The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 04/27/2000 RApril 27, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida, April 27, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the North Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Flegal Don W. Kineaid Roberta Dusek Kathryn M. Godfrey Peter Lehmann Rhona Saunders NOT PRESENT: George Ponte, Darrin Phillips, Diane Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney, Code Enforcement Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Enforcement Official Page #1 CODF~ ENFORCEMENT/NUISSANCE ABATEMENT BOARD OF COLLI~ CO?NT~ DaCe: April 27, 2000 a= 9:00 o'clock A.M. Location: Collier CounC¥ Gowernmen= Center, Admn. Bldg. 3rd Floor' FLORIpA NOTE: ANY PERSON ~q40 DECIDES TO A~PEAL A DECISION OF T~IS BOARD WIL~ NEED A RECOKD OF T~E PBOCEEDINGS PERTAINING T~ERETO, AND TNEREFOR~ MAY NE~D TO ~NSURE THAT A ~RBATIM RECORD OF THE PROC~£DINGS IS MADE, WHIC~ RECORD INCLUDES T~E TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE U~ON WHIC~ THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIBR COUNTY NOR THE CODE ~NFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 9. 10. 11. 12. a~ROVAL OF AGKNDA ~P~ROVAL O~ MINUTE~ March 23, 2000 A. BCC vs. Gladys Rodriguez B. BCC rs. Winford I. Turner, Jr. A. BCC vs. Chuck Holland Request for Waiver of Fines ReqUes~ for filing O~ Aff£da~s of Complia~oo A. BCC rs. Alfredo & Miradis ~ralles S. ~CC rs. Anthony P. D~lduca C0~£~T$ E~CTION OF OFF~C~a$ _AHENDEMENT OF ~UL~S AND REGULATIONS NEXT M~ETING DATE May 25, 2000 ..ADJOURN CEB No. 2000-011 CEB No. 2000-013 CEB No. 99-076 CEB No. 2000-004 CEB NO. 99-075 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We'll call the board to order. This is a meeting of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, and on this particular day a meeting also of the Collier County Noise Abatement Board, which is a division of the Code Enforcement Board. Please note that 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. Call the roll, please. MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Board official. Let the record show that Diane Taylor, George Ponte and Darrin Phillips will be absent, and that absence will be excused. Roberta Dusek? MS. DUSEK: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Kathryn Godfrey? MS. GODFREY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Don Kincaid? MR. KINCAID: Here. MS. CRUZ: Peter Lehmann? MR. LEHMANN: Here. MS. CRUZ: Rhona Saunders? MS. SAUNDERS: Here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Since two of our members are absent, Ms. Godfrey, being an alternate, will participate this morning in all actions before the board. Agenda. Changes, additions, comments? I have two that I'd like to put forward. Under public hearings, there will be two sections under public hearings. One would be Code Enforcement Board Hearing Case 2000-013, Winford Taylor. At the conclusion of that hearing, there will then be a public hearing by the Noise Abatement Board to hear Case 2000-011. The other change would be I'd like to switch Items 9 and 10. We will do the amendment of the rules and regulations, then the Page #2 April 27, 2000 election of officers. MS. CRUZ: Staff also has changes. Under public hearings, Item B, I'd like to remove that item from the agenda, since that item is in compliance at this time. Under Item 6, would like to add Item B, Board of County Commissioners versus Epifanio Hernandez and Manuel Hernandez, Case No. 99-044. And that's at the request of the respondent to waive fines. Also under Item 7, I'd like to Anthony Delduca, CEB No. 99-075. the previous meeting. remove Item B, BCC versus That item was addressed at CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other changes or additions? If not, I would entertain a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MR. LEHMANN: So moved. MS. DUSEK: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to All those in favor, signify by accept the agenda as changed. saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Approval of minutes of our March 23rd meeting. Are there any additions, corrections, changes? MS. SAUNDERS:I move for approval of the minutes of the March 23rd meeting. MS. GODFREY: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a motion to approve and I have a second from Ms. Godfrey. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. At this time we'll do our public hearings, seeing 2000-013 is in compliance and no longer on the agenda. We will have a meeting of the Collier County that Case Nuisance Abatement Board at this time, concerning Case 2000-011. MS. CRUZ: At this time, we'll let the Collier County Attorney's Office present this case. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I have a couple of questions Page #3 April 27, 2000 before we get started. Staff, tell me that notifications were given and how they were given, and has everybody received the notice? MS. CRUZ: The notification requirements were followed by being sent certified mail and posting at the subject property. No communication has been done with the respondent. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a card returned that they received the mail? MS. CRUZ: There was one card returned to an address that the post office advised us that there was a possibility that these people were residing at this location, and we did send it to that other address. And that green card came back. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They did sign for it? MS. CRUZ: Someone did sign for it. Not the respondent. MR. ZACHARY: Before we get too far, I'm Robert Zachary with the County Attorney's Office. We're going to request that this hearing be continued. We have some evidentiary problems that we found out about over the last couple of days, so at this point the County Attorney's Office, I don't think we're prepared to go forward at this time. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a request for a continuance? Any comment by the board? Do I hear a motion to accept a request for a continuance? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept a request for the continuance. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second to accept the request by the county to continue this to our next meeting. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Continued, sir. MR. ZACHARY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That will close the public hearings. Is there any new business by the board? Hearing none, under old business, request for waiver. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Old business, Item A, Board of County Commissioners versus Chuck Holland. This is a request from the respondent, from Mr. Holland, to waive the fines previously Page #4 April 27, 2000 imposed by the board. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is Mr. Holland present? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. MR. HOLLAND: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good morning, sir. MR. HOLLAND: I'm Chuck Holland from the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One moment, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HOLLAND: I'm Chuck Holland. I'm the owner of the property at 272'1 VanBuren Avenue that I'm here today on. I met before this board December the 23rd, I believe, concerning the problems with this property. I'll kind of do a quick review here. I have provided a package. I've numbered each one as exhibits so I can rapidly go through it. I know your time is valuable. So is my money at stake here on this fine that I have. Originally I sold this property to a Gladys Rodriguez, following an unrecorded agreement for deed, which is Exhibit No. I -- Page 1, I should say. June 20 -- the 12th, rather, '1998. On Page 3, I have it highlighted there that no renovations can be made without my written consent and without proper permits and so forth. October of '1999, Bill Ferguson, who is manager of the property for Gladys Rodriguez, enclosed a screen porch without a permit. And I got notification on Ferguson. He assured me that contractor, Mitchell and Stark, forthcoming. it, a citation. I contacted Mr. permits will be through his he assured me would be December the 17th, I believe, I got a fax from my attorney that we're having a board meeting here, which I made for the 23rd of December. I really didn't have time to prepare at that time. But anyhow, the decision was made by this board that I was in violation. I was a property owner, even though I did not have possession of the property. Me being the property owner, I was responsible. My understanding at that time was, it was the 23rd of December and we was having holidays coming up. If I was not able to get permits within 30 days, I could get an extension of time. No. 5, you can see where I did put forth an effort to see John Kelly, which is January the 21st. That was three days before this -- my time had expired that I was to get these permits. Mr. Kelly was not in. And see the highlighted area where I diligently tried Page #5 April 27, 2000 to get in touch with him, tried to get an extension. When I finally did talk to Mr. Morad and Mr. Kelly, I was informed, the best I recall at that time, that I would have to come before this board to get that extension I could not get through the code enforcement office. Mr. Bill Ferguson kept assuring me that the permits was forthcoming. Number 6 on your page, you'll see a fax from Mr. Ferguson at the top. Highlighted is the date, January the 22nd, 2000, from Mitchell and Stark. And what it says, in essence, if you can read it, basically I have to get flood and elevation and electrical plans to complete. Will have it by Monday in our hands. In other words, her hands, being Christina Willoughby. No. 7. Ticket No. 7 is an application submitted by Mr. Ferguson. Again, the highlighted area at the top date, January the 22nd, from Mitchell and Stark. All along I was assured this was in the process. But then my meetings with Mr. Ferguson continued to delay me, and I realized I had a problem in securing these permits. So I did send a letter to all my tenants -- all the tenants of the property, I should say -- January the 17th that I'd be taking possession of the property the 21st. I took possession of this property up until that time. I was unable to get onto the property. It was not in my possession, but I did begin to take possession of the property. I began to collect rents. I moved onto the property myself personally. I applied for an owner/builder permit, which you can see that I have No. 8. I applied for a permit to do this budget myself as owner/builder. A week or so later I contacted the building department, Wanda, who said it had been rejected because this was a duplex and I was not -- I could not qualify it, being a duplex, to pull a builder -- or owner permit, rather. I contacted a contractor, Earnest Freeman, and I met with Mr. Freeman, I think it was February the 10th -- 14th, rather, and we applied through Mr. Freeman. A week passed, and I contacted Mr. Freeman. He said, "There's a problem with code enforcement. It's all kind of problems," is about the words he used. I contacted Mr. Ed Morad. He said on his computer he saw no problem that his department was holding the project up. So I said, "What can I do? I'm at a dead end." We have pursued this thing. I have individually, I have with a contractor. He said, "Let's -- we need to set up a meeting." So he called Page #6 April 27, 2000 some of the departments to see if we could set up a meeting with -- to find what this problem was. So he called me back. We set up a meeting with Jeff in the building department, Mr. Morad, Mr. Kelly, Johnnie. And in that meeting it was discussed that new permits would be -- new plans would be submitted, and they would help me pursue this thing through. So we got back with the contractor, Freeman & Freeman, resubmitted the permits, and finally we did get the permits as of day before yesterday, I believe it was. The problem has been all along, I have been -- I was not the perpetrator of these problems. I sold it to other people, even though I accept the responsibility. I have diligently tried to make this thing work. My problem has been within the departments, delays, promises permits were in place. And I feel like that I have done all that I could do with all the exhibits I have shown here where I have submitted the -- for permits, what contractors submitted for permits. Delays. And I asked the board today to give serious consideration to waive the fine that has been levied against me of $2,250 and 600 some odd dollars for administrative fees so I can go ahead and finish this project. It's been such a delay on a screened porch. We could done a whole development while this thing has been in the process for the last five months. I ask you to give serious consideration to waive the fines, so since we do have permits I can go in personally and get this thing wrapped up immediately. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back in January, the 21st, by your Exhibit No. 5, you were talking with Mr. Kelly, and he informed you that you had to come before this board to get an extension. MR. HOLLAND: That's the way I interpret it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that correct? MR. HOLLAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We had a January meeting, a February meeting, and a March meeting. Now an April meeting. This is the first time we've seen you. MR. HOLLAND: Well, I kept being assured permits were forthcoming. We had a meeting with all the departments. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. What I'm trying to get at is you found out in January the only extension that could be granted is by this board, and yet you didn't come to us and ask for it. You Page #7 April 27, 2000 should have kept trying to get your permits, which you did, and that shows diligence, but you didn't ask for an extension, so then the fines kicked in. So you're asking us to waive the fines. And I guess I don't understand why you didn't come to us and ask for an extension. MR. HOLLAND: Well, my understanding was since I didn't file within that 30-day period, then I could no longer file for an extension. That was my -- my 30 days had expired as of that date. That's my understanding. Maybe I understood it wrong. But I was supposed to file -- get it in before the 30 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maria, do you have a copy of the order, since -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Can I see it, please? MS. RAWSON: I think it's in the packet. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the same -- the order said that you had to have everything corrected by January 23rd. So on the 21st, based on what you're showing us, you were told that you'd have to come to us to ask for an extension. We probably met -- I don't have a calendar in front of me, but if I had to guess, I'd say somewhere like January 27th, probably. So you could have come to us a couple days late and told us your problem and asked for an extension, so -- or you could have come at least the next month and told us. I guess what I'm looking at is -- MR. HOLLAND: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- a lot of time has transpired, and now all of a sudden after we've imposed the fine, you want the relief, but you didn't come to us and ask for help earlier. MR. HOLLAND: Well, as far as the last meeting you had where you imposed the fine, I was not notified. Even though a certified letter came to my estranged wife, I did not get it until a day after the meeting. So I was not able to come before the board at that time. So communication has been the problem breakdown with me receiving the documentations, notices. Plus when I did file, every department kind of threw their hands up and said it's not for us. So it just kept delayed. And I kept pursuing and calling. So I've done everything I know to do. So I'm here at your mercy, because I can do nothing else. I came to Mr. Morad the Page #8 April 27, 2000 same way, '~Nhat can I do? I've tried everything." And he said -- then he said, "Let's set up a meeting with all the board, or with the departments." So I've done all I can -- I felt like I done all I could do, unless I sat on the doorsteps day in and day out. I know it's been a delayed thing, but I'd like to get this nightmare out of the way. It's just been a small screened porch, it's been delayed like a large development would have been. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. And you have the permits now, you're telling us? MR. HOLLAND: On No. 16, if you'll notice, there's a copy of the permits, on the last page of your package. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may add, Mr. Holland claims that he was not notified of the meeting of March 23rd. That notice was sent to the same address of record that it shows as property owner, and also the same address that was used for the original public hearing notice. MR. BOLGAR: Mr. Chairman, for identification purposes, I'm Bill Bolgar, supervisor for code enforcement. The -- Mr. Holland is talking about some meetings with code enforcement and the people at the community development. Those meetings concern another matter at the same address, also concerning permits that they were meeting about. And those right now are -- is a case that we're working on where he's obtaining additional permits. And the other thing is, is that the state statute states that an owner/builder cannot pull a building permit for a residential single-family house unless he resides there. Mr. Holland did not reside there. And the first attempt by Mr. Holland to get a permit for the address we're talking about, he obtained a contractor that did not have a license so, therefore, could not get a permit. And his second attempt to obtain a permit, Mr. Holland attempted it. And again, he was denied because he does not reside there. MR. HOLLAND: I'd like to make a correction on that. January the 2tst I did take possession of the property. I did move into this property. I left after three weeks. During that period of time, I did apply for permits. What Mr. Bolgar is speaking of, Mitchell and Stark apparently is a contractor that was not licensed. I was led Page #9 April 27, 2000 to believe by Mr. Ferguson that Mitchell and Stark was the contract that was going to be pulling the permit. That delayed me. I was not able to get the other contractor, which is Freeman & Freeman, to -- which has now pulled the permit to do so. MR. LEHMANN: Maria, do you have the original board's finding of fact and order? MS. CRUZ: I gave copies to the Chairman. MR. LEHMANN: Not the order imposing fine, but the finding of fact. MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. I've provided a copy of that to the Chairman. MR. LEHMANN: Is that it now? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: 2,250. The fine that we imposed is basically for the first 30 days. There's another 59 days, that gets us to April 24th, that have accrued. MS. SAUNDERS: Does staff have a recommendation on this? MR. BOLGAR: Yes. Staff recommends that his request be denied. He's had plenty of opportunity to obtain a permit. He had -- he was instructed exactly what he had to do, and he did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded him. MS. DUSEK: Other than written notice to him so that he understood what he was to do, did you actually talk to him and explain? MR. BOLGAR: Yeah, code enforcement had several meetings. The other supervisor, Ed Morad, met with Mr. Holland on several occasions, and the investigator, John Kelly, and he was explained exactly what he had to do. MR. HOLLAND: I did exactly what we was instructed to do. We had our meetings with Johnnie. She said we'll help you get this thing resolved. I didn't realize I had to come back to the board after once we had our meeting. My understanding was when I met with code enforcement, I did request a meeting, an extension of January the 21st. You have a copy there of the letter from the code enforcement. I didn't realize I had to continue to come back since we had already filed for permits. Maybe I made a mistake, but my understanding was I just needed to aggressively following through and get these permits, and that's what I tried to do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The order states that you have to have everything corrected, not only get the permits, if I read the order Page #10 April 27, 2000 correctly. So now that you've got the permits, you still have to get the work -- MR. HOLLAND: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- done, which I don't know how long that's going to take. So you're not finished yet. MR. HOLLAND: Well, I got the permit yesterday is when I got CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. But in addition to the fine we've already imposed, there's an additional, getting us to the 24th of March, roughly $4,425, plus till whenever you get it done, and it's -- you've abated it by complying with everything. MR. HOLLAND: Well, I'm standing here at the mercy of the board trying to explain to you that it was beyond my control. I could not get onto the property because it is someone else's control. Even though it's in my name, I sold an unrecorded contract for deed, these people that I sold it to said no, we're going to have it ourselves. We use Mitchell and Stark. So they refused to let me do anything with my contract on the property until I just went in and took possession as of January the 21st of the property. So I have done -- I have diligently worked this thing to try to make it -- to try to get the permits. That's all I can ask you to do is to just look at it realistically what I have shown you by my exhibits, the documentations, the conversations, communications, et cetera. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, as I remember, it's coming back, when we did this case in December, I think one of the questions I asked was being the quote, recorded property owner, and that's what our judgment was based on, Mr. Holland is responsible. MS. RAWSON: He is responsible as the property owner. Sometimes the pleadings also include the person who is residing there, the renter, the lessee. In this particular case, it did not. And so sure, he's -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: He's -- the buck stops here, as they say. Okay, that's what I remembered from back then, so I wanted to double check. MR. HOLLAND: I might add this, that the Florida law does recognize a contract for deed that's a legitimate sale. For me to take this property back, I've got to go through the foreclosure Page #11 April 27, 2000 process. I just can't walk in and say, "You move out, I'm taking back over." I did in essence because there were delinquent payments. I exercised my clause in the contract to collect rents, and that's what I did. But I have to foreclose to get the contractor to get out of the way. So I'm not the sole responsible party because stipulation of the law. That's my feelings. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying. of the In this case, you were the sole person highlighted for the violation, being the recorded property owner. MR. HOLLAND: I'm carrying the rap because of the responsibility of someone else, or somebody else, the perpetrator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand what you're saying, sir. Yeah. And I believe, if I remember correctly, we took that into consideration. Any other questions from board members? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Holland, how long do you think it will take you to bring -- to do what the permit requires and bring the property into compliance? MR. HOLLAND: A couple weeks. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What we're dealing with is the request for the waiver of the fines that have been levied, which is $2,250 plus the cost of 600 and something, 631 or 651 or something like that. MS. DUSEK: 621. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' 621. Those are the two numbers that we're dealing with today. Any additional questions from the board? Or what is the pleasure of the board? The county has recommended denying the request. MS. DUSEK: I have one more question to the staff. I know that the notice was given in October of '99. Has there been contact prior to that? MR. BOLGAR: Prior to the notice of violation? MS. DUSEK: Yes. MR. BOLGAR: Yes, there was. MR. HOLLAND: This violation was done in October, what we talking about here, of '99. So immediately after that is when the citation was issued. I had never talked to anyone concerning this violation before that date. Page #12 April 27, 2000 MS. DUSEK: You were aware of the violation in October?. MR. HOLLAND: In October when it was -- the citation was issued to me, that's when I realize -- understood. I didn't go by the property for a month or two, but I realize it had been done at that time. MR. BOLGAR: And prior to the NOV being issued in this matter, there was a posting of a stop work order of the premises. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think what the board needs to understand is the finding of fact, finding that there was a violation, is really over and done with. We need to stick to that. We have a request to waive the fines, and what we should only be considering is Mr. Holland's reasons for waiving the fine, which is basically he's been trying to get permits and he couldn't get on the property and so on and so forth. The finding that a violation exists is over and done with, and we really don't need to rehash that part of it. Let's just deal with his reasons for wanting us to waive the fines, and should we. MS. DUSEK: I realize that part. I just wondered when he began to make the attempt, trying to put everything in a time frame. MS. SAUNDERS: It's my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the property owner sold to the wrong people, obviously, has made a reasonably diligent effort to achieve what we've asked him to achieve. I do agree, he could have done it faster, he probably could have solved things, but he's -- given the number of cases that we see here where they try nothing, this man has certainly at least tried. I'm leery of waiving any fines until the violation is removed completely, and I would not want to do that until it's fixed. But I would propose, perhaps, that we postpone this request for 30 days, ask him to come back in :30 days, tell us that -- you know, if the violation has been completed, and at that time talk about what might be a reasonable or not reasonable reduction of fines, partial reduction of fines or no reduction of fines. But I don't -- I'm not comfortable waiving anything until the work's been done. I am also not comfortable in saying to the man you haven't done everything you could, because I think he's made a diligent effort. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree, I think we'd be better served if we wait until everything was completed, and at the time the Page #13 April 2?, 2000 county came to us and said that all action is completed and he is in compliance, I think Mr. Holland would be better served to come to us at that time when the fine is now at whatever. Because it's going -- it is a bigger number. No sense you trying to come back and argue again for another number and another number. I think you and the county would be better served if you wait till the end and then ask for some relief of all partial whatever the board is willing to do. I agree with Ms. Saunders, that that's probably the better course of action. Which means I think basically that she and I are probably agreeing that we should deny the request at this time. MS. SAUNDERS: Or ask that if denying is the wrong word on it, that it be moved. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it's for a specific amount of money right now. So I think it's better served if we just deny it and advise Mr. Holland to come back, once he's in compliance, and ask for the total amount, whatever that is at that time. I don't know what it is, because I don't know what day you'll finish. And it goes on a daily basis. MR. HOLLAND: Even though permits have been issued, I'm still in violation? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes, sir, until you get the work done. You've got the permit. What you must do is alleviate the violation. And I don't remember -- you know, the screen porch, if that was it. If just getting the permit alleviates the violation, then the county has to say you're in compliance. They haven't done that yet. So I don't know if you needed to do any work or whatever, I honestly don't remember. But if getting the permit was the only thing, that's fine. But if you had to get the permit and do something else, you need to do that, get the county to come out, inspect it and say yes, you are now in compliance. They will then tell us you are in compliance. At that time we will know, because there will be a date at $75 a day starting January 24th. Do the multiplication, add the cost, and that's the number we would be dealing with. That's the number you should come and ask us to do something about. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: By the board's action of possibly denying this Page #14 April 27, 2000 particular request, do we impair Mr. Holland's rights to come before the board at any future date? MS. RAWSON: Let's see, what did he call his request today? Request for waiver of fines. No, he can come back on a request for reduction of fines. MR. LEHMANN: Can he come back for a waiver of fines again? MS. RAWSON: There's nothing to preclude him from doing that. MR. LEHMANN: Or a reduction of fines could be down to zero, so he still has all of his rights available to him. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. LEHMANN: Bearing in mind with that consideration and with board members' comments, I would make a motion that the waiver be denied on those grounds, and instruct Mr. Holland that once the violation has been corrected, then you can come before the board again, we can go through this process again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. We have a motion to deny the request. MS. DUSEK: I second. MR. KINCAID: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any comment? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Mr. Holland, do you understand, sir?. MR. HOLLAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' All right. Thank you, sir. MR. HOLLAND: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have another request, Maria, Hernandez? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. And the respondent is not present. And this request was at the respondent's request. So I think that we should just remove this item from the agenda, because I did advise the respondent that since they were requesting this waiver, that they needed to be present. MR. KINCAID: This is what we just added this morning, correct? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. Page #t5 April 2?, 2000 MS. RAWSON: It's not necessary for them to be here. maybe they just -- she just wanted to do it by writing. certainly in their best interest always to be here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Ms. Rawson, in making such a request, is it necessary for them to be here? Is it in their best interest to be here? Give us a little -- And It is CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Without knowing the particulars of the violation in the order, I would think it would be in their best interest to be here, and -- MS. SAUNDERS: I do recall this case, Mr. Chairman. Rather than just remove it, I would suggest that perhaps we might want to simply read the letter and act on the letter and then we've either made a denial or an acceptance. And they've had their appeal, they chose not to be here. That's their right. As I recall, this is the one where the gentleman came down, removed some of the trailers, put a couple more back and said he thought he'd solved it. Having -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: -- read the letter, my leanings would certainly be to deny their request. And rather than just remove it from the agenda, I'd like to deny it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Maria, what kind of fines have built up on this? I mean, what are we talking about here? MS. CRUZ: Back on March 23rd, the board imposed total fines of $43,750, plus operational costs of $577.10. MR. LEHMANN: I'm sorry, Maria, could you repeat that again? MS. CRUZ: Fines were $43,750, plus operational costs of $577.10. MS. SAUNDERS: Has it been 90 days? Are we able to put a lien on the property at this point? MS. CRUZ: I believe the lien is -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What was the date of the imposition of fines? I need to know that. MS. CRUZ: March 31st. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. So 30 days is not -- or the 90 days is not collected yet. So there's additional fines that have built up since. Was this -- do we have a compliance letter?. MS. CRUZ: Yes, we do. Page #t6 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And that was as of the 31st, or -- MS. CRUZ: I don't have the exact date, but I do know-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This amount -- MS. CRUZ: -- that there was an affidavit of compliance filed. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: This amount is up to that compliance date. MS. CRUZ: Exactly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Any other comments from the board members? I tend to agree with Ms. Saunders, that we have the letter and we could make a decision. Although wanting to be as fair as fair can be, I would not be adverse to giving the Hernandezes till the next meeting to come and tell us personally why we should reduce it. I've read their letter also, and I think it's pretty straightforward, but at the same time, if there's something else they can add, I'd be open to hearing it. But whatever the pleasure of the board is, I'm open to. MR. LEHMANN: If that is a motion to continue, that's not what we agreed here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'd just like to see them have the opportunity. I don't know why they didn't show up today. But since the fines have stopped, all we're dealing with is a request basically to either reduce or for the county not to collect anything from this. We don't really get hurt one way or the other. The clock is still ticking on the 90 day before we could do anything about a foreclosure action. I would think it would be in our best interest to wait, if no one has any objections. MR. KINCAID: Can I ask the staff if this party is in Collier County, or are they back in Tennessee? MS. CRUZ: I believe they're still in Collier County. MR. KINCAID: And we have an address and et cetera for them -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. MR. KINCAID: -- so we can get ahold of them? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. And I also have a phone number, too. MS. SAUNDERS: So you did speak with them; is that correct? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MS. SAUNDERS: I -- maybe having just toured Immokalee very recently and realizing how much these trailer parks are reaping in profits for their owners, I'm less forgiving, I think. I Page #17 April 27, 2000 would like to move that this request be denied. MR. LEHMANN: Ms. Cruz, do you -- sorry, I'm still using your maiden name. You're saying that the respondent -- MS. CRUZ: I'm sorry? MR. LEHMANN: You're saying that the respondent Collier County? MS. CRUZ: Yes, that's correct. MR. LEHMANN: And has been hearing? MS. CRUZ: Yes, the respondent is in notified to come to the contacted our office and spoke with myself, and they requested to come before this board and request for a waiver of fines. And I advised them to submit it in writing and also to come before this board and explain to the board the reasons why they're requesting the waiver of fines. MR. LEHMANN: Was there a reason why the respondent deemed it unimportant to come today to was unable to? MS. CRUZ: I'm not aware of that. MS. DUSEK: Maria, when you -- I'm sorry. MR. LEHMANN: And again, my previous comment was based on the fact that I thought this particular respondent was in Tennessee. I thought at that point in time, because of the dollar amount of this thing, it would be important for that respondent to be here. But obviously he was given an opportunity to be here. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. LEHMANN: Based on that, again, I would agree, I think the respondent has had sufficient time to consider this and has either (sic) deemed it unimportant enough to arrive here for decision. So I think we should proceed based on what we have today. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. DUSEK: Maria, when you spoke to those people, did they understand that it was in their best interest to be here in person, other than just writing -- MS. CRUZ: Yes, ma'am. I explained -- MS. DUSEK: And did they indicate -- MS. CRUZ: I explained to that to them, that they need -- that it was to their best interest to be present and explain to the board in their own words why they were requesting for this waiver of fines. MS. DUSEK: And they indicated that they would be? Page #18 April 27, 2000 MS. CRUZ: Exactly. I also explained to them that they needed to bring a translator, since they used staff last meeting, and they were aware of that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we have a motion from Ms. Saunders to deny the application, the request for -- MS. DUSEK: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of denying the request, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. Reports -- any other old business before we continue? Reports. Affidavits of compliance. MS. CRUZ: Reports. We have a BCC versus Alfredo and Miradis Morales, Case No. 2000-004. This case appeared before the board on January 27th, year 2000, and the board ordered the respondent to take certain corrective action by -- on or before March 28th. A reinspection was done on March 31st, the year 2000, revealing the corrective action order by the board was taken. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any questions on the affidavit of compliance? MS. DUSEK: I make a motion that we accept the affidavit of compliance on CEB No. 2000-004. MR. LEHMANN: Second. motion and a second to All those in favor of CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a accept. All those -- any questions? accepting? All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: MS. CRUZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Any other items, Maria? Reports? Item 8, comments. Any comments from anyone? Cool. Item 9 is now amendment of our rules and regulations. MS. DUSEK: Is it open for discussion? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, let me shuffle a bunch of stuff in Page #19 April 27, 2000 trying to get semi organized. Did everybody bring their copy so we can all talk from the same piece of paper?. And Ms. Rawson is here to lead us. MS. RAWSON: Does everybody have a copy? And I have some additional suggestions from Mr. Lehmann that are not included on your copy, but as we go through, I will mention what he suggested. I think that probably the best way to do this is we'll do it article by article. And if everybody's in agreement with that article, then we'll move on to the next article. Because my ultimate goal is to get through this today and have it prepared for your signature at the next board meeting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. As we do it article by article -- I think that's a neat idea -- if anybody -- if everybody is in agreement, I think as we do the article, can we -- what I'd like to have is like a general consensus that we agree the article is acceptable so that when we're done, even before you put it in final form, we could vote on accepting what we have just done -- MS. RAWSON: That's good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- rather than wait till next month and see a put together copy and then vote on it. I think we can just do that today. MS. RAWSON: That would be wonderful. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Well, let's start with probably the most important part, and that's the title. The title presently is rules and regulations. And a suggested change in that would be operational guidelines. So before we get into discussion, let me just tell you that 168. -- 162.08 refers to it as rules and 92-80 refers to it as -- that's the ordinance, rules and regulations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's leave it. Let's leave it rules and regulations. MR. LEHMANN: I concur. MS. DUSEK: Do we have to make a motion -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. DUSEK: -- every time we do this? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, if everybody is in general agreement, we'll just kind of put a little checkmark and cross out the operational guidelines and -- Page #20 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: That's good. If anybody's got any strong feelings, just speak up. There were no suggestions to Article 1. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Question, since we just had our first kind of go at Ordinance 96.tl or whatever the nuisance abatement board -- MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Can we leave the name of this board the Code Enforcement Board, since that's a division under the ordinance -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- the Code Enforcement Board, we don't have to add that or anything, do we? MS. RAWSON: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And as a matter of fact, even though this is the first nuisance abatement case that was on your agenda, it's not the first nuisance abatement case that has come before a Code Enforcement Board in this county. We just don't get a lot of them. But this is -- I mean, this is your first time but it's not the first time. Rhona might remember. She may have -- MS. SAUNDERS: Yeah, I do recall one. MS. RAWSON: Article 1, there were no suggested changes. Article 2 about jurisdiction, in the bold print you will see that the suggested changes that I had so far were instead of has, shall have, and matters, change matters to violations. There's also another suggested change that would be as follows: That the beginning of the paragraph would say pursuant to authorization granted and jurisdiction bestowed by the Florida Statutes, Chapter 162 is amended, and Collier County Ordinance No. 92-80 as amended, comma, the board, so forth. So the suggestion was that we put that at the beginning of that paragraph. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that do anything for us? MS. RAWSON: No. You know, it just cites the law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the ordinance already gives us the power to do these, so, I mean, that's why I guess I'm saying -- MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- does that really -- MS. RAWSON: It doesn't make any difference. Page #21 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- help our rules and regulations? MS. RAWSON: It's -- I mean, in other words, we have that anyway by 162 and 92-80, we're just citing the law if we do that. My only suggestion would be -- and you can discuss the other proposed changes, and I'm not sure at this point in time who made which suggestion. I like changing it -- well, I'm not sure I do. I maybe changed my mind. Because we're not always talking about violations, sometimes we're talking about other things. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Reducing fines and so on, so forth. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So, yeah, okay. Yeah, I crossed that out~ SO-- MR. LEHMANN: My personal comment about violations, I think we should leave it as matters. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what mine was, so -- MS. DUSEK: I like the way it reads now, personally. And if he we want to put shall have, that's fine; cross out violations and not get so detailed with the law. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, any other comments? MR. LEHMANN: Is there any difference between has and shall have? MS. RAWSON: I don't know of any. MR. KINCAID: I don't see anything wrong with it the way it is. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's cross out both the bold things and just leave the sentence the way it was. How's that? MS. DUSEK: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cool. That was easy. MS. RAWSON: The next suggestion, which is not on your rules that you have in your hand, before officers and their duties, there was a suggestion that we add definitions. The definitions are in the statute now, provided all of you with copies of the statute and the ordinances. But the suggestion was that we put the definitions actually in your rules and regulations. The definitions that we're talking about that are right from the statute 'are, secretary to the board, board, code enforcement official, commission, county attorney, person, prosecutor, violator, repeat violator. And those are right from the statute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I personally don't see why we should take the rules and regulations and rewrite them to be a mirror imagine of the statutes. It's just you're adding a lot of things in a Page #22 April 27, 2000 document that I think the rules and regulations should be more to tell us how the board operates, rather than copying the statutes over into the same document. MS. DUSEK: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's -- I don't see the redundancy need there. MR. LEHMANN: And that was one of my recommendations to it, but that was based on the fact that I was viewing this particular document as maybe the only document that respondents receive. But again, it is up to them to look at the ordinances and do as they -- or research as they choose, so I would agree with probably leave those out. MS. RAWSON: Those were the only suggested changes then, is that the consensus that we leave Article 3 the way it is? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah.And we have no definitions section. MS. RAWSON: Article 4 -- MR. LEHMANN: Well, can we back up just one second? MS. RAWSON: Sure. MR. LEHMANN: In Article 3, as opposed to just leaving it the way it is, I think we probably ought to change the word chairman and vice-chairman to reflect both genders and change it to a chairperson or vice chairperson. MS. RAWSON: Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that had part of your-- and I'm sorry I missed that anyway. That wouldn't be like me to miss that. We can call the person chair or chairperson, but I do think we should take the word man out. I'm sure the ladies would agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Not a problem for me. MR. LEHMANN: I think it would just be easier to say chair, as opposed to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, whatever the please is. I have no problem with either. Just consisting of a chair and a vice chair. Or what's the pleasure of the board? MR. LEHMANN: Chair is fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Just plain chair, is that acceptable? MS. SAUNDERS: Either one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We need to give Ms. Rawson some direction so -- MS. SAUNDERS: Chair. Page #23 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- just chair would be sufficient, Ms. Rawson. MS. DUSEK: And we'll carry that throughout. MS. RAWSON: That's good. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. RAWSON: The other suggestion on that Article 3 was that there be -- statement that the chair and the vice-chair, both of whom shall be voting members. As you know, we have two alternates who are not voting members. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Run that by me again? MS. RAWSON: Well, the suggestion would be the officers shall consist of a chair and vice chair, both of whom shall be voting members. MR. KINCAID: I think that should be automatic, shouldn't it? MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think we've ever elected a chair or a vice chair that wasn't a voting member. MS. SAUNDERS: In other words, we can't elect an alternate as a chairman or a vice-chairman. MS. RAWSON: I think that was the point. MS. SAUNDERS: Makes sense. MS. RAWSON: What's the pleasure of the board? MS. DUSEK: I like the addition. It clarifies it so there would never be a question. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Run that by me again, please. I was looking something up. MS. RAWSON: Section one, the first sentence should read, the officers shall consist of a chair and vice-chair, both of whom shall be voting members. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, rather than voting members, because in the absence of a member, an alternate is a voting member. So wouldn't we be better to say when we had the comment instead of voting members shall be permanent members? Because you have permanent members and alternate members. Now you've narrowed it down to only permanent members can be chair and vice chair. When you say voting, to me, if I'm an alternate, I do get to vote if somebody's absent, so why can't I be in the chair position? MS. RAWSON: You like the words permanent? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the two classifications I guess we have, a permanent member and an alternate member. Page #24 April 27, 2000 Any comments? MR. LEHMANN: I think it better clarifies the intent. MS. RAWSON: Permanent members? Okay, then we'll make that change. The next, election of officers, Article 4, no changes in section one. Although we've exceeded our March meeting again this year. Section two. MS. CRUZ: I have a change. I believe it fits in section one from Diane, that she asked me to voice this out. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MS. CRUZ: She wants the amendment changed to reflect for the chairman to be able to serve a second round instead of one round as the chairman. MS. RAWSON: That's in section two. And someone else also had -- that reminds me, I need to go through and change chairman to chair all through. Section two, and I think what we wrote on your proposed -- in the bold print is candidate receiving majority vote shall be declared elected and shall receive a term but not limited to one year. And I think -- I looked at that, and section 10205 and 9280 and that's certainly permissible. MS. DUSEK: I have a comment along this line. I've thought about that, and it doesn't matter a great deal to me which way it goes, whether it's one year, two years, however. But I was thinking of the composure of the board. And when you're a chairman, chairperson, you really have to spend a lot more time in research and become very knowledgeable, as we have seen through Cliff. I think it would be in the best interest of the board for its strength and for the public to have a change each year, because it would put the chairman who had been here previously on the board with all this knowledge and background, and it would almost force another person to engage themselves to do the same thing, and again be more knowledgeable. This is just a side comment. It doesn't matter whether we keep this one year or two years, but I think it's healthier to have a change each year, although I think Cliff is absolutely superb and we couldn't have anybody who could do a better job. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm in trouble. MS. DUSEK: But I just -- that's just a feeling I have about it, Page #25 April 27, 2000 taking away all personalities and faces. I just think it adds strength to the board to have people of tremendous background and research and knowledge. MS. SAUNDERS: Only concern I have on that is that you may not find the second person who is willing to do all that work. MS. DUSEK: Well, in that case, then it would -- the same person would be elected. But I think it's good to give the opportunity to another person. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: But I think the reason that we wanted to -- the comment came out about adding this was that if you leave it a term of one year, it's automatic, you can't reelect the same person. Isn't that the way it was -- or is currently, Jean? MS. RAWSON: It is currently shall serve a term of one year. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if you have somebody that -- you're saying you have to make a change, but if there's nobody on the board that has what Bobbi is saying, you're going to have to elect him anyway, because under the current rules you can't reelect the same person. MS. DUSEK: Right. My comment was not necessarily to keep it at one year. But when we consider electing officers, I think it's healthier to make a change, providing someone's willing to take that responsibility. Because it puts them to the position to make it a point of learning much more about the law and about code enforcement. And it brings a new personality into being chair. MR. FLEGAL: I don't disagree with that. I think you need to make the change, though, to give the board the option of if they're uncomfortable with maybe somebody just now learning and they're not ready, okay, we'll wait one more year and then that person should have enough under their belt. But currently, you have to reelect -- you have to elect somebody new every year, unless we make a change. MS. DUSEK: Right. MR. LEHMANN: I think to clarify it -- it's a very good point, getting more strength throughout the board by forcing a person, so to speak, into that chair position where they have more responsibility is a very, very good idea. I also think that the board needs to have a little bit of freedom, and the current bylaws do not allow that freedom. We currently don't have the ability to reelect somebody who we think may be strong in that chair. Page #26 April 27, 2000 At the same time -- you know, the bottom line is I agree, I think we should make the change, because it allows to us do that. We as the board then have the ability to use a judgment call in saying do we have somebody who's been there now, we need to try to strengthen the board, but bring somebody else, and we have that freedom; whereas, the current laws do not allow that. MS. DUSEK: Right. And I agree with all of that. comments were leading toward the election of officers -- MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. DUSEK: -- keeping all this in mind. MR. LEHMANN: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What's the pleasure? My Add -- make the change as suggested? Jean, does that give us what we need, the latitude? MS. RAWSON: Yes, certainly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody okay with the addition that's recommended? MS. RAWSON: Section 3, I need to scratch out man and -- from chairman and vice-chairman. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL:You can just make that change throughout the whole -- MS. RAWSON: I will. Article 5, meetings. The regular meeting, and everybody has agreed to this, and of course we need to do it because actually, this is what the current scenario is. We only have one Code Enforcement Board. So it would be the Code Enforcement -- not the north -- Board. It is the fourth Thursday of each month, but it's 9:00 a.m. And then the suggestion was to add "or at a time determined by the board," so that we could be flexible. And then of course I need to omit the rest of the sentence, because there's no more south board. So I guess the only thing for discussion is do you want to add "or at a time determined by the board"? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask the question: If we put 9:00 a.m. in these rules and regulations without the rest of the sentence, can it ever be changed? MS. RAWSON: You mean could you meet at 8:30 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- could you meet at 1:307 Page #27 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In other words, if the rules say we have to meet at 9:00, can this board say oh, next month we want to meet at 8:30, do we, somewhere in these rules -- MS. RAWSON: Well, if you put the rest of the sentence, "or at a time determined by the board" -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what I'm saying, without that we're locked into a specific time. MS. RAWSON: We'll be here at 9:00 on the fourth Thursday of every month. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I think it's imperative that we add the rest of the sentence so that we have the latitude, if the room's not available, if something happens and we have to meet on a different day at a different time, this board needs to be in the position to do that. MS. RAWSON: It gives us a little more flexibility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MR. LEHMANN: I authored that, and that was primarily the purpose behind it, just to give the board some flexibility. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Good suggestion. I would accept it the way it's recommended. MS. RAWSON: There are no other suggested changes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: For Article -- MS. RAWSON: For Article 5. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And then we get to Article 6, which everybody agreed we need to change. The order of business should be as our agenda is each month, and so I need to make the order of business that's in our rules and regulations look just like our meeting agenda. Anybody have any other suggestions or comments about the order of business? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think if everybody looks at our agenda of today, if that is imposed in our rules and regulations, or a close proximity thereof, as I remember reading through here, we still have the latitude to change the agenda and the order -- MS. RAWSON: Certainly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- any way we want by the last sense in this article, so -- but it should reflect what we do. MR. LEHMANN: Do we need to -- the affidavits of compliance and noncompliance, we can handle that under old business, it Page #28 April 27, 2000 doesn't need any particular spot to put it in, so to speak? MS. RAWSON: Sometimes old business would be something like we had today, a request for waiver of fines filed by somebody. And sometimes under old business it's a request for imposition of fines. Usually when we're doing the affidavits of compliance, as we did today, it's under reports. If you want me to spell it out. But there could be a lot of other things under old business, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was just going to say, there could be a lot of items. I think new business, old business and reports, and if we leave them blank, then the staff can plug in whatever. We've given; them the general heading where we want items, but if we start telling them -- we could get this list to be two pages long if we start trying to list everything that they might present. MS. RAWSON: Article 7, Section -- MR. KINCAID: Before we go on, could I -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KINCAID: -- make a comment? Section 8 under five you have a highlighted word in there called guidelines. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, we did away with that in the very beginning, so -- MS. RAWSON: Right, I scratched that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- it's automatically out. MR. KINCAID: Sorry, I missed it. MS. RAWSON: That's if we were going to change the title. But I've scratched that now, since we didn't change the title. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One. other -- Item 7 -- or Section 7 right above that? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We say all regular special meetings, hearing. I think that should be hearings. We're singular there, and we may have more than one, and the sentence just kind of doesn't read right. Records -- Section 7 on Page 3 says "Records: All regular and special meetings, hearing and records shall be open to the public." I think it should be hearings. MS. RAWSON: Probably the fault of the typist, myself. We'll fix that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Article 7. Section 3, we need to -- most all of you pointed this out, and of course we need to make this comply Page #29 April 27, 2000 with the ordinance in the statute that we may post on the property and at the courthouse. So that's a gimme. That's -- on the third line. Reading on down further in that paragraph, "The secretary shall deliver the notice in a manner which will enable an alleged violator to receive a minimum in 15 days." A suggestion was made, as required by the ordinance and the statute. I think it's 10 days. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Is the statute 10 days? MS. RAWSON: Posting, 10 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, correct me. We can't change the statute. If the statute says 10 days, we can't make it longer, can we? MS. RAWSON: The posting statute says 10 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And we've got to meet what the statute says. MS. RAWSON: I think we do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We can't extend the time. MS. RAWSON: There's no other time limit, other than in the posting section, I believe. Notice by publication is usually four consecutive weeks. But someone sugges -- now, I think we need to change that to 10. And then someone suggested that we add the words as required by the ordinance in the statute. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If 10 days is in the statute, then that's that. I mean, I guess my only thing would be if they ever change the ordinance in the statute, then rather than put the time limit in there of 10 days, the other suggestion would be appropriate. Because we never know what they're going to do with the statute. But we can always amend these rules and regulations. MS. RAWSON: Yes, we can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I would probably say let's make it a minimum of 10 days prior to notice of the hearing, and forget the as required by ordinance of statute. MS. RAWSON: Any other comments on Section 3? Section 4, about halfway down, we're talking about how many days we need to have the violator, alleged violator, submit their information to the code enforcement official. Right now it says -- 4, it's the second sense, in order to have the information provided to the board members prior to the board hearing, the Page #30 April 27, 2000 alleged violator must submit his or her information to the code enforcement official. Now it says four days prior. The suggestion is that we make that seven days prior. MR. LEHMANN: Maria, can I ask you, what did staff recommend on this, for you to get packages to us promptly? MS. CRUZ: The sooner we get it from the respondent, the better for us. I'm looking at the -- how would that work with -- we have 10 days prior to the hearing to provide to the respondent their packet, but they have three days to prepare their packet and provide it to us. Is that -- am I reading this correct? MS. RAWSON: That's right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: Yep. I don't have trouble with leaving it four, providing -- I mean, I don't know if that puts extra work on you to get the -- because right now you normally get the packets out to us -- MS. CRUZ: Once the packet goes out -- CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: -- three or four days. MS. CRUZ: Once the packet goes out to the respondent, we're ready to deliver the packet to the board. We have to wait on the respondent's time, you know, to turn it into the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You can operate within the four-day limit. MS. CRUZ: Right, we can. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. LEHMANN: The other thing that's down here is we don't differentiate between calendar days and working days. Should we? MS. RAWSON: Probably, yes, and we should put working days. MR. LEHMANN: Because that would extend that time frame. MS. CRUZ: That's true. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: On the minimum 10 days in the statute, does it differentiate? MS. RAWSON: In posting, no. 10 days. MR. LEHMANN: So we reference calendar days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So if we change it to working days, when the statute is given them calendar days, we're now giving them something that may exceed the calendar days, possibly. MS. RAWSON: Well, we're just telling the violator when to get their packet to the Code Enforcement Board official. The posting Page #31 April 27, 2000 is 10 days, which is calendar days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think somebody getting a packet ready, there's copy machines all over town, 24 hours a day, and, I mean, you can get something together on Saturday and Sunday. And anyone who says they can't obviously doesn't know anything. Sorry. So I don't think we should make it workdays, I think we should leave it just four days, and the assumption is it's the same as the statute, which would be calendar. MS. DUSEK: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have another question on that same section, and so if somebody can enlighten me. In the very first sentence where we say the notice of hearing shall include a copy of these rules and regulations. Why do we do that? MS. RAWSON: I think it's -- well, I can give you the history of why we do that, is because we have a lot of people -- well, I have a lot of attorneys who call me, by the way, and ask me to fax them a copy before they come, because you like to know what the rules of the game are before you come and present a case. But I think it's not just for attorneys. If we have persons who come before us without attorneys and they have had an opportunity to read the rules and regulations, they understand how to expedite this process, and it's more orderly. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And I think the history wise, because before, nobody really knew exactly what to do or what to expect. And, you know, people just enjoy knowing what the rules of the game are before they engage, I think. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. Convinced me. MS. RAWSON: Any other suggestions on Section 4? Article 8, prehearing procedures. These aren't mandated, but these are encouraged. We probably -- it probably happens in almost every instance, and we don't think of it as a prehearing conference, but I'm sure that the code enforcement officials talk to the alleged violators many times prior to a hearing. We actually had in the past prehearings on significant cases with attorneys and the attorney for the board and the chair. So that's the history of this whole section. At any rate, the suggested change is where it says at least 15 days, to scratch at least 15 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I was going to say, that -- wouldn't that be in conflict with the 10 days of notice? Page #32 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: Well, probably not. But just to take the time limit out altogether. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I guess if you're -- if the secretary shall deliver the notice in a manner which will enable the alleged violator to receive a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing, and now we're saying you've got to have a pre-hearing conference 15 -- he doesn't even know there's going to be a hearing until 10 days. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's true. I think we need to take it out. And I don't think anything should preclude us. You see the way this whole section is written, so that we make it all smooth -- flow more smoothly. Because if you had a number of attorneys, as we have in significant cases, we need to stipulate to evidence, stipulate to facts, tell each other who we're going to call as witnesses, and all that makes things much more orderly. But in terms of having a prehearing so that you can settle a case, I don't want anything to preclude the alleged violator from being able to talk to our code enforcement officials in the hallway before they come in here, if we can get it settled. So I think it's probably a good suggestion to take out the 15 days. MS. DUSEK: Let's take it out. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, take out the words at least 15 days. MS. RAWSON: Moving on down to Section 2, prehearing motions. Any motion for any reason to be filed by the alleged violator of the code enforcement officials shall be delivered to the board's attorney and the opposing party or their counsel, if applicable at least 10 days. And the suggestion was that we change that to five. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, again, if it's 10 days prior to the hearing, they didn't get notice to the hearing till 10 days, so -- MS. RAWSON: The other suggestion was the person filing the motion shall provide the board's attorney with -- rather than seven copies of the motion, it's 11. We need more copies. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say, to save the secretary from making a lot of copies, let's determine how many copies we need and make them supply them. Say the word. MS. CRUZ: I usually make 15 copies and have a couple of extras. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that in addition to what they give Page #33 April 27, 2000 you, or is that what you need? MS. CRUZ: That's what I need. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You need 157 MS. CRUZ: Um-hum. MS. RAWSON: Change it to 15. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's make it 15. MS. RAWSON: If we only make them give us seven, you know, then of course the county has to do all the rest of the Xeroxing. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's make them give us 15. Make them spend their money instead of hours. MS. RAWSON: Okay, I'll change that to 15. How about the at least five days prior to the hearing? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I'm for the five-day change. Any comments from anybody? Can we reduce it from 10 to five? MR. LEHMANN: I concur. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Everybody agreed? MS. SAUNDERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, with Article 8. MS. CRUZ: That's for the prehearing? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Motions. MS. CRUZ: Motions. So they got seven days for the public hearings and five days for the prehearings? Why don't we make that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MS. CRUZ: -- concur? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's four days for the -- MS. CRUZ: Four days. MS. RAWSON: They didn't change it to seven. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We left it at four. MS. CRUZ: Okay, four days. MS. RAWSON: They have to give you the packet four days prior to the scheduled hearing. MS. CRUZ: And then prehearing motions? MS. RAWSON: Motions. And -- we're having five days for the MS. CRUZ: Why don't we make it -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, in motions, the average person, if Page #34 April 2?, 2000 they don't have a lawyer, aren't going to do any motions. So I think you're dealing with two different types of people here. Under just the normal packet, you could be dealing with Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, who are going to give you something. Under prehearing motions, you're probably 99.9 percent of the time going to deal with attorneys, and they can do this. MS. RAWSON: And then of course if they -- if the motion was a motion for continuance, they probably don't have a packet, maybe. We've had interesting motions in the past. Motions in limine to exclude certain evidence for you to hear and things like that. I don't think this board has gotten any of those really complicated cases yet, but I'm sure you will. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thanks. MS. RAWSON: Okay, moving on to Article 9, hearings. E: Members of the public can testify and provide relevant evidence to support that a violation has or has not occurred. Testimony of members of the public shall be limited to no more than five minutes. The suggestion was that change the word can to may, and to change the word shall to may. MR. LEHMANN: Does that have any effect? MS. RAWSON: Well, shall and may are very important legal words. Shall means that it's absolutely mandated. May gives us discretion. When the statute says shall, you don't have any wiggle room, you don't have any other options. May gives the board a little more flexibility. In practicality, we usually let members of the public speak, because we want to relax the rules of evidence. But I think that you may limit their testimony, and I think that you may require them to provide relevant evidence. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there a reason for the five-minute rule? Why isn't it like -- MS. RAWSON: Well, the reason for the -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it's three for the County Commission. MS. RAWSON: Historically the reason for the five-minute rule is because there have been times in the past when we've had this entire commission chambers filled with people, all who have wanted to speak. And we have requested that they appoint a spokesperson for their group so that you don't have 100 speakers. Page #35 April 27, 2000 And when that doesn't work, because everybody said they were on their own, we had to limit what they had to say. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I'm not for a higher number. I'm really for like a three-minute rule, and let's get down to something like they do in I guess commission meetings and -- MS. RAWSON: What's the commission rule? MS. CRUZ: I believe it's five minutes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is it? Oh, okay. MS. RAWSON: I think it is. I think that's why we came up with the five-minute rule. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, that's fine. MR. LEHMANN: And this applies only to the general public. It doesrl't -- MS. RAWSON: Not witnesses. Not witnesses, not respondents. Just people here who want to tell you probably how mad they are at the alleged violator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Should we have in this item so that we know what's happening and that there might be 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 people, should we make them register or something, or do we just say okay, the public gets a shot at it? MS. RAWSON: Well, in certain instances where you know you have a particularly hot issue and substantial hearing, it would certainly not be inappropriate to have the speakers register. MR. LEHMANN: Does that need to be in our bylaws, or the rules and regulations? MS. RAWSON: On a given day, that is not necessary. But there have been occasions when that certainly would have been a wonderful idea. MR. LEHMANN: What I'm saying is does that clause need to be in this document for us to do that? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, if we fall back to your comments about why we're giving the public these documents so they know the rules of the game -- MS. RAWSON: Again, you could put persons wishing to speak to the board may be required to preregister. MR. LEHMANN: I think that's a good -- MS. DUSEK: I'd rather leave the may in there, because I think we need to give every opportunity to the public to speak, not restrict them. MS. RAWSON: Oh, I think so, too. And we -- historically Page #36 April 27, 2000 we've always done that. You're always better letting people have their say, have their day in court. And then you can have the wisdom to sift what they say and apply it as need be. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I think we should have a method by letting the public, if -- since we want them to speak, we should also at the same time know how many are going to speak. I don't think we should just all of a sudden we're overrun with quote 100 people who now are going to get five minutes apiece to talk. I think we should have some kind of sentence in our rules and regulations that tells everybody in advance -- or at least that gets a copy of these, the general public normally doesn't -- but if somebody's coming before us with a case and they want to tell their neighbors to help get them on their side or something, they'll know in advance, hey, if you are coming, we need to register with somebody so that you can speak. Otherwise, we could be sitting here and saying okay, anybody that wants to speak on this case, and then all of a sudden 100 hands go up, and we're overwhelmed. MS. RAWSON: No, I think it's prudent. And I believe if you look around other commissions, city councils, school boards require you to preregister to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you would put an appropriate type sentence -- MS. RAWSON: How about members of the public may be required to preregister to speak. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sounds fine. MS. DUSEK'. And do you need to define how they register?. Do they register before they come? Where do they register? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think they probably wouldn't register until they got here. That's generally what happens in other meetings is if you want to speak, and then the chair can make the announcement from the chair, if anybody wishes to speak on this issue, would you please come at some designated spot and sign up to be a speaker. And then you can ask again, before we're ready to hear what the public input is, is everybody that wishes to speak registered? And we'll get the list and give it to our chair and he can call on the persons who've registered. MR. LEHMANN: Is there a specific time that the registration's closed? MS. RAWSON: At the time it's time for the public to speak. MR. LEHMANN: So right up until the time. Page #37 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: And people who go to commission meetings, other board meetings, city council meetings, or even watch it on television would not be unfamiliar with that procedure. MS. DUSEK: I'm sure they wouldn't. I always think about the person who's been here for the first time and not understanding what in the world is going on. So I think it's good if we announce that at the beginning just how they registered. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Item D, I have a -- MR. LEHMANN: Before we go to D, did we decide on E yet? MS. RAWSON: Well, let me read it to you the way we have it written, and then you can tell me if that's correct. "Members of the public may testify and provide relevant evidence to support that a violation has or has not occurred. Testimony of members of the public may be limited to no more than five minutes, unless extended by a majority vote of the board. Members of the public may be required to preregister to speak." CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right, I don't have any trouble with that. That's fine. MS. RAWSON: Okay? MS. DUSEK: Hang on, one second. To B, we did automatically change that, violations, instead of changes? MS. RAWSON: Oh, yes - no, I think -- okay. MR. KINCAID: Before we go back on A -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: There's an A and a B. MS. RAWSON: That's violations, not charges. I'm glad you pointed that out to me. I was thinking that was matters instead of violations. That is violations. I don't think we should call it charges. CHAIRMAN FL. EGAL: It's not charged till we find that there is a violation, is it? MS. RAWSON: Well, and it sounds criminal in nature. And I think that word should really be violations -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have any problem -- MS. RAWSON: -- in both A and B. Thank you for pointing that out. Okay, Cliff, you want to go back to D? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: D where we have -- I only have I guess a question/problem with, "each side will be permitted to make brief opening arguments." I guess I personally don't see the need to drag it out. Let's just present the case and then -- by the county Page #38 April 27, 2000 and then the respondent or their attorney gets up and gives their side. Opening arguments is not a trial. I don't know that that gets us anything, because it's really both parties are going to say what they're going to tell us in detail anyway, so you're kind of going to hear it twice. MS. RAWSON: Well, if we have two attorneys here, they're going to insist to be able to make a brief opening argument, because that's kind of the way we're conditioned. It's not evidence, nor is their closing argument evidence. And it's really not an argument. I think that the word is statement.And I think we need to change that word to statement. The purpose of an opening statement is to give you an overview briefly of what the evidence will show. Not evidence, but sometimes it's very, I think -- I'm a litigation attorney for years. I think it's very helpful if you explain to the board, the court, what the evidence will show so they have kind of an idea of what is coming. Now, some attorneys are more skillful at this than others, but that's why we have the word brief. And I think I'll change the word argument to statement. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I like that better. I understand what you're saying and I can accept that. MS. RAWSON: If you look down at H, "Upon completion of all the evidence, each side shall be permitted to make brief closing arguments." Now, that's different. Now you summarize the evidence that was presented and make your argument using your legal background and your legal sources to convince the board of the validity of your side. MR. LEHMANN: With the way that the rules and regulations are written out, do we have the flexibility to deviate from this particular procedure? MS. RAWSON: Well, we deviate from this particular procedure almost every month. Because usually our hearings are not this formal. But when you have a significant hearing and there are two attorneys involved, even if there's only one attorney on the respondent's side, you know, they're conditioned to do this. And if you give them these rules, then they -- you know, they'll know what's expected of them. In the general case, no. The county tells us their side and the respondent tells us their side, and it's not formal at all. Page #39 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: In line with Peter's comment, I guess it is why I ask the question in the beginning, why we give them the rules and regulations. What I -- my thought process was, if this document says this is the way we operate, if I'm sitting in your chair and I'm an attorney and I come -- and I've got a client here and the board doesn't do exactly what's written on these pages, as far as I'm concerned, you didn't follow your own rules and I want this whole thing thrown out. MS. RAWSON: Well, basically if you look at where we get into the technical legal part where we have significant cases with attorneys involved -- and I can tell you, there was one day this board had 16 attorneys across the front. It says each side will be permitted. You'd have to request to do that. And so we didn't not follow our rules. If you didn't want to make an opening statement, it's not necessary. We can just move on. But we can't not permit you if you ask. MR. LEHMANN: Well, just to short-circuit this, one of the recommendations I had on this particular line is in the beginning of the Article 10 in hearings it says, "The following procedure will be observed at hearings before the board." My recommendation is to add -- replace the colon with a comma and just add the words "the order of which is discretionary with the board." Trying to give us some freedom to deviate from a structured hearing with the majority of the cases. Because we don't follow -- MS. RAWSON: I understand what you're saying, and I understand what the problem is. The only problem with that is that attorneys are going to think if it's discretionary with the board, they're not going to get to do their opening statements. MR. LEHMANN: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but that is the board's right. There's nothing in the statute that says we have to permit you to make an opening statement. MS. RAWSON: Well, in our rules and regulations, we'll permit you to. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I understand. That's what I'm saying. It's our rules and regulations, so we ought to have the discretionary movement whether we let you or not. MR. LEHMANN: Well, again, the intent of what I was suggesting is not to limit an attorney his day in court, so to speak, Page #40 April 27, 2000 it's to try to adopt these particular rules to affect real life. Because a majority of our cases are not -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: With attorneys. MR. LEHMANN: -- represented by attorneys. The majority -- MS. RAWSON: I don't want to intimidate the respondents who are not represented. MR. LEHMANN: Right. MS. RAWSON: On the other hand, I don't want these rules to look like they are in any way limiting due process rights for people who have attorneys. MR. LEHMANN: Right, exactly. So what you're saying is that by leaving it the way it is right now, that gives the board the largest flexibility to deal with all the different types of cases, whether they're with attorneys or not. MS. RAWSON: I think it does. And I don't think it means that the average person who comes, because they have a boat parked in their driveway is going to have to go through this formal process. If they come in with an attorney and the attorney wishes to make an opening state, you may permit them to do that. MS. DUSEK: Jean, if you change D, each side may be permitted, does that interfere with the due process? MS. RAWSON: No. Because if you look at me, I'm going to say let them make an opening statement. MR. LEHMANN: Will your replacement say that, too? MS. RAWSON: I'm never going to be replaced. MR. LEHMANN: That's what the last attorney said. MS. DUSEK: I'm just trying to work for both sides, for the public and for us. MS. RAWSON: I understand. MS. DUSEK: Impartial to both sides, but be fair to both sides. MR. LEHMANN: Exactly. MS. DUSEK: I don't know if taking that word -- MS. RAWSON: Why don't you do this: Why don't you say each side will be permitted to make brief opening statements, if requested? Put the onus on them to make the request. MR. KINCAID: If they request it. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KINCAID: If they request it. MS. RAWSON: If they request it. Well, you might request it. I Page #41 April 27, 2000 doubt it, but you could. MS. SAUNDERS: If requested, yeah. MS. DUSEK: That's a compromise. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I just hate to be locked into something where somebody can come back and say -- MS. RAWSON: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- you had a hearing but you didn't follow item Z and, therefore, I want your decision appealed because you didn't follow your own rules. I wouldn't want to see the board in that position. MS. RAWSON: No, I understand what you're saying. I would not either. MS. DUSEK: So we've changed that to if requested. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If requested. MS. RAWSON: If requested. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I can accept that. MS. RAWSON: Now, I don't have anything -- oh, well yes. On top of Page 7, L, filing an appeal, it should be appeal instead of order. That's just an absolute mistake that somebody was smart enough to catch. Filing an appeal shall not stay the board's order. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Anybody else have any other changes in Article 9? Okay, Article 10, enforcement. The one suggestion was that we add a sentence at the end, "In addition, the violator will be ordered to pay any operational and/or prosecution costs incurred." Actually, all of you, just about, added that. And it's certainly something we do, so it's a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess my only question is, is section one in the right place? Is section one really, quote, enforcement, or does section one have more to do with the hearing and really belong as part of Item J in Article 9? Because enforcement to me begins once we issue the order. Here we're talking about finding the violation, issuing the order, and this is what we can do when we issue the order. MS. RAWSON: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That to me is really not enforcement. I think section one should be moved to fit in with Item J in -- MS. RAWSON: Well, it's before the appeal paragraph. Page #42 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, Item J, which says, "The board shall orally issue an order which is approved," and then it really should probably start with the section one sentence, "The board, upon finding of respondent in violation, shall issue an oral order to comply, setting a date of the order which is approved," blah, blah, blah, blah. So basically the first sentence where it becomes the first sentence in J, and then you fit the rest of that in with J, I think that's a better place for it rather than enforcement. MS. RAWSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It just seems that it was -- it's a good section, it's just in the wrong place. MS. DUSEK: So you're suggesting we move that whole section one -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That whole section one. MS. DUSEK: -- to J? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' To fit in to Item J, I think is really where it belongs. Because enforcement to me is once we've issued the order, now the county gets to enforce the order. Not -- this says, you know, "The board may include in such orders of fine. We may" -- that's not enforcement to me, that's the order. MS. RAWSON: Do you want it added in J or do you want it as K?- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think it -- well, part -- probably the first sentence in J should be replaced by the first sentence in section one. Then the remaining sentence in J and the remaining parts of section one should be blended together. You shouldn't just throw one in place and throw the other one out. I think they need to be combined, if you get my drift of -- MS. RAWSON: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- how that should be. MS. RAWSON: I do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know the rest of the board's feeling on that, but it just seems to be in the wrong place. MS. RAWSON: We'll combine that in J. That's a good suggestion. So now section two is section one. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yes. MS. RAWSON: Under enforcement? MR. LEHMANN: So now on this particular section, the old Page #43 April 27, 2000 section one, did we add that we are adding the cost for prosecution of the case? MS. RAWSON: Yes, because that goes in our order. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. Now, also on this one, we talked about violations being either repeatable or irreparable and all that kind of good stuff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think somebody-- MR. LEHMANN: Maria, do we have any of that in here, or do we just handle that in a different section? Because it's already in the ordinance. MS. RAWSON: Well, this talks about repeat violations. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think somebody at one time had said they wanted a definition of what a repeat violation was. I know it's in the statute, and -- MR. LEHMANN: It's in the new statute, but it's not in the statute that's current. Because the commission has not adopted the new statutes. MS. RAWSON: It's not in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It's not in the ordinance, statutes. MS. RAWSON: It's in the statutes. MR. LEHMANN: Is the '99 statutes in effect? we're going by now? it's in the Is that what MS. RAWSON: Well, that's the definition of a repeat violator that we're using, yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The statutes are passed by the legislature, so they're in effect. MR. LEHMANN: But does the County Commission have to actually adopt those individual ones -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No. MR. LEHMANN: -- or do they just get -- MS. RAWSON: No, they can file the statute without adopting them all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, the ordinance already calls out that it's in accordance with 162. So that 162 changes every year is immaterial. It's automatic. MS. RAWSON: They can't redefine repeat violator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: But they don't have to do everything and parrot everything the statute says. Page #44 April 27, 2000 But was your question do you want to -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: A definition. MS. RAWSON: -- put a definition of a repeat violator here? MS, DUSEK: No. MR. LEHMANN: I don't know that it should go here, per se. And if you've already got it in the ordinance -- or the statute -- MS. RAWSON: It's in the statute. It's in 162. MR. LEHMANN: -- then it's kind of redundant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Again, I think we can get too voluminous in giving information. MS. RAWSON: I'm going to change all the words so that section two is now one, three is two, four is three, five is four, and six is five. In Section 4 -- and this didn't print in bold -- clerical error. Second sentence, "If the board determines to impose a fine," add and operational or prosecution costs. MS. DUSEK: Where are you now? MS. RAWSON: Old Section 5, now Section 4. "If the code inspection office files an affidavit of noncompliance, the board shall meet to determine if a fine will be imposed. The respondent shall receive a notice of the board meeting." If the board determines to impose a fine and operational or prosecution costs. The suggestion was that you add that. A copy of the order imposing administrative fine liens shall be mailed to the violator by Certified mail, and so forth. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Where was it, section -- my -- I have a question at the second sentence. "The respondent shall receive a notice of the board meeting when we're imposing a fine." MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Why? MS. RAWSON: It's not in the statute that you have to give them notice. But I think basic due process -- in abundance of caution, you are about to enforce fines which are monetary in nature, and a penalty against an individual. And I think basic due process rights is to say that he needs to be notified of that. It doesn't say that he gets to come and present his case to the board, or retry his case. Section 6, which is now five, says that you may order his reappearance, but Section 4 just says we're going to give him notice, but doesn't say anything else. We're not rehearing the case, but I think you need to tell him Page #45 April 27, 2000 we're doing it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess my problem comes from I think if I look back at some of the old letters that when they're sent out and we're going to impose a fine, I think the letter says we're going to impose a fine and it says you're ordered to appear, or something, as I remember. MS. CRUZ: That was changed. MS. RAWSON: I don't think it orders him to appear. It just notices them that we're having -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It used to. And I had a problem with that, because we're not required to do that. And then somebody says, well, gee, you know, I didn't get a chance to come and -- you're not required to come. MS. RAWSON: I think we just give them a notice that that's what we're doing, if you're interested. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, that's the only reason I asked the question is since it's not required, and I understand trying to give people due process, but at the same time, I don't want to order anybody to show up and we -- because a couple of times we got into people wanting us to rehear their case. No, we're going to impose a fine. MS. RAWSON: Well, there's nothing in the rules and regulations that say we're going to rehear their case, or even that you need to hear from them. Although again, with an abundance of caution, we usually do let them say whatever they want to say. There's nothing in here, by the way, that tells them they have the right -- and maybe you don't want to put this in here -- to come back before the board and ask for a reduction or waiver. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't think we need to do that, personally. I mean, if they go -- if they're working with the county toward trying to solve the problems, and being a prudent person, I would think if you're down there trying to fight a deadline in talking with whatever department, you're saying I've got to have this done by Friday and this is Monday and I'm not going to make it, hopefully the county staff is, you know, also trying to help these people in saying well, why don't you ask for an extension. I mean, they tell people to ask for extensions on permits and everything else when they go down there, so -- MS. RAWSON: Well, in addition, I know that this board will tell them you have the right to come back and ask for a reduction Page #46 April 27, 2000 in fines once you're in compliance. I'm just pointing out that that's not in here, in your rules. MR. LEHMANN: Maria, does staff indeed do that?Do you advise the respondents of that right? MS. CRUZ: Of the -- MR. LEHMANN: Of the right to come back before the board. MS. CRUZ: Sure. Yes, sir, we do. MS. RAWSON: I think staff does, and I know the board does. It's not in the rules. I mean, it's your pleasure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And again, back to our previous statement, since it's not in the rules, we still have the right to do that. MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, you do. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I mean, just because it's not written in this piece of paper, we still have a lot of writes that aren't written down. MS. RAWSON: You still have a lot of discretion as the board, sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, very good. MS. RAWSON: Article 11. MR. BOLGAR: Mr. Chair, can we go on Item 10. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. BOLGAR:The code inspection officer, is that a new position we have? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't know where that name came from, so -- MS. RAWSON: I don't either. I'm not sure where that came from, why that's been here for these years. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Isn't that -- code enforcement officer files that, don't they? MR. BOLGAR: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's change the word inspection to enforcement. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. I wasn't aware of a new position either. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't want to change the county's terminology and create new positions if there's no funds for it. MR. BOLGAR: We'll take it. MS. RAWSON: Section one in Article 11, miscellaneous, had several suggested changes. "The rules and regulations may be Page #47 April 27, 2000 altered in a manner not inconsistent with county policy." Someone suggested good business practice. "During a regular meeting by an informative vote of at least four members," someone suggested a quorum, which is, by the way, four members. "Provided notice of the proposed changes given to the board at a preceding regular meeting." And someone suggested that we omit the entire last part of that sentence, "Provided notice of the proposed change is given to the board at a preceding regular meeting." So-- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' The -- I'll talk about the words a quorum. You run into a problem. It says, "During a regular meeting by an affirmative vote of at least four." We can have -- a quorum is four. And if everybody is out of town, you -- that is a board meeting, and you only need a majority of vote, which would be three. Here if we say if you have to have four, every one of us would have to vote aye, and I think that may be difficult to do sometimes. I think you should just have a -- rather maybe quorum was not the right word, but maybe affirmative vote of a majority of the board. So that if the board consists of only four members, which is a quorum, then if three members say yes, then that's a done deal. MS. RAWSON: Well, let's think about what we're talking about. We're not talking about whether or not the violation has occurred. We're talking about altering the rules and regulations. MS. SAUNDERS: I think actually that ought to have more of the full board here. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't have a problem with that. I'm just -- you know, as long as that down the road we don't have a situation where we need to change something and there's not enough people to do that. I'm trying to look for, you know, worst scenario. For whatever reason we need to, which we're permitted to do under the rules and regulations, suspend the rules and regulation, alter the procedures, so on, so forth, if we are a four-member board at the time and we want to exercise that right to proceed with something, then we don't have the ability to do that. MR. LEHMANN: Are you also saying -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's -- I'm trying to think of Page #48 April 27, 2000 worst scenarios. MS. DUSEK: The worst case. MR. LEHMANN: Are you referencing amending this particular document, or are you referencing dispensing with a particular procedure within the document during a hearing or something of that nature? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, you can't -- since the sentence says the rules and regulations may be altered, altering them to me is you're going to suspend them. If it says you have to do something, you can't say well, for this particular meeting we don't want to do that. You now altered the rules and regulations. MS. RAWSON: I think we're talking about a permanent change. And my personal feeling is if we're going to make a permanent change in these rules and regulations, we only do that really every several years, or as needed. I like to have all of your signatures on it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I agree. MS. RAWSON: And, you know, I don't have any problem with the four members. Because today, actually, we only have six of you. We don't have our full contingency, as we usually do. It's your pleasure. I can see a situation, though, if you just said the majority rules, that we could make some major changes in here, when some of you were out of town. MS. DUSEK: I think it's important enough to leave it as four. MS. SAUNDERS: I agree. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Does that give us a problem if we want to during -- which it says somewhere else, as I remember, we can suspend something, are we still able to do that, or do we need the vote of four to do that? MS. SAUNDERS: For a specific meeting you're speaking of? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: You can agend -- MS. DUSEK: Object. MS. RAWSON: You have got a lot of discretion in these rules and regulations, and you can always alter your agenda -- and you do all the time, every month. This particular section is concerned with a permanent change in your rules and regulation. It's rather significant. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: What if we said these rules and regulations may be -- is there some way other than altered that Page #49 April 27, 2000 we could make it so that we all understand that this is a permanent change and not something we want to do because of certain people? MS. RAWSON: Well, maybe altered is not a good word. MS. SAUNDERS: Or maybe put in the word permanently altered or revised. MS. RAWSON: Well, I think revised is a better rule. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. Yeah, rather than altered, could we use revised? MS. RAWSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: suspending something for a Because that way, if we're just certain meeting, we really haven't, quote, revised, at least in my mind. MS. RAWSON: No, I see. I think that's probably a poor choice of words. I like revised better. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Terrific. I like that. MR. LEHMANN: In this document now, do we have the right during any meeting to alter the rules and regulations temporarily only to that meeting? MS. RAWSON: I guess my lawyer's answer is it depends on which rule you're trying to alter. Anything that's involving basic due process rights of the respondent, my answer would be no. Whether or not you decide to let somebody talk for 10 minutes instead of five, my answer would be of course. MR. LEHMANN: No, I agree. I don't think the board would want to impair due process. But I think if we're talking about temporary changes to the board, that's not this section. This is -- like you say, this is a permanent change to this piece of paper -- MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. LEHMANN: -- which I think should have the whole board looking at that particular -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL'. I don't -- under these conditions, now that we've said revised rather than altered, the four I'm for. We need at least four out of the six -- or out of the seven, I'm sorry. MS. RAWSON: What about the good business practice, rather than county policy? I'm not sure what either one of those -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I was going to say -- MS. RAWSON: -- terms mean. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL-- -- I don't know what county policy is. And I think the statute says -- I can't remember what it says Page #50 April 27, 2000 exactly. I read it a couple times, but -- MR. LEHMANN: Should we not say not inconsistent with Florida Statutes or the -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I like the law, myself. MR. LEHMANN: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: We want it not inconsistent with the state law and the county ordinance. MR. LEHMANN: Why don't we just change that to the law?. MS. RAWSON: State statute and county ordinance. And at the end of the sentence, the suggestion has been made by more than one of you that we omit starting with provide. In other words, that the board, at a preceding meeting, had noticed that we were going to revise or at least discuss revision of the rules and regulations, that you had to have notice at least one meeting in advance. That's not uncommon in other organizations for a change in bylaws. Usually you have to publish the changes and that sort of thing in advance. And I guess that's where that comes from. Do you feel that notice of a month in advance is necessary? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I would think to make sure that we all know some -- that we want to change these, first of all, is important. And it's also important that we get as many members as possible here to do what we're doing, discuss the change and agree to it. I wouldn't want to see like you show up at a meeting today and say oh, by the way, on the agenda we're going to change the rules and regulations, and everybody's sitting there saying, huh? I think we should know in advance. I think that's good practice, just amongst ourselves. MS. RAWSON: This is pretty specific. It says that you are going to get notice of the proposed change. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: Do you feel that's necessary? MS. SAUNDERS: We may not know what the proposed change is. We may simply have identified a problem that we want to discuss and change. So I would think if we simply said notice that the rules and regulations were going to be discussed, that notice -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Instead of-- MS. DUSEK: -- of a -- Page #51 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, instead of the -- MS. RAWSON: I can put a instead of the. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, instead of the, say a. MS. RAWSON: Great minds. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Cool. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: And I don't know, does it need to be given to the board at a preceding regular meeting? It might emerge after one meeting before the next. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, that -- we wouldn't know then except like three or four days before, and that's really not enough. MS. RAWSON: And it doesn't say written notice. A proposed change is given to the board. So it could be given orally. Someone could bring it up at a board meeting, you know, I think we have a problem with rule such and such and last night in my spare time I was reading through the rules, and, you know, I think we ought to discuss that next week. That would be enough notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And most of these changes I think, are going to come from, quote, if there are any board members.I mean, I-- MS. RAWSON: Or the staff. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. So I think we know in advance that we want to do something, and we want to get as many members involved as possible. Because we all have to live with them. So I think providing notice of a proposed change is given at a preceding meeting. I mean, like here, and one of us say by the way, you know, at our next meeting I'd like to discuss changing Section 6 of our rules and regulations, and I'll get copies to you folks. MS. RAWSON: Right. And the staff could point out a problem to us, or the county attorney could come in and say there's a new ordinance or a new statute that we should be aware of, and we need to talk about that in terms of your rules and regulations. So anybody could give notice, it wouldn't have to just be one of you. There are no other changes until you get to Section 6. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Because I don't understand sentence in Section 4. the I've read it a lot of times, and I keep Page #52 April 27, 2000 getting lost. MS. RAWSON: Well, I'll tell you historically how this happened. There was a case involving the Indian reservation, and there was a landowner and then there was the tribe. And I think we cited the landowner. But obviously it was the tribe that was here and had an attorney. Were they a party? So this is the hearing where we had 16 attorneys, and I was the chair. We let the tribe's attorney intervene, which is a legal way that you let third parties intervene, because they have some stake in the outcome of the litigation. And we permitted it. And that's why historically that's here. It may never happen again. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. I guess my problem is if I read the sentence, I need to change a word to make it make sense. The word in should be if. "Intervention by a non-party shall be permitted in the non-party's interest will be affected --" MS. RAWSON: If. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That doesn't make any sense the way it's written. MS. RAWSON: Okay, you're right. It's a typo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's why I kept getting lost. I don't understand how we're doing here. If is a better word. MS. RAWSON: If the non-party's interest will be affected by the board's decision. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now I understand the sentence. MS. RAWSON: Now you understand the history? It may never happen again, but it could. It could. MR. LEHMANN: No, I agree, I think it was just a typo. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I kept reading this and saying I'm lost. I don't know why we do this. MR. LEHMANN: Can I go back to the Section 3, we reference the code compliance officer? Do we actually have one or do we have a code enforcement -- MR. BOLGAR: Code enforcement investigators. MR. LEHMANN: So can we change that to code enforcement officer? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, let's make the right terminology. Tell us what your people are so we don't have -- MR. BOLGAR: Code enforcement investigators. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Code enforcement investigators. Page #53 April 27, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: Code enforcement investigators? MR. BOLGAR: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, is that what -- MS. RAWSON: It should be that throughout? MR. BOLGAR: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Back in Article 10 where we say code enforcement officer, it's code enforcement investigator, rather than officer? MR. BOLGAR: Yeah. Their title is investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MR. BOLGAR: But I would suppose if you said officer, it -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I want to be consistent. MR. BOLGAR: -- is a better terminology. MR. LEHMANN: Is it consistent with -- MR. BOLGAR: Yeah, investigator is the proper terminology. MS. RAWSON: You call it investigator. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Make them what they are. Okay. MR. BOLGAR: Can staff revisit Article 7, Section 3 on Page 4? MS. RAWSON: Staff can revisit anything. MR. BOLGAR: Thank you. It's Article 7, it's on Page 4, Section 3, Line 4. The secretary shall deliver. We would like to mail. Because we really don't deliver And we also mail certified mail with see the secretary shall these things, we mail. receipt. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It says deliver in a manner. open to -- I mean, we can change it, but I don't think it -- MR. BOLGAR: Is acceptable to deliver and mail? So that's CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, it says, "Shall deliver the notice in a manner which will enable." As long as they get there in 10 days, you mail them -- you can mail them, send them courier, take them, I don't care, if the board wants to change it to mail. But I think the way it is, we're leaving the manner up to you, as long as you get it there in time. MR. BOLGAR: Good. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Now, if something's happened that in getting something ready and you know that you can't mail it within the 10-day period, then you best find another way to get it there. MR. BOLGAR-- Correct. Page #54 April 27, 2000 MS. CRUZ: The reason that was brought up is because where it says the alleged violator to receive, I had an attorney the other day that argued that point where he said they don't consider it received until they have it in their hands. And we're saying, well, we have it postmarked 15 days prior to the hearing date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: What's the legal? MS. RAWSON: What we are required to do in law is do a certificate of service. And it's the same thing I put on all your orders in the bottom. If you've ever looked at any of the orders. Most of you don't get to see them, I guess. It basically says I certify that on this day I did deliver by -- whether it was facsimile and regular mail or certified mail or however -- or hand delivered -- to the following. And I put the name of the person who got it and their address. And then I sign it. That's my certificate of service. As far as I'm concerned, that's the date. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. The same thing is done in condominium law when we send notices out. The day we put them in the mail box, we certify that we mailed them that day, and under condominium law that means it's -- MS. RAWSON: Do we have notice -- do we have certificate of service on the notices? I don't think so. Maybe that's a thought. When you send out notices to the respondents, notice of -- not the notice of violation, but the notice of hearing.There's not a certificate of service at the bottom, is there? MS. CRUZ: No. MS. RAWSON: Well, maybe that would help you with the argument with that attorney, if you started adding a certificate of service on the bottom. Because attorneys understand certificates of service. MS. CRUZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is there somewhere in one of our articles we could add the -- something that says the board's secretary shall provide a certificate of service on all mailings or something? Would that -- and that way, if an attorney got these rules and regulations, they'd know that our procedure is we'd have the certificate, therefor, it's a done deal when we have the certificate? Would it fit into -- rather than put it in a bunch of these articles, could it go in one of them to cover everything? Could we do that? Would that help the staff? Page #55 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: I know you're still hung up with the word deliver. I think we need to work on the word deliver. But do you want to put in the rules and regulations that you're going to put a certificate of service? MR. BOLGAR: That was my next question. If we're permitted or allowed to put a certificate of service, does that still mean that we have to mail this out certified mail with receipt, if we're going to add -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you still have to notice people according to what the statute and the ordinance requires, which is those different methods. So yes, that doesn't change that. But we're -- I think we're really talking about certificate of services simply because then you don't have that argument with the attorney about when -- well, I didn't get it because it came on Saturday and I wasn't in my office. MS. DUSEK: Jean, so the establishing the date? MS. RAWSON: That you mail it. certificate of service is CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the delivery. MR. LEHMANN: Can I clarify a point here? We're talking about possibly mailing something out that you're certifying 10 days before the hearing. If I mail it, I may only receive it two or three days after that. So is that giving enough of a window to the respondent to respond to us within the four-day frame -- have we now compressed his response time? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But the statute, doesn't it, Jean, say -- doesn't say he has to have it in his hand. And if the law is that a certificate of service is delivered to the mailbox on that day, then that's delivered, correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, not necessarily true. What I always do, I mean, I'm entitled -- just to give you an analogy, I'm entitled to five days notice before somebody cites -- makes me go to a hearing. And I look at the bottom of their certificate of service, and that's not the rule I look at, though. You know, if I get it on Monday and I've got to be in court on Tuesday, and if you count back Sunday, Saturday, Friday, Thursday, and it says that they sent it, maybe it didn't go out in the Thursday's mail after all, it really didn't get there until Friday morning, I can complain. Because I really only got 24 hours notice of a hearing, and I am prejudiced thereby. Page #56 April 27, 2000 So the certificate of service helps you establish when your office has actually mailed it. But it does not mean you still don't have to do it in 10 days. MR. LEHMANN: I think regardless of what the law stipulates, we should really be looking at what happens with the respondent, because we do have first-time people here. If we send something out in the mail, whether we've actually complied with the law and with certificates and all the rest of the formalities we do, in reality have we given this person only three days to prepare a defense package to get it to us to be heard? That's too short of a time frame. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, the problem -- MR. LEHMANN: And now we allow them seven days. Because as it reads now, they have 10 days to physically get this violation in their hand and then respond to us six days later with a package. So are we compressing that period of time too much? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I see the problem as first of all, we don't know what the mail is going to be delivered on time every day. So to give somebody a full 10 days, do you mail it 20 days in advance to make sure they get -- I mean, I don't know how you'd do that and -- MS. RAWSON: Well, the way it reads now, and I know we're going to work on this word deliver. We have to come up with a better word. "The secretary shall deliver the notice in a manner which will enable an alleged violator to receive a minimum of 10 days notice prior to notice of the hearing." So if he's got 10 days prior notice, then you would have to mail it 15 days, maybe, because you want to be sure that by the time it's in his hand, he's got 10 days notice. Otherwise, I think it's a violation of his due process, because he doesn't have time to adequately prepare. MR. LEHMANN: What's important to me as a board member here, when I look at these cases, I look at the date on the green card that they sent back. When did they receive it? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's right. MR. LEHMANN: Was that date 10 days prior to the hearing? That's all I care about. MS. RAWSON: That's exactly correct. MR. LEHMANN: So, you know, how they want to do it, however you want to word this, I think the important part of this thing is saying that we're going to get it in their hands, physically Page #57 April 27, 2000 in their hands 10 days prior. Whether we drop it off, whether we mail it, whether we FedEx it, or whether we send it by fax, however we do it, we get it in their hands. MS. RAWSON: And I'm not sure we need to -- MR. LEHMANN: You're not happy with that. MS. RAWSON: And I'm not sure we need to put in the rules and regulations about the certificate of service. I'm only suggesting that to staff, simply because it's just one more little argument that you have that well, look, it left my office on this day. The word deliver, is that generic enough that everybody is going to understand that it doesn't mean that you have to hand deliver? Why don't we use the word provide -- MS. CRUZ: Um-hum. MS. RAWSON: -- and then you can provide it any way. And on your certificate of service, it shows you how you provided it. MR. LEHMANN: I think whatever word we choose, we should allow staff the maximum flexibility in how to provide that to the respondent. MS. RAWSON: I agree. Would you be more comfortable with the word provide? MR. BOLGAR: I would. MR. LEHMANN: Would that preclude them from faxing it? MS. RAWSON: No. MS. SAUNDERS: No. MR. LEHMANN: So maybe that -- Maria, you were shaking your head the other way saying no, that's not -- give me your comments. What do you think? MS. CRUZ: Normally, what I've been doing is I have that notice of hearing postmarked 15 days prior to the hearing date. But we have no control on the respondent's part, like how soon are they -- once they get notified, let's say the mailman comes over and they're not home, they leave one of those yellow notes, and they take forever to go over to the post office to pick it up. We have no control when they receive that notice. MR. LEHMANN: I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: And conversely, I've been this route in real estate. You send something return receipt requested, people know what you're sending them, they don't sign for it. Page #58 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: I understand. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So now that's not my fault you didn't get your mail, because in a lot of instances I personally know you're there, you just won't answer the damn door. MS. RAWSON: Well, that's why I think the certificate of service will be helpful as proof of your attempts to have served them. Now, if there's no return receipt and there's no respondent, we can post. MR. LEHMANN: Would it be better, instead of saying you're going to deliver in their hands, would it be better to say that we will distribute this, or disburse it 15 days, and have a certification saying that it left our office in 15 days? Now, whether or not you decided to pick it up -- I understand what staff is saying, is that they're held hostage by a respondent that just doesn't want to pick up his mail, in essence. It's not that they haven't tried to notify him. MS. RAWSON: Well, if we say the secretary shall provide the notice in a manner which will enable the alleged violator to receive a minimum of 10 days prior notice of the hearing, and she has a certificate of service on there that says it went by fax, it went by certified mail, it went by regular mail and we posted, we're fine. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask a question, because I can't find it, so help me. Where does the 10 days come in? MS. RAWSON: From the statute in the ordinance on posting. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, but that's posting, that's not mailing a notice. It says in lieu of publication such a notice may be posted 10 days. In mailing something, it doesn't tell how many days. MS. RAWSON: No, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN FLEGAI.: So we're arguing about sending something in the mail 10 days before when there, quote, isn't a time limit. We're setting a time limit that doesn't exist anywhere. MR. LEHMANN: Well, we're -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I think we're trying to be consistent. You're right, it doesn't say you shall mail it in 15 and they shall again it within 10. But if you've got to post something 10 days, common sense would tell you that you could analogize that you have 10 days notice. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But posting is in lieu. I mean, we Page #59 April 27, 2000 happen to be doing everything we can. We mail, we post. MS. RAWSON: It is in lieu, but we usually do it all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. So I guess what I'm looking for is, I've posted it on the property and hopefully the same day somebody has at least mailed it. Because, I mean, if I've done a letter 15 days in advance, you know, to get -- why didn't I post it on your property 15 days before? So, I mean, to be consistent -- MS. RAWSON: You mailed the letter 15 days in advance. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- make sure it gets there. But I only have to come to your property to post it 10 days before. So, I mean, to me you've already got the notice because you've sent it in the mail. So that to me is inconsistent, but -- I guess that's what I'm looking at, we're trying to adjust the mail time on to staff to meet something that doesn't exist anyway. MS. RAWSON: But I think the reason we're doing that is because the alleged violator should have at least 10 days notice. If he got the letter on the 12th and the hearing was on the 22rid, then we'd be okay. I think for him to get the letter on the 20th is what we're trying to avoid. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you need a break? Let's take five minutes and give Cherie' a break. (Break time.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We seem to be -- and maybe I'm the perpetrator -- fixated on the mail, but we have many methods open to notifying. So the secretary can mail it, they can hand deliver it, they can have the sheriff do it, they can post it on the property and they can post it in the courthouse, okay, and the posting is -- and they can advertise it in the paper. And the posting is where the 10 days comes in. Now, in asking for a certificate of service from them to see when it's done -- I'll skip the word mail for the moment -- if they say they've done these methods, and whether we have them list them all or not, I don't know which would be appropriate. But if you've posted this 10 days in the courthouse and the mail gets to you and you say gee, I signed for this and I've only got one day, if it's posted in the courthouse 10 days, I've done what I'm supposed to do. That you got it by mail too late is to me immaterial. So tell me where I might be wrong. MS. RAWSON: No, you're right. If you posted it 10 days, that's notice. Page #60 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: So I really don't care when the mail gets there. If I've done one or all of the methods I'm required to do, posting on the property or the courthouse or in the newspaper, whatever, I really don't care when the mail gets to you or if you ever sign your return receipt requested. MS. RAWSON: I don't know any instance if you always post. Do you always post? MR. BOLGAR: If the person is readily available, we know where they live, we always post. Even though we send it out and we post it at the courtroom, we go to their premises and we also post there. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But do you always post it in the courthouse? MS. CRUZ: When we post the notice, we always post it at both locations, subject property and the courthouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Because what I'm getting at is if they're always posting at the courthouse -- I don't care about posting on the property, because the courthouse is one of the methods that's acceptable. So my argument to any attorney that would call in would be I met the requirements, it's been posted for 10 days. MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, technically you met the requirement, technically we are in compliance with the law. But as a -- better practice, of course, is to try and mail regular certified and posted both places. Because ultimate goal is you want compliance; therefore, you want the respondents to have notice. You want the respondents to come. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But if people aren't going to sign for their mail and so on and so forth -- and I'm not saying everybody's like that; there are certain people that do that, I'm sure attorneys aren't one of them -- but we don't need to be fixated, I don't think, on the mail as this is Item A that we need to be concerned about. Because there are others. There's B, C, D and E. And we seem to be overlooking those. MR. LEHMANN: Just to clarify -- MS. RAWSON: I think we added posting. When these rules and regulations were written, we didn't have the right, under the ordinance, to post. Now we do. And so I think that all this says is, it encompasses every possible method of notice. "The secretary shall provide the notice in a manner which will enable Page #61 April 27, 2000 an alleged violator to receive a minimum of 10 days prior notice of the hearing." Now, that's any method. So that covers it all. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. But what we've been discussing here seems to be fixated on the mail and how do we back it up in enough time to get it to them? And what I'm trying to get to is we really don't need to be that fixated on mail, because that's not our only method. MS. RAWSON: Correct. And that's the first sentence, either certified mail, return receipt requested, hand delivery, posting on the property and at the courthouse. MS. DUSEK: Jean, I have a couple of questions. How does a respondent know about how things are -- how they are notified? I mean, if I were Joe Public out there and I'm receiving this notice and I get it in the mail, I wouldn't know until I received the notice, because I'm not going to run down to the courthouse every day to look to see if I -- MS. RAWSON: And if you're out of town, because it's July, and we post it on your property, you're not going to know. MS. DUSEK: That's right. That's my concern about -- MS. RAWSON: Right. So we don't want to get so technical and say well, we've complied with the law -- because we posted at the courthouse that you don't even know where it is -- when we know that you're in Michigan for the summer and we didn't bother to send it to you. We don't ever want to be in that kind of position. Because I think we'd be in some trouble. You would know because you would get it regular mail and Do you do maybe certified mail. I don't know if you do both. both? MS. CRUZ: Certified mail only. MS. RAWSON: Certified mail. And you wouldn't know if it was at the courthouse. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, I -- to interrupt a minute,, you talked about people being out of town. Under the statute, you're supposed to send it to the address listed in the tax collector's office. Now, just because you're here six months and there six months -- MS. RAWSON: No, we send it at the address listed here. Well, they forward them I'm sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but I mean, that you're out of town really isn't our problem. Page #62 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: That's correct. What I think Bobbi was asking me is from a practical standpoint, real life situation, how would you know, just because we went and posted it at the courthouse. And the answer is you wouldn't. Now, I know that complies with the law, but the spirit and the intent of the board is to get compliance, get the respondents' noticed, gets the respondents here. MS. DUSEK: Now, if you put that certificate of service at the bottom of the mailing you're going to mail out, does that cover you? I mean, does that -- if I received it eight days instead of 10 days, but the certificate of service shows that it was sent out five days prior to that, just because it didn't get delivered, does that certificate -- MS. RAWSON: Only if you post it 10 days. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: Then it would. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I guess what I'm -- I'm getting burdened by this notice requirement all of a sudden is putting this board in a position to tell everybody in Collier County that we've got to inform you how we work. I mean, I don't think that was the original intent of this when this board was set up. MS. RAWSON: I can tell you that the notice requirement has been a problem for years. Because what used to happen is almost every month we didn't have proper notice, and we couldn't go forward with the hearing. And then the poor staff would have to go and re-notice everybody. And probably about half of our agenda went away every month, because we didn't have proper notice. We didn't get the green cards back, so we couldn't go forward. Now we can at least post. That covers us. But I don't think that means that we don't need to also mail. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, but I guess what I'm looking at is I'm hard pressed to believe that when this board was established under the statute and the ordinance that it was going to be given the problem with now the board is saddled with how do you tell everybody that moves to Collier County, hey, if you get one of these notices, you've violated an ordinance, we're going to have to instruct you that have this and you have that. I don't think that's what the board's here to do, to instruct 500,000 people in Collier County what happens. Page #63 April 27, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: But Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's what the board is doing either because -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, in trying to find out, what I'm hearing is you're saying how do we know they're noticed and how do we -- that's not what we're here to do. We have these methods to post a notice, and I think that's all the board should do. That you can't find out yourself is not our problem. MR. LEHMANN: I think we're just looking at this from a commonsense point of view. First off, the ordinance, as it stands right now, board has within its right -- and correct me if I'm wrong if I'm wrong, Jean -- if the respondent never responds to anything we do, we can still move forward with action. We can post the site, we can post at the courthouse, we can do newspaper advertisements. We don't have to physically get a piece of paper in his hand, per se. So we always have the fallback safety net of being able to go ahead with the action, regardless of whether the respondent is responding to our notices. But I think really the intent of this thing is not to handle the problem respondent, it's just to handle the typical respondent that we have in saying that here's notification. How do we provide that to you? The intent is to try to get this piece of paper in his hands 10 days prior to that. If that fails, we have a lot of other things to do. If he's up north and doesn't transfer his mail, or like you say, just refuses to accept certified mail, that's fine, let him go ahead and refuse certified mail and we'll proceed anyway under the other sections of the ordinance and bylaws that we have. MS. DUSEK: Well, in doing that, though, that would mean that staff would have to post every time they send out a notice -- MR. LEHMANN: No. MS. DUSEK: -- to make sure -- MR. LEHMANN: They only post when -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: They should. MR. LEHMANN: -- they're not receiving. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: No, I think they-- I personally think they should post every time to preclude anything. MR. LEHMANN: Well, if-- MS. DUSEK-' Maybe that's the solution. I don't know if that's the real burden or not, but -- Page #64 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, I mean, you know, Horseshoe Drive to the courthouse to me isn't that big a deal. And if they can't drive down here or somebody's not coming this way, they've got a poorer management operation than I've seen, and I think they work pretty good. So I know they come this way at least once a week. MS. CRUZ: Posting is not a problem. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: But I think if you post, you -- for the guy that doesn't sign for his mail, for the mail truck that fell in the river, whatever, it's always posted, you've given notice. If somebody walks in and says I just moved to Collier County and I I'm not don't know how you guys operate, really not my problem. here to instruct everybody. MR. LEHMANN: No, that's not what we're doing Because by the time the respondent gets to us, he has also. had to have correspondence with staff. If staff isn't informing him the way things work, I'd be surprised. Because they work -- they bend over backwards trying to work with these respondents. MS. RAWSON: They've already had notices of violations, too. We're talking notice of hearing here. But they've already had notice of violations issued. MS. DUSEK: Maria, is it a problem to post at the courthouse every time? MS. CRUZ: No, ma'am, not at all. MS. DUSEK: Well, can we think of possibly posting every time and then in the mail, the letter that you send to them, also let them know that it was posted at the courthouse on such and such a date? So we're covering ourselves. If they don't receive the mail, if they don't sign for it, when they do, they know that it has been posted, because there's going to be a date on that posting. And then we've covered ourselves. And then they can't come and say well, I didn't get it 10 days prior to. We can still go forward -- MS. RAWSON: And I think that we're covered under Section 3 anyway, because it talks about every possible method of notice and that the staff did it in such a way to enable them to get a minimum of 10 days notice. And it could be any one of those. Certified mail -- because these are all right from the statute. Certified mail, return receipt requested, hand delivery, posting at the property and at the courthouse. MS. DUSEK: I think our biggest concern is that, the mail Page #65 April 27, 2000 delivery, the date that it's received by and responded. So that they could come back and say -- I mean, if the staff chose to notify them and that was the only way, then we could possibly have to postpone that hearing. So if we could make it that you have to post and then if you want to do one of the others as well as. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, we can -- the board can order the staff to post. I mean, the posting is an option. And if we the board want that done, we just tell staff to do it and they have to do it. I mean, that's our decision. If that's what you want, we just tell staff to do it. MS. DUSEK: Well, it seems to me that's the best way to cover it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I mean, that's the way this operation works. The secretary does what we tell her. If we want it posted, we just need to tell her. MS. RAWSON: Well, I will say, a couple years ago, almost every meeting, we had about half the cases didn't have proper notice. That doesn't happen anymore. So I think they must do it all. MS. SAUNDERS: I think we might be micromanaging a little bit here. MS. RAWSON: I do, too. MR. BOLGAR: What staff will do, staff will make that a policy of the department, that on all notices of hearing, it be posted at the courthouse. MS. DUSEK: Well, we don't have to really change anything here. MS. RAWSON: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Is that to fit in with everybody?. Is that to help get the notification problem solved? One side comment, Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do we have a -- there's no time limit that I remember, as long as we do it certified return receipt on the nuisance abatement board, because that's a different -- pretty much a different operation. MS. RAWSON: It is, and the rules are different. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: It specifically says certified mail, return receipt requested. Page #66 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON: And most of you got a copy of the nuisance abatement ordinance in your packet today. It's different service. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. So this particular Section 3, should we make note about the nuisance abatement board, or-- I mean, I know it's a division of Code Enforcement Board, but it does have a couple of different quirks. Do we need to protect ourselves in these rules and regulations? MS. RAWSON: Do you post -- do you notify people differently if it's nuisance abatement, as a practical matter?. MS. CRUZ: No. As a matter of fact, we went ahead and posted the -- this case we were going to hear today, we went ahead and posted at the property. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah. Well, I think, if I remember the ordinance, it gives us the option to do other things, but its primary thing, it says if it's -- I can't remember the words they said over the phone, Jean. If it's not in conflict, and the only thing culled out there is certified mail, return receipt requested, period. That's the only option they really give you. So I don't know -- MS. RAWSON: Well, and that's an interesting legal argument, whether or not the revised statute, which has been revised since this nuisance abatement board ordinance, it's March 12th, 1996. And since this ordinance was passed, we have also passed a posting ordinance that is later than this ordinance that complies with Chapter 162. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Would it be prudent for the Code Enforcement Board to ask staff to write a letter to the county attorney, recommending that they make a change to the nuisance abatement ordinance to make it match 1627 MS. RAWSON: Sure. That's what they did for us on the code enforcement ordinance. There was one other change on Page 8, back to the rules and regulations. In Section 6, someone had suggested that we add, "The provisions of these rules and regulations shall be discussed, updated, if required, and/or adopted or readapted by the board at its regular scheduled annual organizational meeting." The addition was updated, if required. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I didn't really pay attention to the sentence. I guess my comment is under that sentence, you're required annually-- MS. RAWSON: To look at it. Page #67 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- to at least look at it. MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: The updated part doesn't bother me. I was thinking of the first word on that line, it says shall. I would think may would be a better word. Because if we don't have any changes, I don't know there needs to be an agenda item to discuss. The way it's written, you have to discuss it. MR. LEHMANN: Can we just say that we may discuss this, adopt or readopt at its -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I think if we changed that one word, it would be great. MS. RAWSON: You can make it may. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That way, if nobody has any suggestions or anything, as the years go by, then it really doesn't have to be an item. MR. LEHMANN: Well, can we get rid of the time frame, at the regularly scheduled annual organization? Just say -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Well, if we say may, it doesn't make any difference. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. MS. RAWSON: And that's the March meeting. It's supposed to be -- our annual organizational meeting. It's supposed to be every March. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you say may be discussed at the annual meeting, if we have nothing to discuss, you just don't discuss it, it's not an item. MR. LEHMANN: Does that preclude us from discussing it at any other time? MS. RAWSON: No. MR. LEHMANN: So we could discuss it -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: That basically says to you think about it at least once a year. MS. DUSEK: I was just going to mention that. Because the word shall forces to us review it. And I think it should stay at shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Do you? Okay. MS. DUSEK: Because we never even look at these, we just assume everything's fine. And I think it's good to review. MS. RAWSON: In addition, now, we may have some new board members -- and I'm sure, of course, that staff has probably Page #68 April 27, 2000 given them a copy of the rules and regulations, but maybe they had never bothered to think about them or read them, so it's a review for new board members as well. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL:Okay, which word would everybody like? MR. KINCAID: May. MS. DUSEK: I like the word shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL.' Okay, we have a -- how many for shall? MS. SAUNDERS: Shall. MS. DUSEK: Shall. MR. LEHMANN: Shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: One, Three? All right, how many for may? two. Anybody else for shall? Three. Three and three. Okay, what's our attorney recommend? MS. RAWSON: I like shall. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: You win. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Shall's in. MS. RAWSON: And I don't like shall all the time, but I think every now and then we should dust these off and be sure they work -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's cool. MS. RAWSON: -- and that they comply with the law. MR. LEHMANN: Jean, can I bring up one thing? I don't know if we've discussed the penalties, but the new statutes have changed and raised those penalties. Should we reflect that in our bylaws -- or excuse me, the rules and regulations? MS. RAWSON: There's a section in here which relates to penalties. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: I thought the way it reads is the current rate, 250. MS. RAWSON: If you look at what we've now made as part of J, which used to be Section I under Article 10 -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Page 7. MS. RAWSON: -- the board may include in such orders a fine to take effect the day following the specified compliance date. In cases of noncompliance, such fines shall not exceed 250 for each day the violation continues past the specified compliance date, and 500 for repeat violations. I think that is the law. Page #69 April 27, 2000 CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's what the current law is, that I remember. MS. RAWSON: Any other corrections, suggestions? MR. LEHMANN: Well, yeah. Statute -- 1999 Florida Statute, fines, Item D. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL:That's specific item. MR. LEHMANN: item as far as what? would apply to that. MS. RAWSON: You're looking at -- MR. LEHMANN: 2D. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: First of all, D says that the Board of County Commissioners has to give us this authority, okay, specifically. MS. RAWSON: That's right. It says a county as big as ours -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- could change their local ordinance up to 1,000 or 5 or 15. But our county ordinance that established the Code Enforcement Board doesn't do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: don't have that authority. MR. LEHMANN: Okay. board? Jean, I'm looking at Florida Section 162.9, administrative for a specific thing, though, a Okay. So we're just talking about a specific Give me an example of what specific item Right. If you read our ordinance, we Can I offer another suggestion for the CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Sure. MR. LEHMANN: We have a procedure in repositioning of alternates to permanent members. handling the Is that -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let's finish with the rules and regulations. Or did you want to put it in here? MR. LEHMANN: No. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay, let's do this first. Okay. We've gone through these and everybody's had their comments. And I think, because I've checked them off as we went, everybody was satisfied with the changes. And I think it would be prudent at this time, unless somebody is uncomfortable or wants to go back through it one more time, if we could have a motion to accept the rules and regulations as changed today. Then Jean will bring a clean copy to us next meeting for us to sign off on. MS. DUSEK: I so move. Page #70 April 27, 2000 MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? Anybody uncomfortable? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Fine. Ms. Rawson, if you would do that, we'd appreciate it. Okay, now, Mr. Lehmann. MR. LEHMANN: I was suggesting that the current process for an alternate to become a permanent member requires that that alternate member notify the county and go through that whole process. Is there some way that we as a board would want to streamline that and make it much more common sense? CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: That's the Board of County Commissioners' power to do as they please. It might be in our favor to write a letter to them, recommending that we have discussed it and for the ease and convenience of the board, because an alternate has gained knowledge, that it seems prudent that an alternate be automatically moved to a permanent position, and that the search for anyone new be for an alternate position so that they can learn what's happening. MS. RAWSON: I think we did that. Haven't we already done that? Do you recall, Maria? MS. CRUZ: I don't recall the specifics, no. MS. GODFREY: No, because I'm only on the board as a regular member. And they already went out and got somebody else outside the board. MS. RAWSON: Well, I know we've had this discussion before MS. GODFREY: Yeah. MS. RAWSON: -- and suggestion to the board. MS. GODFREY: That's I actually thought we made that why, you know, I thought it was automotive. But no, they didn't. You have to go and reapply. MS. RAWSON: Well, I know they make you reapply. But I thought about a year ago we wrote them a letter and suggested to them that it would be prudent to make the alternate the regular board member and the new -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I don't remember-- Page #71 April 27, 2000 MS. RAWSON'- -- person the alternate. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: -- such a letter since I've been on this board. MS. GODFREY:Maybe it was the other board.Do you remember, Rhona? MS. SAUNDERS: I don't recall. MS. GODFREY: Yeah, it was the south board we discussed it, because I was on the south board. MS. RAWSON: And I thought -- I know. And I thought we did that, actually. MR. LEHMANN: Well, I just bring it up for the board's attention, because I think that would be a prudent -- MS. RAWSON: I don't think we can tell them what to do, but we can certainly suggest. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Yeah, I think it would be great for the board, because somebody sat here, and they've learned what's going on and they've got familiar with the rules, procedures, everything else. And then to say that you don't get a shot at becoming permanent is kind of beyond me. And they don't tell you that you have to reapply, which I think is kind of sad. But I think maybe a letter from us -- I won't say strongly worded, but leaning in that position very strongly, would be prudent to send to the County Commissioners. MS. RAWSON: Well, if that's the consensus of this board, then I would suggest that you write the letter and, you know, you might want to run it past me and the staff and -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Let me ask you this question, if you would, as our attorney. Would you write the letter for us? MS. RAWSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: You know what our position is. I think everyone here is probably in agreement that that's probably the best thing for the board. If you would come up with such a letter and word it as you see fit. Would it carry more power if every member signed it, or-- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm your attorney and I advise you on the law. It probably would be more meaningful to the commissioners who appointed you if it came from you. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I just want to read it before you send it. CHAIRMAN FL. EGAL: I understand that part. I'm just saying, Page #72 April 27, 2000 do we -- would it be best if we all signed it or if I signed it as chairman? I mean, I'm looking for your guidance. What's going to carry more weight with them, do you think? MS. RAWSON: The ones that are left. MS. SAUNDERS: If I may suggest, perhaps we want to send this in December. The board is changing rather dramatically. This is not going to be on their minds, and there are no people coming up for -- there are no vacancies at this time. I think we're in an exercise of futility until -- I think it makes a lot of sense with the new commission in. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. MS. SAUNDERS: Okay? Could we just -- CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: If you will make a note to remind us toward the end of the year? MS. RAWSON: I will. I think that's a very good suggestion. It's going to be a whole different composition here. MS. SAUNDERS: And then it might make most political sense if everyone signed it. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Okay. Yeah, I think it would, too. That way they know that everyone here is in agreement that it's really the best thing for the board. I've lost my -- I don't know where we're at at this point. Any other -- oh, okay, we're done with the rules. Got lost here. Next item that we must conclude, because it's a carryover from last month, which was our annual meeting, which was deferred to here, is the election of officers. We need a chair and a vice chair. MS. DUSEK: Do we do this separately or together?. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: I would think you would have to do them separately; otherwise, you're not going to know who gets the majority of votes for what. So the position of chair is on the floor, and open to recommendations. MS. SAUNDERS: I nominate Cliff Flegal for another year as chair. MS. GODFREY: I'll second that, if we can do that. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second for Mr. Fiegal. Are there any other names? All those in favor of Mr. Flegal for chair for another year, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Page #73 April 27, 2000 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Vice chair?. I hate to be a person to nominate. Since I'm the chair, I feel that that's probably not the best way to go. But I'd like to throw Mr. Lehmann's name out on the floor for vice chair. He seems to have a great interest. In the time he's been with us, he's picked up a lot. I see him reading the statutes diligently, so that makes him a good candidate, I think. MS. GODFREY: I'll second that one, too. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have Mr. Lehmann's name on the floor. A motion and a second. Any other names? All those in favor of Mr. Lehmann for vice chair, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) MR. LEHMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FI. EGAL: Elections or closed. We only have two positions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Our next meeting is May 25th. Hopefully everybody will attend. At that time we will sign the rules and regulations, so we'll try to do that. If somebody has schedule conflicts, if you'll let Maria know early enough, we can, when we get here, move that up to the first item on the agenda, if you have to leave. So if you could at least come in to sign the new rules and regulations, and then leave, that would be great. MS. RAWSON: Just as soon as I get here -- and I think maybe today was my last board meeting, so maybe I'll be on time -- I'll just start passing it down. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Anybody have any other items? Motion to adjourn, please? MS. SAUNDERS: So moved. MR. LEHMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN FLEGAL: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, Page #74 April 27, 2000 the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11.'55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CLIFFORD FLEGAL, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page #?5