The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 03/28/1996 1996 Code Enforcement Board March 28, 1996 March 28, 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ) Naples, Florida, March 28, 1996 Met on this date at 8:37 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Jean Rawson Jim Allen Charles Andrew Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Asst. County Attorney David Hedrich, Code Compliance Investigator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA l1G.E.N12l1 Date: March 28, 1996 at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1 . ROLL CALL 2 . APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 22, 1996 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Joseph M. Hovland, Trust No. 1 - CEB No. 96-009 5. NEW BUSINESS N/A 6. OLD BUSINESS A. BCC vs. B. BCC vs. C. BCC vs. D. BCC vs. REPORTS Jean Claude Martel Jean Claude Martel Jean Claude Martel Charles and Joan Hicks CEB No. 96-005 CEB No. 96-006 CEB No. 96-007 - CEB 95-007 7. N/A 8 . NEXT MEETING DATE April 25, 1996 9 . ADJOURN March 28, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Code Enforcement Board of Collier County come to order. Let's have the roll call starting to my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Approval of the agenda for today, March 28th. Are there any changes to the agenda? MR. HEDRICH: We have no changes. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can I have a motion to approve? MR. ALLEN: You have a motion. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Motion and second to approve the agenda of March 28th. All in favor? It passes. Let's have approval of the minutes of February 22nd. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion we approve the minutes of February 22nd. MR. ALLEN: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that the minutes of February 22nd be approved. All in favor? It passes unanimously. Next item is public hearings, Board of County Commission versus Joseph M. Holland (sic), Trust No.1, number 4 on your agenda. Staff have a presentation of a case for us? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, I do, and bear with me as I try and get this out. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you want to enter into evidence the agenda packet that we've been given? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can I have a motion to do so? MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we take into evidence the package provided to us. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that we introduce the agenda packet under this particular case as evidence in this case. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. The court reporter will need a copy of the agenda packet which will be our exhibit in this case. MR. MANALICH: That just for clarification, Madam Chairman, I believe, is -- consists of 23 pages; is that correct, Mr. Hedrich? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, 23 pages, CEB case number 96-009. MR. MANALICH: Plus a table of contents, one page. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Has the respondent been duly notified to be present today? MR. KIRBY: My name's Mike Kirby. I'm the environmental compliance investigator for code enforcement. Yes, he received his due notice, and I've been in contact with him regularly. I drive by and see him. I drove by this morning and told his employees he hadn't been in yet, that we would be here today. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Kirby, when you mention the due notice, is that Page 2 March 28, 1996 in the way of certified mail? MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And did you receive back the green card with the certified mail? Is that a part of our packet? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, I see it. MS. LOUVIERE: Page 11. MR. HEDRICH: It's page 11. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Joseph M. Holland (sic) in the commission chambers? MS. DEIFIK: Hovland. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Hovland, I'm sorry. Is he present in the chambers today? MR. KIRBY: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Mr. Kirby, you can go ahead. MR. KIRBY: All right. This was a neighborly dispute really. What happened was there were two tracts of land, Metro Park and The Dry Dock. And Metro Park had complained to The Dry Dock that their trees were falling over, and they couldn't get their trees back and forth. So we wrote a letter and asked them to trim them, and Mr. Hovland did not trim them, so they cut the trees in half. They cut 25-foot live oaks down to 5 feet tall. So I cited -- code enforcement cited Metro Park West for the removal of those trees and required them to donate eight -- or seven trees to The Dry Dock for what they did, and they did that. They came through. They did that, but then they complained that The Dry Dock's landscaping was not up to code. So upon inspection I found out they were right. He had -- his original plan required oodles of trees, fifty-three, fifty -- fifty-four. I don't have the exact number. Then when I approached Bruce, he said there was another plan out there because that couldn't be right. So we couldn't find another plan in the county records, and he could not produce another plan. So he says -- we -- we had Mr. Hovland either revise the plan or plant it according to this original plan. And Mr. Hovland attempted to send in another revised plan after the notices were sent out. If you'd like, I have copies of these. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you like to move this copy of Mr. Hovland's plan into evidence? Did Mr. Hovland give this to you? MR. KIRBY: Yes, it was faxed to us. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then it would be the respondent's exhibit. MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion we accept the respondent's exhibit into -- as an exhibit in this case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MS. DEIFIK: I object. Why are we -- why are we doing the respondent's case? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think that if we're going to look at his exhibit, that we probably need to make it an exhibit of of this case. Otherwise we probably shouldn't be looking at it. MS. DEIFIK: What -- what is the point for which you are giving this to us? MR. KIRBY: He made an attempt, but it wasn't enough. There are no calculations. That's not an appropriate landscape plan for our file. I cannot perform an inspection to that plan. You know, say he gets a reduction in his required landscaping, I needed to show you that what he's done so far is not appropriate. He needs to go a little bit Page 3 March 28, 1996 farther. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. What you're trying to say here -- or what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is that this -- if he wants to change the SDP requirements of 89-111, landscape requirements for this SDP, he needs to come in with a different landscape plan that was prepared by a landscape architect developed per our Land Development Code as it states in our Land Development Code. He cannot just arbitrarily submit this and say here it is. MR. KIRBY: That's correct. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Kirby, I have a question. What happened to the additional 47 trees missing from the site? MR. KIRBY: That's one of his points of contention. He claims that they were never put in. And I spoke to the investigator. On our records we found out that one of our investigators, Fred Reischl, performed the inspection, and we asked him were all these trees there, and he did not remember. His -- his statement was if that's the plan that's in the file and I signed off on it, then those trees should have been there. There is no other plan for me to inspect with, and I would not have signed off if the trees were not there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me do this just as a point of order. There was a motion to introduce this as an exhibit for the respondent, and then there was kind of an objection to that motion, but there was no second. If there's no second then, you know, the motion would die, and we won't -- we won't use this as an exhibit. MR. KIRBY: I don't think it would make -- it's -- it's for your information. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. KIRBY: Okay. We're at the point now where Mr. Hovland needs something to keep him moving on the case. It's an old case, and we have not MS. LOUVIERE: January 10, 1995, is when all this seemed to have started? MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Kirby, can I ask you, when was the original SDP approved, and when did it get a c.o. with Mr. Reischl inspecting? MS. LOUVIERE: The SDP was approved in 1989. Usually SDPs, when you bring them in, they give you a year to bring them in. So I am assuming since this was SDP 89-111, that's when he submitted. It may not have been approved during that year, but that's when he submitted it. MR. KIRBY: Let me the building permit for me when it was C. O.'d. Reischl. MR. MANALICH: While you're looking Kirby, do you have an extra copy for the staff composite exhibit? No, I mean the MR. HEDRICH: No. The only copy I I can provide that after -- MR. MANALICH: I believe maybe the clerk already we'll clarify that. MR. KIRBY: Mr. McCormick, I did not make that a exhibit. check. I don't remember if I made a copy of the building a part of this. That would tell That's why I got the information from Mr. there, Mr. Hedrich and Mr. clerk of the exhibit, of your full 23 pages. have right now is in the book. has one also, so part of this Page 4 March 28, 1996 MR. McCORMICK: Okay. I'll ask you another question. Looking at these pictures, is there physically room along the buffers to plant these 40 trees? MR. KIRBY: That's a good point. That's why I, as the landscape environmental compliance investigator, recommended that he submit a new plan, because there were many, many trees going to be put around the perimeter of this place. And what I think happened was it was originally proposed to be paved, and they did not pave it. So because there isn't that much paving, I believe he can get his reduction in his number of trees. So there's a calculation in the landscape code for paved area, so that is appropriate. And also on the eastern side there isn't a lot of space to put -- to put these trees, because there are trees along -- which Waste Management owns to the east of his parcel, and they have trees over there, and they're shading his eastern side. So it's the proper thing to do to actually ask for the reduction, and we were not opposed to it. I've spoken to Nancy Simmi (phonetic), the landscape architect. We're just -- we need to force Mr. Hovland to follow through with it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Staff have a recommendation? MR. LAFORET: My name is Laforet. Sir, on pages 17 and 18 of your exhibit appears to be a plan for planting, original plan. MR. KIRBY: Yes, that is the original landscape plan. MR. LAFORET: And if that was in existence at the time the architect's permit was -- was provided, what happened to it? And if it wasn't in existence, why was he given an occupancy certificate? MR. KIRBY: Right. Our contention is that these trees were there, and they may have died or they may not have been cared for, and they were subsequently taken out. But because of the shade on the eastern side and just the numbers of them and the fact that they did not pave the interior -- they put rocks down -- we're in agreement with Mr. Hovland, just submit a new plan and get a reduction to solve the problem. By the way, even if he got a reduction, he still does not have enough trees there and in the right locations to meet the minimum code at '89, which is not as strict as today's codes. MR. LAFORET: Okay. Thank you. MR. KIRBY: And to answer your question, Miss Rawson, we would like to find Mr. Hovland in violation of the sections we cited. MS. LOUVIERE: How much do you recommend we fine him? MR. HEDRICH: Can we have one second? MS. LOUVIERE: Sure. MR. ANDREWS: A dollar a tree. MR. HEDRICH: Staff would like to recommend that Mr. Hovland be given 30 days to begin compli -- or come into compliance, and at that time if compliance is not met, fines begin of a hundred dollars a day. MR. ANDREWS: That's about a dollar a day. MR. HEDRICH: Excuse me? MR. ANDREWS: That's about a dollar a day per tree, close. MR. HEDRICH: How many trees are we talking about? MR. ANDREWS: Nice try. MR. KIRBY: I don't know. I don't know how many are required. MR. HEDRICH: Well, there's no real determination on exactly how many trees are going to be involved, so that would be hard to say a dollar a day per tree. MR. McCORMICK: And when you say come into compliance in 30 days, Page 5 March 28, 1996 do you mean he has -- he has these 73 trees planted according to this code, or he has another landscape plan approved by the county? MR. KIRBY: Approved and planted according to the new plan. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, I really -- I'd like to stay away from discussing that -- that he has -- you know, that he has to come in with a new landscape plan and all that, because that's not really what we're here to listen to. He is in violation of SDP No. 89-111. Whatever methods he chooses to get out of this violation, that's not really up for us to discuss. Because what I see here, he's going to go and get a substantial change to this SDP and then come in -- let's stay away from that. Let's talk about the fact that he's in violation, and let's just go on with it. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MR. McCORMICK: That's how he would get violation is if he gets another approved SDP, he would no longer be in violation. MS. LOUVIERE: Right. Yeah, okay. MR. McCORMICK: But if he has a substantial change to the SDP approved, then he has two years to plant that, doesn't he, by code? So we need to include something in our order that the plantings MR. KIRBY: I'm not familiar -- see, there's six months or two years. I'm not -- I'm unsure how that works once you get -- you're in substantial change, what time frame you have to complete your -- MS. LOUVIERE: Your SDP. MR. KIRBY: Yeah. MR. McCORMICK: I think we'd have to include that in our order, or else it would be two years possibly. I don't know. MR. KIRBY: Sticking with the original amended compliance plan according to plan -- according to an approved plan would solve that. Then if he came in and got his plan on his own, it would be an approved plan and planted within 30 days. So I think we could solve both problems by simply keeping it -- the language, plant your landscaping according to your approved plan within 30 days. MS. LOUVIERE: So then what you're doing is you're telling the client -- or not the client, I'm sorry. You're telling Mr. Hovland to plant according to the -- to this plan, and you give him no option to go ahead and come in and ask for reductions or anything? MR. KIRBY: No, no. What I meant is plant according to the approved plan. If he gets another plan approved, that shall be the approved plan. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. And planted within -- MR. KIRBY: And planted also within the 30 days. MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah, that's a good idea. I see where -- where Rick was going with that. MR. McCORMICK: That's good. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do we have a motion? MS. LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we find Mr. Hovland in violation of SDP No. 89-11, more specific, Section 2.437 of the Land Development Code 91-102. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: formalized -- MS. LOUVIERE: recommendations as violation of these dollars per day if If we can put that motion in a more Do you want me to come in and start and to finding? I make a motion we find him sections and that we commence fining him he does not plant within 30 days with make in a hundred of the Page 6 March 28, 1996 approved landscape plan. So, in other words, he must complete -- he must plant according to a landscape -- to his approved landscape plan, and he must complete the plantings, or he must commence -- not complete, but just commence planting within 30 days. And if he chooses not to do so, he will be fined $100 per day commencing from the end of the 30 days; is that correct? MS. DEIFIK: Well, I don't understand commence. I mean, if I dig a hole and put one tree next to the hole, I've commenced. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Let's change that to he has to have completed. MR. KIRBY: Thank you. MR. McCORMICK: I second that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. MR. MANALICH: Excuse me, Mrs. Chairman, for the purposes of the record and clarity of the order, I was going to suggest maybe if we could use our order format and then follow that through, then we'll have exactly what the board has adopted. Do you have a sample order CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Look at Martel. MR. MANALICH: -- before you? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We do. MR. MANALICH: The Martel case CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Under the next case under old business. MS. DEIFIK: Here's a blank. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: While we're doing that, just one observation before we proceed any further is looking at the deed that was included in this packet -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh-huh. MR. MANALICH: -- and if I can locate that here under the deed, which appears at page 19, the conveyance was made to Joseph M. Hovland as trustee under the Joseph M. Hovland Land Trust No.1. I'm not a real property expert, but I'm comparing that to our respondent title. And I'm questioning whether we should have as respondent the party listed in the deed as the owner. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It would be my opinion that we need to do that. Mr. Joseph M. Hovland is the same as Mr. Joseph M. Hovland as trustee under the Joseph M. Hovland Trust No.1. I think that's been established, but I think when we -- MS. DEIFIK: Who is CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- do our order, we need to do it the same as the deed. MS. DEIFIK: Who is Joseph M. Hovland, Jr., because our notice of hearing is to Joseph M. Hovland, Jr., and Joseph M. Hovland Trust No. 1? Do we have any knowledge as to whether they're one and the same? MR. KIRBY: Joseph M. Hovland, Jr., is Bruce Hovland's father. So we sent the notices or the notice to the Joseph M. Hovland, Jr., on the deed, but the father gave the notices to Bruce to handle. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The warranty deed says that the grantor gave it to Joseph M. Hovland as trustee under the Joseph M. Hovland Land Trust No.1 dated February 15, 1990. There's no junior by his name. So I think that that's probably the correct title holder of this plat of land. Page 7 March 28, 1996 MR. MANALICH: That's what it appeared to me in order to be able to pursue the owner as -- as they themselves have titled it. MR. KIRBY: I'm looking back at the notice that I -- that we sent, and it's Joseph M. Hovland, Trustee, Hovland Trust No.1, so we -- I believe we made it exactly as the deed pointed out. Am I mistaken? MS. DEIFIK: No. I think you're covered because on your notice of hearing you said both. You said Joseph M. Hovland, Jr., and you said Joseph M. Hovland Trust No.1. I'm just concerned because I've personally been caught up in that. I have father, son, and grandson all having the same name and, you know, getting notices for each other sometimes. MR. MANALICH: Ms. Deifik, would you be in favor of having the respondent listed as it appears on the deed? MS. DEIFIK: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Perhaps -- I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think we were about to proceed to the order, and we've already addressed the substance of it. Perhaps then if -- with that, as part of the motion then we can change the respondent to clarify as stated in the deed. And then if, Ms. Louviere, if you can proceed through the sample order -- MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you very much. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. as best you can simply -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. This is findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on March 28, 1996. And the board, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon, issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the board as follows: That Joseph M. Hovland as trustee under the Joseph F. -- M. Hovland Trust No. 1 is the owner of record of the subject property, that the Code Enforcement Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent, and that Joseph M. Hovland as trustee under the Joseph M. Hovland Trust No. 1 was not present at the public hearing. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 92-80 have been properly issued, that the real property legally described as -- MR. MANALICH: On that one if you want -- for brevity if you want to simply authorize me to put in the correct legal description as indicated in the deed -- MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. I do authorize you as the board to place in the correct legal description found in the deed. is in violation of Sections 2.437 of Ordinance No. 91-102, which is the Collier County Land Development Code in the following particulars: He has failed to keep -- upkeep and maintain required landscape as per site development plan No. 89-111. Would you like for me to stop here so then we can proceed with conclusion of law? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: back to the order. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Joseph M. Hovland Trust No. Sections 2.437 of Ordinance Code. Do you want to proceed with the order? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that -- these You can go into the conclusions, then get that Joseph M. as trustee under the 1 -- I'm sorry -- is in violation of 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Page 8 March 28, 1996 findings of facts and conclusions of law. Do I have a second? MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. Then the con -- the order of the board would be -- MS. LOUVIERE: 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 that the respondent correct the violation of sections please bear with me. I lost the section -- of Sections 2.437 of Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, in the following manner: That he complete installment of an approved landscape plan within 30 days from today's date, and if respondent does not comply with this order on or before that date, then and in that event, respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $100 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues past said date. And the violations -- the fine will commence within 30 days from today's date if he has not completed planting of the landscape -- of the approved landscape plan. Failure to comply with the order within the specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which may be foreclosed and respondent's property sold to enforce a lien. Done and ordered this 28th day of March, 1996, at Collier County, Florida. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded of the order. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? It passes unanimously. MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification then, Madam Chairman, as I understand the order portion is for the respondent to complete installation of approved landscape plan within 30 days of today's date? MS. LOUVIERE: That is correct. MR. MANALICH: If not, $100 per day to commence thereafter? MS. LOUVIERE: Correct. MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification, Mr. Kirby, then this approved landscape plan, when we -- when that language is used, that would refer then to the SDP as the basis for the plan that's going to be approved? MR. KIRBY: Correct, but realizing he could revise his plan and have a new approved plan so he can -- it's still generic enough so that he can -- you know, we -- he can -- MR. MANALICH: But even as the discussion earlier inferred, even if that process were to occur and there was an attempt to get a revised plan approved, in any event -- or this language -- whatever is done, the installation of the landscaping has to be done within 30 days of today's date? MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. He either has to plant landscape according to the approved landscape plan that he currently has and complete the landscape planting within 30 days, or he has to go to developmental services, get a new landscape plan and plant it within those 30 days. This has been going on since way back in 1995 so -- Page 9 March 28, 1996 MR. MANALICH: My only other question on the sensibility of the order would be can someone logistically accomplish a new plan within 30 days. MS. LOUVIERE: Very well. If there is a substantial change to it, it's the same SDP, all he has to do is walk in there, and it takes maybe an hour of someone's time, and he can go and get that drawn. It's not a hard issue. MR. MANALICH: Good. Then our order is eminently reasonable. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That will be the order of the board then. The next item of business -- that is the public hearing section of the -- of the agenda for today. The next item of business then would be new business. Is there any new business? MR. HEDRICH: We have none. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then we'll move on to old business. And the first three cases involve the same respondent, Jean Claude Martel, who is present here today. Do you want to take these A, B, and C one at a time, or do you want to take them all together? MR. HEDRICH: Let's go right down the order one by one, property by property. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. We'll start with A, Board of County Commission versus Jean Martel, CEB No. 96-005. MR. HEDRICH: The first property in question, it was the order of the board that respondent -- respondent must apply and obtain the necessary permits for the storage shed on or before this date, March 28, 1996. And if the building permits were denied, he was to remove the storage shed from the property at 3190 Karen Drive. I believe investigator Mazzone is here to give us an update. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you state your name, please. MR. MAZZONE: For the record my name is Dennis Mazzone. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, would you be sworn in, please. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, tell us for the record what your occupation is. MR. MAZZONE: I'm an investigator for Collier County's code compliance services. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. MR. MAZZONE: At present Mr. Martel has two permits at 3190 Karen Drive. I'll recite the permit numbers. Permit No. 95-12239 expired on the 22nd of March, 1996. Permit No. 95 -- excuse me. That first permit was for the hobby shop in question at that location. The second permit, 95-10505, also expired on the 22nd of March, and that would be for the completion of the garage at that same location. They both expired on the 22nd. We, the county, have suggested to Mr. Martel that he reapply for these permits. Reapplication costs would be $38 versus an extension of the same permits, which would cost $100, so that's our recommendation to Mr. Martel. On these very same properties, Mr. Martel's made a valid effort to try to come into compliance, as far as our thinking. He's come into the office and discussed this with our planning unit, and we've provided him with application -- an application package, I should say, for a variance. Mr. Martel's setbacks don't seem to be Page 10 March 28, 1996 what we would require in a village residential district, so he will have to go for a variance. Our recommendation would be that we grant him 30-days extension on this particular case to go for this variance and within that time also to either reapply, which we would suggest because of the cost difference, or to extend the existing permits that are in place. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Mazzone, did we talk last time about the fact that he had permits that were still open? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct; we did. He had permits that had expired, and then he had to reapply for these permits. MR. McCORMICK: They expired between our last meeting and this meeting? MR. MAZZONE: These-- MS. DEIFIK: I thought they expired a long time ago. MR. MAZZONE: He had permits that expired a considerable time ago. He had then reapplied for permits, and these permits that I've just quoted had expired on the 22nd of March according to our records. MR. McCORMICK: When did -- when did he apply for these permits that expired on the 22nd of March? MR. MAZZONE: I don't know, sir. I don't have those permits in front of me. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The order of this board on March 1st was that if he did not remove everything from 3155 Karen Drive by today, it was $50 a day. MS. LOUVIERE: And now you're asking us to MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Martel, come on up so we can hear you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you state your name first. MR. MARTEL: My name is Claude Martel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would you swear him in, please. THEREUPON, JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: MR. MARTEL: I got all my permit -- all my property on Karen but my own property over there. I got -- down 3000 Karen Drive, I got a permit for that, and it's already been inspected. I got it all fixed up. And 3155, I tore that aluminum shed back there, but the man on the property there, he's a violent and he doesn't want me over there anymore. I have a -- a little bit of trash to pick off of Karen. The sheriff's department told me not to go over there anymore. I can't even get on my own property, clean it up anymore. Already tore the shed down. It took me a couple of hours to tear it down when there was -- nobody was home. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, do you find that there was one order entered in this case at your previous meeting under the No. 96-006, or is there more than one order involving -- because there's three case numbers? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think -- I think there's only one order per case, I believe -- MR. MANALICH: Per case. MS. LOUVIERE: That was correct. I remember we only did one order per case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think there's only one order per case. Page 11 March 28, 1996 MR. MANALICH: Okay. But do you have an order which has a case number on it of 96-005? MR. McCORMICK: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Perhaps I'm lacking that in my packet that MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Mazzone, from what I'm reading on this, case 96-550, you're saying that the storage sheds have been removed? MR. MAZZONE: May I have the location of 96-005, please. MR. ALLEN: At 3190 Karen Drive. MR. MAZZONE: Right. I thought that was 96-006. I'm -- am I incorrect? Okay. MR. HEDRICH: 3190 Karen Drive is the property. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. Then it's 96-005 -- no, the structures are in place. Mr. Martel has -- has been trying to obtain the permits. We have suggested to Mr. Martel that he needs to -- we've given him an appli -- MR. ALLEN: I understand, Mr. Mazzone. I thought Mr. Martel had just told us he has taken the shed down. MR. MAZZONE: Mr. Martel's referring to another case, another property. MR. ALLEN: Excuse me. MS. LOUVIERE: So let's try to discuss case number -- just for clarity, we are discussing Case No. 96-005. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: First of all, I'd like to say I don't have a copy of the order 96-005. MS. DEIFIK: Unless -- unless they're mismarked, we have -- both Jean and I have orders on number 96-006 in our packet under 96-005. I -- and I've checked the other ones to see if perhaps they were just confused, but there seems to be no orders marked 005. MR. McCORMICK: In mine the three-paged order for each comes just before the tab of that marked case, but I -- MS. DEIFIK: Right. That's exactly where I'm looking but -- can I see yours? MR. McCORMICK: I have all three. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have the 005? MS. LOUVIERE: Yes. There is an order -- I have an order for 96-005. MR. HEDRICH: Mine's located just before the tabs in the pages before the beginning of the case. MS. DEIFIK: But that's why we're a little confused. Yeah, see this is different than the one I have. MR. MANALICH: That's what I wanted to establish so we know exactly what is the compliance that was ordered for each one. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: And that concerns -- this order deals with Case 96-005, and it concerns itself with real property at 3190 Karen Drive, Naples, Florida, 33962. And the violation is two storage sheds have been built and continue to be maintained on the subject property without first obtaining the required building permits. And it was the order of the board that the respondent must apply for and obtain the necessary building permits for the storage sheds on or before March 28, 1996. If the building permits is -- are denied or are not obtained by Page 12 March 28, 1996 March 28th, the respondent must remove the storage sheds from the property at 3190 Karen Drive within 15 days of Mar -- of March 28, 1996, on or before April 12, 1996. If you -- if the respondent fails to comply within the specified time, the respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of $50 per day for each and every day any violation described herein continues beyond April 12, 1996. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, are you telling us that he did, in fact, apply for the building permit; however, it expired on the 22nd of March? MR. MAZZONE: Correct. In our -- in our records we show that there were permits applied for for the two structures in question which have -- which had expired on the 22nd of March. In Mr. Martel's behalf, if I may say, without addressing all the other properties in question, Mr. Martel had to obtain a survey first in order to obtain the current permit. Once it was surveyed we discovered that setbacks were not appropriate to our current code, and Mr. Martel was then -- it was suggested to him that he then apply for a variance. With all this in mind and with the knowledge that Mr. Martel has been making a valid attempt to accomplish all of this, we would be willing to work with him a little bit longer. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So is your recommendation that we give him an additional 30 days to our next meeting, which is the 25th day of April, to either get the variance, the necessary building permits, or remove the sheds? MR. MAZZONE: That is correct. MS. LOUVIERE: I don't think he's going to be able to obtain a variance within 30 days. MR. ALLEN: That's not a fair -- MR. MARTEL: They want $850 just for the variance in cash. MR. MAZZONE: I'm not familiar with the time frame involved. MR. ALLEN: That -- the 30 days won't help Mr. Martel -- MS. LOUVIERE: No. MR. ALLEN: because the variance process is going to take at least 90. MS. LOUVIERE: Yup. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there another alternative? MR. MAZZONE: The alternative would be removing the structures. I think that we should go with some time for Mr. Martel. If it be 90 days, I think that -- in lieu of the fact that he's made a valid effort on all these properties -- MS. DEIFIK: And that's -- that's significant? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody else have any questions of either one of the witnesses? MS. LOUVIERE: Do you know how how far he -- what is -- how big are his setbacks? Do you know what I'm saying? How much of a variance does he need to obtain? MR. MARTEL: I got all the paper, the survey and everything over here if you want to go through. MS. LOUVIERE: How many feet? MS. DEIPIK: How many feet off is he? MR. MAZZONE: I'm not positive. I think we're speaking of 3 feet in variance. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Page 13 March 28, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: Then do you have any idea what the likelihood of that kind of variance being granted? MR. MAZZONE: I don't believe I can comment on that. I'm not somebody who would grant a variance. I would only be guessing. It wouldn't be fair. MS. DEIFIK: I think we should give him more time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? Do I have a motion? MR. McCORMICK: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that we postpone -- if I could say that we postpone imposing the fines and the order of the board for 90 days provided that Mr. Martel submit the variance within 15 days from today's date, March the 28th. MS. DEIFIK: You mean the variance application? MR. McCORMICK: Submit the variance application within 15 days from today. MR. MARTEL: I already talked to them over there. I got his name here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's a motion. Is there a second? MS. DEIFIK: I second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? MR. LAFORET: Nine days -- MR. MANALICH: Basically as I understand it under the terms of the order the -- what I would contemplate is I would issue, if you approve this, an amended order just basically clarifying that the terms of this order shall take effect and shall be in application under a 90-day -- additional 90 days from today provided that within 15 days of today a variance application is made. MS. DEIFIK: Wouldn't it be easier to say that he has to make the application within 15 days, and then it's postponed an additional 75 days? MR. MANALICH: That would be fine. MR. HEDRICH: If I could add something in. If the variance request is not submitted within the 15 days, we bring this back to the next board meeting? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: I guess the question becomes prior to that next board meeting what is the status of the order. We've got some time frames in the order -- MS. DEIFIK: Why don't we postpone it for 15 days contingent upon him making an application for a variance. If that does not occur, it comes back before the board, the lien becomes -- or the fines start to operate on the 16th day. But if he does, then it's suspended for an additional 75 days. I didn't say that very artfully, but -- MR. MANALICH: Well, the first thing is he has to make a variance application within 15 days. MS. DEIFIK: Right. I'm just going to make it a two-step process. MR. MANALICH: If he does not submit a variance -- well, first of all, if he does submit a variance application within 15 days, then he will have an additional 75 before fines would take effect. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's a slight amendment to your motion, Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: That's acceptable to me. Do I need to repeat any of that? Do we have to make a new order of the board? MS. LOUVIERE: You can if you want to. I will hear it. MS. DEIPIK: I'm sorry. Page 14 March 28, 1996 MR. MANALICH: Well, as I understand the substance of it, you know, as part of your motion you can authorize me to render an amended order. But basically it would be that a variance application must be made within 15 days. If it is -- if that is done, then there shall be another additional 75 days granted for compliance with the order before fines would take effect. Now, if no variance application is submitted in the 15 days, then on the next day the fines and -- the order fully applies, and fines would begin to take effect. MR. LAFORET: I would like clarification on that. If he does not succeed in getting a permit in 15 days, he then has 75 days. He then comes back in a month. If he does succeed in getting the permit, he has 75 days to accomplish the work. MS. DEIFIK: No, no. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's not a permit. It's a variance. MS. DEIFIK: It's just an application for a variance. MR. LAFORET: But then he has 75 days after that -- MS. DEIFIK: -- to see if they grant it. MR. LAFORET: -- to do the work? MR. ALLEN: No, Mr. Laforet, it's going to take him 90 days to even go through the process to see if he can get a permit -- to see if he can get a variance. The window to get a variance takes 90 days. MR. LAFORET: When is he going to start the work? Assume he gets all the permits and everything he needs, now when will he start the work, on the 74th day, and then come in here and ask for an extension? MR. HEDRICH: already there. It MR. LAFORET: MR. MARTEL: by 30. MR. HEDRICH: I'm sorry. It was listed as storage shed. MR. MARTEL: Well, that's my hobby shop. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Laforet, in our original order of the board, we didn't specify when -- any day when he had to start construction. We just said he had to apply and obtain the building permit on a certain date, March 28th, or if he MS. DEIFIK: He's shaking his head. Maybe he could give us some If the variance is granted and obtained, the shed's will be in compliance almost automatically. In the condition it's in? It's not a shed. It's a big building. It's like 28 MR. MAZZONE: I believe that having been opportunity to apply for the -- the variance, course, he would have to obtain the permits. would be the removal of the structures. MS. DEIFIK: Obtain the permits to do what? What needs to be done there? If he gets the variance, what further needs to be done? MR. MAZZONE: So that we could then inspect those structures, the permits would have to be in place for the existing structures. MS. DEIFIK: Can we -- can we cure this by putting in this motion that if the variance is granted, he must act diligently to follow through on whatever is necessary under the order, and if the variance is denied, he must act diligently to comply with the existing order? MR. MANALICH: Certainly that would be of assistance to call on due diligence. However, I'm still a little concerned that do we have actual -- the best clarity possible as to what exactly he must do because, as I understand it right now, what he must do is within -- if we do grant the if granted, then, of If not, the the option Page 15 March 28, 1996 all of this is from today's date now, within 15 days apply for the variance. If he does so, makes a proper application, then he must exercise due diligence within the additional 75 days. And I guess that's where we're a little cloudy as to -- MS. DEIFIK: Well, I -- I think -- MR. MANALICH: Depending on what the variance process -- MS. DEIFIK: Let's say that he makes the application for the variance, and the variance is granted within 60 days. I think Mr. Laforet's point is well taken. That doesn't mean he can then do nothing for 30 days, because he has a 90-day extension. MR. MANALICH: Uh-huh. MS. DEIFIK: If he were to get the variance, he should then immediately proceed to get the permits and get Mr. Mazzone out there to reinspect. MS. LOUVIERE: Are both -- can I ask a question, just one little question? Are both to -- this is two storage sheds. Are both of them going to require variances? MR. MARTEL: It's not a two story. MS. LOUVIERE: Two storage, it says two storage sheds. Are both of them MR. MARTEL: Oh. MS. LOUVIERE: or just one? MR. MAZZONE: No. There's one shed in question that's actually -- MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. MAZZONE: -- in need of the variance. MS. LOUVIERE: All right. MR. MANALICH: Now, interestingly, Mr. Laforet, ln this previous order there was no mention made of commencement of construction that Mr. McCormick observed. It was merely obtaining the building permits. As I understand it then where we stand is as follows: Within 15 days of today's date, he must exercise due diligence to obtain or to make a variance application. If he does so, then he will be -- he will have an additional 75 days during which he must exercise due diligence to obtain any and complete the -- the variance process and/or obtain any necessary building permits. MS. LOUVIERE: That's -- that's fine. I have another question. If you have two storage sheds and only one of them requires a variance, then shouldn't he have been granted a permit for the one that doesn't require a variance? MR. MAZZONE: I think that the -- the permitting people and the planning people are looking at the overall schematic of the -- of the structure, and we're trying to work with Mr. Martel so that -- one may affect the other. I'm not aware of their effects, but the planners have looked at this and suggest that he apply for a -- a variance on the one structure. It may have some influence on the other structure; I'm not sure. I don't think -- personally, I don't think that we're -- there's no harm done if we grant Mr. Martel a little more time in the obtaining of the -- the two permits. We -- we have gotten the cooperation on three other properties. MS. LOUVIERE: And we're talking really 90 days. MR. McCORMICK: I'm satisfied with the summary that -- Mr. Manalich's last summary for us, and I'll make a motion to that effect if there aren't any other comments. MR. MANALICH: Let me just make one other clarification on that, Page 16 March 28, 1996 which is we've been discussing if he obtains the variance within 15 days. If he does not obtain the variance or make -- I mean, excuse me, if he does not make the proper application for the variance within 15 days, then it was my understanding and intent of the original motion was to have on the 16th day the order in effect and fines beginning to take effect from that 16th day MS. DEIFIK: Absolutely. MR. MANALICH: -- so that at that point it would be well beyond the board's original order. MR. McCORMICK: That's correct. So I'll amend my motion to include the substance which Mr. Manalich has just summarized, and I propose that we allow Mr. Manalich to amend the order, the order of the board. MS. DEIFIK: Second. MR. LAFORET: I have a further comment. I think the decision of the board -- the order of the board from our last meeting is pretty clear that if he doesn't get a building permit and have the work done within 15 days of March 28, then he will be ordered to pay a fine. Now, we have another hearing today, and now we're going to discard all of that and change our opinion, and I'm not in favor of it. MR. HEDRICH: Well, staff was also unaware at the time that a variance was going to be needed for one of the structures. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other discussion? MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I -- I also have concerns with changing this order, and I know he's been -- you know, he has -- he has worked with staff, and I can appreciate that, but we have two storage sheds. The way I look at it is he's got one that doesn't really need a variance, so he could go back and get a permit for that, and the other one he's got 3 feet. You know, I mean, the order was pretty clear. It's going to take longer than 90 days to get a variance. You're looking at more like six months. That's just my opinion from someone that's done it before, and I just -- I don't even know if that's going to be granted. He's had lots of time to deal with this. I'm reluctant to approve a change of this order -- or not approve, but vote on it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other discussion? MR. MANALICH: I guess that is one thing that does come to mind which is under the -- the proposed motion for this additional time, he makes his application in 15 days, he's got another additional 75 at which point after that, as I understand it, fines would take place if he hasn't exercised due diligence. But will that variance process be concluded within that time frame, or -- MS. DEIFIK: Well, if he comes back and reports on the progress and MR. MANALICH: You would entertain at that time? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? MR. ALLEN: I've got just one comment. Mr. Martel, okay, to try to help you, you're going to have to get an attorney involved to help you get this variance. You're not going to have a chance to do this by yourself, so you're going to have to bring somebody in that does this full time because this window that you've got is real restrictive. MS. DEIFIK: That's a good point. MR. MARTEL: I can't afford an attorney. MS. DEIFIK: You can't afford to have these fines imposed on you. MR. MARTEL: Huh? Page 17 March 28, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: You can't afford to have these fines imposed on you. MR. MARTEL: Well, I got everything correct but that one building right there, that's it. And there is no time to get permit for the other garage out there they told me there. I went to see George about that -- MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Allen has given you good advice. You're just digging yourself a hole unless you get professional advice and professional assistance in all of these things that you're doing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, there's a motion and a second on the floor. I guess -- any further discussion before I call for the vote? All in favor of the motion and second, signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. LAFORET: I'm opposed. MS. LOUVIERE: Nay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Two opposed, so it passes. Two opposed, so it passes five to two. Okay. That will be the order of the the board, Mr. Martel. You'll get a copy of this order, but hopefully you'll exercise diligence. If not, we'll see you April 25th. The next case is 96-006 involving Mr. Martel and a different parcel of property. Mr. Mazzone. MR. MAZZONE: May I have the location specific, please? MR. HEDRICH: This is the property at 3155 Karen Drive. Under conclusion of law the respondent was found in violation of Sections 5, Subsection 16-A and B of Ordinance 89-006, Collier County Housing Code, and Sections 103.1.1, Ordinance No. 95-16, Collier County Building Code -- Building Construction Code. MR. MAZZONE: Mr. Martel -- do I have to reidentify myself and sworn in? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can identify yourself, but you don't need to be resworn in. You're still under oath. MR. MAZZONE: For the record I'm Dennis Mazzone, code compliance investigator for Collier County. And at the 3155 Karen Drive location, Mr. Martel has obtained Permit No. 96-3416 for the existing wood-frame structure in question. Mr. Martel has also -- and I don't believe this was part of the order, but he has also on that property removed a dilapidated shed-type structure which was a concern to us on that very same property. He's downed the building. He's now in need to remove the debris from that building, which he says he's having a problem because of the tenant-owner relationship. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The order entered by this board on -- and signed on March 1st was that he was to remove accumulation of rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires from 3155 Karen Drive. Has he done that? MR. MAZZONE: Yes, ma'am, but not completely. He's removed a good portion of it. I took a current photograph this morning. He's removed that and -- and most of the building or the dilapidated building that was housing these rusted parts. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And he has obtained the building permit for that property; is that correct? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And how significant amount of vehicle parts and tires remain at that property? MR. MAZZONE: I have a current photograph. I -- I would say it's Page 18 March 28, 1996 a minor amount in comparison to what has been removed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And how long did it take him to get that -- MR. MAZZONE: I can't answer for Mr. Martel. MS. DEIFIK: That's separate and apart from the debris from the shed that he tore down? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: Can you pass the pictures? MR. MAZZONE: It's commingled. MS. DEIFIK: I have -- I have -- you know, I understand what you're saying about the problem that Mr. Martel is having and the problem that he's having with his tenant, but I have limited sympathy for Mr. Martel, quite frankly, on that issue because, again, Mr. Martel, if you had gotten an attorney to evict that tenant or deal with that tenant, you would have obtained assistance from the sheriff's department, and this wouldn't be a problem. And you're, you know, penny wise and pound foolish. MR. MARTEL: Well, I got one my tenant gave me three days' notice out there, and he tear it up. MS. DEIFIK: That doesn't matter. you can proceed with the eviction. MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I got a copy, too. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. But you've had a lot of notice with this and a lot of time. We appreciate that you're working with code compliance people, but unless you enforce your own legal rights, this board is not going to have any options. MR. MARTEL: The officer who told me -- I get him evicted. MS. DEIFIK: Have you initiated an eviction? MR. MARTEL: I gave him three days' notice last -- yesterday. MS. DEIFIK: Have you filed an eviction complaint? MR. MARTEL: I will, though. MS. DEIFIK: But you haven't done it yet? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, let me ask you about this photograph which I think we probably should introduce into evidence. When was this taken? MR. MAZZONE: This morning, ma'am, just before this meeting. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So this is a May -- March 28th photograph. I note our order did not require on this property that we -- that he remove any building structure, only that he remove rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires. In looking at this picture, I really don't see any vehicle parts and tires. MR. MARTEL: I moved the tire and vehicle before the meeting last time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Would it be -- MR. MAZZONE: It's very minor debris commingled with some of the demolished building parts. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And so based on our order that says he's got to get the major and minor vehicle parts and tires removed, would it be safe to say that in this photograph mostly the debris that I see has to do with the tearing down of a shed? MR. MAZZONE: That's correct. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Martel, when did you give your tenant the three-day notice? MR. MARTEL: MS. DEIFIK: As long as you gave it to him, I didn't hear you. When did you give your tenant that three-day notice? Page 19 March 28, 1996 MR. MARTEL: Yesterday. I got my contractor to -- I got a contractor, name is -- what's the name? Randy, he made it for me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions? I think then what this board has to decide -- if he's in compliance with our order, obviously he's in compliance with B, because he's obtained the building permit. Looking at that picture I guess you have to decide whether he's in compliance with A, which is removing rusted major and minor vehicle parts and tires, because I don't think we can do anything about the debris that's there. That would have to be a separate action and a separate citation. MR. LAFORET: You know, according to the picture, one could be MR. ANDREWS: According to the picture, I think one could be considered concluded, number one. That's the one you mentioned. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. ANDREWS: I think he's in compliance. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, do you wish to have that photograph marked and -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: -- entered into evidence? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's move this into evidence as our exhibit. I make that motion. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All in favor? It will be moved into evidence as -- MR. MANALICH: Exhibit A-1. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- A-1. Does anybody then have a motion? If if nobody has a motion and the consensus is that he's complied with the order, then I -- I guess we move to the next case. MS. LOUVIERE: You're looking for a motion to dismiss case 96-006 in that he complied by obtaining a permit for his storage shed? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I don't know that we need to -- a dismissal. Would you say he's in compliance? MR. HEDRICH: At this time I think we would. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Are you moving to dismiss? MS. LOUVIERE: That's my motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ALLEN: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that under Case CEB 96-006 the respondent is in compliance and, therefore, that case should be dismissed. All in favor? It passes unanimously. Moving to 96-007, also involving Mr. Jean Claude Martel as the respondent, real property is located at 3176 Karen Drive. Mr. Mazzone, what's the status of that property? MR. MAZZONE: This is -- as recently as this morning I had checked with our permitting people at Horseshoe Drive. The existing permit 96-3420 to bring the -- that garage under that permit to code expired March 19th. Mr. Martel needs to reapply for that permit. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. So under Case No. 96-007, which was -- and under the order that we set forth, the garage addition exists on the subject property with an expired building permit and no certificate of occupancy. So he has not at this time obtained a building permit? MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I sure did. I got it right here. I told you that this morning. Page 20 March 28, 1996 MR. MAZZONE: property. MS. LOUVIERE: It was obtained? MR. MAZZONE: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: But you say it expired again. MS. LOUVIERE: Yeah. MR. MARTEL: I got renew with that contractor. I just got renewed with that last contractor -- I got it required. I got it over here. MS. LOUVIERE: So he obtained the permit, and it expired by March 19, 1996, without him obtaining a certificate of occupancy; right? MR. MAZZONE: This is what I was told this morning, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: According to our order, he had to obtain a building permit to complete the garage addition within 15 days from the date of this order. According to Mr. Mazzone, he did that. And then, of course, if he failed to obtain the building permit, then he had to remove the garage addition, and you're telling us that, yes, he did that but now has expired as of March 19th. MS. DEIFIK: And he didn't complete the garage addition. MR. MAZZONE: The garage addition is not completed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the record reflect that Mr. Mazzone has handed the board a Permit No. 96-3420 for us to look at. MR. MAZZONE: That was Mr. Martel, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Martel. I'm sorry. MS. DEIFIK: Why were you not able to -- to finish the garage addition before the permit expired? MR. MARTEL: I've been real busy. I'm by myself. You know, I got to cook for myself and -- and my tenant a bunch of drunks. They want to help -- they don't want to help no more. MS. DEIFIK: Again, why don't you evict these tenants, Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: That's what I'm working on. I'm fed up with it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Mazzone, is this Permit No. 96-3420 the one that expired on March 19th? MR. MAZZONE: This was the information one of our officials at the Horseshoe Drive points out, and which is normally the case, six-month period where they must receive an appear to have gone the six-month period. MS. DEIFIK: Why did it expire so quickly? MR. HEDRICH: If I could have five minutes to verify this, make a call over to the building department to verify this -- MS. DEIFIK: This doesn't make sense. MR. HEDRICH: -- and hopefully clear all this up then. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's take a five-minute recess. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the record reflect that Ms. Louviere had another appointment, and so she had to leave, and so we're down to six members of the board. Did staff have an opportunity to check on that building permit? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, I did. Permit No. 96-3420 was issued on March 21, 1996, of this year. It did not expire on said dates. These permits were just issued on those dates -- MS. DEIFIK: Right. MR. HEDRICH: -- and he has six months to complete the work and call for his inspections and pass inspections. He has -- Permit No. 96-3420 was obtained for that given to me this morning office. As Mr. Hedrich permits' normally have a inspection. This doesn't ~ Page 21 March 28, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: According March 1st, Mr. Martel had to obtain date of the order. He did so. The have a motion to -- to dismiss this MR. ANDREWS: So moved. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that we dismiss Case No. 96-007, because at this time the respondent is in compliance. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. MR. MAZZONE: Can I speak off the record? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. HEDRICH: These permits were verified to just have been issued on March 12. MR. MAZZONE: The confusion comes in because we confused Permit No. 95-01500, which has been -- which was the one that expired, and 96-3420 is a good permit and active. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Wonderful. Well, I guess that takes care of Mr. Martel's three cases. MR. ANDREWS: I hope so. MR. MAZZONE: May I ask a question off the record again? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Actually we're on the record. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Mazzone, everything is on the record. We don't have the luxury of going off the record in these proceedings. MR. MAZZONE: May I ask a question -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, you may. MR. MAZZONE: The case pertaining to 3000 Karen Drive, that's not before us today; is that correct? MR. HEDRICH: No, it is not. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, it is not. MR. MAZZONE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay, Mr. Martel. Be diligent so we don't see you back again. MR. MARTEL: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: And help yourself by getting professional help. MR. MARTEL: Are you done with me? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, we are. MR. MARTEL: Well, you didn't ask me about 3000 Karen Drive over there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's not on the agenda today. MR. MARTEL: I got it done. It's already ran and inspected and everything. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Good. Great. Keep up the good work. MS. DEIFIK: And get some new tenants. MR. MARTEL: I can't; it takes money. MS. DEIFIK: Yes, you can. If you try and help yourself, you can. MR. MARTEL: Somebody gets hurt over there, I'm on the street. And I have a war for sure over there. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The next case before the board is BCC versus Charles and Joan Hicks, CEB 95-007. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I was informed Mr. Hicks had been waiting in the audience while other cases were being heard, and I saw him at the break out in the hallway. I don't see him now. to the order that we entered on that permit within 15 days from permit is in existence, so do I because he's in compliance? the Page 22 March 28, 1996 MR. ANDREWS: That's the fella in the green -- MS. DEIFIK: Is this a good time to address the Indian issue then? MR. ANDREWS: That's the fella with the green striped -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: While we're waiting for the respondent to come in the chambers, we had some discussion, which we should have on the record. I know that the county attorney's office has advertised for bids for an attorney to submit a proposal to be the attorney that represents this board, and we just needed a -- an update on that status in view of the fact that the April docket looks like it might be fully packed. MR. MANALICH: If you'll allow me to call upstairs, I can provide you that update. And also, Mr. Hedrich, have you heard anything on the subject from Miss Sullivan? MR. HEDRICH: Not a great deal, no. MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman, can I voice another concern here? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. MS. DEIFIK: Which is that I understand that the issue of Indian sovereignty may be on the agenda at the next meeting with regard to enforcement of the Collier County code against the chickee huts. I have a serious concern as to whether, A, we are properly -- let me rephrase that -- whether we will be by then properly informed of the conflicting legal positions and, secondly, whether anyone in this county, with all due respect to the county attorney's office and local law firms of which I happen to be a member of one, can provide us with that information. And my query is whether it might not be prudent to -- prudent for the county to contract with a law firm that specializes in Indian rights to prepare in advance the memorandum of law advising this board as to the conflicting rights that are going to be presented before us. MR. MANALICH: A couple of comments. First of all, obviously for the record on -- on that particular matter, as you already are aware, but just for clarification, our office, unlike today, will be representing staff. So obviously you will have counsel, whether it be through the quotation or the RFP process, depending on the nature of the time involved. On behalf of staff what I think I would say to you at the time of the next hearing date on that matter would be that what you're referring to appears to be a question of law. And on behalf of staff what I would advocate to -- to this board as a position is that those questions of law are not within your competence, your jurisdiction, and must be reserved -- determined by a court of law. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: But, Mr. Manalich, let me ask you a question. Even though we are only a county board -- advisory board with some teeth -- MR. MANALICH: Yeah, quasi-judicial. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- because we have enforcement powers, isn't jurisdiction always a primary concern no matter what kind of hearing you have, and if we don't, in fact, have jurisdiction to hear a controversy -- MS. DEIPIK: Or have limited jurisdiction. MR. MANALICH: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- that that's the initial MR. MANALICH: Well, what -- I mean, staff at that time would assert that there is jurisdiction over a code violation, as you always Page 23 March 28, 1996 have. The -- as has been publicized, one of the basic defenses that has been raised by, quite frankly, what to this point is a nonparty -- you need to understand there has been a landowner cited. The defenses that you're referring to have been asserted by a nonparty -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. MR. MANALICH: -- that is affected but, nevertheless, is not a named party in the action. Our -- the position I would advocate on behalf of staff is the board would have jurisdiction over the code violation aspects and the factual predicate, if there exists one, for that. With regard to the defenses of so-called Indian country, that would be something your counsel would have to advise you on, but we would certainly maintain that that is something to be determined by a court of law and not by this board, because it essentially is a determining on a matter of law, whether it is a matter of law a federal statute, which has to do with Indian country, applies in this situation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Isn't that something that should be decided by a court of law before it comes before this board? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think on behalf of staff, we would advocate no. Now, whether the other side may think to enjoin this proceeding is a possibility, I suppose, if you take that view. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if you just let us know -- MR. MANALICH: Well, I guess maybe to follow up with Miss Deifik, what -- then in light of those comments, what would be your specific request? MS. DEIFIK: Well, first of all, I feel very uneasy that we do not have counsel at this time -- MR. MANALICH: For that matter? MS. DEIFIK: For that matter, number one. MR. MANALICH: I see. MS. DEIFIK: Number two, I think it's important for the -- for the dignity and respect of the community being accorded the proceedings of this board that we, quite frankly, look like we know what we're doing, and I'm not sure that we are going to. MR. MANALICH: So you're saying to involve counsel on that case well in advance of the hearing date? MS. DEIFIK: Well, we don't have time well in advance. We only have 30 days, which I think is too short. But I'm just concerned -- I -- I understand perfectly the arguments that you've made, and I give them a great deal of credence. I feel uneasy, however, not having some further input. And I'd certainly invite the other members of the board to comment here. MR. MANALICH: Well, I certainly would have for myself and I think for the office on behalf of staff -- I don't think I would have any objection to counsel for you in a -- in a unique case like this one we're discussing perhaps being involved much further before the actual hearing date. MS. DEIFIK: What do we need to do to get them? MR. MANALICH: What I'll need to do is to speak to Mr. Pettit and Miss Sullivan who have been spearheading the effort on the RFP and the quotations. And if the RFP process is still winding its way through the purchasing procedures, then I would think we'd need to go through a quotation process, two or three quotes. And you mentioned there probably is unlikely anyone within our legal community here in town who Page 24 March 28, 1996 is sufficiently versed on that, and we'll weigh that also in deciding what direction we need to explore to get you the expertise the board thinks it needs. MR. ALLEN: I got I got a problem with the RFP process. We were -- as a board we're supposed to have a member in the selection of their -- in the RFP process, Mr. Manalich. I don't know if that's occurred or not occurred. One of my colleagues called me and has declined to apply, be on the -- through the RFP process because there was a cap on the money but not a cap on his time, okay. And I'm concerned about the quality of representation we're going to have. I mean, we're talking about an issue like this, you have a cap of X hundred dollars. You have an issue that's going to be of this magnitude, I guess no one donates their time for free. That's all everyone sells is -- MS. DEIFIK: That's true. And I think that this issue has received so much media attention, if that whatever occurs, the manner in which the proceeding is carried out is going to reflect on Collier County. And I think that the -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Nationwide. MS. DEIFIK: -- county attorney and the county manager, you know I'm sure they're aware of it, but they need to be aware of this concern and how this is all going to be played out. And I don't think that this is the time to be penny wise and pound foolish. MR. MANALICH: Let me -- if we -- I believe Mr. Hicks has returned. Unless we have any further discussions, let me see if I can call upstairs to Mr. Pettit who is a little more in touch -- MS. DEIFIK: And time is of the essence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that matter on our docket for April 25th? MR. MANALICH: Right now the matter is -- the status of the matter is that there's been, as you know, a lot of discussion between my office and representatives of the affected parties. I have also conferred and met with staff. It is about -- we're about a day or so away from issuing the notice of hearing, and the goal was to issue it for April with the understanding that that was a date to be set, and the other side is aware of that. But, of course, that could be subject to change depending on this board's direction and/or other factors that may occur. You know, there are still discussions occurring between representatives of the parties about the case and, you know, how how and when it will go forward. But in -- in essence, the plan was for the April 25th -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: 25th. MR. McCORMICK: April. MR. HEDRICH: April 25th. MR. MANALICH: -- to be scheduled for then. But in light of Miss Deifik's comments, you know, that obviously might be subject to change. MS. DEIFIK: I don't think you're going to get counsel who has a real breadth of knowledge of this without going to Washington D. C., and I'm very concerned that while everyone is discussing it, time is going to be fleeting and if there's some possibility that it may be taken care of otherwise. You, for instance, or someone in the county attorney's office may say, well, we don't really need to deal with this, there will be further delays, and we don't really need to deal with this. And then all of a sudden we're going to find it on our Page 25 March 28, 1996 agenda in the summer, and we're going to be in a difficult position. MR. MANALICH: All right. Let me take that up with both Miss Sullivan and Mr. Pettit who have been working on the process. And I'll see also, Mr. Allen, if I can respond on the cap aspect also. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think our concern is that we protect the integrity of this board and that we protect the integrity and the reputation of Collier County, Florida, so that we are fully informed on both sides of the issues. MR. McCORMICK: Good comments. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Charles and Joan Hicks, Case No. 95-007. Mr. Hicks is present with us today. Staff. MR. HEDRICH: And it's my understanding, before we read the proposed order of imposing the fines, I believe Mr. Hicks would like to speak. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Hicks, you may. MR. HICKS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If you'd come up to the podium, state your name, and the court reporter will swear you in. MR. HICKS: My name is Charles W. Hicks. I live on Marco Island, Florida. THEREUPON, CHARLES W. HICKS, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, Mr. Hicks. MR. HICKS: I'm in compliance with this seawall. It originally started back, I think, a year, year and a half ago. The seawall started crumbling. It fell in. I couldn't do anything about it at the time, and I checked with the code enforcement department. They informed me that it had to be fixed. I was in no position that I could pay for the repair of this seawall, and I think we had a hearing back what; eight months ago. And it really surprised me that you people had the hearing, because it was at the time of the heavy downpours. The streets were flooded. I did talk to you by telephone. But according to code enforcement, when I originally got involved in this and I was explaining to them that I could not afford to pay -- repay -- replace the seawall, I was told then that the county would do it and would put it on my tax bill. I was not aware at the time that $150-a-day charge was accumulating. That comes to $21,150. And with the seawall repair, that's fourteen thousand four hundred and nine -- ninety dollars, so it comes to a total of $35,640 that I owe now. It looks like the fine will still be continued at $150 according to this notice. So I guess what will happen, you people will what; take the property and sell it yourself. There's nothing I can do. It's an impossibility for me to pay. As a matter of fact, I haven't even paid the taxes yet. My ex-wife refuses to pay for any repairs, any taxes on the house, the lot, or anything else. So now I have my house up for sale and the lot. Do you want to hear a good, sad story why I don't have money? She took it. I came down to Marco to build a house to live happily ever after. She stayed in Maryland, and she fell in love with an attorney up there. He gave her some good advice. And she came back down here I think about a month, and she wiped out my 'bank account. And then she Page 26 March 28, 1996 came back later on. She needed another 40,000 for her business. I took a $40,000 line of credit against my house. She wouldn't pay that back. Now, recently I got a divorce, and she wanted another 190,000. So I have no money. It's an impossibility for me to pay. I don't care if it's a $5-a-day fine or $500-a-day fine. I thought it was rather unfair that you charged me $21,150 prior to putting the seawall in. The lot is for sale. It's been up for sale quite some time. I have a few buyers or people that are interested in it. I paid $72,000 for that lot six years ago, and I'm trying to sell it for 72,000 now with the new seawall. MS. DEIFIK: With a new seawall. MR. HICKS: You -- you people put it in because I couldn't do it. I could not afford it. It was an impossibility because all of my money had been taken from me. MR. ANDREWS: You're objecting not to the cost of the seawall, but to -- to the fine. Is that right, Mr. Hicks? MR. HICKS: Is that what? Would you repeat that? MR. ANDREWS: I say you're objecting to -- you're objecting to the fine, the $150-a-day fine. MR. HICKS: Yes. I don't know how you came up with the fine of $150. MR. ANDREWS: How we came up with it? MR. HICKS: Yes. MR. ANDREWS: Well, after the -- when we had the hearing, that was that was what we agreed, a hundred -- because we had -- the work hadn't been done in so long, and it had to be done. It has to be done. MR. HICKS: But earlier in another case you suggested, I think you did, we charge them a dollar a day for the trees. I was just wondering how you actually come up with the fine. What basis do you have? MR. ANDREWS: On the -- how serious a situation it is. That's the way we -- MR. HICKS: It was serious if the wall fell in. MR. ANDREWS: That's very serious. MR. HICKS: I know it. MR. ANDREWS: That's very serious. It was filling in just -- the other two lots, and it was filling in the channels? MR. HICKS: That's right, but I did not have the money. I was broke. I'm still broke. That's why I'm selling it. MR. ANDREWS: I'm sorry about -- I'm real sorry about that. MR. HICKS: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: I mean, we weren't -- of course, we weren't aware of that at the time. You didn't attend the meeting. But you asked why why that -- why that -- there's a variance in fines. And it's based on the severity of the -- of the problem. MR. HICKS: Well, additional hundred dollar -- $150 a day will continue to accrue for how long? Until I paid all this off? MR. MANALICH: Let me clarify that. Once compliance was achieved, no fines continue after compliance regardless of who achieved the compliance. But you would have had -- the only fines that I would estimate you would be exposed to would be the time frame fixed by the board until whoever did the repair. You would have fines for that period. You would have the repair costs, but you would not have ongoing fines if compliance was achieved, even if it was achieved through the efforts of staff. Page 27 March 28, 1996 MR. HICKS: According to this -- MR. HEDRICH: The fines ran from August 24, 1995, through January 11, 1996. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What's that total? MR. HEDRICH: 141 days. MR. HICKS: 21,050. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Manalich, I have a question. I'm looking at the order that was recorded back in -- it was -- the order is dated June, and it was recorded June 29, '95. And the last portion of this order says, "Failure to comply with the order within a specified time will result in the recordation of a lien pursuant to Chapter 162, which may be foreclosed," da, da, da, da, da. Now, the preceding order referenced the repairs, that the county would do them if he didn't, and the fines. My question is, is there a second step that we're supposed to do here in actually recording a lien for the 14,999 repair bill for the seawall and for the fines that have been accumulated? MR. MANALICH: That's correct. MS. DEIFIK: And has that been done? MR. MANALICH: No. That is my understanding why staff is here before you today, to have an order imposing fines, slash, lien entered. MS. DEIFIK: Do we also impose a lien for the $14,999 plus interest for the construction of the seawall? MR. MANALICH: Correct. MS. DEIFIK: Why was that not brought up back in January when the seawall was done? MR. MANALICH: Staff, can you address that? MS. DEIFIK: Maybe you've lost interest for six -- oh, it's only March, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. MR. HEDRICH: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Well, it would be two months that have gone by. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah, what is the process? I mean, why is there a delay? I mean, I would think that as soon as the county puts out money, they'd be -- they'd be real anxious to get that lien on the property. I'm concerned that a sale not occur without the county recouping this $15,000 for the seawall at the bare minimum. MR. HEDRICH: I don't really have a direct answer other than the fact that they stopped the fines on January 11th. MS. DEIFIK: I'm not concerned about the fines at this instant. MR. HEDRICH: Right. I understand, because the work was begun on that January 12th date and took so long. It was just completed last week MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MR. HEDRICH: -- before everything was completed. MR. MANALICH: You're right. There's a need for ongoing monitoring on these cases so that you don't have gaps. MS. DEIFIK: Because if I were -- yeah, we need to get a lien. MR. MANALICH: Now, the one thing -- this order that has been previously recorded does bind successors in interests, assigns, and transferees of this property. MS. DEIFIK: But bind them to what? MR. MANALICH: It puts them on notice, but it's not a lien. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I have a serious continuing problem with this, and I think I've brought this up before, and I don't know if our orders can be rewritten or if this is the way the statute requires us to do Page 28 March 28, 1996 it. But as a real estate attorney I have concerns as to whether the order putting people on notice accomplishes everything that we want to accomplish. And maybe we can bring that up at a later point in time. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I mean, as I read the statute, this first order cannot serve as a lien. You have to have an order imposing fine, slash, lien for that purpose. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. All the more reason that we need to monitor these cases and get those liens instantly the minute the county puts out a penny. MR. MANALICH: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is staff asking that we enter an order imposing fine and that we also lien the property for 21,150 for noncompliance for those 141 days and 14,490? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you -- were you asking that the fine continue to accrue, or we're going to cut it off at January 11st? MR. HEDRICH: At the January 11th date be cut off. MR. HICKS: Could I speak about that? This notice that I received states, "It is further ordered that a fine of $150 per day continue to accrue until respondent comes into compliance or until judgment is rendered in a suit to foreclose on a lien filed." MS. DEIFIK: You're in compliance now because the seawall is up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I know it, Mr. Hicks. That's why I asked that question. I understand what you're saying. MR. ALLEN: Would -- excuse me. Would staff consider a reduction of fine? MR. HICKS: I think it's really unreasonable because it's -- there's nothing I could do about it. There's nothing I could do about it now until I sell the lot or I sell my house. MR. McCORMICK: This is another question along the same lines. When we issued the order of the board, we directed Mr. Hicks to complete the repairs by August 11th. We wanted it done immediately. And I know the -- the wheels of big government take a little longer to turn, but do you know why the work actually wasn't done until January of this year? MR. HEDRICH: I believe they had some conflicts with the bidding process and the start-up dates, the property condition, the fact that we had the heavy rains during that August time last year. MS. DEIFIK: But the whole point that staff made very vehemently when they brought this before us was that surrounding properties were being damaged by this deteriorating seawall and that something needed to be done right away. MR. HICKS: There wasn't. There was no damage. MR. McCORMICK: That's why we chose the $150 -- MS. DEIFIK: Right. MR. McCORMICK: -- was because it had to be done immediately, and that was tied into the August 11th date. The 150 and the August 11th went hand in hand, and August 11th came and went. MS. DEIFIK: And the rains certainly did not continue through January. MR. HICKS: Where did you get that information that it would harm other people's seawall? It would not -- MS. DEIFIK: That was the evidence at the hearing that you did not attend. Page 29 March 28, 1996 MR. HICKS: Well, the middle section fell in, but it did not harm any of the adjoining seawalls. That was all intact. I have pictures of it to prove it. MR. HEDRICH: others. MR. HICKS: MR. HEDRICH: possibility -- MR. HICKS: Yeah. MR. HEDRICH: -- of harming the other neighboring properties was what they were looking at. MR. HICKS: Well, I was in contact with board enforcement on quite a few occasions. As a matter of fact, I went up there a lot. And then I was willing to sell the property for almost anything. And your head of enforcement division, he was a little bit interested in it. He told some of his fellow workers, and they were thinking about buying it at one time, and they never did. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I think that would probably not be proper for them to be, you know, looking into purchasing your property. MR. HICKS: Yeah. MS. DEIFIK: But what is the status of other liens on your property? Is there a mortgage on this property? MR. HICKS: Is there what? MS. DEIFIK: Is there a mortgage on this property? MR. HICKS: No. There's not a mortgage on my house except for a 40,000 line of credit. That's why if I sell that or sell the lot, I can get out from underneath it. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Manalich, at what point in time is it -- is it apropos for the county to do title exams on these properties? MR. MANALICH: Well, obviously I think at any time that you have a question involving, you know, what are we likely to recover in our process. But we have done them at different -- differing points at time, sometimes before we go to record the lien. MS. DEIFIK: Uh-huh. MR. ALLEN: Mr. -- Mr. Hicks, I got a couple of comments before I make a motion. I'm trying to make a couple of comments. Having a couple of ex-wives, I certainly understand that's the -- that's the hard part of my -- MS. DEIFIK: Remember that MR. HICKS: Can I tell you was over -- I got my divorce -- this. MR. MANALICH: She has to; that's the problem. MR. HICKS: I got a card from her, and it showed a big screw going through a guy's stomach. And on the inside it said, "All good guys get their just reward." Isn't that nice. MR. ALLEN: I understand that. But back to this on -- on -- there's two things, okay, and I'm trying to look at this objectively. You shouldn't be punished because the grind of the big wheel of government didn't expedite putting the seawall in. But on the other hand, you have a home there that doesn't have a mortgage against it, all right, whereas I think you could have gone out and got a second mortgage and paid off this 15,000. MR. HICKS: No, I tried. I'm sorry, I tried. I'm not making I don't believe there was an actual harming of the No. It was a -- the idea that if it continued on, a your mother was a woman. something really funny? I got a card from her When all this don't record Page 30 March 28, 1996 enough money to -- being I have a 40,000 mortgage or line of credit against my house, I'm not making enough money to make the payments on the loan. MR. ALLEN: MR. HICKS: them. MS. DEIFIK: Did you try listing the lot earlier? MR. HICKS: I have. I tried to sell it to anyone and everyone. MS. DEIFIK: When did you list the lot? MR. HICKS: As soon as the seawall started to crumble, I tried to make a deal with some of the builders selling it for forty-five or fifty thousand dollars. MS. DEIFIK: When did you enter into a listing agreement on the I understand. Okay. I mean -- With the Island Bank, I tried to get a loan through lot? MR. HICKS: With a real estate agent? MS. DEIFIK: Yes. MR. HICKS: I didn't. MS. DEIFIK: You have not yet to this date? MR. HICKS: No, I advertise in the Naples paper. It's probably in today's paper. I advertise it in the Marco. I'm trying to sell it for the same price I paid for it. MS. DEIFIK: I think that Mr. Allen's point is you had a -- you know, a safety hazard there on your property, and the point of our entering the order last summer was to impress upon you how important it was that you get that taken care of. MR. HICKS: That's right. MS. DEIFIK: There were ways you could have get -- gotten it taken care of, one of which would have been to try to list the property. You're asking us to give you -- MR. HICKS: I'm sorry. MS. DEIFIK: -- consideration MR. HICKS: Uh-huh. MS. DEIFIK: -- with regard to the fine, and we're inquiring because we want to know what diligent efforts you made. MR. HICKS: Okay. I'm going back a little bit before that, when I had to have the seawall filled in. I had it filled in behind it; that was $625. And it was listed with Re/Max. Peg Miller was the real estate agent. She had it listed for about six months. MS. DEIFIK: When was that? MR. HICKS: Last year, earlier last year up until I had the seawall repaired. I'm not talking about the county repaired. It was -- the water had washed out from underneath, and I had to have backfill brought in and gravel -- MS. DEIFIK: But you didn't make an effort to list it at the time it came before the board last summer? MR. HICKS: No, I didn't, because at the beginning of the summer no one wanted it. Real estate agents didn't want to list it. MS. DEIFIK: Well, that's because your price was too high, Mr. Hicks, from what you're saying. MR. HICKS: That's why I was willing to sell it for forty-five to fifty thousand dollars. I don't think that was out of line. I couldn't get builders, anyone to buy. And to give it to a real estate agent at forty-five thousand dol -- MS. DEIFIK: You said you were trying to sell it for 71,OOO? Page 31 March 28, 1996 MR. HICKS: That's after the seawall was repaired. MS. DEIFIK: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anyone have any further questions for Mr. Hicks or for our staff? MR. LAFORET: Question for Mr. Hicks. Did you have or do you have insurance on that seawall? MR. HICKS: No, I don't. MR. LAFORET: And you did not at the time? MR. HICKS: No. Normally you don't take insurance out on a lot. MR. LAFORET: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion? Do I have a motion? MR. ANDREWS: I think -- just a minute. I don't think they answered Jim's question whether whether staff could consider reducing the fine part. MR. HEDRICH: At this time I have no authorization to do so. MR. ANDREWS: That would take -- well, I think MR. McCORMICK: We can do it if we want. MS. DEIFIK: We can do it, but there's two -- MR. ANDREWS: We can do it, but I have some questions because if we -- if we -- according -- no, maybe I'm -- I haven't heard correctly. You definitely have to pay for the repair, because the county's spent that money, and they've got -- we've got to collect it. MR. HICKS: I have every intention. MR. ANDREWS: And we have to put a lien on the property for that, and we should do that PDQ. In fact, sell it so that -- that part has to be handled. The fines, we -- we -- we -- we can -- I'm not saying we're going to, but we can reduce them or adjust them. But you, I think, made a statement that no matter what -- what the amount was, you can't afford -- you can't afford to pay it. MR. HICKS: That's right. That's why I've got my house on the market. I've got to sell something. MR. ANDREWS: You can help me out on this, maybe. I think we should put a lien -- if it hasn't already been, put a lien for that amount, and then we can discuss about -- about the fine, the fact that he's going to sell it to -- MS. DEIFIK: He's not saying he's going to sell his house, which is a different property. MR. ANDREWS: I beg your pardon? MR. HICKS: I'm trying to sell it. I have to sell everything, because the Court's already -- for another 190,000 MS. DEIFIK: But the lot is not listed? MR. HICKS: No. MS. DEIFIK: Is the house listed? MR. HICKS: Yes, with Re/Max. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MR. HICKS: And I'm trying to sell the property myself. MR. ALLEN: Excuse me. I think we have two issues here. We have your personal house on one piece of property and this lot MS. DEIPIK: It's a different piece of property. MR. ALLEN: I guess where I'm confused a little bit, is this piece of property listed now with a realtor? MS. DEIFIK: He said no. MR. HICKS: Not the lot itself. I have a sign, and I've been Page 32 March 28, 1996 advertising in the Naples and Marco Island Eagle. MS. DEIFIK: This is the point I was making earlier. Not to beat a dead horse, I agree with Mr. McCormick that Mr. Hicks should not be penalized because Collier County took so long to repair the seawall. On the other hand, I'm a little -- looking a little ashen at Mr. Hick's request for consideration and sympathy when he, to my way of thinking, did not take the steps he should have taken and still hasn't taken the steps he should have taken to -- to meet the board's demands. MR. HICKS: What do you suggest I do then? MS. DEIFIK: Well, there's -- there's -- it's -- it's moot at this point in time, but the point that I was trying to make and I think that Mr. Allen was trying to make earlier was that you should have sought to get a mortgage or to list the property or to sell the property or to in some way raise the funds to repair the seawall. And -- and it's just a due diligence question, and I'm not trying to come down real hard on you. I'm just trying to understand the fact scenario, and I also want to be sure that everybody here understands that when you're talking about property being listed and property being sold, that's not going to help us, because that house does not have any lien against it. The lot will have a lien against it. And the lot is still not listed. The county -- MR. HICKS: That sounds like a real estate agent. I mean, because have you been on Marco Island? Every lot on Marco Island is for sale. There is thousands of them, I think. And I've reduced my price down to the point where I think it's pretty reasonable. I had a call yesterday, and I'm going to come down to 65,000 to sell it. Real estate agents are not selling lots down there, period. MS. DEIFIK: I'm doing an awful lot of closings in my office. MR. HICKS: That's on homes, custom-built homes. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Hicks, I just got one comment. Had we heard your arguments and your story back in June, okay, maybe we could have worked with you on an extension, all righty. But because no one here, okay, was in your behalf, we didn't understand this hardship, okay. That's why the window, okay, was not as large as it could have been. Like you're asking Mr. Andrews, you might have been able to -- we might have been able to grant you a 60-day extension or something like this considering your hardship, but we didn't hear any of this. You didn't represent yourself. MR. HICKS: I did by phone. You people called -- I called up here. I didn't think you would possibly have the board meeting on that really terrible downpour day -- MR. HEDRICH: On this meeting that you're referring to MR. HICKS: Yes. MR. MANALICH: I recall that hearing date. It was the day of the severe flooding. He did call in by phone. I remember him speaking MS. DEIFIK: That's not giving a deposition, and that's not presenting a case. And he didn't present any -- MR. MANALICH: That's true. MS. DEIFIK: He didn't send any packet of information or a letter or anything, and we haven't heard from him since. MR. MANALICH: That's all true also. MR. McCORMICK: Was that probably the day that we actually imposed the order? And I think possibly we heard this case in July also. MR. MANALICH: It may have come to you on more than one occasion. Page 33 March 28, 1996 But if my recollection is correct, I think on that date, which may have been in August, the flooding occurred, he called in, I thought that's the day the order was reached. MR. ALLEN: Excuse me. We're showing here done and ordered the 27th day of June. MR. MANALICH: June. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: June 22nd the board had the public hearing. Any further questions or discussion? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think the only other thing that the board can consider, as Mr. Allen has already observed, is that there was a gap of time there between the actual efforts at compliance being taken. I mean, as I read the statute, we're clearly entitled to recover the costs. We're also entitled to fine for a reasonable period that went beyond the date fixing your order for correction. I think, as Mr. Allen identified, what you'll need to consider in your deliberations lS to what extent is the respondent at fault for that delay and to what extent is the process the county went through to get the correction done. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do I have a proposal, a motion? MR. ALLEN: I make a proposal that we take -- I'm saying for the benefit of both parties, both the county and Mr. Hicks, that the fine should be reduced from 21,000 to 10,000. I think that would be agreeable with staff plus the repairs of 14,490 making a total indebtedness of 24,490. MR. McCORMICK: I think that it probably took about twice as long as we would have liked to have seen it take, and reducing it by half, I I would agree with that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that a second to his motion? MR. ANDREWS: I second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that there be an order imposing fine and liens of 10,000 for noncompliance and 14,494 repair of the violation. Any further discussion? Call for the vote. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? It passes unanimously with the exception of Miss Louviere who is not here with us anymore. That will be the order of this board then. The fine's going to be reduced, Mr. Hicks, to 10,000 plus the repair violation, 14,490, and that will be a lien on that -- that lot. So hopefully you get it sold. MR. HICKS: I, too. A man is coming to see it Sunday. I'm going to let him have it for 65,000. He doesn't know it yet, but I'm desperate. I need to sell it. MR. MANALICH: Just a clarification. The $21,000 fine amount, that was based on what; 141 days at MR. HEDRICH: At $150 a day. MR. MANALICH: And that's what you've reduced it from? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hicks. MR. HICKS: All right. Thank you. If you all had set it at $500 a day, you'd have the property now. MR. ANDREWS: We're sorry for -- we're sorry for all your bad luck. I hope you can sell it. MR. HICKS: I am, too. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. HEDRICH: Thank you. Page 34 March 28, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That completes the section of old business. Are there any reports? The next meeting date will be April the 25th. MR. MANALICH: Miss Rawson, a couple of items perhaps from my side. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: First, staff, Mr. Allen, Mr. Pettit is not available, and neither is Miss Sullivan. They were spearheading the RFP effort, so I do need to speak with them. But, to my knowledge, on your question about the cap, that was an item that was brought to the attention of our office, I think, by one of the potential proposers and as an inquiry about, well, is there a problem getting quality legal counsel because you have a cap which, in essence, puts them in the risk that if a major case comes along, they'd be working at very reduced rates. MS. DEIFIK: Or for free. MR. MANALICH: Excuse me? MS. DEIFIK: Or for free. MR. MANALICH: Or for free. And that is, you know, a legitimate concern and question. Now, the response in my office made to that was, well, we looked at what had been involved, I think, with staff during the previous year. That hurdle had not occurred. And it was decided that, well, as a method of trying to effectuate savings for the county, you could calculate based on what last year's time commitment had been that the cap that had been set was consistent with last year's level of service that was required, the idea being that if -- for example, if -- if it was less than that, the county would run the risk of overpaying. If it were more than that, the proposer would run the risk that he has to absorb that. MS. DEIFIK: Nobody was citing any Indian chickees last year. MR. MANALICH: That's true. That's true. All it takes is one, I suppose. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: What's the cap? MR. MANALICH: If I recall correctly, and I'm not exact on this, but I believe it was in the neighborhood of eighteen to twenty thousand dollars. And in talking, I think, with Mr. Cautero and Miss Sullivan, they wanted to have a lump sum so that you wouldn't have to be in the business of reviewing time sheets and all of that. It would simply be, you know, a lump sum or, you know, a monthly payment, however it was arranged. I'm not saying, however, there's not merit to your concern or what was said. I mean, that is a concern. MR. ALLEN: Well, you know, Mr. Manalich, it's relevant to discuss, as Miss Deifik brought up so well. When you have the time bomb go off -- MR. MANALICH: Uh-huh. MR. ALLEN: somebody support -- whoever is on staff is going to be crucified. We're talking about the one -- I guess our timing is horrible. Okay, had this come up six months ago, we might have had a better quality or group of applicants that didn't look at the cap right at that time. I see that's -- that's a no-win for an attorney. MR. MANALICH: Now, one of the things also that was thought about by the county side of things was while having your -- a presence, the attorney's presence here on the board, it's good for the firm, whoever it might be, the, you know -- Page 35 March 28, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: Public relations. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I mean, potentially now there's some degree of notoriety, spin-off business that might occur that would be to their benefit. But -- and I'm obviously willing to -- well, maybe through our members and, matter of fact, I believe Maria is on the selection committee, isn't she? MS. DEIFIK: But that really doesn't address the concern that Jean and I were raising, which is no matter who we get here in the county -- and there's many very fine attorneys in Collier County and Lee County -- I don't think there's one of them who is experienced in Indian affairs and who's going to be able to give us the kind of advice that we need on sovereignty issues. And, you know -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: My partner. That's very funny. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. This is a situation where we may need to contract on a one-time basis. MR. MANALICH: Well, that may be a valid point. And perhaps that is a response, Mr. Allen, in regard to your concern, which is you reserve the right that in extraordinary cases to perhaps contract for just that case in addition to having your ongoing advisory -- MS. DEIFIK: That doesn't -- this still doesn't address Jim's concern that, you know, attorneys may be willing to take on representing the board if they're going to be limited. Maybe there needs to be some kind of a -- what's the -- what's the thing on a tea kettle that -- some kind of release valve if there are extraordinary situations that might be within the competence of Collier County counsel but are going to take up huge amounts of time. MR. MANALICH: You say like put it in the contract or -- MR. ALLEN: Say it both sides. Like you say if it's an $18,OOO-a-year deal, that's predicated on X amount of hours, and anything over that is billed on an hourly basis. I mean, I'm concerned about the quality of representation. If you're in private practice, you wouldn't take that on for 18,000 in a heartbeat. Nobody would. MR. MANALICH: We only had -- we only had one inquiry to that level. That doesn't mean it's not important, but I'm just saying of the people it was sent to. Although I think I'm trying to recall because, again, Mr. Pettit and Miss Sullivan have more of the pulse of this, but I think there were about five or six responses -- MS. DEIFIK: But the other problem is the other people may not have picked up on that. But once they're here, they're in that chair, something happens and we need advice, and we needed somebody to do 30 hours worth of work, well, they had other clients. So we ask them a question, and they're like, well, I don't know, because they're not going to bankrupt their firm to give the board the input they need. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I know it was in the last bar newsletter I saw it, and maybe it's been in two that -- in -- I think it has been in MR. MANALICH: Very possible. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think it has been in two, the advertisement for the -- how many responses have we gotten? MR. MANALICH: You know, again, I wasn't on the front line on it, but I believe five or six is what I thought, which actually is probably less than we expected. MR. MANALICH: How would you like to address this? I mean, would you like this -- do you think this is of sufficient importance that it Page 36 March 28, 1996 needs to get into the process through some type of addendum or something and -- and reopen or redo the process to include this concern? MR. ALLEN: I personally do. MS. DEIFIK: I do. But, again, I want to be clear. I think we have two separate issues here. MR. MANALICH: You've got one case, a specific one, and this is a broader one. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Perhaps Jerry Spence is available. MR. MANALICH: Well, let me -- I think from what I'm hearing, is it more or less the consensus of the board -- MR. ALLEN: Unified. I'm going to move my issue with them so we have two cases, two issues. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, on both of these. MS. DEIFIK: I think we should do a resolution, Miss Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think we have two issues. I would agree with that. One issue is proper representation on the Indian issue. And I guess it's Board of County Commissioners versus whoever the landowner is at that point in time. But there is, as you pointed out, a nonparty who resides on the land that is of great concern. And that's one issue that we need proper representation if that case comes before us. The other concern is that we need proper representation on a monthly basis, and we would hope that the pool that we have to select from would be qualified. The concern that Mr. Allen voiced is that if there's a cap on the time -- on the hours, sorry -- cap on the money but not a cap on the hours, that we might not get qualified applicants. MS. DEIFIK: Or having gotten them, they might not be completely motivated to do the amount of work that is necessary to give us the appropriate advice once they find out they're not going to be paid. MR. MANALICH: And what you would envision would be that -- are you envisioning that there would be an annual lump sum but with some type of proviso that that's based on what? That does not include extraordinary cases or does not include -- or is for a certain number of hours. MR. ALLEN: I think we need to qualify it for a certain number of hours, anything above and beyond that on an extraordinary case or the things. We're asking all the time about did we find anything that Eli Baron has, for instance. You know, to search that out, like you've done, is hours after hours after hours. So we may be asking somebody a simple question that absorbs 16 hours. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that it's easy to sayan $18,OOO-salary cap based on your attendance here at the public hearing once a month with us and being prepared for cases like we had today, which were mostly review cases, things that are back before this board. You know, I can see that that -- we can figure up how many hours you would be sitting here, let's say, three or four hours a month with the board, and some preparation time for a normal agenda, whatever that is. But in extraordinary cases -- so -- so I think what you can do is you can figure up how many hours that 18,000 covers, and then anything for unusual cases that would take -- or anything that would take longer than those number of hours, the attorney has a right to submit a -- an hourly rate which, of course, like all our other hourly rates when we work for the county, would be reviewed by the county before it's Page 37 March 28, 1996 approved. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. We're not envisioning that anybody bill the county extra for standing around drinking coffee in the hall. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And -- and you can also set the billing rate, hourly billing rate. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. I think that -- that, you know, what we're asking or what we're -- the concern that we're expressing is related to the cost effectiveness of the board. Imposing these orders and imposing liens, some of these liens are extremely large. Unless the liens -- the orders and the liens are done properly, cases are monitored, and the liens are actually foreclosed or followed up on or are actually collected when people close on real property in Collier County, everything we're doing is for naught. MR. ALLEN: Good point. Good point. In saying that we need to have this lien recorded today -- MS. DEIFIK: Yes. MR. ALLEN: -- on Mr. Hicks MS. DEIFIK: I was real concerned when we got into the matter with Eli Baron. I was concerned, first of all, because I hadn't been here the previous year, so I didn't even know what was going on. But, secondly, I was concerned at -- whether anyone person had followed the process through from beginning to end and whether if we had had more input from a real property lawyer and a creditor's rights lawyer whether the board might have done something differently. I'm not saying that they would have. But I'm -- I'm saying that it -- I just -- I just have a concern that these things be kept on top of because you could be talking about very large amounts of money. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The county might review with the school board how they pay their school board attorney. I believe that that firm has a contract, and then they have an hourly rate thereafter which I think -- I know they exceed whatever their contract rate is every year. MS. DEIFIK: The only -- the last point that I want to make -- and I'm making this point only by example -- is that not only does the board impose liens for large amounts of money, but the board deals with problems that are often of extreme concern to the community like with Eli Baron and Emerald Woods and, you know, the community is very, very attune to what's going on and very concerned about how it's handled. So we want to be like Caesar's wife. MR. ANDREWS: What about our staff trying to work with the county either commission or the manager -- to help us see what we can work out? You know, these cases, like this Indian case, they're very -- we don't get them very often. We haven't had any real tough dec -- that -- that bad. We've had a couple, you know. So put a guy on -- on a regular basis, I think, is going to be really expensive. Then -- then if you have -- then if you have to go and get a special lawyer for -_ for this -- like this particular case, that's going to be addition. So I think -- I think it should be worked out. MR. MANALICH: I'm not sure I understand your point, Charlie. MR. ANDREWS: Well, we got all kinds of ideas here about -- you know, about the cost of the attorney and how -- and the quote __ quoting, what -- what we can pay and so forth. I think -- I don't think we're in a position to do that. I mean, we've got two attorneys down here. You attorneys can do that, but that's not our language. MR. MANALICH: I think what I'm hearing is that the board Page 38 March 28, 1996 consensus is that on this case that may come before the board in the future regarding the chickees, that they would like to have, because it's an extraordinary situation, an attorney obtained for you that would be knowledgeable about that area of the law. MR. ANDREWS: True. But I have a question if we'll ever hear that case. I have a -- I mean, I think it's -- MR. MANALICH: Yeah. It's still -- I mean, there is discussion going on about it. MR. ANDREWS: So, in other words, we hire an attorney for that before we know -- if we put it on the agenda, we can always continue it -- continue it and so we have enough time to get this special attorney is what I'm saying. To get one now because we think it's going to happen I think is kind of ridiculous. MR. MANALICH: I guess the view is if it's noticed for hearing, then it's likely to happen. And that's why at that point it would be appropriate to, you know -- I think the comments are once you have a notice of hearing, then it's appropriate to start making preparation. On these matters how should we follow up on the sense that obviously they need attention well before the next meeting date? Should I be responding back to the chairman on this then? MS. DEIFIK: That's appropriate. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That would be fine. MS. DEIFIK: And we can trust the chairman to diligently move it forward and accomplish what can be accomplished. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If you notice this case for hearing, that's going to happen next week? MR. MANALICH: It's going to happen possibly this week. Today's well, today's Thursday. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. MANALICH: It could happen tomorrow or else the first part of next week. MS. DEIFIK: Could I make one point in response to what Charlie is saying, because I understand his point, and I'm not here to, you know, build a little fiefdom and have the county spending money to fly in fancy attorneys from D.C. or anything. But having practiced law for awhile, I know I'm going to quote a client a much different fee if he calls me and says, well, I have this problem, here's what may happen, can you give me some ideas in the next few weeks, than if he calls me -- and the actual hearing may be a couple months down the road or whatever -- or if he calls me and says there's a hearing Monday, be there at eight o'clock, and know everything. In other words, the advance time that we give these people is going to affect the fees that we're actually going to incur. They may -- we may get an attorney who comes up with a way to get everybody out of all of this -- MR. MANALICH: Well, perhaps in that regard, too, I'll need to work with -- staff and myself need to work with the chairman then in factoring all of this together along with the hearing date and how that all, you know, jives. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah. I just don't want to be calling somebody on Friday and saying, gee, I've got a hearing next week. MR. MANALICH: Although here we're talking about a month in advance. But then, again, if things are sufficiently legally profound, obviously they can take that long. MS. DEIFIK: Well, but I don't know when you are going to be able Page 39 March 28, 1996 to coordinate with all of the people you need to coordinate with and coordinate with Jean and then somebody's going to authorize it. MR. MANALICH: Right. MR. LAFORET: Do you think we're blowing this out of its significance? I look at this that if the county attorney's office is advising staff, the suggestion pops in my mind, you mean the county attorney's office is not capable of advising staff whether it's a legal act -- complaint, or not? Do we have to have an attorney on our side or advisor to us to say what that county attorney is proposing is a bunch of nothing -- MR. MANALICH: Well, people have said that before, too. MR. LAFORET: -- and you can do this? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think therein lies a conflict of interest. I don't think that the attorney that represents the board lS going to tell Mr. Manalich he's wrong or he's not doing a good job. But there is a conflict of interest if he is -- if we have two sides out here going at each other. One's the respondent. One's the petitioner. He's representing them. Someone else is representing the other side. Neither one of those attorneys really can represent us. We need our own private attorney to give us advice that's not pro or con on either side. So it's a conflict of interest more than it is somebody's going to tell Mr. Manalich he's wrong. MR. LAFORET: Aren't we more or less a jury in the respect that we only advise? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, we have more power than that. MR. LAFORET: All right. I belong to the American Arbitration Association, and we have more power than that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's right. MR. LAFORET: But on the other hand, we don't need a special attorney to advise us when we're a panel of arbitrators and we listen to it. It's up to the two opposing parties to present their evidence, and all we do is evaluate the evidence. We don't even have to think. They put it in writing and give it to us. So-- MS. DEIFIK: Well, I think that we're -- MR. LAFORET: In that respect, yes, we make decisions. They're final, irrefutable, the word of God. However, we don't get special advice from the outside to sit up and tell us, hey, you know, you ought to go down the middle path. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we're MR. LAFORET: We don't need it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We're subject to the appellate process. Whatever rulings and orders that we render here will likely, especially in this case, make its way to the Second District Court of Appeals rather quickly, I would think. MR. LAFORET: Well, you can do that -- you can do that in arbitration also -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand. I understand. MR. LAFORET: -- but it doesn't do you a damned bit of good, because the Court's decision is unless they did something absolutely illegal, immoral, or fattening. Unless they did that, you don't like the decision, the worst thing that the Court can do is to have -- call a rehearing. The Court can't take a case away from arbitration. They can call for rehearing, new arbitrators. MS. DEIFIK: Well, that's a different situation with arbitration. Page 40 March 28, 1996 Here in the -- MR. LAFORET: I understand. MS. DEIFIK: The Court could invalidate our orders, could invalidate any liens that we passed. MR. LAFORET: Well, even if we have an advisor they can invalidate it. MS. DEIFIK: True. MR. LAFORET: Well, that's what I'm saying. Aren't we placing too much importance on the significance of an advisor? I don't know. In my opinion, yes, we are. I think we need an attorney to answer questions for us, but to call in specialists every time? I, for instance, was on a medical arbitration in the State of Maryland. Now, we didn't call in a doctor to advise us. We listened to the two parties. So I'm just wondering, you know, what do we need these specialists for. I'm a little bit stupid, not very intelligent basically, and unless somebody can explain to me in small words and clearly what they're talking about, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't know what he's talking about. School teachers are great for that. But, anyway, I'm -- I'm just not placing that much confidence or importance on an attorney representing us. An attorney for the normal usual things, fine, great. So that's my cents' worth. in fact, that's a quarter's worth. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further discussion on the -- this topic? MR. MANALICH: At this point I think it was a desire of the board for me to work with the chairman then on that topic as well as on Mr. Allen's comments about the whole RFP process. And I will also confer with Miss Sullivan regarding the monitoring of the liens and the foreclosures. MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. That's important. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's good. MR. MANALICH: One thing that Charlie and I had discussed MR. ANDREWS: Let's don't talk about that today. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: We'll get it next time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. Well, in that case the meeting would be adjourned. Thank you, guys. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:04 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD /VI r~ M. ~ RAWSON, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan Page 41