Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/23/1996 1996 Code Enforcement Board May 23, 1996 May 23, 1996 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 23, 1996 The Collier County Code Enforcement Board met on this date at 8:04 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: M. Jean Rawson Jim Allen Charles Andrews Mireya Louviere, Absent Celia Deifik, Absent Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Asst. County Attorney Shirley Jean McEachern, Asst. County Attorney Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AMENDED AGE.NDA Date: May 23, 1996 at 8:00 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. PRELIMINARY MATTERS 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 28, 1996 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Pacific Landco and Pacific Land Co. CEB No. 96-010 6. NEW BUSINESS N/A 7. OLD BUSINESS B. BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel CEB No. 96-005 a) Filing of Affidavit of Non-Compliance/Proposed Imposition of Fines/Liens b) Filing of Affidavit of Compliance BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel CEB No. 96-008 a) Filing of Affidavit of Compliance BCC vs. Joseph M. Hovland CEB No. 96-009 a) Filing of Affidavit of Compliance A. C. 8. REPORTS N/A 9. NEXT MEETING DATE June 27, 1996 10 . ADJOURN May 23, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Everybody ready to go? Collier County Code ~nforcement Board will come to order. Let's start with the roll call co my left, please. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the record reflect that Celia Deifik is in trial this morning, and she is excused. I apologize for the earliness of the hour. There was a real good reason we set this for eight o'clock, because obviously we thought we were going to be in here all day today, and I wanted to have an opportunity to report to the board members about the attorney situation. The last time we met, if you'll recall, there was some discussion and some concern, first of all, that if the county hired an attorney on a permanent basis for us, that maybe the remuneration was such that very good candidates would not apply. I have subsequent to that meeting had an opportunity to meet with the county attorney and with the staff, and I reviewed the list of applicants, and it became abundantly clear to me that many very qualified attorneys had, indeed, applied so that that concern was really not a serious one, and I do believe that Mireya -- and I'm sorry that she's not here yet -- sat on the selection committee. And it's my understanding that that selection hasn't been permanently made yet, but I don't believe there was -- I mean, there should be a concern by this board that we won't have qualified representation. The second thing I wanted to report to you was because Jur second concern, as you will recall, was that we would have someone to represent our interests in the case of Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Pacific Land Company. Because of the unique aspects of that case, it was the concern of this board that we be adequately advised and represented so that we will know all the legal ramifications, and we will know what the law is. I'm happy to report that the county has hired an attorney to represent us. I feel extremely confident that this law firm is indeed very qualified to represent us in this particular case, and I want to give you an opportunity this morning to meet the attorney and the members of his staff that are here, his associates. And I'm going to give him an opportunity to say something to you. We are represented by the law firm of Treiser, Kobza, and Volpe. In particular Kim Kobza is here as our attorney, and I'd like to give Kim an opportunity to meet all of you and say a few words. MR. KOBZA: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your comments. My role for this board, and understanding that this is a difficult case, and in certain respects it's certainly factually involved and, you know, there -- there has been much discussion regarding what law applies and doesn't apply. But my responsibility to you is to give you clear and concise direction in terms of the law, in terms of the procedure that you're to follow, and in terms of any other advice that you may require, whether conflict, statutes apply or don't apply, how the ordinance mayor may not be ~ead, what type of discretion do you have or do not have under the law with respect to how the law may apply to the facts of this case, and Page 2 May 23, 1996 the -- the violations, the alleged violations. I just got into this case at a very late hour, Friday afternoon this last week, and have only had the opportunity to review the -- the notice of violation and the evidentiary packet which was provided by the county attorney. We have thoroughly reviewed your ordinances. We've thoroughly reviewed state statutes, but we have not received any briefing as to the law. There's no -- whether from the county attorney's office or any other party, we have not received any statement or any argument whatsoever or positions, nor had we received them between Friday and today would we be in a position to ad -- advise you as a board as to what our opinions might be and how you might -- you might -- you might consider the argument, the legal arguments, that are made -- made to you. And that's -- that's simply my concern, that you be properly prepared in terms of our advice to you and that we give you good, solid and accurate advice that you can be confident will create the type of record that should be created in this proceeding, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding. So that's my role. And what I -- what my intent would be -- and dependent upon the direction from you, and I take my direction from you. But my intent would be to, first, answer any questions that you have; secondly, to perhaps -- and I'm -- I don't want to jump forward to the -- to the discussion on the continuance, but in the event that the board does grant the continuance, then we -- as part of that we have discussed having specific dates by which all attorneys have submitted all materials to us two weeks in advance of a date certain for this ~oard to have a hearing. And what I would do is provide you with a ~egal memorandum which would give you ac -- that you could read and and rely upon in terms of how the law -- what the positions of these two parties are and then what our advice to you would be. So absent that, I am certainly willing to answer any questions that you may have. MR. ANDREWS: Welcome aboard. Kim, I've known you since you came to town. MR. KOBZA: Sure. That's right. MR. ANDREWS: I listen to him about twice a week. Very capable. MR. KOBZA: All right. Why, I'm very sensitive to the role of a municipal attorney. I served as an assistant city attorney in Norton Shores for seven years, and I've served as a municipal attorney for 14 townships, 14 boards also for seven years, and I -- I understand the role of a municipal attorney very well, though, I'm in private practice today, and I take that role very seriously, and it's one of giving you -- simply giving you advice, and that's -- that's how I intend to proceed, is just to give you the best possible legal advice you can have. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any board members have any questions for Mr. Kobza? MR. LAFORET: Yes. As I read the information charges presented by the county staff, they're charged with code violations, county code violations only. There is no other issue. Now, the county has no regulations, I understand, regarding the application to ~his particular respondent's position. It's my impression, correctly or incorrectly, that their position is one of at least state and Page 3 May 23, 1996 probably national decision, not decision of this board. So I'm rondering if we can proceed strictly with the charges, violations of county code. And if the results of our decisions are not satisfactory to the respondent, then they have the right to go elsewhere. But I don't see that we are responsible for the position they're taking. It's of state or national. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'll direct that question to Mr. Kobza, and he mayor may not be prepared to give you an answer at this time. MR. KOBZA: Well, we're not -- starting point, I'm not sure what the legal positions are or aren't with respect to authority or whatever. I mean, I just haven't been briefed on what those legal positions are to be able to respond to that part of your question in an informed way. I think my caution to you would be that prior to developing any conclusions, we have to have a full evidentiary record here because there are certainly factual issues that are involved, and so as a starting point, until I see law one way or another, I'm not even in a position really to advise you, and I -- I apologize for that, but I just haven't seen any -- MR. LAFORET: I wasn't anticipating an answer today, Counselor. MR. KOBZA: Sure. MR. LAFORET: I was -- my attempt was to tell you the problems that I have with the -- with the situation as it sits now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions for -- MR. ANDREWS: Well, I think -- I think we all agree with ~hat. I think -- what, there have been three -- continued three ~imes, and it -- and it's a bunch of attorneys trying to work out something. I don't kn9w what. And I feel the same way that Mr. Laforet does, that we're here just for one reason, and that's -- that's to enforce county codes, and we've been informed by our staff that there is definitely a violation, and we've been prepared since August, I think, to hear this thing. And then the day before yesterday I got notice that they want to continue it again. And I see no sense in it because -- in the continuance, because all -- all we're going to do is hear the -- hear the case, hear their side of it, and -- and make a -- make a decision, and I see no sense in putting this off and off and off and off. I mean, the lawyers are having a ball, I know, on this one. But -- and every -- seems that every time the respondent has a different attorney, and they have to go through the process, and -- which I understand, but we shouldn't have to suffer for that. We've got other things to do. That's my opinion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Andrews, you'll get an opportunity when we get to that part of the agenda this morning to vote. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I understand that, but this went along with -- with what Mr. Laforet said, and I agree with him. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions? Mr. Kobza, would you introduce your associate and your summer law clerk? MR. KOBZA: The associate from our office that's helping in our preparation is Catherine Kidon. Catherine has been with us for ~wo years now, came out of a Washington, D.C. law school. Andrew-- I'm sorry -- your last name? Page 4 May 23, 1996 MR. REISS: Reiss. MR. KOBZA: Andrew Reiss just joined us this week as a ~aw clerk from the University of Miami, and Andrew also is very talented, but this is his summer experience in Naples, Collier County. MR. ANDREWS: This is a good one to get trained on. MR. KOBZA: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you very much. Well, we'll move on to the approval of today's agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. McCORMICK: I make a motion that we approve the agenda. MR. ANDREWS: Second. MR. McCORMICK: Are there any changes to it? MS. CRUZ: No changes to the agenda. MR. ANDREWS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that we approve today's agenda. Any discussion? All in favor? Let the record reflect that I've just received a message that Mireya Louviere is ill today and has requested that she be excused. The next item is the approval of the minutes of the March 28th, 1996, meeting. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? Do I hear a motion for approval of those minutes? MR. ALLEN: I'll so move. MR. ANDREWS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that we approve _he March 28th, 1996, minutes. All in favor please signify by saying aye. So approved. The next item on the agenda is public hearings, and there is, as you all well know, only one public hearing that is before this board today, and that is the Board of County Commissioners versus Pacific Land Company. So at this time I would call on the county attorney or the county staff to proceed with -- with that hearing. MR. MANALICH: May it please the board, fellow counsel. Good morning, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney appearing on behalf of county staff, also along with Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney. I guess the best way to kick this off is by referring to the conference call that, Madam Chairman, you had along with my office, Mr. Kobza, and the attorney for Pacific Land Co. who is here today, Kate English. And at that conference call Ms. English presented a request for a continuance which was then reduced to writing and delivered on Monday, and you should have all received a copy of that request for continuance. I'll let Ms. English address that request, but I will mention to the members of the board that essentially the result of the conference call was that the county position on the continuance is that we would not have objection to the continuance, although we want to make it very clear we were not requesting the continuance, but we would not oppose it provided that this matter would be continued for one month and one month only and that it be understood that at that next hearing date this matter would oither be tried or settled to its conclusion. But I'll let at this time Ms. English then address the matter of the continuance. Page 5 May 23, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MS. ENGLISH: Good morning. My name is Katherine Bnglish. I represent Pacific Land Company in the matter of Collier County Board of County Commissioners versus Pacific Land Company. At this time I was under the impression from the counsel for the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation that they wanted to be present by telephone. Did they contact you about that, Ramiro? MR. MANALICH: On that point, the counsel for the Seminoles consists of two legal entities; the Indian Law Resource Center, Robert Coulter specifically, and also the law firm of Holland and Knight out of -- in Tallahassee principally, and specifically Martha Barnett, attorney at law. And we have had obviously ongoing communication with them. It was my understanding that I was going to be contacted yesterday by them if they wished to appear today by telephone. That did not occur. I did make a call late in the day to their office, was not able to reach Martha, and left a message. I have not had any message this morning. My understanding is that we do have the speakerphone capability here, but I will also inform the board that on May 10th of this year in one of Ms. Barnett's letters she indicated that it was the intention of the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation to intervene in this case formally and that they would be taking advantage of the opportunity to provide a defense packet or information. Now, neither of those things have occurred to this point, but that was their stated intention. MS. ENGLISH: I spoke with Laura Bellflower late 'Testerday afternoon, probably 5:30, and I think that she tried to ~each you. I know that she was not successful. I spoke with her seven -- at 7:30 last night. I don't know if she left a message on an answering service or what, but she asked that we -- that I convey that request. MR. MANALICH: Was it their intent then to want to at least be allowed the opportunity to participate then by speakerphone today? MS. ENGLISH: I think they just wanted to listen to what was going on today. MR. MANALICH: I should clarify for the members of the board so we don't get confused, the county position is that there's only one respondent party in this case, and that is Pacific Land Co. or Land Company. For the record, will you clarify which? MS. ENGLISH: For the record, the information I've received is it's the Pacific Land Company. MR. MANALICH: Company, okay. Well, in any event, our position is that they are the only respondent in this case. Now, we recognize that there are other interested persons or groups in this matter, one of which may be the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation, but they have not been charged. They are not a party. We would maintain that they do not have standing. However, if the board so directs this morning, we certainly would not be opposed to them being able to be hooked up to listen to the proceedings via speakerphone, and my understanding from staff is we have that capability. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion on whether or not we should call and hook the attorneys up so that they can be a part of -- Page 6 May 23, 1996 at least listen to this discussion this morning? MR. LAFORET: I would like to make a statement. I would dgree with the county's position that the interests of other parties are not applicable to appearance before this board. It's not our business. Only the charges entered by the county would be our business is my opinion and, therefore, we shouldn't waste county time and other people's money in having people appear before us when we can't decide their position. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other discussion? MR. MANALICH: You -- Madam Chairman, in fairness to the board and to everyone concerned, you may want to -- as Mr. Kobza had mentioned earlier, you may want to reserve ruling on that type of issue for that time if and when a motion to intervene is made as far as intervention. As far as participation by speakerphone, obviously you'll need to decide that this morning but CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, in terms of a motion for intervention, there's not one before us. MR. MANALICH: Correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And so we can't rule on something that's not before us. MR. MANALICH: Exactly my point. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: But in terms of letting them listen on the speakerphone, we'll ask our attorney for some advice. MR. KOBZA: It's not legally required. We haven't gotten to the point of discussing or deciding whether due process requires that they be -- that any third parties be parties to this ~ction. At this point it is not legally required. You do have the liscretion certainly to as a board allow that type of procedure. So you have the discretion, but you're not legally required to do it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. I guess I would ask for a motion. MR. McCORMICK: I have no -- no objection to making the effort to call them, if this case takes the course that I think a prudent person could -- could follow, that there will be some following lawsuits and legal battles. I see no reason to -- to keep out this potential third party at this point. If -- if we can get a quick hookup, then I see no harm in having them listen in. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that a motion? MR. McCORMICK: That's a motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ALLEN: I'm -- I'm the opposite side. I believe they have counsel here to represent them. MS. ENGLISH: I'm sorry. I do not represent the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation. MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. I said that incorrectly, okay. Had they wanted to be here, they should have had someone present. This is a public notice. You represent Pacific Land Company; correct? MS. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. MR. ALLEN: I think the third party -- had they needed had they wanted to be here, they could have had a representative here. They had all day long to call Mr. Manalich yesterday and didn't 10 it. I think we've extended enough courtesy. MR. MANALICH: That statement is correct, Mr. Allen, as Page 7 May 23, 1996 I indicated earlier. But I do want to clarify that as far as their )hysical attendance here, they had been talking to me about perhaps participating by speakerphone. I did not indicate any opposition to that. I mean, I'm not the decision maker, but they were under the impression, I think, that the speakerphone route might be available since they're from Tallahassee and the matter might be continued. The only thing that has happened, though, is that I did not receive any contact, although Ms. English indicates that apparently an attempt was made after the office closed yesterday. That's where the matter lies. MR. ALLEN: I guess my point is that they -- sort of different than Mr. -- Mr. McCormick's is that the third party, okay, isn't a part of our discussion today. This is strictly board of Collier County Code Enforcement versus Pacific Land Company. The third party is a nonentity. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm going to second Mr. McCormick's motion for the reason that -- and, again, forgive me for thinking like an attorney. I can't help it after all these years. Since we've had indication by letter of the intent to intervene, it seems to me that whether they're not a party today or not and we haven't had that motion before us to rule on, it looks like they are intent on requesting that they become a party, nor do I think that it's going to hurt if they listen since they are probably not going to participate in the discussion. And it might be helpful, since they may be here when we get to the hearing point. So I'm going to second Mr. McCormick's motion. MR. McCORMICK: Let me add something for clarification, too. If they're listening in to this hearing, it would be at our discretion whether or not they participate. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Correct. MR. McCORMICK: And I think that we can discuss that again if that opportunity comes up. But my motion is that at this time we -- we do make the effort and allow them to listen. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. MANALICH: County position is to the extent that the motion's been made, we would not have a position contrary to the motion with the clarification that that in no way indicates that the county is agreeing to intervention. We're talking two different issues. One is simply being given the opportunity to listen in via the speakerphone route versus actual intervention and participation in the case. MR. LAFORET: I would take a position against the motion in the respect that it's been known -- this case is almost a year old. They were aware of the violations. Now then, they're aware of this hearing, and they haven't shown enough interest to be here. Well, if that's their lack of interest, why waste time and money on a speakerphone? MR. MANALICH: MR. LAFORET: here to listen -- MR. MANALICH: Mr. Laforet, just for clarification, I do feel it's necessary to be clear for the record that I believe that, you know, Holland and Knight is located in Tallahassee, and their -- their principal attorney is a long ways away, and they they were told that this subject would be -- a continuance would be discussed Mr. Laforet -- If they're not interested in attending Page 8 May 23, 1996 here today and very likely supported by everyone concerned. For that ~eason, they understood that they might have the ability at least to listen in by speakerphone as opposed to incurring the expense and time of the long travel. So I don't want it to reflect negatively on Holland and Knight that they're not physically here, because in the discussions with me, they understood that although I was opposed and continue to be opposed to their intervention, they might be able to listen in by speakerphone as opposed to being here in physical presence. So I just -- I don't want that to be held against them because of that background. MR. ANDREWS: I'd like -- I'd like to ask you a question about -- about this hookup on this speaker thing. What -- how complicated is that and how expensive and who pays it? MR. MANALICH: I believe it's ready to go. We've used it at other hearings before. MR. ANDREWS: The thing that -- I really don't have -- have any objections at having them here. I wish they were here to hear what we have to say if we are going to have that continuance today. The thing is, we've had so many continuances, that to have it would seem to be a habit and they just took it for granted that this is going to be continued and didn't bother coming, but we bother coming all the time. We're the guys -- so I think it's time that we pulled the chain the other way and -- and I'm all for going -- as I spoke before, I'm all for going ahead with the thing. It's incidental whether they want to listen or not. I don't care. MR. MANALICH: I don't mean to be an advocate for ~olland and Knight here obviously, but I do want to just be fair on che record, and that is that in response to your comments, you know, I don't know why I wasn't contacted yesterday during normal business hours. However, I can tell you that they have had an ongoing interest in the matter and have expressed that and contacted me regularly on that basis. So I don't believe that their nonappearance here today should be in any way deemed a bad reflection on them or lack of interest but, again, our position is we would not be opposed to the motion as presented clarifying that that does not mean we stipulate to intervention or participation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: While we're still in the discussion subject, I'd just like to say to the board that, as you know, we have a lot of discretion. While we are a quasi-judicial board, the rules of evidence don't strictly apply, and it's always been the position of this board to let whoever wanted to say something say something. And we've given a lot of latitude in the past of letting all interested parties have their say. Then we sift that evidence in making our determinations, and we decide what weight to give to that evidence. It seems to me that this is merely a request by an attorney who is probably going to want to represent the interests of the tenant on the land to listen in. I don't see how any prejudice would be affected by allowing them to listen in. And I think we should give everybody latitude in a case that's as important as this. That's why I seconded the motion. MR. ALLEN: Point well made. I'll rescind my objection. MR. ANDREWS: You know, I don't know -- I don't think there's any objection. Page 9 May 23, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if there's no more 1iscussion, then I'll call for the vote. It's been moved that we allow the firm of Holland and Knight to listen in speakerphone to this morning's proceedings. All in favor motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. LAFORET: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The motion carries. And if the staff would kindly see if you can get them on the telephone and fix the speakerphone, we would be appreciative. MR. ANDREWS: We haven't decided yet whether we're going to -- whether we're -- whether we're going to approve a continuance, have we? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. MR. ANDREWS: So we CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: to the motion. MR. ANDREWS: continuance. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, if I may approach, I believe this is the speakerphone here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. MANALICH: And if you don't mind -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go right ahead. MR. MANALICH: I think Ms. English has the direct dial. Hello. Is this Laura? Hi. This is Ramiro Manalich, the chief county attorney. How are you? I'm calling you from the 20de Enforcement Board hearing. It's my understanding through Kate English -- we were not able to speak yesterday, but it's my understanding through Ms. English that you desire to listen in, and the board has voted just now to allow you to do that on the proceedings today. Do you mind if I put you on the speakerphone? Okay. All right. She's going to also patch in Ms. Barnett so that both of them can listen in so it will be just momentarily. We have one of these phones up in my office; that's why I'm -- Yes. Okay, Martha, good morning. How are you? I'm about to put you on the speakerphone. We're in the Code Enforcement Board proceeding. The board has just voted to allow you to listen in to the proceedings. So if you don't mind, I'll put you on the speaker now. One moment. Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can both sides hear? Can you hear the board? This is Jean Rawson, the -- the chair of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. Can you hear the proceedings? MS. BARNETT: This is Martha Barnett with Holland and Knight. I can hear you fine. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. We are about to get to the next item on the agenda, which is the public hearing of Board of County Commissioners versus Pacific Land Company and Ms. English, who represents them, is here, and she is about to make a motion, and hopefully you'll be able to hear her. Go ahead, Miss English. MS. ENGLISH: Good morning, Martha. MS. BARNETT: Good morning. MS. ENGLISH: Members of the board, I'm here today to and seconded by of the All they're doing is listening in Oh, they're listening in on the Page 10 May 23, 1996 request a continuance on the behalf of Pacific Land Company in this ~atter. I know that all of you have received a copy of the motion for ~ontinuance that I submitted to the county attorney's office and to your attorney earlier this week, and I'd like to briefly state the grounds on which I'm basing this request. First of all, I was retained on this matter by Pacific Land Company on May the 9th. I did not receive a copy of your packet, the enforcement packet, until May the 8th. Pacific Land Company does recognize the seriousness of this matter, and I don't want you to think that they have abused the county when you have been extremely indulgent in granting continuances on this issue. From my conversations with the county attorney's office and with counsel for the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation, I have discovered that there are a number -- excuse me -- of complex social and legal issues associated with this matter, particularly in regard to the state and federal law dealing with the rights of native Americans. While I recognize that the county has a need to proceed with this in a timely fashion, I am requesting only a limited continuance, 30 days, with the understanding that we will appear before the board at the next meeting to present to you either the arguments in this case or to present to you an executed settlement agreement with the parties proceeding to complete the terms of that agreement in good faith. We have -- I have agreed on the behalf of Pacific Land Company to submit briefs to your counsel two weeks prior to the hearing so that he may adequately prepare on this matter. I, too, would like the opportunity to adequately prepare on this matter so that I may represent my client's interests in this case. Based on ~he foregoing and on the motion that I filed with your attorney, I request a limited continuance in this matter for a period of 30 days. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Response from the county? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, as I alluded to earlier, the county has at this time no objection to the request for a continuance with the following clarifications and conditions: The first is that this be a limited one-month continuance. This matter has already been pending far too long, and the only thing I take issue with Ms. English on is in regard to the county sees it as a very straightforward case regarding the enforcement of rather clear code provisions. And given that, we believe that all the parties should be ready to be here in June to have this matter either tried to its conclusion or to announce any type of final settlement at that time. We have no objection to Mr. Kobza's request to have some types of memoranda of law submitted by, I believe, the June 13th date, and we just want to make it very clear that it is not the county staff that is requesting this continuance, but we are not opposed as it has been presented. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Before we vote, let me ask Mr. Kobza if he has some advice for this board. MR. KOBZA: Madam Chairman, in one sense I have a very narrow interest, regardless of how complex or how simple this case is, but the fact is I was just -- just brought in on your behalf this Friday and have not had the opportunity to review any law, any facts, any anything. My interest is in making sure that you as a board have ~he best possible legal advice. I think that's especially important in this case because whether it goes up on appeal from the county or Page 11 May 23, 1996 from the -- the perspective of the alleged violator, both parties in ~his type of action do have a right of appeal. Either or both sides will spend significant resources at that point in time and on future litigation. The potential -- or let me maybe put it this way: The disposition of whatever those future actions might be will be directly dependent upon the procedure that you follow and the record that you establish here, and for that reason it's extremely important that I be able and be in a position to give you the best possible advice. Dealing with virtually no information today, no resources today, it's -- you know, I cannot confidently be in a position to tell you I can do that. And for that reason, I did not object and actually supported the request on that very narrow -- for that very narrow reason, and that's -- I -- I think it's incumbent upon you to provide absolute due process to everyone here, and I think to do that you do need to have proper advice. So my advice to you is if -- and, you know, and I -- I -- let me put it this way to you. Two weeks from now I would expect to have these briefs. I expect to have the law sitting on my desk on June 13th, and I expect to be in a position to give you good advice. And when June 27th rolls around, which I believe is your board meeting, labs -- there is no reason from our standpoint that you will not be in a position to have the best advice available. So that would be my -- my comments and input to you as a board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MS. ENGLISH: Mr. Kobza, let me clarify. You said two weeks from today or three weeks from today? MR. KOBZA: Let's -- let's have a specific date. June the 13th, which is a Thursday, whether that's -- I believe it's three Neeks actually -- MS. ENGLISH: Thank you. MR. KOBZA: -- from today, but whatever June the 13th is so that I have two weeks in advance and I don't get materials at the last minute and I'm in a position of trying to again advise you with three days' notice; that's -- that's what I would ask for. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, the county would request a clarification, which is we have provided essentially the majority of our case already to the parties as well as to the board. Obviously we've invited the other party to do so as well. Is -- Mr. Kobza, are you or is the board requesting further written argument or material or authority from the county? MR. KOBZA: The -- the evidentiary packet is the factual basis and the ordinances. I have not at this point seen any -- let me -- let me put it this way to you. If -- if you want to rely upon that, that's certainly within your absolute discretion. To the extent that you would want to provide any additional legal argument, I would provide you with the opportunity to do that. But whatever additional legal argument that you would provide, I would ask you do that by that date. For instance, you can anticipate what the board's questions may well be, and you can anticipate what the alleged violators' legal arguments may be. I don't want to be in a position where those arguments are being made before this board for the first time without having the opportunity to properly assess the arguments and provide independent advice to the board on my own, which is my responsibility, :0 provide independent advoice -- advice to the board. Likewise, Miss English, I -- I would -- I would make the same statement as to the Page 12 May 23, 1996 alleged violator. MR. MANALICH: The only -- the only concern I have of that, Mr. Kobza, is that the county may be at a disadvantage because we have essentially exposed and displayed our case for a number of months now, which other -- which the other party -- although I know Ms. English came on board late, but they've had that defense packet at least for a month, and obviously the nature of the charges have been well publicized beforehand. Now we're in the position where we don't know what their defense is going to be. MR. KOBZA: All right. Yeah. MR. MANALICH: And we would like an opportunity to react to what they present. MR. KOBZA: I absolutely concur with you, and I it would be my intent that -- and I think maybe the best thing for us to do would be to collectively, you and myself and counsel for specific -- Pacific Land Company, to perhaps sit down after the hearing today, if a continuance should be granted, and develop an understanding as to procedure. But in the interest of due process and fairness to all parties, it would be my intent, if we could agree, that all information be collectively shared and that you have the opportunity to have the arguments of the alleged -- of -- of Pacific Land Company in advance of the hearing as well. In other words, it's a concurrent device. You have everything that they submit. They have everything that you submit. MR. MANALICH: Well, the only difference being, though, that they're going to have the opportunity to tailor their written ~esponses to what we already have of record. What I'm suggesting is you've mentioned the 13th. Perhaps if the county could have another week after the 13th -- is there two weeks between the 13th and the hearing date? MR. KOBZA: Yes, there is. MR. MANALICH: Then what I would request is that the county be allowed at its discretion one week to react in writing to whatever they submit on the 13th. MR. KOBZA: I certainly would have no problem with that. MS. ENGLISH: I object to that. If you'd like to develop some sort of procedure for discovery after this meeting if -- should this continuance be granted, I have no trouble with that. But I have trouble with proceeding at a point where you get all of our arguments and a chance to respond and we have -- I'm assuming that we're going to be limited. MS. BARNETT: Madam Chair, this is Martha Barnett. I have lost the ability to really hear the discussion among counsel, if somebody could summarize it for us. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ramiro, why don't you do that. MS. BARNETT: Ramiro, you may need to get closer to the phone because you fade out pretty quickly. MR. MANALICH: The -- can you hear me, Martha? MS. BARNETT: I can hear you now. Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Yes. The discussion is in regard to counsel for the board, Mr. Kobza, providing that he would like to have )y June 13th the written legal positions of the parties. And the county is stating that since we have already presented our charges and Page 13 May 23, 1996 supporting evidence in writing quite some time ago, that we believe we ~hould be afforded, perhaps, one-week latitude after the 13th to respond to any of the written legal arguments of Pacific Land Co. Ms. English has indicated objection to that. MR. KOBZA: May -- maybe I can help here. The purpose of the 13th -- let -- let me just maybe make it clear this way, okay? The purpose for the 13th is to make sure that I have whatever documents they want to submit to me so that I can advise the board. Either -- Mr. Ramiro, either you or Miss English can submit any additional documentation or arguments that you want subsequent to that date, and certainly I -- I believe by rule and ordinance the board would be in a position where they would have to consider whatever else was submitted. It's not a cutoff. It doesn't prohibit you from responding, nor does it prohibit you, Miss English, from responding. But what I am saying to both of you, is that if you expect me to adequately prepare and provide advice to this board, I expect the best and fullest briefing of -- of the anticipated issues well in advance of the board meeting. It's -- it's really that simple. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Kobza, my understanding -- maybe I'm confused -- is that the only thing we're looking at this morning is that either we continue or we don't continue. MR. KOBZA: Right. MR. ALLEN: And if we don't continue, our Exhibit A is the only thing in question. Isn't it that simple? I mean, we only have pages 1 through 34 of Exhibit A that we're talking about this morning. MR. KOBZA: I anticipate that there are going to be ~ite a number of legal issues raised with respect to how the ordinance applies or doesn't apply, what the -- the adequacy of notice, perhaps. I mean, there could be all types of legal arguments which I am not in a position to advise you of today, and that's the problem. MR. ALLEN: I understand. MR. KOBZA: You know, that in a nutshell is the problem. In one sense it is very straightforward, but my discomfort is that I can't -- you know, I'm trying to give you advice with one hand tied behind my back here. MR. ALLEN: I sYmpathize with your position entirely. MR. KOBZA: All right. . MR. ALLEN: But, however, we've known that this was coming for, like, three or four months. MR. KOBZA: Right. MR. ALLEN: I think -- I think it's unfair to you to be brought on board last Friday when we had 90 days' notice. However, this is a simple issue this morning. We only have pages 1 through 34, okay. If due process was done, I don't -- I don't see this as -- as a major scenario. MR. MANALICH: In regard to the 13th cutoff, the county would have no problem with that with the proviso, I think, Mr. Kobza clarified that in -- both parties could additionally supplement after the 13th, but he expects that the argument and the substance of the ~rgument will be to him on the 13th. MS. ENGLISH: I concur with Mr. Manalich on this point. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's do this. We need to Page 14 May 23, 1996 have the board vote on whether or not the motion for continuance is going to be granted or not. And thereafter we can talk about when legal briefs are due. However, the board probably will have no need to vote on that if the attorneys have reached concurrence here, and if you all have all agreed that this board will be adequately advised and informed well in advance of the hearing so that we will be prepared to proceed, and if you attorneys can reach agreement on that, then there's no need for the board to vote on that. But we do need to vote on your motion which has been made for continuance, and I understand that there is no objection from the county, although the county makes it clear that they are not joining in the motion. Is there any discussion on that motion? MR. McCORMICK: Let me ask a question to Miss English, this process being new to me. What is going to be included in this memorandum of law that the respondents haven't been able to put together up until now? MS. ENGLISH: Bear in mind that I came -- I was retained on this matter on the 9th. MR. McCORMICK: Right. I understand that. MS. ENGLISH: And most of last week I spent doing factual investigation trying to figure out what the situation was. At this point I am only beginning to develop my legal arguments. There is a lot of research that I need to do. I really am not -- I'm really not prepared to discuss what those arguments are, but I am concerned that there are other parties to this who are not sitting at the table, and without that it would be very difficult for us to reach a complete adjudication or decision on the matter that would be a just and equitable resolution to the issue before you. That's my current concern. MR. McCORMICK: So the information that you present is just going to be in response to the -- to the accused violations. MS. ENGLISH: I cannot tell you that it will be -- MR. McCORMICK: To Pacific Land Company? MS. ENGLISH: Yes. I will be responding in terms of Pacific Land Company and responding to the notice of violation, but there are other issues that are associated with it in terms of procedure that I need to more closely examine. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are there any other questions of either attorney or any other discussion on the motion? MR. LAFORET: Yes. The attorneys have taken care of themselves pretty well. I would like to clarify your position that the board be advised of any communication decided upon by the attorneys at least 10 days in advance of the hearing not adequate time because we could get it six O'clock this morning and say that's adequate for you. Adequate is ten days. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I -- I can share your concern, Mr. Laforet. That's why at the conference call that Mr. Kobza and I had with the various attorneys involved in this matter we reached the tentative agreement that we will have these legal arguments by June 13th so that Mr. Kobza can properly advise this board so that this board knows what it's doing. I think that this is a very important case. This case is very likely to be appealed. We want to protect our record. We want to be sure that we proceed correctly. My concern Page 15 May 23, 1996 is that we don't do anything to embarrass the Collier County Code Enforcement Board and that we don't do anything to embarrass Collier County and that we proceed in a just and proper manner. So I share your concern, and I've been assured that we are going to get that information well in advance. MR. McCORMICK: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: Are you under the understanding that you would be included in any additional conference calls between the three parties, or -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't know that. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't know the answer to that question. My attorney would have to advise me. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Kobza. MR. KOBZA: Certainly if it -- let me -- let me go at it this way. You have the discretion as a board to develop your procedure, okay. And if it's your desire as a board that the chairman be a party to whatever calls might take place, then you as a board can make that determination. I believe that has been past practice of the board, if I'm correct in that respect. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That -- that is correct, but it's up to this board. MR. KOBZA: So you have that d~scretion. You -- you have the discretion as a board to develop what you believe to be the appropriate protocol to be followed. MR. LAFORET: Do I hear correctly from Miss English; are you in agreement with the stipulations presented by the county? I heard them present their stipulations on if a continuance is provided, but I haven't heard your agreement to those stipulations. MS. ENGLISH: I apologize. I thought I covered that in my presentation, but I'm happy to go back over them. I requested this continuance on a limited basis for 30 days with the understanding that this would -- matter would come before your -- the board meeting at the end of June to be either -- you would either be hearing legal arguments, or you would be hearing the circumstances of an executed settlement agreement -- that was my understanding -- and that by the 13th of this month you would have -- your counsel and the county attorney's office would have my legal briefs on this matter. MR. LAFORET: I appreciate your legal description of what you're going to do, and all you have to do is answer me yes or no. Do you accept the stipulations of the county on a granting of a continuance? MS. ENGLISH: Yes. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. That's all I needed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we're back to the motion for continuance which is still before this board. And is there any further discussion or questions to any of the respective counsels in regard to that motion? MR. McCORMICK: I don't have any other questions. just wanted to at some time today state for the record discussion with Mr. Kobza yesterday, and I just wanted before we vote on the matter. We discussed if I would I that I had a to say this have any Page 16 May 23, 1996 potential conflicts, my emploYment with wilkison and Associates engineering firm, and it was the advice I received that I didn't have any conflicts so -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I appreciate that. MR. McCORMICK: -- I'm here, and that's why I'll be participating in the vote, too. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I appreciate that, Mr. McCormick, especially since we're going to need your vote here since we don't have all of our members present today. Let me say this: You understand that Mr. Kobza is our attorney, all of us. We can't all talk to him unless we talk to him at the same time or unless one of you talks to him alone because of the Sunshine Law. We have to be very careful about that. But if you have a question like Mr. McCormick had, you know, feel free to call him and discuss that matter with him. Whether or not I will participate in any discussions with the attorneys we should probably reserve on until we decide on the motion for continuance. If there's no further discussion, I guess I need a motion. MR. ANDREWS: I'd -- I'd like to speak again. I made my little speech to start with, and -- and if I'm wrong -- if I'm wrong on this, I want -- I want the board to let me know and the staff. What we're here for today -- originally here for today is to hear a code violation, a Collier County code violation. That is the only thing that we can do here is -- is -- is to work entirely on -- on code -- on the code -- that's what is code enforcement board; am I right so far? Other words, there's a lot of things come -- coming. We can fill this place with people and listen to all kinds of stories, but this is the thing that we're going to decide and -- at the meeting. And -- and -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'll defer that question again to our attorney. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. So I want to hear from our staff, too. I haven't heard a thing from the staff today out -- outside of Ramiro and -- and he says he doesn't care one way or another. If this is the only thing that we're involved in and these people didn't choose to come, in case we didn't want to hear it, I just don't see why we should continue it. I mean, you know, there's been too many continuances, I mean, and this -- you know, there will be another one. I don't care what the specifics are. there will be another one, so -- but am -- am I right? Am I right in what I've said, that this is what we're here for today, just this one violation, that they didn't get a permit? And -- all these -- all these legal ones. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I can answer the question only that, yes, you're correct. That's what we're here for today. But, as you know, because you've sat on this board probably since its inception, there are always other things that come up such as notice, violations of rules of procedure, whether or not due process has been afforded, jurisdiction. And those things are -- come into play, too. And I believe what our attorney is telling us is that if some of those arguments are made by either of the other parties, he needs to be prepared to advise us on those. In other words, Mr. Andrews, I don't think that the attorneys are telling us that it's as simple as a one-issue case. MR. ANDREWS: Well, I -- I still haven't heard from -- I Page 17 May 23, 1996 haven't heard from staff. I mean -- you know, there's all kinds of, you know, state laws and federal laws and all kinds of things that we're not involved in that. And this is what's going to happen to us here for sure, have a house full of people, spend all day, and still wind up doing just exactly what we could do today. That's the way I feel. And if I'm wrong, I want somebody to say so, staff up there, the guys that are involved in the thing. MR. MANALICH: Looks like I'm being pointed at so -- MR. ANDREWS: No, I'm talking about behind you, too. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Well, Mr. Andrews, today I'm speaking on behalf of staff, so I can address that. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Can the parties by the speakerphone here me? MS. BARNETT: We really -- I can't hear -- I could hear Mr. Andrews, but that was it. MR. MANALICH: Let me approach, Madam Chairman, so I'm closer. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Please. MR. MANALICH: Can you hear me better now? MS. BARNETT: Thank you, Ramiro. I can. MR. MANALICH: Okay. In response, Mr. Andrews, while the county certainly agrees with you that in our view the issues are rather straightforward under the code, we are cognizant of the fact that Ms. English says that that may not be the case. Basically the county, even though it's very much desirous of proceeding on this matter today and would have been -- and is, in fact, ready, we also recognize that we have a record that needs to be defended should this matter eventually be appealed. And for that reason, based on Mr. Kobza's comments, based on Miss English's explanation of her late entry into the case, we do not object to a limited one-month continuance. MR. ANDREWS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If there's no other discussion, I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. MANALICH: I -- I think, Madam Chairman, there one other thing that would be involved in your motion. don't know if this -- through the microphone system can and Knight people hear me adequately, or are they still trouble? MS. BELFLOWER: I can hear. Martha, can you hear? MR. MANALICH: Can you hear me adequately? MS. BELFLOWER: Right now I can, Ramiro. MR. MANALICH: Okay. I'll just keep closer to the microphone then. In regard to your motion for continuance, I didn't hear a specific date being mentioned. Obviously the county insists that it be within the next month. Even though we have taken a strong position and continued to assert that we do not believe that there are any other parties other than Pacific Land Company to this case, as I indicated earlier in my discussion with you, I have correspondence from Attorney Barnett that indicates a desire to intervene formally in this action. We are opposed to that but, nonetheless, I feel it's incumbent on me to bring up that in my discussions with Ms. Barnett, she did indicate that if June 27th were selected as the next hearing is And, again, I the Holland having Page 18 May 23, 1996 day, which I think would be the next date in sequence, that might be problematic for her for -- to -- on that limited point, I would be interested in hearing Ms. Barnett's comment. MS. BARNETT: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Our -- as many of -- I think as all of you know, our law firm, Holland and Knight, represents the Independent Traditional Seminoles. It is our intention to participate in the proceedings of the Code Enforcement Board and to abide by whatever your procedures and rules are that you establish such as the ones you've been talking about today. And Ramiro is correct; the June 27th date is a problem for me personally. It is also a problem for Tim Coulter of the National Indian Law Resource Center who has been working with the county in an effort to try to find an amicable settlement to this matter. If the 27th is the date that current parties and everyone agrees to, we will find a way to accommodate our schedules to that. It would be better to have another day. But if that is the date, we will -- we will be available and make ourselves available either through other lawyers or in whatever way we can. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I've been informed by staff that one of the considerations here is that we'll need to check on the availability of this particular room. It's my understanding that for an entire day, other than the usual regular scheduled CEB meeting dates, it can be problematic, so that's something we'd want to consider. And, again, I don't know if counsel intend to file a motion, a formal motion for intervention, because I want to make it perfectly clear that the county's position is in opposition to any such intervention. MS. BARNETT: I -- at an appropriate point, Madam Chair, it might be important to discuss that in terms of a procedure for having that issue resolved in advance of the hearing or whether that issue would remain outstanding until the actual hearing before the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It would be my preference that if that motion was going to be made, that it would be made very timely, very soon, as a matter of fact -- MR. KOBZA: Immediately. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- and this board have an emergency very short meeting in order to vote on your motion and hear arguments on that because it seems if the meeting is on the 27th, that ideally what we're saying is that we don't want any more than a 30-day continuance. If this room is not available on the 27th, then it's on the 26th or the 28th. It's not that important. We just are putting a limit on the continuance, I think. What I would rather see, that motion for intervention be ruled upon by this board prior to that date because on that date we need to be ready to go. Any attorney want to comment on at least the chair's position? MR. KOBZA: Sure. Miss Rawson, we're we're having someone check on the availability of the room. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. KOBZA: -- so that you have that information. MS. BARNETT: I could not hear that response. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: He's having someone check on the Page 19 May 23, 1996 availability of having this room available for us for a full day. Basically -- MS. BARNETT: Why don't the -- if I might, and I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but one of the questions that we had of the Code Enforcement Board was to -- and perhaps counsel can just later in conversations discuss with us, is the procedures that will be followed at the hearing at whatever day that it is actually scheduled, the time, the amount of time available and the procedures for witnesses, for evidence or that type of information. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that information will certainly be given to you, and I think perhaps the -- the county attorney or the three attorneys that are present here today in a conference call can certainly discuss that with you. We would certainly want you to be advised of -- of all of the procedures that the Code Enforcement Board follows. MS. BARNETT: Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, while we check on the availability of the room, I'd just like to request on the county's behalf, if we could, before we leave here today, agree that since the attorneys for Pacific Land Co. as well as the Holland and Knight firm are partic -- are at least participating here today, that whatever notices we give can be given here orally at this meeting without the necessity of further written notices to be sent out. Is there any objection to that? MS. ENGLISH: Pacific Land -- excuse me, Pacific Land Company has no objection to that on behalf of Pacific. MR. MANALICH: Okay. Ms. Barnett, were you able to hear those comments? MS. BARNETT: It -- Ramiro, it had something to do with notice, but I'm not sure of what. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. Essentially Pacific Land Company's attorney has indicated that they have no objection to the county request that whatever dates are set here today, that everyone be considered to be on notice without the necessity of further written notices being sent out once they're announced here at the meeting today. Is that okay with you? MS. BARNETT: I don't -- I don't have any objection to that. I'm not sure what other notices -- what notices are -- MR. MANALICH: Well-- MS. BARNETT: Maybe it would be better if you would tell me what notices that would eliminate. Is there a publication requirement, for example? MR. MANALICH: No. It's just essentially to get you -- any party written notice of what the next scheduled hearing date is. MS. BARNETT: Continuance notice. I do not have any problem with that. MR. MANALICH: Okay. MR. LAFORET: Counsel, I have a question for you. If-- if the intervenors or respondents bring out the points of law which are not included in the Collier County code, are you prepared to call in people, for instance, like OSHA and the Southern Building Code who represent national law? Are you prepared, or are you going to have to in the event of a sudden surprise like that, are you going to have to ask for a continuance so that you can get consultation? Page 20 May 23, 1996 MS. McEACHERN: Good morning, Madam Chairman. MR. LAFORET: Can't hear you. MS. McEACHERN: I'm Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney, here on behalf of staff. The case law says that on ruling on a motion to intervene, it's in the board's discretion to grant that and, furthermore, that the inter -- the intervenor takes the case as they find it and are not to interject new issues unless the board specifically grants them that right and, therefore, conceivably no new issues would be presented. MR. LAFORET: When you refer to new issues, you're talking of issues that are not included in this document? MS. McEACHERN: Correct. MR. LAFORET: Thank you very much, ma'am. MS. BARNETT: Could we request what she was just reading from? Is this rules of the board? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: She wasn't reading from anything. She was speaking right off the top of her head. MS. BARNETT: Oh, okay. MS. McEACHERN: I think you can find it in Westlaw. MS. BARNETT: In response to -- just a comment on what I think I just heard, that certainly the four corners of the document set forth the specific code violation questions, but there are other legal questions that may have state or federal bases that can be raised as a result of actions taken by Collier County and the local Code Enforcement Board. MR. KOBZA: I think the point is this board -- if I can interject, this is precisely the reason that I need to prepare. These attorneys on both sides have different legal positions. I've got to be in a position of advising the board, and that is the issue in a nutshell. The county has a legal position. All these other various attorneys have legal positions, but it's my responsibility to advise you once I have their arguments, and that's -- that's basically why I've said what I've said to this point. You can understand that they have divergent points of view. And I may come back and tell you we stay within the four corners of this document. I may come back and tell you that we don't -- I can't -- today I'm not in a position to be able to say to you, board, that I -- that I can narrowly define exactly what the scope of the issues are. I would appreciate having the benefit of the respective arguments. I don't think it serves the purpose for those arguments to be made today to this board on these other various motions which aren't even really before you. So to that extent -- I -- I did -- I -- Ms. Sinclair from the county manager's office or, excuse me, county commission office -- manager's office is correct -- I'm sorry -- has brought in the calendar for this room. On the 27th of June you have scheduled in this room the hearing -- your hearing on the Lely matter. So to the extent that you would have any -- anything to hear on that matter -- MR. MANALICH: Mr. Kobza, if I can interject, since the county attorney's office is also involved in the prosecution of that case, I think I can authoritatively tell you that the counsel, Mr. Bryant, that is handling that case has indicated to me that is a matter that will be coming forth to you in July, not at that June 27 date. MR. KOBZA: Okay. So then the board meeting room would Page 21 May 23, 1996 be available to you the full day on June the 27th. The next available dates and the only other immediate dates that would be available to you would be Wednesday, July the 10th, and Friday, July the 12th. Those are the next immediately available dates in this room. MR. MANALICH: Is there anything before the 27th? MS. SINCLAIR: No, not really. MR. KOBZA: June the 14th, Friday, June the 14th, which would be the next earliest. So it's either -- for all intents and purposes, it's either June 27th, July 10th, or July 12th, or you could go further into July if that was your initiative. MR. McCORMICK: Well, I would -- if the continuance is granted, I would expect it would be on our normally scheduled day. I don't -- I don't know any compelling reason to change it to another day, and let me continue that the reasons that Mr. Kobza has just given us, his personal plea, if you will, or his reasons to support the continuance, unfortunately, I think, are the most compelling reasons that we need to consider the continuance. I think that we need to, in determining this case, be able to decide or come to a a just and fair conclusion. And as it's presented to us today, we probably could do that. We may and we may not be able to. . But the second thing that we have to do is try to come to a resolution that is -- is the most efficient that we can come to and that is not going to be contested and dragged out. And while I am really embarrassed or disgusted that this has dragged on as long as it has -- I wish that it was settled long before it got to us -- I think that the most prudent position now to -- to bring this to closure would be to accept the continuance on Mr. Kobza's and the other cases that have been made by both sides. I think that that will enable us to -- to decide this matter to completeness in the best manner. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that a motion? MR. McCORMICK: I'll make a motion for the continuance. I'd like to discuss the -- the board dates and the date that the memorandums of law are being submitted and filing, but I think that we should take a vote on the continuance. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And is part of your motion that it be held, if I understood you correctly, on June 27th, our regularly scheduled board date? MR. McCORMICK: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's been a motion that the board accept the respondent's motion for continuance for 30 days to be held on June 27th. Is there a second? MR. LAFORET: I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Laforet has seconded it. Is there any further discussion on the motion for continuance? MR. ALLEN: I'd like to have one -- just one point. I'd like to change the date from our regular date to the Friday, June 14th, date because it seems to linger on and on and on. This has been going on for so long. I think three weeks is adequate time to prepare. That's three weeks from today. MS. ENGLISH: I -- I -- I truly apologize to you for my late entry into this. Absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt I will be prepared to be before you on the 27th with either a settlement or an argument. I will not request a further continuance. But in all Page 22 May 23, 1996 honesty, based on the matters that I currently am trying to handle, I cannot be prepared for you on June the 13th. MR. ALLEN: See, Miss English, that's part of my problem, okay, is that the apathy that we see for Pacific Land Company -- they let this matter lie for ten months before they employed you. MS. ENGLISH: No -- no, sir, they really -- let me make the case for Pacific on this issue. They are not apathetic. I realize the board only has the information that you have in your packet to go on, but there has been a relationship between the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation and members who are involved in Pacific Land Company for a number of decades. The reason that all of this came to pass was the request of my grandfather who was a friend of the Billies and who requested that his sons provide land for the Billies to live on. And I know that this is a matter that you all have not heard at this point, but there is a long history here and a long and good relationship between members of Pacific Land Company and the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation, and we are concerned that that relationship not suffer because of this, and we are concerned that we reach what is a just, equitable, and reasonable solution for everybody involved. We absolutely recognize the need of the county to proceed with this in a timely fashion, and we recognize that the county has been extremely generous in allowing us the time to try to work this out. We also recognize that the time has come for the rubber to hit the road, and I'm telling you it can hit the road on the 27th. I am not comfortable with the 13th, but I will be before you with either a settlement to present with the county attorney's office to you or arguments in this matter. Please do not think because of the delays that you have seen that it is a matter that Pacific Land Company has not been intimately interested in and very, very concerned about, that there is a personal relationship here that is involved in this matter that is very delicate, and we would like to work this out to the extent possible. MR. MANALICH: The county is not opposed to the June 27 date. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: There's been a motion and a second that this matter be continued until June 27th. Is there any further discussion? Then I'll call for the vote. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. ANDREWS: No . MR. ALLEN: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Three to two. The motion for continuance will be granted. MS. ENGLISH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, did I understand from the three attorneys, including ours, that we have an agreement about the briefs on the June 13 or -- 13th, or is that something that this board needs to decide on? MR. MANALICH: The county is fine with that. My understanding is June 13, 5 p.m. for the substance of the legal arguments. If there's need for any supplementation, it can occur, but Mr. Kobza's intent is to not -- to have the substance of the arguments by June 13th. MS. ENGLISH: Yes. On the 13th to be delivered to Mr. Page 23 May 23, 1996 Kobza's office with copies to the county attorneys and any other parties involved. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In view of the fact that we have a consensus among the attorneys, does the board feel a necessity of putting that to a vote? Okay. Then I'll need one further direction from this board. It has been, I guess, a question of one of the members that whether or not I was going to be involved at all in any conference calls with all of the attorneys involved, and I guess I need some direction from the board since we are adequately represented by Mr. Kobza. If you want me to be involved, I will. I guess I need for you to let me know that. MR. ALLEN: I'd like to make a motion that you should be involved. MR. ANDREWS: I'll second that. MR. LAFORET: Second, third. MR. McCORMICK: Yeah, I would -- I would suggest that you -- Mr. Kobza communicates with you, and at your discretion you are involved in the conference call or you receive a follow-up from Mr. Kobza after the conference call, but in that -- I don't think that changes the motion, that you are involved. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't -- I really don't know that procedurally we need to vote on that. You've given me your direction, and I can assure you that I -- I will continue to be involved, and Mr. Kobza and I will continue to have a very good working relationship, and he will inform me of what's going on in this case. Anything else on -- MR. McCORMICK: The -- can I -- can I ask for a clarification? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: At one point you mentioned that there was a third-party intervention, that you suggested that it be prior CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's probably one of those things that we're going to have to do by conference call with the attorneys. That's my personal preference. I -- I don't really want to get here on the 27th and have a half-a-day argument on a motion to intervene. MR. McCORMICK: That's exactly the reason I brought it up. I don't want to see anything delay or push us away from the 27th if CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I agree with you, Mr. McCormick. MR. LAFORET: We'll vote on that today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We can't vote on a motion to intervene because it hasn't been formally made to us. MR. LAFORET: Can we vote on a motion that we will not accept any intervention? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. I don't think we can vote on anything that is not before the board procedurally. MR. McCORMICK: Well, what I'd like to do, if it comes about through the conference call, that we do that on that 13th date that's open, and we're not locked out of this room where we have to do it on the 27th. Is there any way we can structure that now so that it's -- we can react to that? MR. MANALICH: Well, frankly, I think that the county would appreciate some certainty as to whether this issue is going to be dealt with or not or what time frame is going to be allowed for it Page 24 May 23, 1996 to be raised, if at all -- if it at all is going to come up. MR. McCORMICK: I think it needs to be raised to us before the 13th of June, and I don't know what date it needs to be raised to you to prepare for that. MR. KOBZA: Perhaps I can help provide direction. MR. McCORMICK: Sure. MR. KOBZA: Because this is the same concern -- I share that concern as your counsel. The 14th is the one available date for this room where you could conduct a hearing on a motion for intervention or any other motion that might be filed, for that matter. I think in terms of any procedural matters, getting those out of the way before a full-day hearing is probably a pretty good idea. To be prepared, from my standpoint, I would like to see that motion as soon as possible to be able to give -- to be able to give you direction. I don't want to see a motion on the 12th and be asked to give you advice on the 13th. If there's going to be a motion for intervention, I'd like to see it in the next week, and I -- you know, I guess -- I would say this, too. You have existing standing rules in the way that you've dealt with third parties in public. And we're tending to apply formal rules of -- a motion for intervention is a formal rule of civil procedure that you might find, for instance, in a lawsuit. And there's nothing to say, for instance, that regardless of what motions mayor may not be filed, that there may not be the opportunity for public input, as you've always had that public input, and that that would protect the rights of other third parties. I can't tell you how I'm going to advise the board on that question when it's raised, but I -- I want you to understand that we haven't -- I don't believe this board has historically had formal rules of procedure as you would in a civil litigation matter. And in effect, this type of thing is a formal -- is -- is analogous to what you would do in the context of a lawsuit. So I think the board has a lot of latitude here in terms of what its discretion is in developing the procedure that you -- you want to follow and that will ensure due process. MR. LAFORET: Also I wanted you to understand my comments are not directed to counsel in this room. MR. KOBZA: All right. MR. LAFORET: My comments are directed because we've been jerked around like puppets on a string on several cases involving intervention, involving any excuse that you have personally heard in a legal court, we got it. MR. ANDREWS: That's right. MR. LAFORET: We've been as long as three or four years giving the complainant time, dispose of all his assets, do whatever he wants to do. Some of them died of old age before we actually got the case to hear, and we're just tired of it. So that's why you would know that I'm not addressing the counsel in this room. I'm not picking on you two counsel because you're new, and you haven't got prepared; I understand that. The reason I -- only reason that I seconded his motion is a courtesy to you two counsel, but -- but I'm not enthusiastic about the thought of being jerked around again for another four, five years before this case gets heard. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't know that we can bring anything formally to a vote, but I guess we can all sort of pencil in Page 25 May 23, 1996 the June 14th date. If there's a motion to be heard, we'll let you all know in a timely fashion. MR. McCORMICK: Do we need to clarify that the -- an intervention by any third party that is present today needs to happen within the next week as was Mr. Kobza's suggestion? Should we make that a motion and a vote? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved that any intervention that's going to be forthcoming by any third party be filed within a week of today's date. Is there a second to that motion? MR. ALLEN: Second that. MS. BARNETT: Could I comment on that, Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: I think that certainly our clients will try to make a decision as to whether and in what form we are going to participate in the proceedings, but if you adopt that motion, I think that Ramiro's earlier agreement by counsel that you did not have to publish notice about the changed hearing dates, you may need to revisit that because these are public hearings, and traditionally proceedings before code enforcement boards, members of the public can come up to and including the day of the hearing and -- and assert whatever interests they have, including interests as substantially affects a party. So I think to take -- you know, by telling you we intend to address this and understand the urgency and the timing and will -- will -- will accommodate your concerns in that regard, I think to -- to take a motion that shuts off intervention is at a minimum going to require some type of notice to the public because there are other people who might want to participate or feel that they have standing to participate in this issue. MR. McCORMICK: The -- the motion that I made maybe addresses that. I -- the motion was for -- that any third party that is involved in this proceeding today here in the room or by conference call, that they would need to make their intervention within a week. I understand we can't block out other third parties that we don't even know about without giving them proper notice, and that's why the motion was -- was made as it was. MS. BARNETT: I certainly would hope you would not adopt that motion. I appreciate you giving me a chance to speak even though we're not parties and just coming from the public. I would certainly hope you would not adopt that motion at this time. It -- as I said, I would need time to sit down with the Seminole Indians and talk with them about this and talk with them about some of the issues that would be related to intervening or simply participating in these proceedings. We will abide by whatever rules you all properly establish and -- to the best of our ability. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Kobza, would you be able to as counsel for the board to generate the written notices of the dates that have been agreed to here at the meeting today just so there's no lack of clarity on those dates? MR. KOBZA: Absolutely. MR. MANALICH: Okay. And I don't think anything in the motion that I heard presented was intended to say that there would not be public notification, as there always are, for the code board meetings. I think -- and Mr. McCormick can correct me if I'm wrong, Page 26 May 23, 1996 but I think his intent was to simply state to the parties that you who are participating here today are on notice of what the board and its counsel expect as far as upcoming dates. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We -- before we vote on Mr. McCormick's motion, which I believe is that the -- any intervenors be given a week to file motions to intervene; was that basically your motion? MR. McCORMICK: The intervenors that are here today that are present, that they have the week -- there may be intervenors that we don't know about, other third parties. I don't think that we can properly close them off -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. McCORMICK: -- and give them a week. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Before we vote on the motion, I think we really do need some advice from our attorney whether or not our -- anybody's due process rights might be violated. MR. KOBZA: I don't believe that anybody's due process rights are being violated. You're trying to accommodate a party that has identified itself as a potential intervenor. As I understand Miss Barnett's suggestion, it was that she -- that would not give her adequate time to prepare, to advise the client and prepare. We have the same type of -- of time constraints on our part. I would emphasize that following the rules of the board in the past and the past practice of the board, regardless of an outcome on a motion for intervention, there's always a right of public participation in these hearings. So you -- you're not precluding any and all parties from potentially participating in your hearings and asserting their interests, okay. As I -- MS. BARNETT: Would you mind re -- summarizing what he said? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I wouldn't even attempt, but I'll ask Mr. Kobza if he would maybe come up here and let -- or speak right into the microphone -- MR. KOBZA: Sure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: so that Ms. Barnett can hear you. MR. KOBZA: Okay. Miss Barnett, basically what I've said is this -- the board is trying to accommodate you as a party or your clients as parties who have identified themselves as potential intervenors as parties in this action. If the board would -- you know, first -- starting point, you mayor may not file a motion for intervention at your discretion in the future. That is to assert standing as a party. Whatever the outcome of your decision or the board's ruling on -- on any motion that might be filed, there's nothing in the past history of the board, I believe, which precludes public participation in these hearings and the assertion of rights of what may be substantially affected parties. I think that procedurally what we want to know is if you intend to fully participate as a party, that we know that and we know it soon, and that, I believe, is the intent of the motion. I don't know that that motion, if granted, which is an issue as to whether I would even advise the board that they could grant such a motion, because I understand it to be the county's position that it probably would not be an appropriate motion, and they may well be correct. I Page 27 May 23, 1996 can't say that today, but however that would come out, that does not necessarily mean that just using the normal rules of procedure of this board that they could not otherwise assert their -- their interest as substantially affected parties. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, on behalf of the county, our stated position is we share the concern of the board's counsel to eliminate the mystery of who may appear in this action later on. We think it's pretty straightforward. We've got the right people here right now with Pacific Land Company. However, we understand that Holland and Knight and perhaps others that we're not aware of might assert that they have an interest. We would share the board's counsel's desire to put some parameters of that window for participation. We've heard the June 14 date, and we support that. And, likewise, we want to preserve our objections, even though we understand that absent the parties participating here today in this hearing, we cannot foreclose categorically anyone else. We want to preserve our objections so that even though we agree with having this window of opportunity through the 14th, as Mr. Kobza announced it, we don't want by agreeing to that to in any way waive any objections we may have for further on if other unknowns appear and try to join the party. We would object to that, but we agree with the limited window of opportunity for the parties participating today to announce their -- and come forward with their intentions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does everybody understand Mr. McCormick's motion and the second? MR. McCORMICK: Let me possibly restate it or clarify. I'm not sure if I communicated adequately. Not only was the motion to require this third party to submit within a week but that I would like our chairman -- to give the chairman discretion to call that meeting for the 14th whereby we -- we would hear that. If we felt or you felt that that was going to take up time on the 27th to hear that case that we want to hear the case on the 27th. So I want to give you the discretion to call that special meeting on the 14th to hear that motion of intervention. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The motion has been slightly amended. Does the seconder agree with the amendment? MR. ALLEN: Yes. MR. LAFORET: Could I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. LAFORET: All right. Counselor, any counselor, I understand there's two types of intervenors: One becomes a party in the case, and the other is strictly advisory, that they have an opinion. Which type of intervention would you recommend we tolerate? And I'm not asking you "now." MR. KOBZA: Uh-huh. MR. LAFORET: Look it up. MR. KOBZA: Uh-huh. MR. LAFORET: If you ask us to tolerate if any type of intervention, personally on -- personally at this point until I see some evidence of the contents of the intervenor, I'm against this intervention at this late date that I feel had plenty of -- plenty of . opportunity. However, my opinion is over -- has been overvoted on, and they're going to consider it. But I would like to know if we could accept them as merely advisory and not as a party, in which Page 28 May 23, 1996 case, yes, I would listen to advice and give it as we say in arbitration, the weight we consider it deserves. So I would appreciate being informed on that when you get a chance. MR. KOBZA: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any other discussion on the motion that has been seconded? All in favor of that motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Any other business related to the public hearing of the Board of County Commissioners versus Pacific Land Company that needs to come before this board today? MR. MANALICH: Mr. Kobza, I understand you'll be reducing to writing these stipulations that have been made here today with regard to the dates upcoming; is that correct? MR. KOBZA: That would be my intent, and I would prepare that for the chairman's signature. MS. BARNETT: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. BARNETT: Can I request that either the board or through your lawyer provide us with a copy of the procedural rules of the Code Enforcement Board if you have such rules, and if not, indicate to us whether you're going to use Section 120 of the Florida Statutes on Administrative Procedures or what will be the procedural guidelines for conducting the hearings that are now being scheduled? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ms. Barnett, I'm sure that the staff of the county will be happy to provide you with the procedural rules of the Code Enforcement Board -- that's public record -- and, you know, a copy of the section of the statute, if -- if it applies. MS. BARNETT: Now, we actually -- we have the statute, but I would simply -- what we would like to have is a confirmation of what -- what rules, procedural rules, are going to apply to these hearings. These are -- as you know better than I, far better than I, that these are generally public hearings. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: They are public, yes. MS. BARNETT: And they may not comport in all instances with formal administrative proceedings, but some of the procedures that are being established today seem to deal with that, and it would be very helpful for us in determining our posture and -- and how we are going to participate in the time frame you set up, if we could have a clear understanding of how this hearing will be conducted and what rules will be applied to it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that's a fair request and, Ms. Cruz, or, Mr. Manalich, do you have any objection to sending that to Miss Barnett? MR. MANALICH: No. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You'll have that, Miss Barnett. MR. MANALICH: Just as a clarification, Madam Chairman, though, it's my understanding Mr. Kobza can instruct you on this, but there's no requirement in Chapter 162, the Code Enforcement Board statute, or Ordinance 92-80 that this be a full-blown Chapter 120 proceeding and, I mean, that would be our position. Basic fundamental due process will apply as that has been examined by the case law, and I believe there are some written guidelines that have been reduced to Page 29 May 23, 1996 writing in the past regarding this board's procedures, and we'll certainly provide those. MS. BARNETT: Thank you, Ramiro. That's the kind of information and specificity that we would like to have so we can plan in the next week as to what and how we will participate. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anything else in regard to the public hearing that needs to come before this board? If not, I guess we'll close the public hearing. MS. BARNETT: Madam Chair, I want to thank you for -- and members of the board for allowing us to sit in on this conference call this morning. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You're very welcome. We'll close the public hearings at this point in time. Do you want to have a break before we get to the old business? MR. McCORMICK: I think so. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We'll take a ten-minute break. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. The board will come back to order. We are now to item 7 on our agenda which is -- sorry, item 6, which is new business, and I presume there is none. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Then we move to item 7, old business. And the first two, A and B, involve Mr. Martel, who I see is present here this morning. Yes, Ms. Cruz. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. For the record my name is Maria Cruz, code enforcement specialist. Case No. 96-005, BCC versus Jean Claude Martel, appeared before this board on February 22nd, 1996. After hearing -- this board heard arguments respective to all the -- to this matter. An order was issued asking Mr. Martel to comply with the violation. On March 28th this case came back before this board. Mr. Martel asked -- asked for a contin -- for more time to be granted in order for him to comply. A i5-day -- a compliance was granted to Mr. Martel to provide for a variance regarding the two-story sheds that appeared on his property without permits. Mr. Martel did obtain those permits. Staff is asking that even though there was a 15-day period, that Mr. Martel failed to comply with his order and that there would be a -- an $850 fine accumulated for those 15 days. Due to that Mr. Martel went through a lot of effort to comply with the county's order with this board's order, staff is requesting that no fine be imposed at this time with the stipulation that Mr. Martel follows the permit guidelines. And if this permit expires before completing -- before obtaining a certificate of occupancy, that the fines be retroactive. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is this on CEB No. 96-005 -- MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- only? Anybody have any questions for Miss Cruz? MR. ANDREWS: No, sounds pretty good. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is that in the form of a motion? MR. ANDREWS: Oh. Yeah, I'll make a motion that we accept. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It -- it's been moved that we accept the staff recommendation. Is there a second? Page 30 May 23, 1996 MR. ALLEN: I'll second. MR. McCORMICK: I'll-- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? No. 96-005 we have a motion and a second recommendation as stated on the record. by saying aye. All opposed? The motion carries. Moving on to CEB 96-008. MS. CRUZ: This case, again, appeared on February 22nd, 1996. The -- this board issued a -- an order requesting respondent in this case, being Jean Claude Martel, to comply to take certain corrective actions by April 23rd, 1996. Staff conducted inspections and revealed these inspections revealed that the corrective actions were taken. At this time I'd like to file an affidavit of compliance. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't believe that requires a vote. She's filing an affidavit of compliance. Do you need a motion from us that this case be dismissed? MS. CRUZ: Please. MR. LAFORET: So moved. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: this case be dismissed. All opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Martel. Thank you for your cooperation. MR. MARTEL: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The next item before this board is Board of County Commissioners versus Joseph Hovland, CEB No. 96-009. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, this case, 96-009, involves Joseph M. Hovland as trustee and the Joseph M. Hovland land trust number No.1. This case appeared on March 28th '96. This board issued an order requesting that the respondent take corrective actions by or before April 27th. Again, reinspections by the code enforcement staff revealed that these corrective actions were taken. I'd like to request that an affidavit -- I'd like to file an affidavit of compliance at this time. MR. McCORMICK: What were the actions that had to be taken? Refresh my memory. MS. CRUZ: He was supposed to complete an installation of a county-approved landscaping plan within 30 days, which would be by March 28th, and if he didn't comply by then, he was asked to pay a hundred dollars per day for each and every day. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And at this time you're filing an affidavit of compliance, so we probably need a motion to dismiss that case as well. MR. McCORMICK: I'll make a motion to dismiss. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second? MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All in favor please signify by saying aye. All opposed? In terms of CEB that we accept the staff All in favor please signify It's been moved and seconded that All in favor signify by saying aye. Page 31 May 23, 1996 Motion carries. Is there any other old business? Are there any reports? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: As you are all very much aware, the next regular meeting of this board will be on June 27th, although you should pencil in your calendar the date of June 14th in the event that this board needs to have a special meeting on a motion to intervene. We should look forward to having briefs from the various attorneys. If they have to turn them in by Friday -- Thursday the 13th at five o'clock, I would assume you'd probably get them the next day. And our attorney has promised to brief all of us shortly thereafter. So stay healthy. When you see our other two board members, please insist that they clear their schedules as well. Is there any other business to come before this board? In that case I would entertain.a motion to adjourn. MR. ANDREWS: They like it so well they don't want to vote. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Andrews wants to stay. I'll make a motion that we adjourn. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. All in favor say aye. This meeting is adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 10:12 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD J CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan Page 32