Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/26/2013 Closed Session (#12A-Blocker) Minutes BCC BLOCKER CLOSED SESSION February 26 , 2013 FINAL DISPOSITION FORM 1.998 This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to Florida Statutes § 25.075, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.100(c)(3) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA I. CASE STYLE COLLIER COUNTY, Case No.: 09-1281-CA Plaintiff, v. Judge: Frederick R.Hardt JERRY BLOCKER,et al., rTh Defendants. •ORIGINAL FILED H. MEANS OF FINAL DISPOSITION. (Place an"x" in one box only) Mai 181013 X Dismissed Before Hearing COWER COUNTY CLERK Dismissed Pursuant to Settlement—Before Hearing X Dismissed Pursuant to Mediated Settlement—Before Hearing Other—Before Hearing Dismissed After Hearing Dismissed pursuant to Settlement—After Hearing _Dismissed Pursuant to Mediated Settlement—After Hearing Other After Hearing Disposed by Default Disposed by Judge Disposed by Non-Jury Trial Disposed by Jury Trial Other: Signature of Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Collier County: C-002e1-4)/(0/ag '51ig' 3 Colleen M.Greene,Esq. ate Assistant County Attorney Florida Bar No:502650 cc: Gregory N.Woods,Esq.,Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Steven Bracci,Esq.,Counsel for Defendants Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker Wanda Collins,Trustee,Defendant Kenneth Blocker,Sr.,Movant to Intervene IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION JERRY B. BLOCKER and KIMBERLEA BLOCKER, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 08-9355-CA COLLIER COUNTY, a political Judge: Frederick R. Hardt subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant. FINAL DISPOSITION FORM (Form 1.998) II. MEANS OF FINAL DISPOSITION(Place an"x"in one box only) ❑ Dismissed Before Hearing ❑ Dismissed After Hearing ❑ Disposed by Default ❑ Disposed by Judge ❑ Disposed by Non jury Trial ❑ Disposed by Jury Trial X Other: Disposed by Court-Approved S: • t ent Date: March 15,2013 Stev- . Bracci,Esq. Steven J.Bracci,PA Florida Bar#157562 2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite 208 Naples, Florida 34119 Ph: (239)596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 Email: steveCaibraccilaw.com Secondary email: service @braccilaw.com Attorney for Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of March,2013,a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by Email or U.S.mail (as indicated below)upon: Gregory M. Woods,Esq. Woods, Weidenmiller&Michetti,P.L. 5 • 150 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 603 Naples,Florida 34103 Email:gwoodsc lawfirmnaples.com Jeffrey Klatzkow, Esq. Steven Williams, Esq. Jacqueline Hubbard,Esq. Collier County Attorney's Office Harmon Turner Building 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Floor 8 Naples,FL 34112 Email: JeffKlatzkow(a,colliergov.net /`-"N Steven J. Bracci,Esq. Steven J. Bracci,PA Florida Bar#157562 2590 Northbrooke Plaza Drive, Suite 208 Naples, Florida 34119 Ph: (239) 596-2635 Fax: (239)431-6045 Email: steve @braccilaw.com Secondary email: service @braccilaw.com Attorney for Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker February 26, 2013 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida CLOSED SESSION Item #12A - Blocker LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 12:09 p.m., in CLOSED SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Georgia Hiller Tom Henning Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Tim Nance ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 1 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 Item #12A THE BOARD IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL DISCUSS: STRATEGY SESSION RELATED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN PENDING CASES OF: JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 08- 9355-CA, AND COLLIER COUNTY V. JERRY BLOCKER, ET AL., CASE NO. 09-1281-CA, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - CLOSED SESSION CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: This closed session is now in session. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: This is sort of Part 2 of the Blocker discussion. At the last shade session you gave me direction with an offer to the Blockers. We sat down for a mediation, took about four-and-a-half hours. Essentially, the Blockers were asking for substantially more money than the board was offering. After four-and-a-half hours, they eventually agreed substantially to the board's offer, which is a rezoning of the property so they can continue doing business on the property in the manner that they've been doing business for all these years and basically being compensated for their actual out-of-pocket costs incurred in connection with the lawsuits. The clerk will be reviewing the expenses submitted by the Blockers to verify that they were directly attributed to the cases, and there's a cap on that amount of money for $540,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A half a million dollars? MR. KLATZKOW: Five hundred forty thousand is the cap. I don't know what the actual amount's going to be. Again, that's ultimately the cap. It could be less. Well, it will probably Page 2 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 be less. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's cheaper than Hideaway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hideaway's got a lot of money from TDC funds, campaign contributions, if we're going to go there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we can definitely go there. Well, I still have a fundamental question. Why is there such a rush to get this done before we give the Court a chance to make a decision? MR. KLATZKOW: Your next step on this is going to be trial. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, so? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's an expense to going to trial. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not $500,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's 300-. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there's an expense and there's an uncertainty and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would be the expense? MR. KLATZKOW: Outside counsel fees would probably be 75,000 to a 100-, thereabouts, is what the estimate is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that should be the ceiling on how much we'll reimburse the Blockers. I mean, they filed the suit against us. You're giving them all the zoning that they want. You're increasing the value of their property. Why not just tell them to go away, or $75,000 cap on the thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what lawsuit did they file against the county? MR. KLATZKOW: The case started with a code Page 3 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 enforcement case against the Blockers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Commissioner Coyle said -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'll give you the history. We started it with the code enforcement case. A couple years later they filed a Bert Harris case against us. We tried to settle the case. Bert Harris case basically was asking for millions of dollars, so we brought an action to foreclose on the property based on the code enforcement liens, which are, at this point in time, in excess of a million dollars. That's the litigation history. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so we're going to be lifting those code enforcement liens -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with this? So they don't have to pay a million bucks. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we're going to give them $500,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it's fair to not only give them everything that they want but then give them a half a million dollars to boot because they didn't want to clean their property up in the first place, or they didn't want to go back and have their property rezoned. That's what they were asking was to have them come back in and get it rezoned. MR. KLATZKOW: They couldn't get it rezoned because of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan was being opposed to change it to allow them to do their business. We had an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan that would have allowed them to continue doing business. That was voted down by the board. So they could never rezone. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the -- you were four -- did you say four hours with the -- Page 4 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 MR. KLATZKOW: Four-and-a-half hours, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With -- MR. KLATZKOW: The mediator. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the mediator. And the mediator, did he give any recommendations, or do they give any recommendations? MR. KLATZKOW: He thought the case should just settle at these parameters. He thought that was a fair settlement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's not the one taking half a million dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plus releasing a million from code enforcement liens. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, to be fair, from virtually every executive summary, we've released code enforcement liens when the property gets back into compliance. And with this settlement COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's true. MR. KLATZKOW: And with this settlement, they will be fully in compliance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So then they also get their zoning changed, they get all code enforcement liens lifted, plus they get a half a million bucks to say you guys are such good guys that we're going to give you a half a million bucks. MR. KLATZKOW: We are -- at the end of the day, we are legalizing the use on the property, and we are making them whole as to the costs that they incurred in the code violation cases. That's what we are doing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're doing more than that. You're increasing the value of their property -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- by a very large increment. And my point is that if we proceeded with the court case, I think Page 5 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 -- everybody who I've talked with thinks we'll win it. You think we'll win it, too, don't you? You said that. MR. KLATZKOW: I've also said that if we take this to trial, it is my belief we will prevail. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll prevail. But there is a little uncertainty, of course. There always is, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: And then what do we do with it? If we prevailed -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if we don't prevail, the chances are we could settle with exactly what we're proposing right now. What more could they demand? MR. KLATZKOW: I can only tell you, when this thing started and I was in that room with the Code Enforcement Board, I walked over to Michelle and I said, why are we doing this? They've been there for 30 years. Michelle said, I got board direction to clean up Immokalee, and I said, okay. And my opinion on that's never changed. I don't know why -- I don't know why we started this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But let me ask you a question. If we lost the court case, what are our likely exposures? MR. KLATZKOW: First case that will be tried will be the foreclosure action. If we lose that case, they would then call a trial for the Bert Harris case. I think your exposure on the Bert Harris case is probably limited to their attorney's fees. I don't know that they really have a claim for lost profits. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So we'll wind up in the same place if we take it to court as we are here? CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Jeff, I think you do have a claim for lost profits on the Bert Harris. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're jumping to judgment on this case for reasons -- Page 6 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: So that you can basically recover your investment-back expectations, which would be -- MR. KLATZKOW: They're asking for $2 million as part of that claim. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I mean, we would -- obviously, those lost profits would have to be proven, but they legally would claim and could claim lost profits. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, they have claimed it. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no. I'm talking if you went to a Bert Harris action. It wouldn't strictly be the legal fees. MR. KLATZKOW: I think the likely outcome would be that the most they would get -- CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no, no, it's what they could -- the question is what could they legally claim? They could legally claim -- MR. KLATZKOW: Could get? What they could get's $2 million, yes. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Yeah, exactly. So it isn't correct to say that if they won they would be limited to what they were getting now. It actually would be -- the county's expense would be 2,500,000 plus our legal fees, whatever that would be through two cases, which would probably be a quarter million for two cases. So you're looking, if they prevailed, the county's cost being two million seven fifty. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not true either. The most likely outcome is what we're talking about, not what you can sue for. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the most likely outcome is subject to debate. I mean, I think they would prevail. You think they wouldn't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, I'm not sure. I'm not going to put myself in the place of the court. I would prefer to let Page 7 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 an impartial judge make a decision rather than trying to prejudge that issue as a commissioner. But the odds are that if we went through the whole trial and we lost, which is not at all certain, I think we'll win. But if, by chance, we lose, the exposure probably would be no more severe than what we're looking at at this settlement right now. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, no. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're not even giving the court a chance to do it. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. I would have to respectfully disagree. More importantly, again, I think if they did prevail with those two cases, you're looking at, like, two million seven fifty as our cost, including all our legal fees at -- maybe. It could be even more than that. But what's significant and what I really appreciate that Jeff has done, is that he took this to mediation; that the decision is not ours; that what Jeff did is he brought in an impartial professional mediator, and that this was negotiated by the county attorney with opposing counsel through a mediator who came to the conclusion that our likelihood of prevailing is not so great that we shouldn't settle -- that we should avoid a settlement. And so the fact that this decision is a mediated settlement and not a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners on its own, I think is very significant. And I want to thank you, Jeff, for doing what you did, because this is the professional way to do it. And so I appreciate you for taking it to this level. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, a mediator's primary job is to find a solution that will keep it out of court. That's what he does. He doesn't care whether it's fair to one or the other. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And you always want to try to Page 8 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 avoid things going to court. I mean -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you don't. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- going to court is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you've got a good case and you've won it already and no new evidence has been introduced, your chances on appeal are still very, very good. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No. The mediator would not have proposed this type of settlement if he thought it would be unequivocal that we could prevail on the merits. I mean, this is -- the mediator is going to look out for what is most reasonable under the circumstances. He's not going to say, oh, you know -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The mediator is just like any other negotiator. His objective is to find a settlement -- CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: No, they have different standards. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and he wants to keep it out of court. And so he will do whatever he can to convince you to do something that is acceptable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, obviously, this, is going to be a 3-2 vote with some political statements, so what do you need from us at this point? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't need anything. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we just go out on the dais, and we decide whether there is a motion to -- MR. KLATZKOW: One of you will make a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: If it's a motion to accept the mediated settlement, you'll take your vote. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So why are we arguing? COMMISSIONER FIALA: What fund are we going to pay this half a million dollars out of? Page 9 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 MR. KLATZKOW: That's a Leo question. MR. OCHS: General Fund reserves, I would imagine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Property taxes. MR. OCHS: I don't have a separate fund for settlement of these kinds of matters. We would generally look at our reserve to handle that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if the taxpayers in Immokalee will feel good about that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish we could restrict it to coming out of Immokalee's General Fund. That would be really good. MR. KLATZKOW: Might take 10 years to get it paid back, though. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. COMMISSIONER NANCE: It might take a hundred. Well, I'm very personally concerned that we went in here to the property owner, which we had a dispute over the use of the property, all right. It's been in substantially that same use for as long as anybody I know that's alive can remember. Apparently, at some point it was decided that the property ought to go to industrial. And, you know, if we go in and we pass some Growth Management Plan changes in Immokalee, that's what we're going to do. We're going to take some of these properties that we don't like theirs use, and we're going to try to get them a higher use to encourage them to get moved away from the use we don't want into a higher and better use that's appropriate. So this whole thing was heading in the right direction. And the fact that we ended up with a property owner that's got a very small rental property business that's accumulated a million dollars in code enforcement fines and had to defend himself to the tune of at least $540,000 over this issue, there's something Page 10 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 very, very wrong about that. This county should not engage -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did anybody see bills that accumulated to $500,000? COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's what this guy's saying he had to do to try to defend himself against the county. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I believe -- one of the things that we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what he said he had to do. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Hang on a second, hang on a second. I believe that we requested that the Clerk of Courts do a review of these bills to ensure they are part and parcel of this litigation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a part of that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and that's for the protection of the county. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And has that been done? Do you know where we are on that? MR. KLATZKOW: If the board -- if the board enters into the agreement, if they want to get paid, they have to submit -- CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: That's fine. MR. KLATZKOW: -- proof to the clerk. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: And that is appropriate, and the clerk should review the bills and should ensure that they are all, you know, expenses related to -- MR. KLATZKOW: Directly related. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: -- directly related to the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does he call each person that the bill comes from to verify that they received that money? CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I don't know what he does. Just so you know, Donna, when there is litigation and attorney's fees Page 11 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 are awarded, like if it was, like, going to court, they will do this. They'll say -- they'll have, like, a third party review the bills to ensure. So whatever the standard is that they would use, you know, if this was in litigation, should be the same standard applied for the review in this case. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would just want to verify them. But, you know, if I were they -- if I were the Blockers and I got my value -- the value of my land was greatly improved, I had all the code enforcement liens eliminated and you gave me $75,000 because that is what would take me to court and know then that I don't have to go to court and probably lose, I would feel like I've won the bank, and I'd walk out of there happy as a lark. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I went to Immokalee with Commissioner Nance's aide, and we had lunch and went down to the market, and I got some produce, which is right by the trailer park, which is right next door to the junkyard. And you know what's next to the junkyard? A single-family home. We should do something about that single-family home that's next to a junkyard, people living there. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I have an idea. Call -- oh, no. Call code enforcement. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, it's political posturing. We know where everybody is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a fair posture myself. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You think it's fair? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let's -- CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Donna, do you really think it's fair to use code enforcement in the manner in which it was used here? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, the Blockers bought Page 12 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 it in the year 2000, or 2002. They didn't have it before then. They knew what the zoning was on the land. They're not stupid. They knew what the zoning was on the land; they bought it anyway. They didn't go about -- they were offered a number of times, according to the material I've read, to rezone it so that it was there legal. They did not do that. To me, I think it's perfectly fair to rezone it for them, improve the value of their land, lift any of the costs involved, and give them $75,000. I think that's more than fair. And I do think that that's fair. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, the rights run with the land, so regardless of when they bought it, the rights that existed existed when they purchased it. You know, they were grandfathered in. They had the legitimate right to use the land. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How come when people buy, say, a home in Golden Gate Estates and here it has illegal things built on it, that doesn't run with that house, they have to improve it before they -- CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You're talking about illegal. You're talking about illegal issues. They had the legal right, because that particular use was grandfathered. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not talking legal. I'm talking about code enforcement. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Well, this suit was brought over a land use issue, not over code. The allegations are not about the facility. They're not about electrical or windows or, you know, anything like that. That wasn't what was -- that was not the issue of the suit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was -- CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: The use -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- changed to industrial use. When they bought it, they knew it, and they could apply for it. Page 13 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 In fact, our people asked them a number of times to go back and rezone it, right? MR. KLATZKOW: The Code Enforcement Board order was for them to rezone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: They gave them a year to do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could they rezone it? MR. KLATZKOW: No, because of the Comp Plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then they could have changed the Comp Plan to include that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and that became part and parcel of the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which then was defeated. MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know, I think what you said, Commissioner Nance, is very compelling and very important. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, you know, I think in my second meeting -- I attended one of the board meetings, and we had a situation where staff wanted permission to sell property that we had acquired through this whole code enforcement lien process and so on and so forth. And what the bottom line was is we ended up -- there was some problem, and the county ended up taking somebody's property and selling it and made a profit. And that troubles me beyond anything I can tell you in this room. I've never seen anything happen anywhere that troubled me more than that. The government simply cannot take somebody's property and sell it for a profit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was at Bayshore. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah. That actually freaks me out. I got freaked out by that whole thing. This is not that Page 14 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 much different. This is getting ready to happen. We were getting ready to take this guy's property over code enforcement fines. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: You know another thing, government can't take private property to eliminate blight. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, that's what we did, and we made money at it on top of that. Now, how -- I mean, I don't even want to go there. That's crazy. I've never heard of such a thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what if you're given every right, every possibility to change your property as -- after you've gotten a code enforcement lien, and you're given every right to clean it up, you don't do it, you're given every right to -- in fact, encouraged to clean up the property and make it a safe environment that -- but it's in such bad condition you can't even make it a safe environment, but you could try to do that, and still they won't -- not only that but people are living in a place with no electricity and no water. Do you think it should just be allowed to sit there? COMMISSIONER NANCE: Rather than take somebody's property, yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa, okay. COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's the difference between you and me, Commissioner Fiala. I don't think they should be able to take your property under any circumstances unless there's some very, very serious attendant issues. And make a profit on it? No, no, we'll never agree on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you kind of see -- we're way off the subject. But let's just get back onto the subject, and you can see there's a great divide here. It's like the Grand Canyon. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not real great. It's Page 15 - Item #12A (Blocker) February 26, 2013 only 3-2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You better know we're never going to have a voice in anything, so we've just adjusted to that. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Are we done? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: Thank you very much. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN HILLER: I really appreciate it. Thanks for everything you've done, Jeff. You've really handled it professionally. I appreciate you for doing so. This closed session has officially closed. (The closed session concluded at 12:33 p.m.) ******* TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 16 - Item #12A (Blocker) MINUTES Blocker February 26 , 2013 A • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivision of the State of Florida, copy- PlaintifX • v Case No.: 09-1281-CA JERRY BLOCKER,Kilv1BERLEA BLOCKER;and WANDA M.COLLINS TRUSTEE,OF THE LARRY AND WANDA COLLINS LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 26,1997;and any tensnts/pe sons in possession,and any unknown beets,successors, assigns,devisees,gnmtess,creditors,and other COPY•MINA RLSO unknown persons or unknown spouses claiming by,through and under the above-named Defendants, MAR 1 3 Defendants. ocusracouNrtr att 1 PLAINTIFF COLLIER COUNTY'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE; COMES NOW, Plaintiff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY ("COUNTY"), and hereby notices this Honorable Court and all parties of its Voluntary Dismissal of Foreclosure Action With Prejudice and states as follows: 1. On February 8,2013,counsel and newts for Plaintiff COUNTY and Deibudants JERRY BLOCKER and KIMBERLEA BLOCICER participated in Court Ordered Mediation and reached agreement pending approval by the COUNTY Board of County Counniasioners '(``Board"). 2. On February 26, 2013, the Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting, approved the Settlement Agreement,ate hereto as E:cbibit"A". Pap 1 oft l • 3. Pursuant to Paragraph 9 of the Settlement Agreement and subject to the Ong jurisdiction of this Court, Ptah COUNTY hereby Voluntary Dismisses With Prejudice all parties to this Foreclosure Action. y submitted, (1 N.WOODS,ESQ. • Bar No.175500 Woods,Wedded&Michotti,P.L. 5150 N.Trauma Trail,Suite 603 Naples,FL 34103 Telephone: (239)325-4070 Facile: (239)325-4080 assikielszikmaakagam JEFFREY A.KLATZKOW,ESQ. Florida Bar No.644625 COLLEEN M.GREENS,ESQ. Florida Bar No.502650 Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 E.Tamiamt Trail,Suite 800 Naples,FL 34112-5749 Telephone (239)252-8400 Facsimile: C239)774-0225 hadagbaSaiRgoiand coil oan collieraov.net CO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct Dopy of the County's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice was served via email upon Counsel for Defendants Jerry Blocker and Ki mberiea Blocker, Steven J. Bracci, Esq., Steven 3. Brood, P.A., stev+e(albsacaIlaw.00m: • and via U.S. mail,postage prepaid, to Defendant Wanda M. Collins, Trustee, 101 Highview Ave. Lehigh Acres, FL 33936, and Movant to Mavens Kenneth J. Blocker,Sr.,1303 W.New Market Road,Inomolralee,FL 34142,on thistallay of Mach,2013. BY: (k� Rt.. •RY N.WOODS,ESQ. Page 2 oft • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA JERRY ,BA BLOCKER, Plaintiffs, �• Case No.: 08-9355-CA COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Deibndant. BOARD OF COUNTY CO> STONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Flaindit v Case No.: 09-1281-CA JERRY BLOC$8R,ICUBERLEA BLOCKEIt;and WANDA M.COLLINS TRUSTEE„OF THE LARRY AND WANDA COLLINS LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 26,1997;and any tenants/persons in possession,and any unknown heirs,successors, ate,devisees,goatees,creditors,and other unknown parsons or unknown swum etaimiag by,through and under the above-armed Dc , Dalistdaats. MagalitriNagniatE This Agreement is mode this 8°day of February,2013. WHEREAS, tie Parties are involved in two lawsuits befm the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, styled: (1)Jery Bloater and Sbnberlaa Blocker v Collier County, Florida, Case No. 08-9355•CA; and (2) Board of Comity Ca atadsmrlonerr, Collier Eikibit"A" Per I*1'2 Plaintiff",Notice of Voluntary'DI�el of Foreclosure Action With Prejudice County, Florida v.Jerry BiocJber, kbnbarlea Bloch.and Wanda if Collin TYaaree,Case No. 09-1281-CA(collectively,these lawsuit shall be referred to as the`'Awoke") and WHEREAS, pursuant to egivement of the parries and all applicable court orders and procedures,mediation was conducted in flee above-styled mater before Civil Mediator,Leonard Rein,Esq.,on Friday,February 8,2013;and. • WHEREAS,the patties have agreed to the teams and conditions as set forth in Exhibit A. NOW,THEREFORE,it is mutually agreed that the County Attorney will bring forth and recommend to the Board the Agreement attached as Exhibit A no later than the second Board mating of March. Should the Board approve this Agreement as attached,this matter shall be donned concluded on the terms and conditions therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the medersignod lee teby execute this Agreanent on the date(s) set forth below. 4...----. •.,r 4 d/a.--...... iigem. ,,•i• ci1V' • ii ,1: :A. - BLOCKS "iv -All rf4 ru •==wa ' 3.4.,; a a Leonard Reina,Esq.,Civil Mediator Pop ot2 (T hi is h c.-not l rc J per ' ,oii t) S .1 Or) , IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TEE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA JERRY B.BLOCKER and IEb1BERLEA BLOCKER, v. Case No.: 05-9355-CA COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivision of the State ofFlorida, Defendant. / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OP COLLIER COUNTY,a political subdivision of t he State of Florida, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 09-1231-CA JERRY BLOCKER,KIMBERLEA BLOCKER;and WANDA M.COLLINS TRUSTEE,OF THE LARRY AND WANDA COLLINS LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 26,1997;and any In possession,and any unknown has,saw assigns,daytimes,araraoea,=Mom and other unknown persona or unknown spouses cbdadng by,througb and under the abovanamed Defendants, Dofondaats. u!_41 M:40 :141•11 :M:e���Y e)! , Set This Settlement Agreement and.Maraal Release(*Agreement")is made and entered into this day of 2013, between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER LINTY, FLORIDA trod to as the "County")and JERRY BLOCKER AND IOMBERLEA BLOCKER(tweak neknud to as the"Blacken"). 140107 1 WHEREAS, the Parties are involved in two lawsuits before the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, styled (1)Jerry Blocker and Rbnberisa Blocker v. Collier Comfy, Florida, Case No. 08-9355-CA; and (2) Board of County Commoners; Collier Conroy,Florida v.Jerry Blocher,Daher leo Blocker,and Wanda M Collin Dorm Case Na. 09-1281-CA(may,these lawaaita shall be referred to as the"Lawsuits");and WHEREAS, the Lawsuits resulted flee certain code enforcement cases between the County and the Blockers, Case No. 2006.16, 2006-17 and 2006-18 (the "Coda Enforcement Cases");and WHEREAS, the Parties' aiding against one another in these Lawsuits also from the Bloaters' oration of a mobile home park located at 1101, 1121 and 1123 Alachua Street, Immokslee, Florida, which property consists of three separate mods with three separate tau folio numbers (63864720000, 6386468001, and 638647600020) (hereinafter referred to as the "Property",and whether or not the operation of this mobile home park comnitutes en illegal and non-confbrming use, under both the latmolodoe Area Master Plan, the applicable zoning regulations,and the Land Development Code;and WHEREAS, the Parties deny liability to one another for any and all doh= and counterclaims alleged in the Landis and in connection with the Property;and WHEREAS, following a Court-ordered mediation held by the parties on February 8, 2013,the Parties to this Agreement wish to My settle and resolve all sodding and potential figure disputes pertaining to the clans,counterclaims and allegations made in the Lawsuits or with respect to the Blocker.manta or potential have use of the Property. NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration death and all of the mutual covenants,promises and considerations set forth t:herein,the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties,the Pasties do hereby agree as&!lows: 1. Incorporation by reference. The Parties agree to adopt and teammate the foregoing recitals by reference into this Agreement as though folly rewritten herein. 2. Non.sdmiadon of liability.It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is the compromise of disputed claims,and that any payment made hereunder is not to be construed as an admission of!lability,fault or responsibility as to any claims or alleged=on the pert of any party,which liability is and has been expressly denied. 3. Form of Settlement. This Settlement consists of two components. The first component is defining the uses the Blockers may lawibily engage upon the Property. The second component addresses providing the Blockers a liquidated settlement amount equal to Psgs 2of7 their actual out of pocket costs inctured in connection with these Lawsuits and the Code Entbreement Cases. • Zialessillitasmisdist 4. The Immolator Area Master Plan(Growth Management Plan). The Commerce Center-Industrial Subdistrict of the Usban—Industial District ofthe Immabdee Area Masker Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan is hereby amended to add the following text: "In addition to the already allowed Transient Housing or Migrant Labor Camps under Policy 1.5.2,the existing 2,74 acre mobilo home perklmdgraat transient housing property located at 1101, 1121 and 1123 Alachua Street and farther described below is allowed to continue as a legal coming use, with a mix of housing types. As such, the owner may alter;, replace, relocate,upgrade and add dwelling milts. In addition,the 2,74 acre site is eligible forr residential redevelopment at a maximum density of 12 units per gross acre,but in no event less 8uaa 33 units,and the paamilecd:addends'uses are those uses permitted by the Commerce Catter•Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban-Mixed Use District of the Lmaokdee Arca Master Plan. In calculathtg such density,the area legally described below that was previously dosijmlod as an alleyway/right-of-way(described is O.R.Book 4324,Pages 960 and 961,and O.R.Book 434, Pages 962 and 963)shall bo utilized in such calculation as to the remtdnder parcel,irrespective of any future change in ownership. The property is thither described as: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10,Block 48,Newmarket Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1,Pages 104 and 105,Public Records of Collier County,Florida.[Trustee's Deed(O.R.Book 3170,Page 1347)] AND The Easterly most twenty feet of the Easterly forty feet of the Browa:d Street right-of-way lying adjacent to Lute 6 tlawgh 10 of Block 418 of the Newmarket Subdivision,as recorded in Plat Book 1,Pages 104&105,of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. (Quitclaim Deed (O.R. Book 4324, Pages 960 and 961)] AND The Westerly most twenty feat of the Easterly forty feet of the Broward Street right-of-way lying adisoaret to Lots 6 through 10 of Block 4$of the Newmarket Subdivision,as reoorded'in Plat Book 1,Pages 104&105 of the Public Records of Collier County, Ficeida. [Quitclaim Deed(O.R. Book 4324, Pages 962 and 963)] 5. Zoning. This rem shall be loeovn as the Blacker Rezone. The zoning classification of the property described in Section Ile hereby changed as provided herein and the Pap 307 9° • appropriate zoning atlas map,as described in Ordinance Number 04.41,as amended,is hereby amended accordingly. A. List of Permitted uses: All uses currently permitted by the Comm re Center- Industrial Subdistrict of t e Ur aerial District of the Immoludee Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan,as amended above,except that there can be no mixed-use resdontlal development. B. Development Standards All development and redevelopment shall comply with the then-meat Collier County Land Development Code, using the standards of the most similar zoning district, and including without limitation the County's SIP Program for Nomounforndng Mobile Home Packs. 6. Site Improvement Plan Approval. The Board hereby approves the site plan of existing mobile home park andlar migrant transient housing uses attached hereto as Exhibit"A", which shall be the site development plan ite all adsdng 2.74 acre mobile home/migrant housing use on the property. The owner may replace,alter or upgrade adding residential units,and add up to two additional residential units bdnghig the total permitted number of reddential tails to a maximum of 33 rosidemial units (or whatever greater density the Land Development Code allows at the time of application) with an approved building permit under the current Site Development Phu,and sultect to the following: 1. Unless shown on the attached site plan,no landscaping is required. 2. Owner shalt maintain a driveway or private road leading to and serving the 2.74 sore tract as shown on Exhibit"A"which shall be a dust free sure. 3. Owner snail provide for=site water management as to the ended area to prevent flooding and shall direct atomaw star to the adjacent public roadways. 4. Owner shall maintain the perimeter fencing shown on Exhibit"A". ElakiligillatillattilleURIIIRMI 7. Payment. The County and the Blockers have agreed to a liquidated settlement amolmt equal to the Block en' actual out-of-pocket coats incurred in connection with the Lawsuits and the Code Entbrcement Cases. The Blockers are in the process of confirming their Pap 4 of? itc invokes,which shall in no event exceed$540,000 in costs and legal kc hr connection with the prosecution,and donee,including appeal,of those Lawsuits and the Code Entbreement Cases. Within 10 business days of approval of this Ageeenseat by all parties,the Blockers will submit t do the Clerk of Courts invoices and proof of payment is support of this claimed expenditure. The Clerk will review these invoices and proof of payment,and shall pay their actual,outof-podret costs and legal fees directly incurred in the Lawsuits and the Code Enforcement Cases. The decision of the Clerk shall be finaL 8. Releases. a. County. County,on behalf of its Board of Commissioners,and its past,present and future Commiestoncss, attorneys, employees, fog employees, agents, servants, contractors, subconaotors, suppliers, roproaonladvos, usurers, successors in interest, and assigns of all of them, releases and forever discharges Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blodoer, their predecesscas, successors and%or assigns, affiliates,employees, former employees, agents, attorneys,officers,directors,principals,shareholders,and members from any and all claims of whatever nature or description whether arising fiom any violation of any statutes, contract, indenunity,may,express or implied,is contract or tort,alleged in,relating to,or arising hum the Lawsuits or the Property. b. Jerry Blocker and Klmberles Blocker. hay Blocker and Klmbelea Blocker. on behalf of themselves, their predecessors, successors and/or assigns, affiliates, employees, former employees,agents,attorneys,officers,directors,principals,shnreieldss,members,and all who claim through them, hereby releases and keens discharges the County, its Board of Commissioners, and its past,present and future Commissioners, attorneys, employees,tbmnor employees, agents, servants, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, representatives, insoreas, in interest,and aselgea of all of them,from arty and alt claims of whatever nature or dam,whether now known or arising in the future,and whether arising from any violation of any staff,contract,Indemnity,vreasidy,express or implied,in contract or tort,alleged relating to or arising from the Lawsuits or the Property. 9. Dlsasbal of Litigation With Prejudice. The Parties shall stipulate to the dismissal of the Lawsuits dismissing with prejudice all claims and counterclaims in the Lawsuits. The dismissals shall be filed by each party's courier of record within thirty(30)business days of the execution of this Agreement. The Parties Author acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court Pap s oil • • IC Release of Liens. The County will promptly release any and ell existing code onf moment liens on the Property,and will cooperate with the Stockers to remove any and all other lid fudges or other clouds on this arising from the Lawsuits and Code Enlacement Cases. 11. Voh mdary n/Role of Legal Conned. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is freely and voluntarily executed after they have been apprised of all relevant information concerning the Agreement and that they have had the oppoetudty to consult with and receive the advice of counsel in entering Into this Agreement. In executing this Age, the Parties aclawwlodgo that they do not rely on any inducements,promisee,or refieseetatiene other than those contained herein. hr this regard,the Parties acknowledge that this Agnoment fs the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtiW or ambiguous provision that may exist in this Agreement is to be construed against any of the Parties based upon a claim that one of the Parties drafted the Agreement,or that the language of the Agreement was intended to favor one of the Parties. 12. Governing law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and to be performed,and shall be interpreted,construed and=brad,in accordanee with the laws of the State of Florida. 13. Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be moaned by the Parties in identical cow,width,taken together,shall conathte a complete original. 14. Complete Agreement. The Parties aciarowlodge that in deciding to execute this Agreement and than in executing this Agreement, they have not relied upon any agreement, statement or representation that is not specifically set ibrth herein,that this Agreement contains the audio agreement between the Parties hereto regarding the resolution of their dim,and that the terms of the Agreement are contractual and not mere recitals. IS, Modifications. This Agreement cannot be amended, modified or amplified except by agreement and written document, which is signed by all Parties hereto. No oral statement made by any person shall operate to modifY this Agreement in any manner or otherwise aft its tams and provisions. 16. Severabibiy. In the event that any term or provision of this Agreement is cleaned =enforceable or unlawild for any reason, the remainder of the Ag eenent shall be deemed enforceable and in effect. Pea 6of7 Q.$0 17. Enforceability. This Oft Is Grp' Board of County � of Collier �the dabs it Is approved by the approval by the Coat. • Florida.Flaadd This ABneaaeat is to 18. Noah-waiver. The failure of either party to force at any time any of the provbions ofthls Agnomen:shall not constitute a waiver of any wahprovbdoi, 19. Authority to Bind. The des hereto each warrant and inpresat have the rests ,y to eve into this on behalf of the nerve party. they IN WITNESS WBEREOF,the=deafened hereby unto this Agreement on the date(s) . set ttbrth below. A �A�4 .4• BOARD OF «•UNTY .• , 'SIGNERS • 40 OF CO Af:a •�14 -:'ifs � 1.�. +' c ��: ,; ;, (!• ► ��� ii :!' ESQ.,c R JERRY BLOCKER KDrIBERLBA BLOCIERR .4 4 legal ibnn'and seffielency: 'I Lit Mew 1 • ,CoUnty Attorney • Page 7 of7 c). • • I I I • 1I - - -r-. 1 1, 2 f - . b. 1 I till' ir 6". 1 I 11I lr, t- h i !NEIL I ii „,______. . i .. : IT:W. I , ! i 111 ---fili -,0.1 - ''. . i , r ra_c_=Eri _ii __, ,,,,,di 1 „ towipultuna i al -iimri lig !! 'PI 1 : 44” .. , . . ' II arid& 0111 11 0 Eurr-'..ffili ..,,,..,,,11009 p , . ; mil WM: -verrIL'itiffiniNli -e sigauLti p:::::11../ 5 . . , rill/ Mik."7511POILIONC"‘ I % 1 . • . I- a Ignimit a 1 . ; ...„ I , 1 • 1 ! pm I , ir„....11 . \ -. i mi crir—ai lieurg rail ,' =:: iLitivil '1-bi----- Ilt . • .iv o .:ry . .iii