Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/27/1996 1996 Code Enforcement Board June 27, 1996 June 27, 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 27, 1996 Met on this date at 8:30 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 Andrew Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Asst. County Attorney Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGE.NDA Date: June 27, 1996 at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier County Government Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2 . APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 23, 1996 and June 14, 1996 4 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BCC vs. Pacific Landco and Pacific Land Co. CEB No. 96-010 5. NEW BUSINESS N/A 6. OLD BUSINESS N/A 7. REPORTS N/A 8 . NEXT MEETING DATE July 25, 1996 9 . ADJOURN June 27, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Collier County Code Enforcement Board will now come to order. Let's have a roll call starting at my left. MR. McCORMICK: Richard McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's my understanding that our other member, Miss Louviere, will be coming in shortly, but we'll go ahead and get started without her. The next thing on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion from one of the board members to approve the agenda? MR. ANDREWS: So moved. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded that the agenda for June 27, 1996, be approved. All in favor please signify by saying aye. All opposed? The agenda is approved. The next item is the approval of minutes. There were two sets of minutes that have been provided to this board; May 23, 1996, and June 14, 1996. I hope everybody has had an opportunity to review those minutes. Anybody have any corrections or additions to the minutes? If not, do I have a motion that those minutes be approved? MR. ALLEN: I'll so move. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that the minutes of May 23, 1996, and June 14, 1996, be approved by this board. All in favor please signify by saying aye. All opposed? The next item on the agenda is public hearings. There's only one public hearing before this board today. That's the Board of County Commissioners versus Pacific Land Co. and Pacific Land Company, CEB No. 96-010. At this time I would call on the county attorney to ask him what the status of the case is. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board, opposing counsel. For the record, Ramiro Manalich, chief assistant county attorney, and Shirley McEachern, assistant county attorney, on behalf of county staff. At this point regrettably we wish to request of you another continuance in this matter. The reason for this is twofold. I'll be very succinct. The first one is that last Friday we became aware that the respondent in this case had transferred the parcel which is in question in this case to another entity which is -- by the name of Vine Ripe Farms, Inc. And it's our belief that in order for us to properly proceed in this matter, that we would need to notice and cite the new landowner. It is our intent to keep the previous landowner also in the case, provide them an opportunity to comply, and that if we don't do that, there would be a procedural problem. The second element in our request for a continuance is Page 2 June 27, 1996 that we believe there's been substantial progress toward a conceptual agreement to resolve this matter. For both of those reasons, we'd respectfully request that this matter be set over to the August meeting. That particular date is for two reasons. One is that if we have to notice a new party, obviously that's going to involve some time as well as give them a brief opportunity to comply. Secondly, it's my understanding that in your July calendar you have a very substantial case you may be hearing also. For both of those reasons we think it would be appropriate, plus it would give the parties further time to deliberate over the proposed resolution of this matter short of your involvement. We would also reserve the right, if you grant this continuance, to obviously consider adding any other parties that might be appropriate based on the facts and/or any other charges. And that would be our request this morning. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me ask you, Mr. Ramiro -- Mr. Manalich, sorry, you are requesting a continuance for the August -- to be MR. MANALICH: We believe the shortest time frame that would be fair to all parties in this would be to set this matter to the August hearing date. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You know what that date is? MR. MANALICH: I assume it's the last week in August, the last -- or the fourth Thursday in August. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Before I call for a discussion by the board, why don't we do this. Why don't we have all the attorneys who are seated to the front of me on the right identify themselves starting over here (indicated) and who you represent. MS. BELFLOWER: My name is Laura Belflower with the law firm of Holland and Knight. To my right is Elizabeth Bevington with Holland and Knight. To her right is Karen Walker with Holland and Knight. To her right is Deborah Schaaf with the Indian Law Resource Center. She can introduce herself. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I've been informed that date would be August 22nd. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MS. ENGLISH: My name is Kate English. I represent Pacific Land Company and Vine Ripe Farms, Inc., which has acquired the property on which the chickee -- the Indian village -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ms. English, since you are a party to this action, would you mind taking the -- the podium here so you can be on the microphone and responding to the county's request for a continuance till August 22nd. MS. ENGLISH: Pacific Land Company and Vine Ripe Farms are prepared to proceed today. We don't object to the county's request for a continuance, but we don't support it either. Last Friday we submitted to the county a notice of substitution on the part of Vine Ripe Farms. When Vine Ripe Farms purchased the property from Pacific Land Company, it was with the knowledge that the Indian viII -- that the Seminole village was there. In the notice of substitution to the county if the county would permit Vine Ripe Farms to step into the shoes of Pacific Land Company and accept all the rights, responsibilities, and retain all of the defenses, Vine Ripe and allow Vine Ripe Farms to proceed in the stead of Pacific Land Page 3 June 27, 1996 Company, that it would accept that position. Should the county decide that what they want to do is to add Vine Ripe in addition to Pacific, Vine Ripe is not willing to waive notice. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So you don't -- MS. ENGLISH: If you proceed today without a substitution, you proceed only against Pacific Land Company. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. So you are basically not objecting but not supporting the motion? MS. ENGLISH: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, in order to make a properly informed decision, why don't we ask the county attorney if the -- what the county's position is on substitution of Vine Ripe for Pacific. MR. MANALICH: Our position is that you had an original violation for which Pacific is answerable, and now you've had this transfer of property, which also makes the successor in interest responsible for at least enforcement purposes, if not also an ongoing violation. We believe that it's necessary to have both parties present. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And in view of the fact that Ms. English has told this board that they would not waive notice, what kind of problems does that present for the county? MR. MANALICH: Well, we believe that we don't want to be having this case go beyond this forum into an appellate setting with a built-in appellate issue regarding notice to Vine Ripe. You've heard them say that they will not -- if we decide that we want to keep Pacific in the case, they will not waive the notice provisions for Vine Ripe, so we don't want to proceed in that context. We'd rather bring the case to you properly set up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: So that the appeal is on a substantive rather than a procedural issue, is that what you're telling me? MR. MANALICH: We see it as potentially substantive. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does any board member have a question for either Mr. Manalich or Ms. English? MR. ALLEN: I'd like to know when it was transferred from Pacific Land Company to Vine Ripe Farms. MS. ENGLISH: It was transferred on the 13th of June, but I did not want to -- I did not submit a notice of substitution until we had a recorded -- a document that was recorded in the county records. MR. ALLEN: What's going to -- what's going to keep this from happening again? What if it goes from Vine Ripe to somebody else? (Ms. Louviere entered the room.) MS. ENGLISH: No. Vine Ripe appears before you today ready, willing, and able to proceed with this case. There's nothing to stop you from proceeding today except substituting Vine Ripe. That is all that stands in the way. You'll have the property owner before you -- MR. ALLEN: I have a problem, the fact that you didn't -- did not display this to us last meeting two weeks ago. Obviously this has not just happened overnight, and you did not disclose this to this board. MS. ENGLISH: No, I didn't, but I did not have a Page 4 June 27, 1996 recorded document. I was concerned that the county would file a lis pendens prior to the time that I could get the document recorded. MR. ANDREWS: I'd like our attorney's opinion on what we should do about this. This seems this could be perpetual motion, could go on forever. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me do this before Mr. Kobza, who is the board's attorney, responds. Could the record reflect now that Miss Louviere is here and that all the county Code Enforcement Board members are present today. Mr. Kobza. MR. ANDREWS: Welcome aboard. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. Sorry I'm late. MR. KOBZA: I -- I have no opinion with respect to the continuance, and I said to the board at the last meeting that in the event that we were here today, that we would be ready to go and ready to present the case and -- or ready to advise the board on the presentation of the case. We're ready. So from that perspective we're fully ready to advise the board. The problem that the county attorney is describing to you is one of potentially enforcement to some degree. The problem is that any action that is taken today which would potentially result in a finding of a violation would mean that any enforcement action could only be taken against Pacific Land Company, which no longer owns this property, and that they would not have the ability to -- to join in the owner of the property. And so that creates an enforcement problem for the county. Now, that's not to say that, for instance, if there were such a finding that there could not be an enforcement remedy to other property that Pacific Land Company might own within the county. That potential exists. But even with respect to that type of enforcement action with respect to other count -- property that Pacific Land Company might own in the county, there are even potential enforcement issues with that type of -- with that type of action, because as -- as a predicate to enforcement, there has to be an ability to remedy the violation, And if they don't own the property, can they -- do they have authority to remedy the violation. So that -- that creates its own set of issues, and I think that's probably what the county attorney here is -- is very much focused upon is the ability to enforce whatever the county board -- or this board would decide if it should find that there be a violation. The county attorney is properly concerned about the -- the approach or the procedure to be followed in the sense that it's not agreeing to allow substitution of counsel -- or substitution of parties because what that would mean, of course, for this board is that anytime that there would be a violation, any potential violator could merely through the transfer of property avoid the consequences of the violation. And so what the county attorney has said here, and I think very, very appropriately, is that with respect to the -- the -- their reluctance or their reticence to agree to the substitution, that creates a potential future problem for the county regardless of whether this transfer may have been in good faith or not, whatever. The next transfer mayor may not be in good faith MS. ENGLISH: Let me -- MR. KOBZA: -- and that's the issue. I'm advising the board, please. Page 5 June 27, 1996 MS. ENGLISH: I'm sorry. MR. KOBZA: Okay. So in terms of my advice to you, I'm I'm not going to be in a position of advising the board whether to grant or not to grant the continuance. It's up to the county to frame its case and how it comes before you. But what I will say to the board is that you should be aware that there are potential enforcement problems if the board proceeds and makes a finding today. So you need to be aware of -- of that set of facts and to otherwise understand why -- why the county would be asking in terms of the precedent it creates for you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any more questions for our attorney? MR. LAFORET: Yes, I have a question. I object to any changes to the original charges. Now, my reason for doing so is that we've been in this before, and on several large cases we've had enough continuances so that the original respondent was bankrupt. He had time to dispense with all his assets. I, therefore, disagree with his -- with counsel's request for an extension of time, and I disagree with counsel's request for changing the charges. Now, secondly, I think everybody has had adequate time. I can visualize that at next month's meeting somebody else bought the property, another extension. MS. ENGLISH: I-- MR. LAFORET: I can visualize. It's happened before, ma'am, please. I can visualize this case just continuing, continuing. It's my recommendation we hear this case today under the original charges. Now, if the county wishes to include somebody else, let them start a new case for somebody else if this is a continuing offense. If -- if any counselor wants to go to another source for a decision, they're going to go anyway. MS. LOUVIERE: I came in late -- MR. LAFORET: They already declared themselves it's going to go, so what have we got to lose? Let's get this off the record and stop playing games with it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Laforet, I don't think anybody is trying to change the charges. I think that what they're trying to do is substitute a party. But the charges against Pacific Land Company aren't being changed just, you know, to correct that. Mrs. Louviere. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry. I came in late. Could you please read to me when was this transfer took place and to who it was transferred to from the minutes? MR. ALLEN: June 13th to Vine Ripe Farms. MS. LOUVIERE: June 13 to whom? MR. ALLEN: Vine Ripe Farms. MS. ENGLISH: I have an explanation for this that may prove helpful to you and why this isn't -- the transfer that's going to be continuing. Pacific Land Company is a partnership. Some of the partners are Englishes. Some of them are not. This whole case revolves around the relationship that exists between the English family and the Billy family. Pacific Land Company owns the land, but the reason this is the way it is is because of a very, very long friendship between these two families. Vine Ripe Farms -- the president and the Page 6 June 27, 1996 shareholder is Ed English. We have a corpora -- a corporation whose shareholder has an interest in this. This is not something that's going to go on and on and on. MS. LOUVIERE: I have a question for you. MS. ENGLISH: Sure. MS. LOUVIERE: You keep saying that they have this long-standing relationship between the Indians and the Englishes. How long has this -- when was this lease originally executed? MS. ENGLISH: There was an oral lease on the property from the time -- MS. LOUVIERE: I didn't ask that. When was the paper executed? When did you sign this lease with the Indians? MS. ENGLISH: April 21, 1987. MS. LOUVIERE: 1987? MS. ENGLISH: Yes, ma'am. MS. LOUVIERE: So this hasn't been going on for a hundred years. MS. ENGLISH: I'm sorry, but the relationship has been. There are letters in my family archives that indicate that there was contact and a relationship between members of the Billy family and my great grandfather back into the 1880s. This is -- this is not something that's between strangers. MR. ALLEN: Miss English, I'd like to ask a question. The attorney's fees right now are more than it would cost to fix the violation. Okay. Why don't you all just go away and fix the violation? If this bond is so strong, okay -- MS. LOUVIERE: So great. MR. ALLEN: and you all are so supportive, fix it. It takes less money to fix it than the attorney fees we've already spent. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: If -- if I could have everybody that's in the audience please refrain from making any comments, and also in terms of those persons who are allowed to speak, which at this moment is Ms. English, Mr. Manalich, and the Code Enforcement Board members asking questions of the attorneys, we need to do that one at a time so that the court reporter can properly protect the record for all of us. Now, the questions are from the board to Ms. English, and I'm not sure they were all answered. MR. ALLEN: One simple question, okay. If the bond is this strong -- and I believe that, okay -- the amount of money that has been spent with the attorneys, both the county side, our -- our board attorney, and your group of attorneys or five attorneys here to fix the violation, is a much lesser dollar amount than the attorney fees involved. Why not make it simple and fix the violation? MS. ENGLISH: Because it doesn't fix the underlying problem. One of the issues that has always been part of the relationship between the Billies and the Englishes -- MR. ALLEN: This is not a relationship. This is a viola -- code violation. This is a simple code violation that's easily solved, and you all don't want to solve it. MS. ENGLISH: I'm explaining to you why it can't be easily solved. One of the precepts that this relationship has been based on is noninterference by the Englishes in the way the Billies Page 7 June 27, 1996 wish to live. There is a lease which gives the Billies the current possessory interests in that land. They have the right to control that land. They have the right to occupy that land. They have the right to possess that land. They have the right to use that land, and they have. We don't have the right to go in there arbitrarily as some paternalistic entity and fix it. That's not the way this works. We're not the parent here. MS. DEIFIK: I have a MS. ENGLISH: They're not the child. It's not -- this isn't -- this doesn't come down to something that simple. In addition, the county hasn't shown that they have jurisdiction over this. MS. LOUVIERE: We have jurisdiction over you, yes. MS. ENGLISH: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: We're not here we're not going to discuss jurisdiction. We're going to stick to the issue. MS. ENGLISH: Certainly. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I have something to add when you're finished with Ms. English. It would maybe help refocus on the continuance issue. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me do this. Miss Deifik apparently has a question for Miss English. And let's get our questions out for Miss English; then I'll ask you to respond. MR. MANALICH: Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: This isn't strictly on the motion for continuance, but it's raised by the remarks that you're making. Are you asserting that the village residents have equitable title to the property? MS. ENGLISH: No. interest. MS. DEIFIK: All right. Because the remarks that you've made today and the remarks that you made at our last hearing seem to indicate that you were saying that Pacific held it only as a constructive trustee. MS. ENGLISH: No, ma'am. I meant that -- and I thought had explained, that they have MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MR. McCORMICK: Just one simple question for Miss English. Can you clarify; did you say that Ed English is the sole shareholder of Vine Ripe? MS. ENGLISH: Yes. It is a validly-formed corporation within the State of Florida. The president is Ed English. Ed English also holds the shares as trustee. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. Mr. Manalich, when you speak again can you highlight the second point that you made as the reason why we need to have a continuance was because that progress has been made towards a compromise. Without compromising those negotiations, can you give us a little more background, a little something more to go on there? MR. MANALICH: Would you like me to CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. Well, in feel most comfortable with, I would like Mr. McCormick's question. But I believe I'm asserting they have a leasehold I'm sorry if I provided that. in explaining the lease that is what I a leasehold interest in the property. address that now? whichever order you for you, of course, to answer earlier you wanted to respond Page 8 June 27, 1996 to something that Miss English said; so in whatever order you feel most comfortable, if you would please address the board. MR. MANALICH: First of all, back to the continuance issue. I think from the comments I heard from counsel I think it highlights one of the concerns that the county has in this situation, which is, if I heard her correctly, it's my understanding that this transfer occurred as a result of this particular action. Now, as your -- Mr. Kobza mentioned to you, the concern county staff has is what precedent does this create for future actions before this board as well as within this action if due to a particular case before transfers occur where the -- what we perceive to be the original violator is no longer answerable. That is the reason we believe we need to keep Pacific in the case. Now, at the same time we feel due process requires that we also add Vine Ripe because we are aware that they are now the property owner, and that property owner is going to have its rights affected, and that property owner is entitled to notice of the charges and ability, whatever brief, to correct and to appear and be heard here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Manalich, assuming that this board were -- were to find that a violation exists and assuming they were to find that Pacific Land Company, who is the only party today, was the violator, are you telling this board that you would have difficulty in enforcing that violation? MR. MANALICH: I believe we would because you now have a new owner, and I think that owner has certain rights. So we think it is critical for all of the stated reasons that this matter be set over so that Vine Ripe can be appropriately added while at the same time keeping Pacific. And I proposed -- like I said, it amounts to basically 60 days. I think any shorter than that just isn't realistic to do the things that have to be done. In addition, obviously, you know, we're always evaluating the case we have. And if for any reason -- you know, there was discussion they've referred to whether the leasehold interest owner is the one that's responsible. You know, we're continually evaluating those defenses to determine if in -- within this time frame you allow whether any other charges and/or parties are justifiable under the facts. Maybe they aren't, but for sure Vine Ripe is. with regard to the second point, obviously you've got learned counsel here that's representing the interests of the leasehold owner, and they're obviously going to need to have an opportunity to be heard, and I very much welcome that and especially on the second point. I mean, Mr. McCormick, you're correct. I mean, when you're negotiating or discussing potential resolutions to a situation, you're not at liberty to discuss the content. However, I -- I just returned to my original statement, and I would welcome any comment from any of the representatives of the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation with regard to the fact that, you know, I believe there's still opportunity here for the substantial progress that has been made on some conceptual agreements to resolve the situation to still occur. And, you know, if they want to add anything to that, you know, I welcome that opportunity. MS. LOUVIERE: Can I ask you a question before you get to them? How long have you been trying to resolve this issue? Page 9 June 27, 1996 MR. MANALICH: Well, remember, this case began in July of '95, at least with the incident that set off the sequence of events. However, after that there was a period of time before notice was delivered. There was a compliance period. I know Holland and Knight wasn't even involved in this case until March. And, you know, they've been working hard obviously at the case since then, but they haven't been involved since -- from the very beginning, so I'm just trying to put it in terms of, yes, there's been calendar time that has passed but, on the other hand, as far as actual time spent in serious discussion, both on negotiation as well as on the case, that's only been really since March. MS. LOUVIERE: And my -- I was under the impression, and maybe I'm wrong, that you have been trying to resolve this issue with Pacific Land Company for a substantial amount of time and that no progress had been made, and that is why this -- this item is before this board. What is to happen -- you're telling us now that you're back to negotiations -- that they decide not to resolve this issue again? MR. MANALICH: Well, you know, we have invited from the very beginning obviously any solution that could be arrived at short of having to come through you. And I think both parties still would like to accomplish that. You're correct; we have not been able to bring it to a conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's still not possible. You know, the county is sensitive to the fact that there are significant issues here that touch on many things, and we're trying to be sensitive to that in our approach to the case, but we also understand there has to be finality at some point and, you know, we think that finality will be in August. Really it would have been today, but this particular transfer throws a new situation in here. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I can tell the board that I've been involved almost daily in discussions with these attorneys at our attorney's office. You gave me the charge in our last couple of meetings to be in constant contact along with our attorney and with all of these attorneys. And I can assure you that we've had almost, you know, two or three times a week conference calls. So there has been -- I'm not involved at all, of course, in the settlement negotiations because that's obviously not my position. But in terms of procedure and filings and what we're going to do today, we have had ongoing conversations. I've spent a lot of time on this case. Now, because we voted at our last meeting six to one to allow the -- and I think we referred to the Independent Seminole Nation as the village residents at the time, to participate in this hearing, before we make a decision on the motion for continuance, I'm going to ask whichever attorney wishes to speak on behalf of the independent Seminoles to make a comment to the board. MR. LAFORET: May I address Miss English once again before you dismiss this? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Certainly. Well, I'm not dismissing her. MR. LAFORET: Miss English, I'm having a problem with your declaration of friendship. The lease agreement from friend to friend contains certain covenants which in substance say if you violate any of these covenants, I can put you off of the land and take possession again. That to me is difficult to relate to a sincere and Page 10 June 27, 1996 deep and long-standing friendship. If you don't trust your friend to the extent that you leave yourself an out to put them off the land, I find it difficult to accept your term of -- of friendship. This is in writing, and you have a -- merely a declaration, a verbal declaration, nothing in writing, nothing specific or detailed. I find it difficult to accept your -- your consideration of friendship when a written document exists. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't know that that's a question, but please feel free to respond. MS. ENGLISH: First of all, I would remind you that the lease is with Pacific Land Company, that there are people involved in Pacific Land Company who are not Englishes, that in the world that we live in paper seems to be the way to go. When I have discussed an oral lease with this county -- MR. LAFORET: An attorney says that paper is the way to go? MS. ENGLISH: When I discussed an oral lease with the county, I was told that that meant they were tenants at will even though they had a year-to-year lease where they paid once a year, which even under Chapter 83, which is the landlord-tenant law, they would have a year-to-year term on the lease even if they were tenants at will. An oral lease is valid. It's okay. The reason that we have this thing reduced to paper can you imagine what it would be without it? This was done to protect the Billies, the Independent Traditional Seminoles, and Pacific Land Company. It is the first -- as far as I am aware, the first written lease that existed in all of the time of this friendship and relationship, and it was because there were outside parties involved. Now, the county has before talked about the fact that once you've got a written document, that's it. Well, that's it when the parties are fighting because the outside evidence rule that we talked about the last time is designed to protect the parties. Now, if the Billies were fighting with the Englishes and we were all in court and they had theirs and we had ours, certainly what you say, you know, here's the document, you got to go with it, would apply. But the law in the State of Florida is very, very old. And it was decided in 1895 by the Florida Supreme Court that somebody who's not a party to the lease can't say this is what these terms mean based on the lease. The extrinsic evidence rule is limited to the parties, and the parties here aren't fighting. And we have the right -- and I will tell you that it's very important for you to hear all of the things around it so you can place this lease in context, so you can understand why it's there. And I ask you not to judge that lease until you hear that information. MS. LOUVIERE: I have another -- I have a question for you. (Applause) MS. LOUVIERE: I have a question for you. was this transferred to Vine Ripe Farm on June MS. ENGLISH: Because that was when I was authorization to do it. MS. LOUVIERE: Why? MS. ENGLISH: Because there are people involved in Why -- why 13th? able to get Page 11 June 27, 1996 Pacific Land Company who are not Englishes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MS. ENGLISH: They're not -- they see this -- this is not a matter that goes to lots of different parties. It isn't. It's a matter that deals with the relationship between two families. That's it. It doesn't translate very well to the 1990s, and I apologize for that. It's not neat. It's not pretty. It doesn't all fit. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you telling this board that the sole shareholder of Vine Ripe is Mr. English, whereas, Mr. English is one of many shareholders of Pacific Land Company? MS. ENGLISH: One of many partners. Pacific Land Company is a partnership. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MS. ENGLISH: There are lots and lots of people in there who are not Englishes. MS. LOUVIERE: But they went ahead and signed the lease? MS. ENGLISH: No. Mr. English signed the lease in his capacity MS. LOUVIERE: He didn't know he was signing a lease? MS. ENGLISH: He is a managing partner. It's his job to manage the day-to-day matters of this -- MS. LOUVIERE: And they weren't aware of this you think? I mean, I've always -- if I own land, I would like to know what's going on with it. MS. ENGLISH: I am sure that they were aware that this was going on, but I don't think they ever thought it was going to come to this. MS. LOUVIERE: And so then they called them up and said MS. ENGLISH: No, he didn't. MS. LOUVIERE: you've got to deliver this? MS. ENGLISH: No, they didn't. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. I was just -- I was just curious. It's just too interesting. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Ms. Belflower. MR. LAFORET: Thank you, Miss English. MS. ENGLISH: Thank you. (Applause) MS. BELFLOWER: Thank you. Laura Belflower for the record. The representatives from the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation do not oppose, nor do they support the continuance. We are of the position that the substitution of parties provides the county who they need. They have always said that it is the landowner that they are concerned about, that the property owner is the person who is responsible in this situation. They have a property owner who is fully willing to accept any of the obligations and the responsibilities of this, is willing to step forward and put their friendship up as -- and stand by that friendship, so we feel we're ready to go forward. In terms of the issues of the been discussions about settlement. and on for a long time. It hasn't settlement, there have There have been discussions off really gotten very serious until Page 12 June 27, 1996 about the time we filed the federal lawsuit in this matter. But I think Ramiro's position of there has been progress on a conceptual agreement is correct. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Belflower? MR. ALLEN: agreement is. MS. BELFLOWER: Well, we can't reveal that at this point because, I mean, it is settlement, and what goes on in a settlement discussion is not part of any proceedings. MR. ALLEN: But that is why we're here, to settle MS. BELFLOWER: It would resolve the issue. I-- mean, if -- if we are able to reach that agreement, it off your agenda. I think that's about all we can say. MS. LOUVIERE: I think that's wonderful. My main concern is that, you know, this has been ongoing for a long time, and I have -- I know that other -- other attempts at resolving this issue have been proposed. MS. BELFLOWER: That's true. MS. LOUVIERE: Many instances. And we are still here and still -- MS. BELFLOWER: And we may still be here. We may still not be able to reach resolution. I can't stand here and tell you that we will. MS. LOUVIERE: You want me to make a motion and vote on something based on something that's out there that is so conceptual that I don't even know the details of. MS. BELFLOWER: We are prepared to go forward. We are not asking -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me just say this to the board, you know, since -- since I am an attorney. I understand your frustration at not knowing what the terms of the settlement are, but I also appreciate the fact that these attorneys have to protect the record. And terms of settlement negotiations are inadmissible, and so they really can't say that on the record. But the fact that they've let us know that there are settlement negotiations ongoing is positive. MR. ALLEN: negotiations? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. I think it would be improper for me to be involved in the settlement negotiations, and so I am not a party to that, and I have not a clue as to what they may be. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman -- MR. LAFORET: Madam Chairman, we have previously heard cases, rendered judgment, and given them 30 days to comply before the judgment comes into effect. Is there any reason we cannot hear this case today, as has been previously been presented, and then when we reach judgment, if it happens to be negative, we could give them the 30 days we usually give people, as has been customary practice, to come into conformity with the law or then the penalty goes into effect? Is there any reason we can't do that today? MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Laforet, I think that's what we're doing. We're voting in a moment on whether or not to grant the Anybody have any questions for Miss I'd like to know what the conceptual it. I would take it Madam Chairman, are you abreast of the Page 13 June 27, 1996 continuance or to hear the case. Yes. MS. DEIFIK: Before we go any further, I think we're getting diverted with all of this talk of settlement. I -- as I understand Mr. Manalich's motion and Mr. Kobza's advice, the issue before us is whether one of the parties before us has a legitimate interest that will be served by a continuance. That legitimate interest, I understand, is whether any judgment that we make would be effective or enforceable. To me -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's -- that's correct. MS. DEIFIK: -- that's the crux of the issue. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, if I could add -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, Mr. Manalich. MR. MANALICH: I specifically would point to member Deifik's comments. Yes, there are settlement -- I want to be up front with you and say that was a factor in this; but more importantly, that's what I began talking to you about, that we as the prosecutors of this case obviously are charged with trying to move it forward. Now, I'm charged in moving it forward in a manner that best serves the county. We've tried to do that. It's taken some time; but I want to stress that we who are charged with moving it forward are saying to you that we believe it's in the interest of the county staff, as well as the board, to properly have this case before you due to a recent development. I would stress that in May it was not us that were asking for the continuance. We didn't object to it, and the board and we had no opposition. The board found it suitable given, you know, the complexities and the last-minute occurrences to grant a continuance, I think at that time was Ms. English's request. We are now telling you we haven't requested one before, but we feel that our prosecution is affected by this development, and we ask you on our behalf to give us the same consideration that was given to the opposing party and allow us this one opportunity to set this case right on track. While I am concerned about dropping Pacific because I am concerned about in this case what that would mean to our enforcement efforts as well as in future cases the precedent it would set, at the same time I'm not concerned that this will occur again and cause further delay because I have the good-faith assurances of counsel for the landowner that that's not going to occur, and their conduct leads me to believe that that's very true. I have no qualms with that. So, you know, we're telling you -- MS. DEIFIK: You can take steps to prevent them from doing it -- MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I mean, I obviously if it did occur, which I don't think it's going to, because I have great faith in Miss English's position, then we would take a very different response. But we're just telling you that we think for purposes of our prosecution and for purposes of the board's record -- and you've heard your own counsel express reservations about what enforcement difficulties you may have -- we think you need to put this case on the right track. We regret that it involves some delay, but we really believe and we have to insist that it's going to be best for our prosecution and even beyond that for your record. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any member of the board have any Page 14 June 27, 1996 questions of anyone of the three attorneys? MR. McCORMICK: Another question for Mr. Manalich. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: Why can't we put it on the right track today is what I'm wondering. MR. MANALICH: Because I -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. McCORMICK: Let me continue. To me I don't -- I'm not concerned with dropping Pacific Land Co. and replacing them with Vine Ripe. I think that in this specific case Mr. English has shown his commitment to -- to the other party, and knowing his reputation in this community and knowing that he's been here a long time, I think that -- that he will stay with the Indians and follow through, and one party is the same as the other. But you did mention that the board needs to consider other cases. We need to consider the precedent of dropping the original party, the original landowner, and substituting them out with somebody else. To what degree should we consider this continuance based on the big -- that precedence issue and not the specific case or just this case? MR. MANALICH: I think they're both factors you should -- you should consider because, see, now what's essentially happening is the violator'S changing without any control from the facts or from us. I mean, it's now based on what transfers are occurring. We're uncomfortable with that. Plus, I have no reason to complain at all about Vine Ripe, but they're not the same as Pacific. I mean, Pacific, as I understand it, is a much vaster economic entity. And we don't know if and when there will be -- if there were to be an adjudication of this, any fines, we don't know what remedies we will have available to us against a very isolated, much different corporation, which is Vine Ripe. And we don't believe that this transfer should defeat our enforcement rights. So I think it's both within this case and in the bigger picture. You need to give us time to set it up properly before you when it comes to you the next time. MR. ALLEN: Mr. -- Mr. Manalich, okay, just a small question. Ms. English stated earlier for the record that the reason it was transferred from Pacific Land Company to Vine Ripe was to avoid possible lis pendens, okay. What facility do we have that's going to protect us from it changing from Vine Ripe in August to something else? MR. MANALICH: Well, I think that, as I mentioned earlier, first of all, we have the good-faith representation of Miss English, which I think we can fully rely on. We don't need anything else. Beyond that if the inconceivable occurred, and that is if there was another transfer, then you would be hearing from us a far different position. You know, we would be saying that you need to move ahead regardless of notice because we think a court would find that there is a sham transfer of some type unless the facts indicated otherwise. But I don't think we're going to be at that point. I think -- MS. LOUVIERE: I don't understand why if this -- if this transfer needed to be done, why did she wait all the way for June the 13th for this transfer to take place? This has been ongoing for so long, and if it's true that the Pacific Land Co. -- they had several Page 15 June 27, 1996 partners and it was just between the Englishes and the Seminole anyway -- the resident, the village residents, to have this -- this lease, why didn't they all sit down a long time ago when this thing started going on and say, hey, guess what, we got to transfer this? Why did they wait to June the 13th? MR. MANALICH: I'll let Miss English obviously answer that. But I just want to say that regardless of what the motivations were, our point to you is that we feel our case is going to be affected regardless of the motivations by the way this thing gets set up. And we want it set up in a way that we think best serves the prosecution. MS. LOUVIERE: Right, and in -- MR. MANALICH: And, frankly, I think they were also -- if there were an adjudication, and maybe there won't be, but if there were an adjudication, then setting it up in a manner that best serves the prosecution also protects your record. So you need to set it right and do that in August. MS. LOUVIERE: And we can appreciate that but -- and then there's also one other issue which is, I think, the issue that we are all here for, and that is the health and welfare of these people; correct? So-- MR. MANALICH: No dispute on that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, you wanted to respond, Miss English. Go ahead. MS. LOUVIERE: Then we should move rapidly to assure the health and welfare of these people; right? MS. ENGLISH: Let me address your first concern. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry, the village residents. MS. ENGLISH: Let me address your first concern. Like the county and like the Independent Traditional Seminoles, we went through a very long process of thinking that this thing was going to reach a resolution. There are lots of different partners in Pacific. They're in lots of different places. You know, you're business people. What takes precedence on your desk is what is absolutely going on now as opposed to something that might be out there in the future. It became an issue, and it got dealt with. Regarding the health -- MS. LOUVIERE: Health and welfare of the village residents. I haven't heard anybody talk about that. VOICE: I'm very healthy, thank you. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Why don't we let Miss Belflower address that. MS. DEIFIK: Can I ask a quick question of Miss Belflower before she addresses -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. Miss Deifik has another question for you. MS. DEIFIK: Miss Belflower, I thought we resolved this two weeks ago, but let me ask you again. Do you represent the village residents? MS. BELFLOWER: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: Because when you stood up before, you said you represent the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation. MS. BELFLOWER: I do. I represent both because they are Page 16 June 27, 1996 one. MS. DEIFIK: All right. And they may be, but that's for a federal court to decide. I don't know that, and I just want to be clear. MS. BELFLOWER: Well, I think we also resolved that the people that live in the village are traditional Seminoles, so for whatever regard that -- that changes anything. In terms of the health, safety, and welfare, we're very concerned that -- that that is an issue and something that wants to be addressed. I think the statement that was just made from the audience that they are very health -- healthy, they are very healthy and happy and pleased to be living in the manner that they have lived for hundreds of years, and they want to be allowed to continue to do that. Collier County's codes and regulations don't address their living in that manner. They don't have anything to say about that. They are silent on that issue. And the health, safety, and welfare of the traditional Seminoles, including the ones that live in the village, are their concerns, and they would just as soon you all stay out of it. (Applause) MR. LAFORET: Mr. Manalich, I admire and respect you as a -- as an attorney. I -- I admire and respect you as a very prudent person. I would like to bring to your attention a statement made by Winston Churchill. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any dis -- further discussion by the board on the motion for continuance? Does everybody have a clear understanding of the issues before we vote? The issues are enforcement, I believe, is what Mr. Manalich told us. Today if we proceed it's my understanding that we are only proceeding against Pacific Land Co. and Pacific Land Company, no one else. There is no other party before you. Vine Ripe is not a party. The Independent Seminole Nation is not a party. The only thing you could do today if you find a violation existed is to determine if Pacific Land Co. were the violator. And if you determine that Pacific land Co. was the violator, then the county is telling you they're going to have a problem enforcing it. I believe that's what they're telling us. Now, does anybody have any further discussion on this matter? MR. ANDREWS: Yeah, I -- I do. We're having a tough enough time now trying to enforce it, and I don't know how it could be any worse. We've spent -- we've spent thousands and thousands of our taxpayers' money here, thousands of hours, and we're no farther ahead than we were a year ago on this thing. I see no -- no reason -- I agree with Lou that we shouldn't hear the thing, whatever -- whatever the -- if it proves there is a violation from our staff and -- and we can act on it and maybe get it out of our -- most of these people the way they talk, attorneys and all, they think that we can change the law. We can't change the law. Just -- if there was a violation, that's our duty. We can't change the law. I mean, we're just here to find out if there is a violation. And all this stalling, to me it's just -- it's just -- we're not getting anyplace. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Further discussion, Miss Deifik? MS. DEIFIK: I don't see it as stalling. I see it as a party raising an issue of a legitimate interest that will be Page 17 June 27, 1996 prejudiced and -- and stating that they have a legitimate cause for a continuance. I think that we're getting off track, but that's all I have to say. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, may I add something? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. Why don't you take the podium and identify yourself for the record. MS. McEACHERN: Good morning. I am Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney for Collier County. One of the problems as a result of this transfer of the property is that in the event a violation is found and that violator is Pacific Land Company, as a result of divesting itself of the property, Pacific Land Company, it would appear, has no ability to come into compliance. And the goal is if a violation is found, that there be compliance. And there is a real problem then procedurally with that, and it is essential that Pacific is retained as a party but that Vine Ripe must also be named as a party, both as a landowner and possibly as a -- an additional violator because the violations, it appears, began a long time ago and are continuing. And it is essential to the county's case and to this case so all -- as I always say, as all T's are crossed and I's are dotted, that Vine Ripe be added and that Pacific Land Company be retained. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any questions based on her comments that you want to ask her? Anybody have any questions about the issues before you today? Well, there is a motion for continuance before us filed by the county, which I understand is not being joined in by either Pacific or the Independent Seminole Nation. However, it's not being opposed by them either. Everybody understands what the problems are. Are you ready to take a vote? MR. McCORMICK: I'll just add one other thing, that this board does always profess that we want compliance, and -- and I think to hear this case today, as much as I'd like to get it resolved, whatever -- whatever way the board voted on the violation, I don't think that we would get the resolution, the compliance, and the completeness of this case. I know that we would like to think that our decision and our actions today could take care of something that nobody else has been able to take care of, but I don't think that's the case. And the only reason that we're hearing this case is because the county brought it before us. It was cited as a violation by code enforcement. We know all about the county and their shaping of this case. They brought it before us, and now they want to postpone it or withdraw it. I don't see it as -- as our position to now take over -- take over from them and say we want to carryon this case for whatever outcome we want to be resolved. I think that they brought it before us. Now they're asking for the continuance. For that reason and the other reason, that we can't really come to a complete resolution, I'll support the continuance. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me ask a question of probably either the county attorney or our attorney. Earlier a comment was made by one of the board members that we could proceed with this case today and, you know, if it didn't work out right, then they could always bring another case against another violator. I -- I'd just like for you to comment to the board on res judicata, if you would, Mr. Kobza. Page 18 June 27, 1996 MR. KOBZA: The county always has the ability to bring another complaint. They have absolute control, as Mr. McCormick stated correctly -- stated, that they have absolute control over who the parties are before you and what the basis of the violation would be. So if in the future the county in its discretion elected to bring another complaint based upon different facts, different inspections, different parties, they have the absolute discretion in which to do that. The proceedings today, the concept of res judicata res judicata, only bind the party before you, and they only adjudicate the facts as to that party. And so, for instance, if there were going to be a complaint brought with another party, a different party, Vine Ripe, or the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation or the village residents, for instance, you would have to go through a complete and full rehearing of all the factual record because those parties would not be bound by the adjudication to the Pacific Land Company. So that -- that's where that process comes into play, is that the -- yes, the county could correctly -- that's -- that's a correct statement. The county could bring another complaint. They could name other -- other parties other than Pacific Land Company. They could do additional inspections, and those complaints could be before you on those inspections or on the same inspection. That's their discretion, okay. However, if you get into that posture or if the county elected to use that type of procedure, what would happen is that you would have to have a full and complete hearing -- rehearing of all of the factual record because it would not be binding without a complete and fair hearing on all of those facts. So you would essentially rehear the case completely at that point to bind those other parties. That's what -- that's what would happen. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Kobza. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Everybody understand what he said? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I think you invited my comment, and I would just reiterate Miss McEachern's comments about the futility -- what we view as the futility of this case and enforcement stages if we just keep it without the present landowner being included and added properly. The second thing is we've talked about taxpayer funds and economy of the actions and everything else. It makes a lot more sense to not do the repeat exercises that Mr. Kobza just described to you but, rather, to do it right, let the chips fall where they may one time. MS. LOUVIERE: Can we talk a little bit? And I know you cannot tell me the details of your settlement. When do you guys think you might be able to resolve this? I mean, you're obviously talking. MR. MANALICH: Well, I think counsel for the Independent Traditional Seminole Nation mentioned that one thing that had obviously prodded the parties along a little more here very recently was this federal lawsuit which is now another dimension of this situation. There has been, as counsel mentioned, you know, more recent very earnest efforts on both sides to try to achieve a resolution. I would echo counsel's comments that there's no assurance that the differences can be resolved, but I think there's some substantial hope. Page 19 June 27, 1996 MS. LOUVIERE: We're all intelligent people. I like to think that, you know, in this world there are people that start the fires, and there are people that put them out. So how about you guys all get together and put out the fire. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other comments from the board before we take a vote on the motion to continue which the county has put before you? I'd just like to say this. My concern, as it's always been, is that we protect our record, that we protect the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, that we protect Collier County, Florida, and that whatever we do, we do the right thing, and that if this matter is appealed -- and there's no doubt it will be. It's already in the federal court -- that we have followed the ordinance that we're supposed to follow, that we have found the proper violator, which is a major issue here, who is the violator, if we assume that a violation or rule that a violation has occurred, but that this matter is appealed on the substantive rather than the procedural issue. For that reason I'm going to support the motion for continuance. Now, having said that, does anybody else want to make any other comments? Are we ready for the vote? MR. KOBZA: Madam Chairman, you have to have a motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, sorry. Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: I move that we hold a vote. MR. McCORMICK: I move that we have a continuance of 60 days. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Kobza. It's been moved and seconded that this matter be continued until August the 22nd pursuant to the county's request. Any further discussion? MR. ALLEN: Just one question, okay. Is Mr. Ed English here today? MS. ENGLISH: Yes, he is. MR. ALLEN: I don't know who he is. It's very simple to resolve this. Okay. We've had issues brought to you by Commissioner Hancock on how to do it. It's very simple. It's a lot less more money -- a lot less money then the attorney fees that the county's seen that you all are spending. I've heard your comment about the parent-child relationship. Resolve it economically. Let this thing dissolve itself. Let the Independent Seminole Nation live their own life, okay. We've got 60 days to do it. That's what we're going to vote on. This is a simple issue to resolve. You all need to resolve it. MS. ENGLISH: Your comments are well taken. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. McEACHERN: The county would like to clarify that the motion for continuance is not only to add Vine Ripe, but it is also to possibly add other parties as well as other violations. MR. McCORMICK: We don't have any control over that, do we? MS. DEIFIK: So our motion is just to continue it. Each party will do whatever they choose to do. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are we ready to vote? Mr. Page 20 June 27, 1996 McCormick and Miss Deifik -- MS. DEIFIK: I second Mr. McCormick's motion. I do it now, and I think I did it before. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion before we take the vote? Okay. I'll now call for the vote. It's been moved and seconded that this matter be continued until August 22, 1996. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by saying nay. Two? It's five to two? This motion then is granted. The full-blown hearing on this case with whatever parties the county might choose to add and serve will then be held on August the 22nd, 1996, at 8:30. MR. MANALICH: Just one question I have, Madam Chairman. I take it that from staff there's no problem with this particular facility being available on that date for that purpose? It's the standard CEB meeting day? MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah. MR. MANALICH: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, before we, you know, get excited and leave and think we don't have to come back until August the 22nd, I'm going to ask the attorneys if you have anything else that you want to bring before the board knowing that we're not going to have the hearing until August the 22nd. MR. KOBZA: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. KOBZA: -- I have comments that I would like to make to the board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Kobza. MR. KOBZA: Two -- two items really. One, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. And at -- if we should find ourselves here on August 22nd in this hearing, I will ask the board to comply with all of the procedures that quasi-judicial proceedings have, as you should. And specifically you must make any findings of violation or violator strictly on what you are presented with on the record, and there's a county ordinance which specifically addresses that set of issues. So one of the things that I will be doing at that hearing is asking each board member what contacts they may have had outside of the -- of this forum, if any, and to disclose those on the record in order that everyone have an ability to address those conflicts -- or those -- those contacts. Now, I don't know if the board has followed that procedure in the past, but I want to properly advise the board that I will ask the board to follow that procedure at that hearing. Secondly and probably more importantly, I want to share with the board the information with respect to the federal court lawsuit which has been filed, because I believe it's very important for the board to be aware of what that entails. As I understand it, your chairperson was served. The Code Enforcement Board is a party to that lawsuit, and specifically the lawsuit asks for preliminary injunctive relief. It asked for a temporary restraining order, which I understand was not granted. But it also contains a count, a part of the lawsuit, which is what is known as a civil rights action, and we call them -- as attorneys we call them Section 1983 actions, and Page 21 June 27, 1996 that's important in that in Section 1983 actions there is a claim for damages. Now, because the board only has been sued as a party or as a -- an entity and there have been no individual claims within the context of that lawsuit, any -- if there ever would be any potential liability -- and I'm not saying there is or isn't or whatever, but if there would be any potential liability, it would fall to the county in that sense. The board does -- has no different identity than the county. My -- my concern is a little different in that there was a letter from Holland and Knight, a copy of which I provided to each board member, which threatened individual potential claims into the future also under Section 1983. And I think that's important for you to be aware of and to read very carefully. I think that it's important that you as a board have representation in the context of that proceeding, that the county provide you with good direction as to how the representation is going to be provided. I have specifically asked the county attorney to do that for you and on your behalf as a board, because I do think it's very important. I understand we're in a highly unusual environment, probably one we have never been in before and may never be in again. But notwithstanding that, I -- I think that you need to read those documents very carefully, understand them, and make sure that as a board you have appropriate counsel for anything that might occur outside of the context of this particular code proceeding. And I'm sure the county attorney is probably working on that, but as of today this Code Enforcement Board is a party to that action. MS. DEIFIK: Are you saying that because of this letter we should be each retaining individual counsel at this point in time to protect our personal interests? MR. KOBZA: I'm not -- no, I'm not advising that, but I am advising that the threat of that individual liability has been made in the kind -- and I don't want to expand that. I don't want to diminish that. I will take the letter on its face. I've provided each member with a copy of that letter. I do think that it's extremely important, and what I -- what I am trying to -- to drive at here is that it's extremely important that all of the proper procedure and authority be followed here to protect this board and you individually from any potential claims of individual liability. That's -- that's really the gist of what I'm saying. When you know that those threats have been made -- you know, we've always acted, and you've always received the best advice available in terms of following appropriate procedure, and you've done that very carefully, in -- in my view. But where you've got those kind of threats being made, I -- I just want everybody to be very cognizant of the need for us following proper procedure and acting under our -- under our authority -- under the authority that's granted to you as a board and that you have proper representation in doing that. And as of today, the Code Enforcement Board is a party to a federal court lawsuit, and you need to understand that. MS. BELFLOWER: Madam Chairman -- MR. LAFORET: I'd like to comment on your reference to the threat. MS. BEVINGTON: Madam Chairman, if I may be heard on Page 22 June 27, 1996 that. MR. LAFORET: I take personal umbrance (phonetic) at that. I assume it to be a threat to me. If it is, in fact, a threat to me, they are trying to influence my judgment on this board. Very frankly, I don't like it one damned bit. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me just say this, and and then I will let you respond. I have, as the chairman of chairperson of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, been served with this federal lawsuit (indicated). We are parties to this federal lawsuit. We are named as defendants so that you understand. Collier County has responded actually in a very timely manner to the motion for injunctive relief -- MS. McEACHERN: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: to that lawsuit on behalf of the county. The Collier County attorney, as you well know, cannot respond on behalf of us. At the moment we have our independent counsel that's advising us with the proceedings before this board. At the moment we do not have an attorney hired for us to defend us in the United States District Court, nor have we responded to the complaint. And I have, in fact, been served. So it is a concern that we have representation. And I'll just say this further before I let you speak. There is not anything in the face of this complaint that threatens any of us individually or names any of us individually as defendants. We have been named as a board of the county. MS. LOUVIERE: But there is no one that's -- I just want to get this right. Kim, you're board now. But when it goes to federal court, represent the board -- MR. KOBZA: I've asked the county attorney -- MS. LOUVIERE: -- if it gets to that point? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, it's there. MR. KOBZA: I've asked the county attorney for with respect to that issue and the county board and developmental services with respect to that issue. representation, as it was originally described, was before this board. And I -- we are very capable of in the federal court -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh-huh. MR. KOBZA: -- action. We're very experienced in that respect, and we have every capability in the world to proceed. However, I -- I am not able to do that without proper direction from the county because it's beyond the scope of what our agreement is. However, I don't want -- I want to make sure you understand the importance of paying attention to that set of issues. MS. LOUVIERE: And you have already asked them -- MR. KOBZA: I've sent -- MS. LOUVIERE: Have you put this in writing asking MR. KOBZA: I sent immediately upon receipt of the lawsuit, which Miss Bevington was kind enough to fax to us last Friday, I believe it was, Thursday or Friday of last week -- I immediately sent a letter to the county attorney with my set of concerns and also requesting direction because one of the concerns was I didn't know if maybe a federal magistrate would call me and ask me representing representing this who's going to direction county The scope of my to the proceedings representing you Page 23 June 27, 1996 for guidance or what might happen in that context. So that's a very -- that's the scope, and I don't -- I want to be very careful not to overstate any of the -- any of the concerns either. The letter just says what it says, and you're not individually parties to anything today. MS. LOUVIERE: But right now -- so I'd -- I'd like to hear from staff fairly rapidly, especially -- well, the county attorneys -- as to if Kim's going to be representing this board in this federal matter. I -- I'd like to have I'm just speaking for Mireya Louviere. I'd like to have counsel. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Before we do that and we will call on the county to do this -- I want to give Ms. Bevington an opportunity to respond as to the threat or not threat. MS. BEVINGTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the board. I am the author of the letter that Mr. Kobza has referred to. I'm Elizabeth Bevington representing the Independent Seminole Nation. I just want to make the record clear that the letter does stand for itself. It does not threaten a lawsuit against any of the individual members. What it states merely is that the individual members have not as yet been named pending our investigation about any untoward or improper conduct on the part of any of the board members. What that implies is that to date we have no evidence that there has been any, and that is obviously what would be required in order for any of the individual members of the board to be sued in their individual capacity. Mr. Kobza is correct in that the board as a whole has been sued, the primary purpose of which is to be able to get injunctive relief to prevent this board from acting in a fashion which we take the position the board has absolutely no jurisdiction to act. So I just wanted to make it very clear that you all should draw your own conclusions from the letter and that the repeated use of the word threat, I felt, was very prejudicial and that it certainly was not intended to influence the substance of your decision. Our position has been and will continue to be that this board does not have the jurisdiction to act at all. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Remember, the board -- at the last meeting one of the last things I said to you is -- and I actually said it to the people that were in the audience as well, is that my concern is that although we receive letters every day -- I've gotten more fan mail in the last two months than in my lifetime -- that we are very careful not to discuss this case with each other or with any of you. While you can send us mail, you know, and we'll read it, we have to be very careful to protect the integrity of this board so that we can render independent decisions. And so what Ms. Bevington alludes to is certainly not going to be true of any of the members of this board. And to the best of my knowledge and belief, this board has been very careful in doing all those things. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Now, you wanted to respond, yes. MR. MANALICH: Just a brief comment. I wholly endorse on behalf of the county your cautionary comments just now, and we would add that we want to stress on behalf of everyone involved in Page 24 June 27, 1996 this proceeding that I believe Mr. Kobza, his intent in mentioning these things to you, is simply to update you on recent developments. But we want to stress with regard to everyone involved in this lawsuit, whether they are a named party or a participant or whoever it may be, that you need to keep a completely open mind without any preconceived notions at all whatsoever and do not allow in any way, please, for anything that's been discussed here today to in any way predispose you in any way until you've heard the evidence in this case. I mean, we ask that on behalf of us and on behalf of everyone else involved in this proceeding. And we'd like your assurance that regardless of anything that's been discussed, that in August if we're here, and I hope we're not, but if we are, that you'll just decide the cases based on the evidence presented and the record made on that date. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that certainly will be my charge to the board. And, you know, that's why I gave them the cautionary message last time as well as this time to keep an open mind. And we're only going to make a decision on the evidence that's presented to us and only within the scope of our authority as a Code Enforcement Board. As I've said to some of the attorneys on the telephone this week, we're not the United States Supreme Court. And though in my wildest dreams I may wish it, I'm not the chief justice. And we only have limited authority. And we can only act within that authority while we're going to protect our record and let people say what they want to say. Now, in terms of our having representation, Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: For the record, Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director. This is an issue. And Mr. Kobza's correct; the board does need representation. However, I'm not sure at this point who has the authority to decide who your representation will be in in light of the fact that we are in the process of negotiating contract -- contracts for permanent representation for the board. I don't know whether the authority needs to come from the committee who is negotiating the contracts or whatever. I think somebody needs to make this decision rather quickly, so I'm looking for direction on this. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, if you get any direction from the board, and correct me if I'm wrong, fellow members, it would be this board's position that Mr. Kobza and his law firm continue to represent us because there is no one else that can get up to speed as fast as he already is cognizant of the facts of this case. MS. LOUVIERE: And besides, I was under the impression that the first -- the first board that -- that was chosen during the RFP process, they had a conflict with this, so it would seem Kim is the person or his firm to represent us. Do you need a motion from us so that, you know, the county attorney's office could address this in a timely manner? MR. MANALICH: I think, as Miss Sullivan has indicated -- I think this is something does not require a motion. I think it simply has to be addressed by county administration. Obviously you have expressed the need and concern to have that representation. MS. SULLIVAN: Which we will relay, but I'm just not sure who has that authority. Page 25 June 27, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I understand the problem, but our concern is that we have proper representation. MS. SULLIVAN: And that needs to be done rather quickly; I agree with you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: I would like to see correspondence within five to ten days of, you know -- I'd like to feel confident that Kim's going to represent us in this matter, so I'd like to see this -- this matter resolved fairly quickly. MS. SULLIVAN: Perhaps-- MS. DEIFIK: Meeting of the -- when is the next meeting of the -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: July. MS. SULLIVAN: -- we'll notify the members of the committee and get something from that. That shouldn't be too difficult. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I think it's very important to realize that the federal action has been placed on hold pending resolution of this case and even going through its appellate process; so that means that the board, as well as the county, does not have an answer due. It's just -- it's stayed for right now. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You know, I haven't seen the federal magistrate's ruling yet. I haven't been provided with a copy of that. As a matter of fact, I didn't know until I read the paper this morning that the injunction had been denied, so I'd be anxious to see that. I know there is a separate lawsuit as well as the petition for injunctive relief, so I haven't seen that. And I don't know if we need to respond in a timely manner or not. Does -- does my attorney, who is not really my attorney in this case yet, have a copy of that? MR. KOBZA: No, I don't. MS. SULLIVAN: Would it be agreeable if when I get a copy of the order that I write a letter to the members of the committee advising them of when they need representation and let them CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: -- answer me? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think that the board would certainly appreciate your doing that in a timely manner. Thank you, Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. MR. MANALICH: Again, though, Madam Chairman, I don't want to overstress, quite frankly, intentionally the importance of not allowing that separate action to affect your -- the way you come into this case in August. Okay, you need to come into this case looking at only the facts on the record on the evidence presented and not allow anything in that action to affect your thinking about the evidence presented in this case in August if -- if it's presented. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, thank you. And I appreciate the comments that are coming from the county, and -- and I ask the board to be very cognizant of that. And you must understand that if you ask for an injunctive relief or to stop us from hearing the case, you have to name us because we are the ones who hear the case, and so we had to be named as a defendant. And so we want to keep that in mind, that procedurally people represent their parties to the best of Page 26 June 27, 1996 their abilities and do what they need to do procedurally. But we don't want that to influence our decision and being totally independent in deciding this case only on the facts and evidence presented before us. Now, there probably are some other procedural matters that various and sundry attorneys wish us to hear, so I'm going to ask if that's the case. MR. KOBZA: Madam Chairman, I have no CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. There are no other motions before this board? Then I guess we can close the public hearing knowing that it has been continued until August the 22nd, 8:30. Is there any new business? Old business? The next meeting date of this board, which will be a rather lengthy one as well, is July 25, 1996. And as you know, we have a major matter before the board again. So I hope to see all of you then at 8:30 on July 25th. If no further business to come before the board, the board will be adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:05 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD .... .., ~.~J RAWSON, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan Page 27