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: What does staff think of that recommendation to continue this for 30 days? MR. ANDREWS: I make a motion that we continue it for 30 days. MS. RAWSON: Seconded. MR. MANALICH: Is this case going to be coming back here in 30 days, or are we simply going to allow staff the discretion to decide whether to bring it back or not? MS. RAWSON: I think we'd leave it up to staff. MR. ANDREWS: Yes. We ought to put that in the motion. MS. LOUVIERE: If it's complied, we don't need to put it on the agenda. MR. ANDREWS: I put that in a motion. MS. CRUZ: Okay. MR. LANDGREBE: Do we have a motion here? MS. LOUVIERE: We're going to give you 30 days to come and get things rolling -- MR. LANDGREBE: I will. MS. LOUVIERE: -- and to try to comply, and then hopefully everything will be resolved and you won't have to come back to see us. MR. LANDGREBE: MS. LOUVIERE: MR. MANALICH: with staff, then I reheard in July. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That's correct. MR. MANALICH: And he wouldn't need to appear. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Correct. So if -- MR. LANDGREBE: I'd rather that you make a ruling now than -- whichever way, one way or the other make a ruling. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: This is the ruling. MR. LANDGREBE: Then I'll plan on something. MS. LOUVIERE: The ruling is that we would like for you to move the trailer, but we're giving you 30 days to do it, and hopefully you'll get it all taken care of, and you will not have to come before the board again. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: What we're trying to do, Mr. Landgrebe, is not -- MR. LANDGREBE: Like I say, I'm sorry MS. LOUVIERE: The only other option is for ahead and start fining you, and we are reluctant point. We would like to give you the time to go this matter. MR. LANDGREBE: Okay. All right. Okay? However, if you do not resolve your case do believe the board will expect this case to be us to go to do that at this ahead and resolve A lot of things have happened here on my Page 48 June 22, 1995 properties because I wasn't here. MS. LOUVIERE: We understand. MR. LANDGREBE: Now things happen ln Illinois on my properties because I'm not there, only because I'm not there. MR. MANALICH: Staff, do we also have his Illinois -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, we do. MR. MANALICH: -- address? MR. LANDGREBE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Then we'll give him the continuance. MS. LOUVIERE: You can do it. You're a smart man. You could do it in 30 days. MR. LANDGREBE: Yes, but I'm getting old. I'm supposed to be playing golf every morning. MS. LOUVIERE: Take care of this, and you can go play golf. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Is that agreeable to staff? MS. CRUZ: Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Yes, ma'am. MS. CRUZ: Because of the notice requirement in the 92-80 that we should allow 14 days prior to the hearing date, is it possible that we can hear this case, if it's still in violation, in August, to allow Mr. Landgrebe 30 days to comply? MS. RAWSON: Why don't you give us a report in the July meeting. MS. CRUZ: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And if it's not -- If it doesn't look like they've even started, then you -- MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, it'll be started. MS. RAWSON: -- have plenty of time to get your notice. MS. CRUZ: Okay. MR. MANALICH: So, if necessary, if it's not resolved, then Mr. Landgrebe would not appear in August, at the August meeting, not July, if it's not resolved. MR. LANDGREBE: If you notify me ln August, then I'll come down. MR. MANALICH: MR. LANDGREBE: anyway -- MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. LANDGREBE: -- before school starts. I'm going to take my granddaughter back with me. MR. ANDREWS: As long as you get this thing started. MR. LANDGREBE: Oh, yes, it will be. MS. LOUVIERE: He's going to take care of it. He gave me his word. MR. ANDREWS: They'll be no problems. MR. LANDGREBE: Well, I'm sorry that I had to be here, but CHAIRMAN ALLEN: It's been nice talking to you. MR. LANDGREBE: It has? Thank you. All right. I have to come down the last of August Page 49 June 22, 1995 MR. MANALICH: Thank you, sir. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So do we need to vote on this since we're going to continue? MS. CRUZ: I don't know. What does counsel say? MR. MANALICH: Yes, just a vote for a continuance under the terms outlined, which basically means if it's not resolved, it would come back in August, a report by staff in July. MS. LOUVIERE: There was a motion and there was a second to that effect. MR. ANDREWS: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: So I guess we can proceed to vote on it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in a favor signify by saying aye. It carries unanimously. (Ms. Rawson was excused at this time.) (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. MANALICH: I do believe the Thibodeau matter -- is that up next? (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. That concludes the public hearing. Let's go to our new business. Item A, board of county Commissioners versus Wayne and Lisa Thibodeau. MS. CRUZ: Board of county Commissioners versus Wayne Thibodeau and it looks like it's Lisa Ann Thibodeau. This case came before this board on January 24th of 1991. The respondents were found in violation of accumulation of litter, illegal and unauthorized accumulation of litter, trash and debris and allowing a legal structure to exist. The board at this time ordered the respondent to comply by February 8, 1991. Reinspections revealed that the violation still exists. There was an affidavit of noncompliance filed bearing the dates of December 3rd, 1994, January 19, February 25, and April 26, 1995. These affidavits state that the violations are still there. Staff recommends or requests this board to issue an order imposing a fine for the amount of $220,250 for noncompliance with the order of the board dated February 11, 1991; and that it is further ordered that a fine of $150 per day continue to accrue until respondent comes into compliance. This amount includes a total of 1,469 days at a rate of $150 per day. MR. MANALICH: Do we know where the respondent is today, what type of notice he was given? MS. CRUZ: He was certified -- he was mailed -- a notice of hearing and notice of violation were mailed certified. Both of these -- MR. MANALICH: Was any returned? MS. CRUZ: They were returned, marked unclaimed. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Mr. Manalich, do we get a recorded lien against this property? MR. MANALICH: No, I don't think so, because if this is -- Is this the first order imposing fine? Page 50 June 22, 1995 MS. CRUZ: Right. MR. MANALICH: If there was no -- The only thing that will create a lien is the order imposing a fine. So if this is the first order we were recording, there would not be a lien. Now, frequently, as you know, the first order, which is the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board, if that was recorded, and I don't know if it was or not, but if that was recorded, then all that does is bind any successors in interest to the property to the order, but that by itself is not a lien. This is the lien. If this is the first one~ then there is no lien until this point. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: That was my question since this started in 1991. MS. CRUZ: This is the second order. MR. MANALICH: There is already one. MS. CRUZ: This will be -- Yes, there was an order imposing fines filed on October 30th, '91. MR. MANALICH: Okay. So then, under that order, that property is already liened. That was dated when? MS. CRUZ: October 30th, '91, in the amount of $6,000. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: If I could ask a question. If this has gone on for five years, can we go ahead and foreclose, go up to the county board and foreclose on the property and sell it? MR. MANALICH: Certainly. As a matter of fact, there is only a certain window of time for a foreclosure which may be -- we may be starting to approach. So if we had an order from way back then, we may want to consider at least foreclosing on that order. MS. LOUVIERE: And what is the amount of that order, the one that we can foreclose on? MR. ANDREWS: Six thousand. MS. LOUVIERE: Six thousand? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. MR. McCORMICK: Just for my benefit, what is the purpose then of this order? MR. MANALICH: It is to create the lien on the property, an updated lien, because she still on a -- still had a lien way back in '91. MR. McCORMICK: To update the lien? MR. MANALICH: Yeah. You know, one of the things that this calls into question is we have, I believe -- Is this is a litter type violation? MS. CRUZ: Yes, it is. MR. MANALICH: Okay. The other alternative, of course, in addition to foreclosure, is the public nuisance provision in the litter ordinance. Now, that's for clean-up and then billing but that's a county expense. Here we can actually go after the property and sell it for, you know, whatever the clean-up would cost, which is probably sure to get the attention of the property owners. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: I think that's -- you know, just as the Chairman, I think we need to proceed in this manner, okay, just to show that our board is doing something. I think from the last meeting that, you know, Ms. Cruz showed evidence. When we took on the Page 51 June 22, 1995 insurance company, they said they'd either take this or nothing; and all of a sudden nothing became doubled of what they offered. So I think we need to go ahead and be as enforceable as we can. Five years is plenty of time to get them to comply. MS. LOUVIERE: I agree. MR. LAFORET: Agreed. MR. McCORMICK: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Therefore, we're going to make a motion that we accept the order imposing fine and lien. And not only that, but that we actually start foreclosure proceedings on this property. MS. CRUZ: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: Seconded. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Manalich? MR. MANALICH: Yes. MS. CRUZ: There's something that I'm in doubt here. Ordinance 92-80, Section 11, Paragraph 3, it says that -- it covers the filing of this lien. It says, "After six months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, the Enforcement board may authorize the county attorney to foreclose on this lien." So my question will be: If we file this lien, would we have to wait six months from today? Wouldn't this extend the foreclosure or proceedings six more months? MR. MANALICH: No. No, the way I read that is that basically what happens is that the order imposing fine is the lien, okay. And it says here that after six months from that order being entered, you have the power to authorize my office to foreclose. Obviously we're way beyond six months as to the original order. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. It's based on the first order, not on this one. MR. MANALICH: Right. MS. LOUVIERE: That's when the clock comes in. MR. MANALICH: Right. Now, I do notice in the paragraph right below that, we have a limitation here: "No liens shall continue for a period longer than five years." And the original lien was, what, October '91? MS. CRUZ: '91. MR. MANALICH: Okay. So we're still within -- we've got about a little over a year window to proceed. So-- MS. LOUVIERE: Although we had -- Okay. Thank you. Although we have that year window, I still believe we should act on it. MR. MANALICH: Oh, right. Yeah, I agree that we need to act promptly. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: At this point in time, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saYlng aye. It passes unanimously. Basically, Items B, C and D, they'll be continued to our August meeting, BCC versus Deauville Lake and the Barons. We have no old business and reports. Our first discussion of Ronnie Parks property is to be continued to the July 28th meeting. And we have a discussion about the county attorney to represent code enforcement Page 52 June 22, 1995 staff instead of Code Enforcement board. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could take the lead on this item. For some time now we've knocked around the possibilities and alternatives of what should be the role of the county attorney's office in relation to this board and staff. I can tell you that we've done a survey of 10 to 15 Florida counties, and basically it was not really of help insofar as there is a widespread -- you know, all the different approaches are being done by the counties. Some counties -- and there's basically two alternatives. Our ordinance makes it very clear, and it only makes sense, that the county attorney's office cannot represent the board and staff at the same time on the same case. I mean, obviously we cannot advise the judge and advise the prosecutor at the same time. So the question becomes what is the most effective and cost-efficient manner of organizing ourselves. Traditionally in this county and in many other counties, the county attorney's office has represented the board. And basically then what's involved with that is that we appear here with you at the meeting. We prepare the necessary orders. And that's -- and then we do the -- We have done the appeals in cases. You know, the Cabada case comes to mind. That was that house case. MS. LOUVIERE: The Reyna case this morning. MR. MANALICH: That's correct; yeah, as well as others. And in Contractor Licensing we've had the same role. Now, what has happened, of course, is that over time as the county has grown, some of these proceedings have become more litigious. You know, we have had more parties represented by counsel. And the question becomes, as far as dealing with the legal questions which often have to be addressed at these hearings, is it best for us to be advising the prosecutor on an ongoing basis; that is, from the very moment they are investigating and preparing a case to the time we have the charges prepared and the time it's presented to you and do any appeals. Is that the best use of our offices' personnel and time and resources or to come here and advise you at the meetings. In talking with Miss Cruz and also with Mr. Bolgard, we think, and I think united, that probably the most cost-effective organizational format would be for us to advise staff, because I, frankly, think there may be more time involved in that, including the appeals and the presentation of the cases, than in simpiy going out on a competitive selection to obtain one or more firms of lawyer firms that would come in and have the limited role of advising you during the meeting and then preparing the orders. MS. LOUVIERE: I was aware of something like this coming up. So basically what you're saying, you cannot represent staff and the board. And because you are so familiar with the Land Development Code and the ordinances, you deal with it every day, it would be a lot more efficient for you, per se, to represent staff, and that then in this case, Collier county would have to go outside and obtain the services of an attorney -- MR. MANALICH: Right. Also-- MS. LOUVIERE: -- to advise us. MR. MANALICH: And often you get into potential conflict Page 53 June 22, 1995 situations sometimes -- MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. MR. MANALICH: -- in the sense that we have -- you know, we try to keep a very clear wall of separation, but sometimes, you know, we may have discussions with staff about a matter that we aren't even sure if it's going to come to the board or not. And typically what we tell them at that point is, Well, since we don't know if it's going to come to the board or not, we'll only tell you -- we won't advise you. We'll only tell you if the board asks us this question on this legal point, here's what we would tell the Board. And, you know, it gets a little cumbersome sometimes. It's probably easier to have just outside counsel come in and do the meeting with you and the orders, and then we're free to discuss the preparations of the cases with staff without any hesitation. Also, it would seem to me it would be cheaper to obtain outside counsel for the limited role of just appearance at the hearing and for preparation of the order. If you tried to get counsel for the staff, then whenever it's needed, they would be calling, and I don't know how you'd quantify that for the purposes of the people bidding on the work. And if you -- For instance, if you went to a per-hour rate, we don't know how many hours that would involve. If it was a very involved case -- MS. LOUVIERE: MR. ANDREWS: MS. LOUVIERE: we've had -- MR. ANDREWS: Yeah, we did that when Brenda was representing the county for the staff. And then when we had these cases, we had an outsider. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. Traditionally, we have always on both the Contractor and Code Enforcement Boards, our traditional role has always been to represent the board. However, as Mr. Andrews pointed out, when they have been particularly involved in difficult cases, we have often said, you know, made it clear ahead of time we are not going to represent the board on this; we are going to advise Staff. I think the Cabada case, or Swetland as it was known, you know, the house that had a lot of problems, that was the classic example of that. And that hearing went on for, like, four sessions. It generated an appeal. And, you know, our office, I think, advised staff completely on that one. MR. LAFORET: Then who would advise us? MS. LOUVIERE: It would go out to bid and then they would accept the lowest bidder, first day. MR. MANALICH: Right. Now, on that portion of it, we had a meeting yesterday with Mr. Bolgard, Miss Cruz, my office, and Mr. Carnell from the purchasing department if we were to go in that direction. The county has recently passed a new threshold for the bid process -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: -- which is from 6,500 to, I believe, 15,000. The question then would become -- the purchasing analysis Has this been done in the past? Yes. I had heard about it, but in the past Page 54 June 22, 1995 would be, well, do we do a full-out -- it would be -- what they're known as is a request for a proposal. MS. LOUVIERE: An RFP. MR. MANALICH: Right, an RFP. The advantage of an RFP as opposed to a bid is that you look at not only the actual figure but also the qualifications and experience. Because, for example, we would not necessarily -- even though we want to save as much money as we can, we would not necessarily want to give you someone that has a low ball bid because they're just out of law school. On important matters they might be advised on. Now, with an RFP, we look at not only the figure, but we look at the qualifications and the experience, and we factor all of it together in making a decision on who is selected. Now, the question -- the reason I mentioned that $15,000 threshold -- MS. LOUVIERE: Mm-hm. MR. MANALICH: -- is we were sitting with staff yesterday and with purchasing, trying to determine how much we might spend on this if, in fact, we obtained counsel for the board. And we'd also do the same thing, by the way, with the Contractor Licensing board. And it seemed like we were going to be pretty near that 15,000 for both boards together. And the question becomes then, and, you know, I think we've been talking about we're not at a firm conclusion yet, but the question becomes do you do it on a full RFP process that's a longer time -- more time consuming process? There's more competition. It's more time consuming, more formal. Or do you do some type of -- if it's under the 15,000, you can do what's known as quotations; that is, you call, for example, five, six, seven firms and then ask them what their qualifications are and what they would charge for the service, and then you pick among them. We haven't gotten to making a final decision on that selection method, because today we first wanted to bring for discussion to you what you thought as far as was a change advisable or not. MR. LAFORET: Can't the county assign another assistant attorney? MS. LOUVIERE: It would still be the county. MR. MANALICH: Unfortunately not, because what happens under the ethical rules is that once one attorney in your firm is representing one side, it is a conflict for the rest of' the firm to represent another side. MS. LOUVIERE: I had heard about -- or I had thought about something like this coming up. I don't see a problem with -- I think what you're recommending is wise and prudent, to go ahead and represent staff and that because that would be most cost-efficient and have the Code Enforcement board be represented by an outside attorney. And although that's all we are discussing today, we're not discussing the bid process? MR. MANALICH: No. MS. LOUVIERE: In the long run when we do get to the bid process, I would rather, even though it's more time consuming, get requests for proposals so that we can actually get a nice qualified firm representing the board. Page 55 June 22, 1995 MR. MANALICH: I guess at this point I'd like to just hear is there any comment from staff on this entire discussion? I know -- You know, I think I quoted correctly Mr. Bolgard and his position. I think if I would venture to say I believe his comments to me were that you're starting to see in many of these cases complicated legal issues that are sometimes raised either as a defense by the other side or which are inherent in the preparation of the charge; for example, some of these landlord/tenant issues we saw, et cetera. And I believe Mr. Bolgard would like to have our assistance in that regard. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. And I agree Mr. Bolgard's decision, because sometimes we that we -- you know, we're not an attorney. trap sometimes and I think -- MR. MANALICH: An example -- Another example, perhaps the best example I can come up with for you, is the First Assembly of God case. I don't know if any of you remember that. That is one of the -- there's only -- To my knowledge, there's only two Collier county cases that I'm aware of that have ever gone to the United States Supreme Court. That was one of them, because it was a First Amendment issue, I believe, on religious freedom. And that's the kind of situation that Staff -- You know, if you have learned counsel on the other side, that's very tough for staff to handle with all the legal issues mixed in. MR. LAFORET: Do you feel that there are private practice attorneys as familiar with the county code as your office? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think so. I mean, I don't think that my office is any better than, frankly, you know, some of the -- a lot of the good firms out there. And, in fact, by experience, we know that we've been able to bring in firms that have done a good job for the board when they've come in. MR. LAFORET: Who will represent us when we are sued, the board, as we were in the Elbee (phonetic) case? MR. MANALICH: Hopefully the advice is good enough that we never get to that point. with come across some cases We feel like we're in a MR. REYNA: LAFORET: Well, Elbee. MR. MANALICH: Sure. MR. LAFORET: Elbee. We are all the board as named ln the Elbee case. MR. MANALICH: In which case? MR. LAFORET: Elbee. MS. LOUVIERE: Elba Development. MS. LAFORET: Elba. MS. LOUVIERE: Elba Development. MR. LAFORET: Yep. MR. ANDREWS: Gee, everybody is in that one. MS. LOUVIERE: The Board. He's named the Board. MR. ANDREWS: We can get correspondence all the time. MR. MANALICH: Well, all right. But I mean, even in -- Well, he's appealing the board's decision. But to my knowledge, he is Page 56 , . June 22, 1995 not -- there's not been any lawsuit brought against the members of the board. MR. LAFORET: One of your copies says so. We are listed along with the department, the Building Department at that time. We are listed, the board. MR. MANALICH: Well, I'll check that document. You know, we'll -- MR. LAFORET: Because after all, you have been sending even the board copies. MR. MANALICH: Well, that's really to keep you apprised of the developments. MR. LAFORET: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: But I mean -- MR. LAFORET: Or lack thereof. MR. MANALICH: What's that? Yeah, or lack thereof, either way you want to look -- Well, as I've explained, basically, it's in the appeal process and you know what the latest discussions were. But to my knowledge, in my recollection, there is no litigation that has been instituted by anyone representing Elba against this board. They are simply appealing your orders on that case. But getting back to your question, I guess, is the question: Who would represent the board in the event of a lawsuit against the board? MR. ANDREWS: One of these attorneys. MR. MANALICH: I hadn't considered that, frankly. I mean, that's a good question. MR. LAFORET: We want you. MR. MANALICH: Well, thank you. MR. LAFORET: Let the county go out and get somebody for that. MR. ANDREWS: I don't think we can, because MS. LOUVIERE: Well, I think -- MR. ANDREWS: -- it is an outsider. MS. LOUVIERE: This is a discussion. We're going to need to find outside services, outside counsel services. And the discussion is: do we want that outside counsel service to be used to service staff or to be used to service the board? MR. MANALICH: That's the basic question, right? MS. LOUVIERE: That's the question. So it's up to. us today to vote on that. I mean, pretty much Ramiro is suggesting that we contract outside services because of the conflict of interest that's existing -- MR. MANALICH: MS. LOUVIERE: interest. MR. MANALICH: And more importantly, that I think and in talking with Mr. Bolgard, he thinks that our services could be better utilized, and more cost-effectively, by advising staff and helping them present the case as opposed to, you know, sitting here in our role as advisor to you. And I think that's -- So I think that's the joint recommendation of staff and county Attorney, that if we are to -- that we should be advising staff and we go through a competitive The potential for it, right. -- the potential for conflict of Page 57 ~, June 22, 1995 selection for the board's attorney. Now, I would want to check with my boss on your question, Mr. Laforet, about if lawsuits are brought against the board itself, who would step in at that point. MR. LAFORET: And I question the reference to cost-effective. In my impression of cost-effective: get as cheap as you can. MR. ANDREWS: You get what you pay for. That's the problem. MR. LAFORET: Well, I think what he means is think it should be cost-effective. It should be, of the board, I want the best advice I can get on ask the attorney available to us. MS. LOUVIERE: I think what Ramiro meant by cost-effective is that the board -- I'm sorry, staff is going to be working on these issues that are going to come before us, like all the time, and so they're going to be calling him on it all the time where the board only meets once a month and that's the only time we would really use counsel, per se, unless we had a question. We wouldn't be on the phone all the time. That's what he meant by cost-effective. MR. LAFORET: I know what he meant, but I'm using the literal term. Now, there's another thing. If you want to be cost-effective, why did these cases last five years before they come to us? Cost-effective in my office means get the job, get it done, and finish it, not drag it out. So I would think that the building department and all of their divisions would be most cost-effective if they would bring cases to the board more quickly. That would compensate for an attorney for us. We have no funding for an attorney. MR. ANDREWS: I have a question for Ramiro. I can remember when we had two outside attorneys, and one of them was Tony Pires and the other one was Bruce Anderson, which are very well apprised of what's going on down here. How were they chosen? They just popped up one day, and they had helped us out on it. MR. MANALICH: My understanding is I think Mr. Corrup (phonetic) went through quotes and got them, because they were needed on a quick basis. So the amount was less than the subcompetitive selection threshold, which you're entitled to do quotesj and I think Mr. Corrup had simply asked for quotes if they were available. MR. ANDREWS: That worked out very well. It worked out very well with it. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Can the board be involved in the selection process when wherein our entities right here lS reviewing the counsel that's going to be representing us? MS. LOUVIERE: I think in the past, usually on an RFP case, you can go ahead and make a -- and correct me if I'm but they could put in for proposals and then they could -- sure list three firms and then they can make presentations board and that way the board can decide who they choose to represented by. MR. MANALICH: I don't as far as a member legal matters when I wrong -- you could to the be I would want to talk with Mr. Carnell's Page 58 .- .. ~, ,. June 22, 1995 department, who is the one that independently is responsible MS. LOUVIERE: You could ask Purchasing. MR. MANALICH: Right. But my understanding is typically there's a selection committee. When you have an RFP, after the responses come back, there's a selection committee. And then beyond that, I don't know what procedures. I'd have to check. MR. McCORMICK: Would it be appropriate to have the chairman of our board on that selection committee? MR. MANALICH: Possibly. Those are details, I mean, I'll have to look into. MR. LAFORET: If we're concerned with cost-effectiveness -- and I'm going back to the Elba case because I just have an interest in it, it developed in that case that we were charging the board was agreeing to penalties, daily penalties, of $600 a day, something like that. And it turned out that although the State has set that figure of $600 a day, the county never adopted it. Now, if you want to be cost-effective, why not -- and I know the answer to the question. I'm just putting it out, because I know I'm going to get an indefinite answer -- why not accept the State's standards so instead of assessing in the very, very serious cases $150 a day or $200 a day, we would be at liberty to assess $600 a day up to. That would bring a lot more money in which have made our funds more cost-effective. MR. MANALICH: Right. I recall that item. That was when we were at the Embassy Woods Clubhouse, and I had corrected an error that had been made as to what the amount of the fine could be; 250 versus 500. I think you're correct that there are some amendments that need to be made to our ordinance. On that point, looking at that statute, it mentioned that a fine could not exceed 250 for a first -- per day for a first violation, not to exceed 500 per day for a repeat violation. And I think the error that had been made, which I corrected, was that we had imposed 500, but it was not a repeat violation. It was simply an ongoing violation. That's why that was changed and corrected. But then you still have a valid point when you say that we need to continually amend the ordinance to make sure that as changes occur, you know, we're current. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: So basically, are we going to vote today? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes, we need to. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Do we have a motion? MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: No, we've got to have a motion first. MS. LOUVIERE: No, do we have a motion. MR. ANDREWS: Oh, excuse me. MS. LOUVIERE: You're looking for us to come up with a motion to authorize you to start looking at the possibility of outside counsel to represent the Code Compliance board. MR. MANALICH: I think now -- MS. LOUVIERE: Then come back? MR. MANALICH: -- Miss Cruz may want to elaborate on Page 59 .. J I ... June 22, 1995 this. I know Mr. Bolgard -- and I don't want to misquote him -- but I was under the impression Mr. Bolgard had thought that if you approved it, that we could obtain counsel through some type of quotations, you know, five or seven quotes as being a more -- a quicker method of getting this on the road. However, the comments I've heard indicate that you may want to go with a more formal RFP process. Now, that is a process that will eventually, if we go through that formal process, it would eventually go before the board of county Commissioners for ultimate selection. The quotes. It's done on an administrative basis. MR. McCORMICK: And I would also support the RFP. Another thing to think about is through an RFP process, you would -- the respondees would be required to identify exactly which attorneys in their firm would be here and what percentage of their work maybe would be involved in hearing us, who would be their first alternative, their second. As far as a bid process, you may select a firm, a well-qualified firm, but you might not have any control over the actual attorney that comes here. MR. MANALICH: I thought -- when we met with Mr. Karnell yesterday, I thought he mentioned that even as part of the quotations process we could insist on the firm specifying who would be the attorney assigned. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Can we stipulate that we're taking the best of both things, the bid process and specifying who counsel should be and alternate at least? MS. LOUVIERE: I know that we keep talking about cost-effectiveness and the time factor, and I understand your concerns in having to represent both the board and staff. But from the board's standpoint, and I keep hearing a lot from my fellow board members, there seems to be a lot of concern as to the actual qualifications of the person that will be representing us. And although it may be quicker and it may -- a nicer, faster way of doing it is just to go through the low bid process, I would really like to see the qualifications of the firm that's going to be representing us. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Agreed. MR. ANDREWS: Agreed. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I think at this point we'll need to have you vote on it. But I think what I'm hearing is that you are receptive to the idea of having counsel be obtained to represent you at the meetings and in the preparation of the orders and for the county attorney's office to advise staff but that you would like an RFP process to be undertaken for purposes of -- MS. LOUVIERE: The selection. MR. MANALICH: -- accomplishing that selection. MS. LOUVIERE: Is it possible for you to put those words into a motion? I mean, from -- I would have to actually state that. I make a motion that we go ahead and proceed with obtaining outside counsel for the Code Compliance board but that when it does get to the selection process, that it be obtained through the request for proposal system and not through the lowest bidder system. Page 60 .. 'I ~ ... June 22, 1995 MR. McCORMICK: Seconded. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: All those in signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Any other comments? Our next meeting date will be July 28. Any other comments by staff? Board members? MR. MANALICH: One other clarification which is, I believe, for next month's meeting: We will need to obtain counsel to represent you just for that meeting, probably just on a quotation basis, because this case, J's Marina, that's coming before the board is one on which staff has consulted with my office on the prosecution of the case. So I am expecting that for that meeting you will have outside counsel through quotations obtained just for that meeting. That's separate from the long term. MS. LOUVIERE: This other issue. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: That's fine. Do you need a motion to that? MR. MANALICH: No. MS. LOUVIERE: No. That's fine. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Any other business? Comments? MS. CRUZ: There's a correction on the next meeting date. It should be July 27 instead of July 28. CHAIRMAN ALLEN: Okay. Well, we can adjourn. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:54 a.m. ~~ BOARD JIM ALLEN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Sharon A. Sullivan Page 61