Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:06]

>> THIS IS THE OCTOBER 3, 2019, CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS BOARD REGULAR HEARING. COULD THE SECRETARY PLEASE CALL ROLL

>> MEMBER BYRD

>> HERE

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> HERE

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN

>> HERE

>> MEMBER CRESSEY

>> HERE

>> AND VICE CHAIR KAUFMAN

>> HERE

>> ACTING AS CHAIR TONIGHT MEMBERS CROWE AND BOYD ARE REPRESENTING.

[Item 2]

>> HAS EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST MEETING

>> YES

>> YES.

>> IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES

>> MOTION TO APPROVE

>> I'LL SECOND

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE

>> AYE.

>> MR. CHAIR-- > ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA AT THIS POINT

>> NO CHANGES

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY THAT'S SITTING UP HERE IS A VOTING MEMBER. IF THEY'RE NOT, THAT FOR THE RECORD, THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE SEATED AS VOTING MEMBERS.

>> I THINK WE ARE.

>> IT HAPPENED IN YOUR ABSENCE.

ATTORNEY ATTORNEY--

>> EVEN WHEN I'M HERE I'M NOT KEEPING TRACK OF THAT KIND OF STUFF

>> WE CAN DO ANYTHING WE WANT THEN

>> NO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WE MAY HAVE.

CITY ATTORNEY: WE HAVE THREE CASES UNDER NEW BUSINESS THAT WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS I BELIEVE OFFICER WELLS WILL BE MAKING ALL THREE PRESENTATIONS

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

CITY ATTORNEY: AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD. HE MAY CALL ON WITNESSES HE CHOOSES. THEN THE RESPONDENT, PROPERTY OWNER AND OR AGENT, WILL COME TO THE PODIUM, IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL NOT BE LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU GET TO SPEAK. YOU WILL BE PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD. YOU MAY CALL WITNESSES. AND THEN OFFICER WELLS AND THE RESPONDENT MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER, MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE ANY PARDONS HERE TONIGHT THAT -- PARTIES HERE TONIGHT THAT WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT A CASE FOR OR AGAINST YOU ARE LIMITED AND ASKED TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS BRIEF. IF YOU ARE NOT PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF A PARTY.

IF THERE'S AN APPEAL TO BE FILED OF ANY OF THE THREE DECISIONS MADE BY THIS BOARD IN A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING THAT APPEAL HAS TO BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT.

SO IT MEANS ABOUT 35 DAYS BY THE TIME THE CHAIR SIGNS THE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT. YOU FILE THAT APPEAL WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBER: ANY EX-PARTE DISCUSSIONS THAT ANYONE'S HAD WITH ITEMS -- CONCERNING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA

[Item 3.1]

>> NO

>> NO BOARD MEMBER: UNDER OLD BUSINESS, CASE NUMBER 1, NOWLIN, 407 SOUTH 13TH TERRACE, CASE 18-00094. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN FINES.

>> THE OATH

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY WHO IS GOING TO TESTIFY TODAY PLEASE STAND AND RAISE THEIR ARMS

>> ATTORNEY WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK.

>> TAKE THE OATH

>> ALL OF YOU THAT ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR YOUR CASES, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AND PRESENT IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

>> YES.

>> CASE 18-00094. CITY

>> AS A REFRESHER, THIS CASE STARTED BACK IN JULY, 26, 2018.

I DID A PROACTIVE SWEEP THAT DAY AND I OBSERVED JUNK AND DEBRIS IN THE FRONT YARD AND DRIVEWAY AREA. I LEFT A DOOR HANGER ON THE FRONT DOOR, GIVING TEN DAYS TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION. I RECORDED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VIOLATIONS. AUGUST 6TH I WENT BACK AND CONDUCTED A SECOND

[00:05:02]

INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE WAS NO CHANGE. AUGUST 7TH, I MAILED OUT A NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER, CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER. THE SIGNATURE CARD WAS NOT RETURNED. SO ON THE 22ND OF AUGUST I HAND DELIVERED AND POSTED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER ON THE FRONT DOOR. I RECORDED PHOTOS OF THE POSTING.

ALSO FILLED OUT AN AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING. ON THE 29TH OF AUGUST 2018, A FIELD VISIT WHEN I WAS OUT IN THAT AREA SHOWED THERE WAS NO CHANGE. WHEN I WAS OUT DOING INSPECTIONS THE LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, I ACTUALLY DID AN INSPECTION NEXT DOOR TO THIS PROPERTY THAT'S IN QUESTION AND AS I WAS COMING BY MS. NOWLIN'S HOUSE, I NOTICED HER CAR WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY AND SHE WAS JUST GETTING OUT. I'VE BEEN BY THIS HOUSE GNOME NUMEROUS TIMES AND SHE WORKS TIRELESSLY AND SHE IS NEVER HOME. I NEVER GET ANYBODY AT HOME. SO I ACTUALLY WAS ABLE TO TALK TO HER. I ACTUALLY I HAD NEVER MET HER BEFORE UNTIL THAT DAY. SO, WHEN I PULLED UP SHE WALKED UP AND MET ME AT THE TRUCK. HER FIRST RESPONSE WAS: WHAT CODE ARE YOU HERE FOR ME NOW? I SAYS WELL NOT REALLY A CODE TODAY. I SAYS, I SAID, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU TO SEE ABOUT THE CASE THAT'S ONGOING WITH YOUR HOUSE. IT'S BEEN ONGOING SINCE SEPTEMBER 17TH OF '18. AND IT IS HAS BEEN ACCRUING FINES UNTIL EVEN AS OF TODAY.

AND SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS FACT. AND I LET HER EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT THAT.

SO, WE'LL AT THIS TIME IF WE CAN HEAR FROM MS. NOWLIN, HER SIDE WHAT WENT ON FROM THAT PART OF IT. THEN WE'LL ADDRESS FURTHER ABOUT THAT

>> WHY DON'T WE DO THAT NOW. MS. NOWLIN? SPEAKER: AS I STAND HERE -- MY NAME IS ELVIRA NOWLIN. I LIVE AT 407 SOUTH 13TH TERRACE IN FERNANDINA BEACH. I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING GOING ON. I KNOW AT ONE TIME A YEAR AGO I WAS, BUT NOT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE YEAR. BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS PRETTY MUCH CLEANED UP. MY SON WAS SCRAPPING, AND HE BROUGHT ALL KINDS OF DEBRIS AND JUNK IN MY YARD. AND, YOU KNOW, I WAS UPSET ABOUT IT, AND I TOLD HIM AND TOLD HIM, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS OUT HERE BECAUSE I'M GOING TO GET IN BIG TROUBLE. AND THAT'S THE LAST THAT I EVER KNEW ABOUT IT UNTIL I MET MR. CODE ENFORCER. I APOLOGIZE THAT I DIDN'T -- I WAS NOT AWARE. I FOUND NOTHING ON MY DOOR. AND I RECEIVED NOTHING IN THE MAIL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT.

I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT I DID NOT KNOW. I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING ON STILL. I THOUGHT IT WAS OVER WITH BECAUSE WE HAD AT ONE TIME MY SON HAD CLEANED UP THE JUNK. AND IT WAS NOT VERY PLEASANT FOR ME TO HAVE ALL THIS GARBAGE IN MY YARD. AND HE JUST KEPT BRINGING MORE AND MORE AND MORE BECAUSE HE WAS SCRAPPING. SO, HE'D GO OUT AND GET PEOPLE'S METAL AND BRING IT ALL IN MY YARD AND THEN HE WOULD LOAD IT IN HIS TRUCK AND TAKE IT TO JACKSONVILLE. BUT I APOLOGIZE THAT THIS HAS GONE ON SO LONG. BUT I REALLY, TRUTHFULLY WAS NOT AWARE THAT THIS WAS GOING ON. SO, RIGHT NOW IT'S CLEANED UP. I HAD BOTH OF THEIR TRUCKS, THEY WERE BOTH AWAY, AND MY SON GOT OUT OF REHAB LAST WEEK AND WE CLEANED UP THE ENTIRE YARD AND WE GOT THE TRUCKS, THE TWO TRUCKS WERE BROKEN DOWN. ONE WAS ERIC'S.

ONE WAS RYAN'S. WE GOT THOSE OUT OF THE YARD. ONE WE SCRAPPED AND ONE WE TOOK TO A FRIEND'S HOUSE UNTIL WE COULD GET IT FIXED AND PUT A TAG BACK ON IT.

SO THAT'S MY STATEMENT. THANK YOU.

>> DON'T GO AWAY JUST YET.

BECAUSE SOMEBODY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A QUESTION

>> I'M SORRY.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE

>> AS OF TODAY, THESE ARE THE

[00:10:02]

PICTURES I TOOK THIS MORNING AT 1030 AGO. IT'S CLEANED AND LOOKS WONDERFUL. IT WAS ALL KIND OF JUNK AND DEBRIS UP IN THE DRIVEWAY AND ALONG THE FENCE HERE. AND EVEN BACK HERE THERE WAS ALL KIND OF DEBRIS AND HEAD BOARDS, TILE, CONSTRUCTION STUFF OUT IN THIS AREA. SO, SHE IS IN COMPLIANCE. AND, I MEAN, SHE WAS IN COMPLIANCE THE DAY THAT I WENT BY AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER.

BUT SHE WANTED ME TO COME BY AND SEE THE WONDERFUL JOB THAT SHE HAD DONE. SO, I DID COME BY AND LOOK AT IT AND TOOK SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF IT.

>> FOR REASONS THAT WILL BECOME APPARENT AT THE END THE MEETING, WE HAVEN'T FILED A LIEN ON THIS ONE

>> WE HAVE NOT. WE HAVE NOT.

>> OKAY. DOES THE CITY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.

>> THE FINES HAVE ACCUMULATED UP TO $18,700. AND THE AD MINUTE FEES ARE $248.52 FOR A TOTAL OF $18,948.52. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A REDUCTION DOWN TO THE POINT OF $5,000 FOR THE FINE PLUS THE AD MINUTE FEES. -- ADMIN.

>> HAVE THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH MISS NOWLIN ABOUT THIS REDUCTION NUMBER

>> NO DISCUSSIONS. NO SIR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

>> SO OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR, I WAS TRYING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN SEE HERE AND THERE'S NOTHING SIGNED OR ANYTHING BY MS. NOWLIN. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF SHE EVER SAW ANY OF THE PAPERWORK

>> WE DID DO A POSTING ON THE FRONT DOOR.

>> BUT NOTHING THAT WE CAN PROVE THAT SHE GOT THAT

>> IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S IT

>> WELL, CHAIR, AS YOU POINTED OUT AT THE END OF THIS MEETING, SOME THINGS WILL BECOME CLEAR.

SO I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION: ARE WE GOING TO HAVE -- ARE WE GOING TO BE TOLD THAT REALLY IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR REDUCING THESE FINES

>> NOT IN THIS CASE. I'LL LET MS. BACH EXPLAIN BUT WE HAVEN'T FILED A LIEN. THE ORDINANCE AFFECTS THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE LIENS FILED AGAINST THEM. SO, WE'RE IN--

>> WE ARE IN THE HOT SEAT

>> YES. WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE CAN REDUCE THE FINES BECAUSE NO LIEN HAS BEEN FILED

>> WELL I'LL GO BACK TO THE STATEMENTS THAT I'VE ALWAYS MADE IN THIS SITUATION. THAT YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE ABOUT IS COMPLIANCE.

AND NOT, YOU KNOW, MAKING A BUNCH OF MONEY FOR THE CITY.

HOWEVER, WHEN THE OFFICER GOES OUT AND GOES THROUGH THE PROPER PROCEDURES OF THE POSTINGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND WE GET NO RESPONSE UNTIL IT COMES TO REDUCTION OF FINE REQUEST, AND WE'RE TOLD, I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD THAT.

WE'VE HEARD THAT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS FROM OTHER RESPONDENTS. I THINK THAT THAT DOESN'T RELIEVE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. SO, I'M NOT WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> CURRENTLY THE FINES ARE 18,000 AND CHANGE AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS 5,000. ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO REDUCE THE FINE

>> WOULD MS. NOWLIN LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION

>> 5,000? WHERE AM I GOING TO GET $5,000 TO PAY A FINE. $5,000 AND $18,000, EITHER ONE I COULD

[00:15:01]

COME UP WITH. I MEAN, I WORK HARD, AND THAT'S JUST -- I JUST DON'T HAVE IT. AND I REALLY, I SWEAR TO GOD, I REALLY DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING ON. I DID NOT. IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE. I JUST DID NOT KNOW. I RECEIVED NO LETTERS. I RECEIVED NO MAIL. AND NOTHING WAS ON MY DOOR THAT I COULD SEE UNLESS SOMEONE TOOK IT OFF. AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MY SON SO THEY WOULDN'T THINK I WAS GETTING IN TROUBLE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I REALLY DID NOT KNOW.

>> THIS IS A COPY OF THE POSTING ON HER FRONT DOOR BACK IN AUGUST 22, 2018.

CHAIRMAN: LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. IF THERE'S NO MOTION, THE $18,700 IS STILL THE FINE.

AT WHICH POINT IN THE NEXT DAYS THERE WILL BE A LIEN FILED AGAINST THE PROPERTY CITY ATTORNEY: YES.

CHAIRMAN: AND ONCE THAT LIEN IS FILED WILL MS. NOWLIN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE? CITY ATTORNEY: ONCE THE LIEN IS FILED, YES.

CHAIAFTER A LIEN IS FILED, THAT'S THE NEW PROCEDURE, BASICALLY. WE'LL GO THROUGH IT A LITTLE BIT.

CHAIRMAN: LET ME SAY -- AND YOU CAN ASK ME A QUESTION AND IF I -- THE CITY'S ABOUT TO PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT IT IS GOING TO GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY AT THE CITY COMMISSION LEVEL TO REDUCE FINES THAT ARE ON PROPERTY THAT THERE'S BEEN A LIEN FILED AGAINST. SO, IF THERE IS NO MOTION HERE, THERE WILL BE A LIEN FILED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION AT SOME POINT AND TIME TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I NEED TO COME TO ANOTHER MEETING IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? CHAIRMAN: IF WE DON'T REDUCE THE FINES TODAY, THE $18,700 WILL BE FILED AS A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY. ONCE THAT LIEN IS AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> SO YOU ARE GOING TO FILE THE LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY? CHAIRMAN: WELL THE CITY WILL.

>> IF WE DO NOT AGREE ON AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TODAY. AND THEN THAT WOULD GO FORWARD AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THEN APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION BOARD FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THEM REDUCING THE FINE. THE LIEN. UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE.

CHAIRMAN: THE NEW ORDINANCE WILL TAKE AFFECT AFTER OCTOBER 15TH.

CITY ATTORNEY: CORRECT.

>> MS. NOWLIN, IS THERE A FIGURE THAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH THAT -- I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHERE WE STAND. IF THERE IS ANY WAY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO FILE A LIEN AND THEN GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION. WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONTROL, BUT IS THERE A NUMBER, A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU COULD FEASIBLY TELL THIS BOARD THAT YOU COULD AFFORD

>> I COULD AFFORD $1,000.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF THE REDUCTION. JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, MA'AM, WE TYPICALLY DO NOT WAIVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES OR FEES. THOSE ARE IMPLEMENTED BY THE CITY FOR COSTS OF OPERATIONS. THAT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE ON THE BOARD HERE.

CHAIRMAN: SO IT WOULD BE $1,000 PLUS THE 200 AND WHATEVER IT WAS

>> $248.52 CHAIRMAN: FOR A THOUSAND TOTAL.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE MOTION WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND.

BOARD MEMBER: WHAT'S THE CASE NUMBER? I GOT TO SCROLL BACK UP.

SORRY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN THE CASE OF 180094 TO UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES AND FEES AND REDUCE THE FINE TO A TOTAL OF $750.

BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND THAT.

CHAI CITY ATTORNEY: SO THAT MEANS THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, THEY HAVEN'T VOTED YET, MRS. NOWLIN, THAT MEANS THE TOTAL ARID MRTIVE

[00:20:03]

FEES ON YOUR CASE $248.52 PLUS $750. SO THAT'S JUST UNDER A THOUSAND OKAY.

>> I'M SORRY. CAN I ASK A QUESTION. I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS ALSO A FINANCIAL BURDEN. I DO THINK THAT WE TRY TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS FAIR TO THE CITY. WOE TRY TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS STANDARD. TO THE AMOUNT POSSIBLE SO THAT THERE ARE NO UNDUE EXCEPTIONS, UNDUE PREJUDICES OR FAVORITISM FOR ANYONE HERE. I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED THE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

IS THAT A FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR YOU

>> YES.

BOARD MEMBER: CAN I CHANGE MY MOTION TO $500 PLUS THE FINES.

I MEAN, THAT'S A MINOR REDUCTION.

>> DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT

>> YES I DO.

>> SO THAT WOULD BE JUST UNDER $750 TOTAL.

>> I CAN COME UP WITH THAT.

BOARD MEMBER: ANY DISCUSSION? WILL SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL

>> MEMBER CRESSEY FRNLTS YES

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> YES

>> MEMBER BYRD

>> YES

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN

>> YES.

>> CHAIR KAUFMAN? CHAIRMAN: SO WE NEED MY VOTE TO MAKE IT? I'LL VOTE YES BUT RELUCTANTLY. I MEAN, AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS RANGE OF FINES ISSUE. AND IT'S SOMEONE ONCE WROTE TO THIS BOARD, WE DON'T HAVE A MEANS TEST. TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME UP AND SAY THIS IS ALL ACAN AFFORD. AND I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE. BUT AS A GENERAL RULE, PEOPLE COME UP AND SAY I CAN'T AFFORD THIS BUT I CAN AFFORD THAT, AND WE HAVE NO BASIS TO JUDGE THAT AT ALL. AND THAT'S PROBLEMATIC. AND I BELIEVE YOU AND I THINK YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH NOW, BUT FOR THOSE WHO COME AFTER YOU, AND SOMEBODY SAYS I CAN'T DO IT, ALL I CAN DO IS $50, DO WE TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD? SO, I'LL VOTE YES BUT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

>> I THINK IT IS ON THE AGENDA UNDER NEW BUSINESS I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR NOT JUST WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS BUT TO TALK ABOUT THAT TYPE OF CHANGE.

CHAIRMAN: BUT THAT'S IN REDUCTION OF LIENS IT'S NOT IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE.

CITY ATTORNEY: MS. NOWLIN YOUR REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION WILL BE APPROVED. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A LIEN FILED IF YOU PAY THAT AMOUNT. DO YOU HAVE A DUE DATE FOR THIS? BECAUSE STAFF NEEDS SOME GUIDANCE WHEN--

>> IT HAS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS FOR IT NOT TO BECOME A LIEN.

CITY ATTORNEY: IS THAT CLEAR? IT HAS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS OF TODAY

>> YES. AND THE TOTAL IS? $748.52.

CITY ATTORNEY: AND THE CHECK IS MADE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. YOU CAN BRING IT WITH YOUR CASE NUMBER OR ANY PAPERWORK THAT YOU HAVE. YOU CAN CALL OFFICER WELLS AND -- OR A CREDIT CARD.

CITY ATTORNEY: BUT IT HAS TO BE CONNECTED TO A CASE NUMBER.

OKAY.

>> I CAN DO THAT WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. DO I BRING IT HERE OR GIVE IT TO YOU

>> BRING IT TO OUR OFFICE

>> TO YOUR OFFICE FRNLTS

>> OKAY

>> DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS

>> YES

>> OTHERWISE YOU CAN TALK OFFLINE

>> I KNOW WHERE IT'S AT. I'VE BEEN THERE.

CITY ATTORNEY: OKAY.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[Item 3.2]

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, WE HAVE 112 112 SOUTH 9TH STREET CASE

[00:25:08]

20190073. THE CITY

>> AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ALL OF OUR EVIDENCE IN TO RECORD. MISS TAMMI AND HER GROUP, THEY WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS PROJECT AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES. I MEAN, THEY REALLY HAVE DONE A REMARKABLE JOB. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE, BUT ALL OF THIS WAS COVERED. YOU COULDN'T EVEN HARDLY SEE THIS SAGO PALM. ALL THIS WAS COMPLETELY COVERED. I MEAN, THEY REALLY WORKED TIRELESSLY TO GET THIS PLACE IN COMPLIANCE AS FAR AS THE 42116.

CHAIRMAN: THAT'S THE 9TH STREET FACE

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THIS BACK HERE WAS -- I KNOW SHE HATE FOR ME TO CALL THAT A FOREST, BUT IT WAS VERY THICK BACK IN THIS AREA. YOU CAN SEE HOW CLEAR IT IS NOW. I MEAN, THE CREW THAT MS. TAMMI HAD OUT THERE, I MEAN, THEY WORKED VERY HARD AND THEY DID A GREAT JOB. A GREAT JOB.

CHAIRMAN: THIS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES

>> YES JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT.

CHAIRMAN: IN REFERENCE TO THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE 10TH STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IS THIS FOR THE HDC

>> HDC IN NOVEMBER.

NOVEMBER 7TH. THEN I GUESS WE WILL ADDRESS THAT I GUESS IN THE DECEMBER MEETING, I A I -- ASSUME. BUT THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THIS. AND SHE IS IN COMPLIANCE.

AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU.

AND, TAMMI, YOUR CREW FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK. THEY DID A GREAT JOB. THEY DID A GREAT JOB

>> I'M SORRY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? I UNDERSTAND FOR THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAVE FINES TO BEGIN ON NOVEMBER 6TH IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THE NOVEMBER NOVEMBER HEARING. DID THAT JUST APPLY TO THE -- THAT APPLIED TO EVERYTHING, CORRECT.

>> NO I THINK THAT'S JUST APPLIED TO THE OVERGROWTH.

BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T -- LIKE I SAID, THE HDC HAS NOT EVEN HEARD THE CASE. BASICALLY THE CITY ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE ON THE SHED AND THE GARAGE. AND THAT WAS GRANTED. UNTIL THE ACC CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

BOARD MEMBER: AND THEIR MEETING IS ON THE 7TH.

CITY ATTORNEY: SO THE FINES SET TO BEGIN ON THE 6 ONLY PERTAINED TO THE OVERGROWTH

>> THAT'S CORRECT. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. SO THAT COMPLETES THAT PART OF THAT PRESENTATION FOR 112 SOUTH 9TH STREET.

CHAIRMAN: ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT

>> WELL, OTHER THAN THE SHEDS, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS DOWN THE LINE. AND I'VE TALKED WITH THE OWNER ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

AND WE'LL BE WORKING -- THAT WILL BE A WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE FUTURE WITH SOME OTHER THINGS. THERE'S THINGS TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE. THERE'S ALSO A FOOD TRUCK IN THE BACK THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS.

BUT THAT'S THINGS WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IN THE FUTURE AND I'LL BE GETTING WITH MS. DAVIS ABOUT THAT. BUT AS FAR AS THE 42-116 IS CONCERNED, SHE IS IN COMPLIANCE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT.

CHAIRMAN: THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, SO WE BRING BACK THE UPDATE IN OUR NOVEMBER MEETING TOO. WELL THE SHEDS WON'T BE ADDRESSED THAT THEN. BUT THE FOOD TRUCK AND OTHER ISSUES

>> UM, YES, I COULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE A CASE UP FOR THAT AND WE COULD HAVE HER WORKING ON THAT YOU KNOW.

>> IS THE FOOD TRUCK REGISTERED

>> NO.

>> SHE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I KNOW IT DOESN'T HAVE A CURRENT TAG ON IT.

>> THE TAGS SAID 2014. SO, IT'S IN VIOLATION AS FAR AS THE FOOD TRUCK GOES

>> IS THAT SOMETHING WE WILL BE ADDRESSING

>> THAT WILL BE DOWN THE LINE.

THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE HERE. BUT THE

[00:30:04]

SRUCTURE, THERE WAS NO MUCH OVERGROWTH YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE OF THE OVERGROWTH. AND NOW THAT IT'S CLEARED OUT AND NOW THAT I WAS ABLE TO WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME REPAIRS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO THE HOUSE ITSELF. SO I'LL BE ADDRESSING THAT WITH MS. DAVIS-TAYLOR ON THAT. WE'LL START A CASE ON THIS AND WE'LL WORKING WITH HER ON THAT. AND WE'LL WORK TOWARDS COMPLIANCE TO GET THE REST OF IT IFINISHED.

ALONG WITH THE SHED AND THE GARAGE THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED PROBABLY AT OUR DECEMBER HEARING, I GUESS.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? CHAIRMAN: OKAY. WELL THANK YOU.

[Item 4.1]

NEW BUSINESS. JORDAN WILLIE E.

SMITH EMILY MCDONALD 10 # NORTH 10TH STREET CASE NUMBER 2019-0278. DUTY TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY 42-116.

>> FIRST I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ALL OF OUR EVIDENCE INTO RECORD FOR THIS CASE FOR 2019-0278.

THIS IS A VACANT LOT. IT IS AN IMPROVED VACANT LOT. THERE WAS A STRUCTURE ON HERE AT ONE TIME.

THIS IS A PICTURE OF IT TODAY.

THERE'S SOME PALLETS BACK HERE THAT'S BEEN DUMPED. OF COURSE, THERE'S SOME OLD DEBRIS HERE.

BUT THE ENTIRE LOT IS OVERGROWN.

AND I STARTED THIS CASE BACK IN JUNE OF 25 OF 2019. DURING A PROACTIVE SWEEP I OBSERVED THIS LOT AND RECORDED THE PHOTOS.

JULY 31ST WE MAILED OUT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER VIA CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER OF RECORD THAT LIVES UP IN NEW YORK, IN THE BRONX. THE CERTIFIED LETTER WAS RETURNED UNCLAIMED TO OUR OFFICE ON SEPTEMBER 11TH NAM WAS AFTER THE FACT. BUT WE ALSO, A SUCCESS 28, 2019 WE MAILED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND HEARING LETTER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL TO THE OWNER. WE FILLED OUT AN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING AND IT WAS NOTA NOTARIZED. I ALSO POSTED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER ON THE VACANT PROPERTY IN A WATER PROOF STAND. AND I HAVE PHOTOS OF THAT. THE OWNER WAS GIVEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8, 2019, TO COMPLY OR APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.

ANOTHER INSPECTION WAS DONE SEPTEMBER 8TH. THERE WAS NO CHANGE. SEPTEMBER 25TH I DID THE PRE-AGENDA INSPECTION. THERE WAS NO CHANGE. MY CONCLUSION WAS THIS PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY CITED IN 2017 AND CERTIFIED MAIL WAS ACCEPTED BY EMILY MCDONALD.

THIS PROPERTY IS IN CARE OF HER.

AND I BELIEVE THE OWNER'S AWARE NOW AND IS NOT CLAIMING HER CERTIFIED MAIL. WE TRIED TO GET CONTACT NUMBERS WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE POSTING WE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN REMOVED. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO GIVE PROPER SERVICE ON THIS LOT. WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE GOOD SERVICE FOR THE FACT OF THE POSTING AND ALSO OF THE MAILING. AND AT THIS TIME THE CITY RECOMMENDS A FINE OF $50 A DAY FOR THE VIOLATION ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. AND THE CITY RESTS AT THIS POINT.

CHAIRMAN: ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD

>> LET'S GO BACK AND I'LL SHOW YOU THE POSTING ON THE LOT.

PARDON, HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE AFFIDAVITS AND STUFF. THIS, OF COURSE, WILL COME BACK TO THAT IF WE NEED TO. THAT WAS THE

[00:35:05]

TRACKING.

CHAIRMAN: THOSE ARE THE PALLETS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT

>> YES. LET ME SEE IF I CAN ROTATE THIS. IT WON'T GO THE OTHER WAY BUT I CAN KEEP GOING WITH IT.

>> AND YOU ARE SHOWING THE OVERGROWTH OF THE GRASS

>> I'M SHOWING THE OVERGROWTH AND THE PALLETS THAT WERE DUMPED THERE.

>> AND THE CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT ON THE OVERGROWTH

>> ANYTHING 12 INCHES OR HIGHER IS IN VIOLATION OF 42-116. WE ALSO WRAP UP CLEANING OF THE PROPERTY WITH 42-116 SO THAT'S WHAT WE CITED THEM DO. DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY. THIS WAS POSTING I ACTUALLY PLACED ON THE LOT. LIKE I SAID, WE LAD MADE CONTACT VIA MAIL WITH THE OWNER IN PREVIOUS CASES OR A PREVIOUS CASE, AND WE GOT THE SIGNATURE BACK ON THAT CASE. BUT I'M NOT SURE -- CHAIRMAN: WAS THAT IN THE BRONX ALSO

>> YES, SIR. THE MAILING ADDRESS IS 1817 EAST 224 STREET GROUND FLOOR BRONX, NEW YORK, 10466.

THE PREVIOUS TIME I CITED THEM, THEY ACCEPTED THE MAIL. THEY CAME AND THEY CUT THE LOT. AND THERE WAS NO ISSUES. BUT NOW THE MAIL -- AND THIS IS THE OWNER OF RECORD. NOTHING'S CHANGED. AND I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS JUST NOT ACCEPTING HER MAIL BECAUSE SHE KNOWS THIS IS A VIOLATION

>> AND YOU SAID THIS IS GONE

>> THAT WAS REMOVED. YEP. SO, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO TRY TO NOTIFY. BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE EVEN TRIED TO FIND PHONE NUMBERS UP THERE IN NEW YORK TO TRY TO MAKE CALLS.

WE'VE REALLY EXHAUSTED EVERYTHING AS FAR AS TRYING TO HAVE GOOD SERVICE.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. LET'S SEE, IS THERE A MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I RECOMMEND WE FIND THE OWNER IN VIOLATION OF 42-116. I WOULD SAY FINES BEGIN IMME IMMEDIATELY TOMORROW. $50 A DAY PLUS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BEGINNING TOMORROW. OCTOBER 4TH.

BOARD MEMBER: WOULD WE BE WILLING TO EXTEND A WINDOW TO ALLOW -- I MEAN, IF THIS PERSON IS IN THE BRONX AND NEEDS TO ARRANGE FOR SOMEONE TO HANDLE IT CHAIRMAN: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. NORMALLY WE GIVE THEM SOMETHING LIKE 10 DAYS. SINCE THIS ONE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMMUNITY -- AN ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION DELAY. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ALWAYS HOLD THE CITY TO A HIGHER STANDARD WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DOTTING THE I'S AND CROSSING THE T'S. SO IT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT IF WE WERE TO GIVE THEM 10 DAYS, 2 WEEKS WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. SO THAT'S WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL LET'S -- BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD POSSIBLY THROW IT AT THEM TONIGHT. I WOULD AGREE COMPLETELY. YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT. I MEAN, YOU CAN, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

CHAIRMAN: WHATEVER THE WILL OF THE BOARD IS.

BOARD MEMBER: MAY I ASK A QUESTION? HOW LONG DOES THE PROCESSING TO SEND THE CERTIFIED LETTER TAKE FOR YOU TO PREPARE THE PAPERWORK? THEN IT NORMALLY

[00:40:03]

TO BE -- HOW LONG WOULD THE CITY NEED TO PROCESS FOR US TO THEN ADD 10 DAYS, IF THAT WAS THE BOARD'S DECISION? BOARD MEMBER: WHEN CAN YOU SEND A CERTIFIED LETTER? CITY ATTORNEY: MAY I? TYPICALLY, WHEN WE SEND OUT THE FINDINGS OF FACTS, WE DO NOT SEND THEM CERTIFIED. AND I WOULD NOT SUGGEST SENDING IT CERTIFIED SINCE THEY DON'T ACCEPT THE CERTIFIED. SO, THEY'LL NEVER OPEN IT. I THINK THAT IF WE SEND IT FIRST-CLASS, THE WAY WE ALWAYS DO IT, THE FIRST-CLASS LETTER THAT WAS SENT BEFORE DID NOT COME BACK. IT WAS NOT RETURNED. SO THAT TO ME MEANS THEY PROBABLY RECEIVED IT. IT IS NOT OUR PROCEDURE TO SEND THE FINDINGS OF FACT CERTIFIED. WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE TO END IS IT AT ALL, BUT WE DO AS THAT A COURTESY. JUST LIKE WE SEND AN AGENDA WITH THEIR NAME ON IT HIGHLIGHTED AS A COURTESY.

CHAIRMAN: STANDARD PROCEDURE WE'RE SENDING A FIRST CLASS MAIL AND IF SOMEONE SIGNS THE FINDINGS OF FACT TOMORROW IT WOULD BE IN THE MAIL TOMORROW? OR MONDAY? WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A TIMELINE

>> I WOULD SAY--

>> I USUALLY DO THEM THE FOLLOWING DAY, YEAH.

>> OKAY. SO THEY WOULD BE READY TOMORROW

>> I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT WE CHANGE ANY OF OUR STANDARD PROCEDURES. I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO DO OR I WOULD SUGGEST THE BOARD DO IS FIND THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION AS OF TONIGHT. I MEAN, YOU CAN DO THAT. AND WE CAN DO THAT. AND THEN, SECONDLY, LOOK AT IMPOSING THE FINES TO START, I WOULD SAY TWO WEEKS FROM NOW OR WHATEVER.

BOARD MEMBER: WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK IS THAT

>> THE 18TH IS A FRIDAY. TWO WEEKS FROM TOMORROW.

CHAIRMAN: TO THE MOTION WOULD BE FINDING THEM IN VIOLATION AS OF TONIGHT. $50 A DAY PLUS ADMINISTRATOR FEES BEGINNING ON THE 18TH OF OCTOBER? IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE? BOARD MEMBER: YEP

>> THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE GUARANTEED CORRECT? BOARD MEMBER: HOPEFULLY.

CHAIRMAN: CLERK CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? DR BOARD MEMBER: I SECOND IT.

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN

>> YES

>> MEMBER CRESSEY

>> YES

>> MEMBER BYRD

>> YES

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> YES.

CHAIRMAN: I'LL VOTE YES TOO.

>> I'M SO SORRY CHAIRMAN: I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WAS A PREGNANT PAUSE BUT THAT WOULD BE BAD MY COMPUTER CRASHED. IT JUST CAME BACK ON DO YOU WANT ME TO ASK YOU OR ARE YOU GOOD? CHAIRMAN: JUST PUT YES OKAY. ARE WE READY FOR THE NEXT CASE

>> READY FOR THE NEXT WHEN YOU

[Item 4.2]

ARE.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY NEW BUSINESS CASE 2. WILLIAM WEBB 2004 HIGHLAND DRIVE CASE NUMBER 2019-0292.

MAINTENANCE OF SXOIR STRUCTURES VIOLATION OF SECTION 42-117.

>> AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR EVIDENCE INTO RECORD. THIS CASE STARTED FOR ME BACK IN JULY 3, 2019, DURING A PROACTIVE SWEEP I OBSERVED --

[00:45:18]

THAT WAS THE DOOR HANGER I LEFT ON JULY 3RD. I FOUND THE ROOF WAS COVERED, THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROOF WAS ENTIRELY COVERED WITH A BLUE TARP. WITH THIS NOTICE OF VISIT, I GAVE HIM UNTIL AUGUST 3RD TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY A MONTH. I RECORDED THE PHOTO OF THE TARP ON THE ROOF AND THE NOTICE OF VISIT. AUGUST 5TH I DID A SECOND INSPECTION THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION. AUGUST 7TH I MAILED OUT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER VIA CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER. THE SIGNATURE CARD WAS RETURNED WITH AN OWNER'S SIGNATURE. THE OWNER WAS GIVEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE OR APPEAR BEFORE THIS BOARD TONIGHT.

SEPTEMBER 6TH A NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED. THERE WAS NO REPAIRS MADE TO THE ROOF. SEPTEMBER 26TH I DID A PRE-AGENDA INSPECTION.

THERE WAS NO CHANGE. I DID GO TODAY AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME PIC PICTURES. LET'S SEE IF I CAN ROTATE THIS AROUND. THIS WAS A PICTURE OF -- THERE'S TWO SECTIONS THIS THE ROOF. THIS WHOLE ENTIRE SECTION WAS COVERED WITH A BLUE TARP. THAT'S THE SIGNATURE CARD THAT WAS RETURNED. THE PICTURES AS OF TODAY. THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE. BUT THE OWNER HAS DROPPED A LOAD OF SHINGLES IN THE FRONT YARD AND SOME OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS BUT THERE'S BEEN NO BUILDING PERMIT PULLED FOR THIS JOB AS OF -- BEFORE I LEFT THE OFFICE. SO IT'S STILL IN VIOLATION. WITH NO BUILDING PERMITS PULLED EITHER. SO, OUR DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS TRIED TO GET MR. WEBB SOME ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE BUILDER'S CARE PROGRAM, WHICH IS I BELIEVE IS PART OF THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA BUILDER'S ASSOCIATION. AND THEY DENIED THE JOB. BECAUSE I GUESS IT WAS TOO LARGE FOR THEM. HE WAS TRYING TO GET FINANCING TO GET THE WORK DONE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF. BUT HE WAS UNABLE TO GET FINANCING. SO, WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS VIOLATION FOR OVER A YEAR. AND ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN WITH HELD TRYING TO GIVE HIM SOME FINANCING TO MAKE THESE REPAIRS. AND WE'VE RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS SINCE THE ORIGINAL CASE I OPENED UP ON THIS ADDRESS. AT THIS POINT, I AM LEFT, YOU KNOW, MY RECOMMENDATION IS A $75 A DAY FINE FOR THE VIOLATION ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. IT LOOKS LIKE HE IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, MR. WEBB IS A VERY CORDIAL GENTLEMAN. MYSELF AND MS. FOR STROM HAVE SPOKE ON TO HIM THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. WE'VE TRIED TO GET HIM MULTIPLE AVENUES TO GET HELP THROUGH RESOURCE SHEETS AND COUNCI ON AGING AND VARIOUS THINGS. AND EVERYTHING COME UP -- HE WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN FINANCING OR ANY HELP.

CHAIRMAN: DOES HE KNOW HE HAS TO PULL A PERMIT

>> YES. WE TOLD HIM THAT IN THE BEGINNING. THE -- ACCORDING TO HIS OWN STATEMENTS THE SHEATHING WAS STORM DAMAGED. I MEAN, THE ROOF WAS STORM DAMAGED. THE SHEATHING IS DAMAGED. SO, THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SHEATHING REPAIRED OR REPLACED ALONG WITH HE SHINGLES THAT'S UNDERNEATH THAT TARP.

CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION

>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS FIND HIM IN VIOLATION OF 42-117, MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURE.

CHAIRMAN: IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHEN THE FINES SHOULD APPLY

>> WELL CONSIDERING WHAT I SAW THIS MORNING WITH THE STACK OF SI SHINGLES OUT THERE, 30 DAYS, I THINK HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO PULL A PERMIT FOR THAT.

CHAIRMAN: SO YOU WOULD ASSESS THE FINES BEGINNING 30 DAYS FROM TODAY

>> CORRECT.

[00:50:03]

CHAIRMAN: NO ONE TO SPEAK FOR MR. WEBB? DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBER: NO QUESTIONS.

CHAIRMAN: SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: FOR THE CASE OF 2019-0292 CODE VIOLATION OF SECTION 42-117 I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FIND THE HOMEOWNER IN VIOL VIOLATION.

CHAIRMAN: THAT'S ONE MOTION.

THERE WILL BE A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. CHAMPION ANY DISCUSSION? THERE BEING NO DISCUSSION, CALL THE ROLL.

>> MEMBER CRESSEY

>> YES

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN

>> YES

>> MEMBER BYRD

>> YES

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> YES

>> CHAIR KAUFMA FRNLTS YES.

CHAIRMAN: SECOND MOTION.

BOARD MEMBER: IN THE SAME CASE I MAKE A MOTION FOR THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ASSESS FINES AND FEE OF -- I'M SORRY, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND FINES OF $75 A DAY TO BEGIN 30 DAYS FROM TODAY IF NOT BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.

BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CALL THE ROLL.

>> MEMBER CRESSEY

>> YES

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN?

>> YES

>> MEMBER BYRD

>> YES

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> COULD I ASK A QUESTION? DOES HE KNOW HOW TO FILE A PERMIT? DOES HE KNOW HOW TO GO AND DO THIS PHYSICALLY? I MEAN, MENTALLY DOES HE KNOW

>> OH YES MAN. THIS GENTLEMAN'S VERY COMPETENT. HE'S VERY INTELLIGENT. VERY WELL SPOKEN.

BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. YES.

>> CHAIR KAUFMAN

>> YES. THANK YOU RY I REMEMBERED

[Item 4.3]

OKAY. THIRD CASE UNDER NEW BUSINESS. DEXTER AND REGINA N.

RAINEY 1002 CEDAR STREET CASE NUMBER 2019-0355. VEHICLES DECLARED A NUISANCE VIOLATION OF 42-173. THE CITY

>> AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE I HAVE INTO RECORD FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THIS IS A PHOTO I TOOK TODAY OF THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION. IT IS A WHITE DODGE PICKUP. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE TAG ON IT IS EXPIRED JUNE OF '18. THE CASE STARTED BACK ON AUGUST 13, 2019, DURING A PROACTIVE SWEEP. I OBSERVED THIS DODGE PICKUP ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAD AN EXPIRED TAG. I RECORDED A PHOTO OF THE VIOLATION ALONG WITH THE NOTICE OF VISIT I POSTED ON THE FRONT DOOR. I RECEIVED A PHONE AUGUST 20TH FROM MR. RAINEY ASKING ABOUT THE CASE AND HE STATED HE WOULD BE WORKING ON GETTING A TAG FOR THE VEHICLE.

BUT I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM HIM SINCE THAT AUGUST 20TH CONVERSATION. AUGUST 26TH, A SECOND INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED.

THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION. THE TRUCK SITTING JUST AS YOU SEE IT.

AUGUST 27TH, I MAILED OUT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING LETTER TO THE OWNER. THE SIGNATURE CARD WAS RETURNED WITH AN OWNER'S SIGNATURE. THE OWNER WAS GIVEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 2019, TO COME TO THE COMPLIANCE OR APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT. SEPTEMBER 9TH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED. THERE WAS NO CHANGE.

SEPTEMBER 25TH, A PRE-AGENDA INSPECTION WAS DONE. NO CHANGES. THE VEHICLE IS STILL SITTING AS IT IS. AND THEN AS OF TODAY THOSE ARE THE PHOTOS AS OF TODAY. THE TIME I WAS PREPARING THE STAFF REPORT I HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM MR. RAINEY. I DID LEAVE HIM A MESSAGE FOR HIM TO CALL ME. HE HAS NOT CALLED ME.

CHAIRMAN: YOU LEFT THAT MESSAGE ON HIS CELL OR HIS REGULAR PHONE

>> YES. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS HIS HOME PHONE OR CELL BUT I LEFT A MESSAGE ON THE NUMBER THAT HE CALLED US ON. THE CITY RECOMMENDS A FINE OF $50 A DAY FOR THE VIOLATION ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. THE CITY RESTS.

CHAIRMAN: ANY QUESTIONS OF THE

[00:55:11]

CITY? BEING NO QUESTIONS OF THE CITY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION IN THIS MATTER? BOARD MEMBER: I AM A DUAL MOTION. THE SAME BOARD MEMBER: IN THE CASE OF 2019-0355 I MOVE THAT WE FIND THE HOMEOWNER IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 42-173 WRECKED OR IMOPERABLE VEHICLES.

BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND THAT.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CLERK, CALL THE ROLL.

CITY CLERK: MEMBER CRESSEY

>> YES

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> YES

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN

>> YES

>> CHAIR COUGHMAN

>> YES

>> AS TO THE ASSESSMENT AND THE FINE

>> YES.

>> IN THE SAME CASE I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ASSESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND A FINE OF $50 A DAY TO COME INTO AFFECT IF THE VIOLATION IS NOT BROUGHT INTO CODE BY WEEK FROM TOMORROW.

BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

CHAI

>> MEMBER CRESSEY

>> YES

>> MEMBER CHAPMAN

>> YES

>> MEMBER BYRD

>> YES

>> MEMBER SCHULTZ

>> YES

>> CHAIR KAUFMAN

>> YES

>> BUT, AGAIN, WITH THE SAME CAVE YACHT. WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND SOME OF THESE ABANDONED VEHICLES HAVE BEEN SITTING ON PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, SINCE 2014 THAT I KNOW OF. THAT'S JUST TROUBLING TO ME. THERE'S NO REAL STANDARD TO THE FINES OR WHEN WE ENFORCE THESE THINGS. BUT I WILL VOTE YES.

CHAIRMAN: NOTHING UNDER NEW BUSINESS. ANY OTHER NEW

[Items 5 & 6]

BUSINESS? THERE BEING NONE, THIS THERE'S BOARD BUSINESS AND CODE AMENDMENT ABOUT THE CITY COMMISSION DISCUSSION. MS. BALK? CITY ATTORNEY: THANK YOU SO MUCH. ORDINANCE 2019-23 IS A LITTLE FIRST JUST SO I GET OUGHT OF IT. IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CLEAN UP ORDINANCE IN THAT IT USED TO BE IN FLORIDA MUNICIPAL LIENS HAD SUPER PRIORITY STATUS.

SO THEY COULD GO ABOVE TAX LIENS FROM THE STATE OR FROM ANY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. BUT THEY COULD GO ABOVE MORTGAGES. WELL I GUESS THE BANKS PROBABLY LOBBIED THE STATE LEGISLATURE ENOUGH EAU USUALLY THAT'S GOING TO BE CODIFIED. BUT THE COURT IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY CASE WHICH I HAVE ATTACHED HERE SAID THOSE LIENS COULD NOT BE, MUNICIPAL LIENS INCLUDING CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS COULD NOT BE SUPER PRIORITY LIENS. WHILE I WAS MESSING AROUND WITH OUR LIEN REDUCTION AND SETTLEMENT STUFF I SAID LET ME GO AHEAD AND CLEAN UP THE CODE AND GET RID OF THAT SECTION. SO THAT'S REPEALED.

THE OTHER IS THIS ISSUE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. AND THIS CAME UP DURING THE MARK O'BRIEN REDUCTION OF FINE SETTLEMENT OF LIENS. SO I START WITH THE STATUTE 162.09. THAT'S THE ONE THE OFFICERS QUOTE FROM OFTEN THAT YOU ALL PROBABLY KNOW IF NOT REALLY WELL YOU KNOW SOME WHAT. THAT SECTION OF CHAPTER 162 AND THAT'S FLORIDA STATUTES IS SO LONG AND IT'S LIKE ONE BIG RUN ON SENTENCE.

BUT WHAT WE'VE GLEANED FROM THAT AND LOOKING AT SOME CASES AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS IS THAT A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD LIKE THIS ONE SET UP PURSUANT TO THAT CHAPTER, YOU ARE ABLE TO, IT SAYS MAY REDUCE FINES. YOU ARE ABLE TO SET FINES AND YOU ARE ABLE TO REDUCE THEM. BUT THAT'S ALL IT SAYS. IT'S ONE SENTENCE PERIOD. THE LONG RUNON SENTENCE COMES AFTER IT THAT TALKS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OF LIENS OR SATISFACTION OF LIENS.

AND THOSE LIENS RUN IN FAVOR OF THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY. SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND SOME JUDGES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT HAVE SAID, ALL RIGHT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. IT MEANS

[01:00:01]

WHAT IT SAYS. THAT'S ALL IT TELLS US. THE CODE BOARD MAY REDUCE FINES BUT ONLY A LOCAL GOVERNING BODY CAN SETTLE OR SATISFY LIENS. SO, FROM ALL OF THAT, IT'S MY OPINION AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES AROUND THE STATE THAT HAVE THIS PROCESS IN PLACE THAT ONCE A LIEN IS FILED THEN IT'S IN THE CITY COMMISSION'S HANDS. SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW FROM STAFF SIDE, IF YOU DON'T MIND I'LL SPEAK AND I KNOW YOU WILL TELL ME IF I GET IT WRONG. BUT I HAD ASKED BEFORE THROUGH THE YEARS DID WE HAVE A PROCEDURE FOR WHEN A LIEN IS RECORDED ON A PROPERTY? BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THE LIEN THAT IS NOT A SEPARATE LIEN FORM IT IS YOUR FINDINGS OF FACT. YOUR ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON A CASE. YOU FIND THEM IN VIOLATION AND THEN FINES START RUNNING. WHEN I ASKED MICHELLE AND THIS WAS RECENTLY, I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN WE ACTUALLY FILED THAT AS A LIEN. IT HAS TO GO TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FIRST TO GET A CERTIFIED STAMP ON IT. THEN IT GETS RECORDED.

AND WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A SET LINE. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROCESS THAT SAID THEY GET RECORDED AT DAY 60 AFTER THE CODE BOARD RULES. IN THIS PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING THAT ORDINANCE MICHELLE AND I SPOKE ABOUT WHAT IS THE MOST REASONABLE WAY TO PROCEED. AND THAT IS 30 DAYS AFTER THIS BOARD RULES, THOSE LIENS WILL BE FILED. SO, ILL 'GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE P. THEY'RE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. MR. WEBB HAD FINES START RUNNING AFTER A CERTAIN DATE.

AND WE WILL NOT RECORD THAT LIEN UNTIL 30 DAYS AFTER TODAY. SO, NEXT MONTH, I'M SORRY -- CHAIRMAN: 30 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FORM

>> CAN I? CITY ATTORNEY: HELP ME WITH THIS. THANKS.

>> OKAY. THE WAY OUR FINDINGS OF FACTS ARE. AT THE END OF THAT DOCUMENT IT PRETTY MUCH STATES WHAT'S IN 162. AND THAT IS THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND RECORD THAT DOCUMENT. IN THAT DOCUMENT IT SAYS THAT IF THE FINES AND FEES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN A LIEN IS AUTOMATICALLY -- IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES INTO EFFECT.

SO, FROM THE TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY RECORD THAT, WHICH IS FAIRLY QUICKLY, IT WOULDN'T BE UNTIL AFTER WHATEVER TIME YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM.

CHAIRMAN: LET'S SAY WE TAKE THE WEBB CASE AND WE SAID IT'S 30 DAYS. THE FINES ARE EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS FROM NOW, YOU WILL FILE THE LIEN 30 DAYS THERE AFTER

>> WE WOULD FILE THAT DOCUMENT, THE FINDINGS OF FACTS, AS CLOSE TO THAT DATE AS POSSIBLE.

CITY ATTORNEY: THE DATE THEY BEGIN

>> YES.

BOARD MEMBER: WHICH DAY IS THAT

>> WHICH IS NOT THE LIEN. IT IS JUST -- CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER: WAIT A MINUTE.

CHAIRMAN: WAIT A MINUTE.

SOMETIMES I AM A SLOW LEARNER. A LETTER GOES OUT TOMORROW. IT SAYS WHATEVER THE CASE IS, YOU ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. IF YOU ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY NOVEMBER 1ST, FINES WILL BEGIN.

WHEN WILL YOU FILE THE LIEN?

>> THE LIEN WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DONE 30 DAYS AFTER.

CHAIRMAN: 30 DAYS AFTER

>> AFTER IT'S RECORDED. AFTER THE FINDINGS OF FACTS HAS BEEN RECORDED.

CITY ATTORNEY: MICHELLE IS TALKING ABOUT A BOARD ORDER THAT'S RECORDED AND A LIEN AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS

>> BUT IT GOES AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE IT'S IN THAT DOCUMENT.

IT ACTUALLY GOES A LIEN IN 30 DAYS FROM THE TIME THAT THAT DOCUMENT IS RECORDED. IF THEY DO NOT PAY.

CHAIRMAN: I'M STILL CONFUSED.

CITY ATTORNEY: I UNDERSTAND.

BOARD MEMBER: THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT REALLY DOESN'T EFFECT US UNTIL A LIEN HAS BEEN FILED.

CHAIRMAN: THIS IS THE QUESTION BECAUSE IT GOES BACK TO THAT FIRST CASE. IS THERE GOING TO BE A PERIOD OF TIME, IN MY EXAMPLE, AND I MAY BE WRONG, RIGHT, TO FIND COMPLIANCE IN 30 DAYS BEGINNING NOVEMBER 1ST. THE GUY'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THE GUY IS BEING GENERIC BE -- BY

[01:05:07]

THE WAY. THEY COME IN ON NOVEMBER 15TH AND ASK FOR REDUCTION IN FINES. IF A LIEN HAS BEEN FILED ON NOVEMBER 1ST THEY CAN'T COME HERE. IF THE LIEN IS GOING TO BE FILED ON NOVEMBER 30TH, '30 DAYS AFTER THAT FINE, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SO WHAT ARE WE SAYING

>> OKAY. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IF ON NOVEMBER 1ST THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THAT DOCUMENT, THAT WHOLE THING GETS RECORDED. IF THEY COME IN TO COMPLIANCE ON THE 15TH, IT HASN'T GONE INTO A LIEN YET. IT HASN'T BEEN 30 DAYS FROM THE TIME THAT WE RECORDED THAT.

CHAIRMAN: SO YOU ARE SAYING IT'S 30 -- BOARD MEMBER: 30 DAYS AFTER THE RECORDED DATE.

CHAIRMAN: SO IT IS THE 30 DAYS AFTER THAT NOVEMBER 1ST WHEN A LIEN BECOMES EFFECTIVE

>> YES. YES. THAT'S PERFECT WAY TO PUT IT.

CITY ATTORNEY: BUT WHAT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IS THAT, AS SOME OF US KNOW FROM BUYING PROPERTY OR TRYING TO CLOSE ON PROPERTY OR DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE, THE MINUTE THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS THAN JUST A LIEN LIKE A MORTGAGE ON A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY.

UNDER CODE ENFORCEMENT LAW, A LIEN IS A LIEN ON ALL OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU OWN IN NASSAU COUNTY. AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT SHE IS SAYING. THAT'S THE LEGAL EFFECT OF IT. EVEN OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY YOU OWN ARE GOING TO BE LIENED. BUT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF RECORDING ANY DOCUMENT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS THAT -- ESPECIALLY ONE THAT SAYS A TITLE AGENT, FOR EXAMPLE, LOOKS AT IT AND SAYS OOH THIS LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FINES, WE BETTER CALL THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND FIND OUT IF THERE'S A LIEN. AND IT REALLY MAY NOT HAVE THAT LEGAL EFFECT OF ATTACHING ALL THE PROPERTIES YET IN THOSE FEW DAYS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND FROM WHAT I HAVE STUDIED IN THE LAW, THE MINUTE YOU RECORD THAT DOCUMENT, THAT'S WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE TO SATISFY IT BY RECORDING ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT IS CALLED THE SATISFACTION OF A LIEN OR RELEASE OF LIEN. SO, MICHELLE'S TRAINING SAYS, I KNOW THE STATUTE; AND IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT'S THE AFFECT OF HAVING A DOCUMENT RECORDED ON ON THE PROPERTY.

CHAIRMAN: SO THE QUESTION THAT MR. BYRD ASKED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS, WAY BACK WHEN, WHAT'S THE PERIOD OF TIME OR IS THERE ONE WHEN SOMEONE WHO IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE CAN COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND PLEASE FORGIVENESS? THAT WAS THE QUESTION RIGHT? DREAM BOARD MEMBER: AND IF NOT YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY

>> ACTUALLY IF WE'RE DOING OUR JOBS PROPERLY AND WE ARE LOOKING TO DO THAT, THERE'S BEEN A MULTIPLE REASONS THAT I DON'T NEED TO GET INTO AS TO WHY THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, BUT THE EFFECTIVE DATE THAT YOU ORDER FOR THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE OR THEY ARE FINED.

CHAIRMAN: GO BACK TO MY EXAMPLE.

30 DAYS, NOVEMBER 1ST, START RUNNING ON NOVEMBER 1ST. CAN THAT INDIVIDUAL COME BEFORE US ON NOVEMBER 5TH AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS

>> FROM WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING MS. BACH'S IS SAYING, NO.

CHAIRMAN: SO IN EFFECT IF WE'RE -- CITY ATTORNEY: IF WE'RE RECORDING THE BOARD ORDER, THERE'S NO PERIOD OF TIME. AND I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING IS LET ME WORK WITH -- BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. SO, WE'RE GOOD. BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY MOVING. LET ME WORK WITH MICHELLE AND KATIE A LITTLE BIT ON THE PROCESS. IT MAY BE THAT WHEN WE HAVE A BOARD ORDER, AND IF WE DON'T HAVE TO RECORD -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RECORD THAT ORDER THEN WE DON'T RECORD IT UNTIL THERE'S A TIME THAT WE WAIT TO EVEN RECORD IT.

CHAIRMAN: THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. I KNOW THERE IS A RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER TO THIS.

BUT WE DO SOMETHING -- SO IF FORECLOSE THIS. YOU TAKE THAT 30 DAY NOTICE ON NOVEMBER 1ST AND THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AT ALL PERIOD.

>> TRUE.

CHAIRMAN: IT ISSEN INTERESTING PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION. WE MEET ONCE A MONTH. SO, WHATEVER WE DO WE EXTEND IT. GENERALLY IT'S NOT BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.

SOMETIMES IT'S 45 DAYS. BUT

[01:10:01]

WHAT YOU'RE CERTAINLY SAYING THERE'S NO -- ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AND DO ANYTHING. AND THEY ALL HAVE TO GO TO THE BOYS APP GIRLS WHO SET AT THIS DESK ON TUESDAYS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY KNOW THAT. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE IT'S GOING TO BE VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. AND, TRUST ME, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COME -- ONCE THEY KNOW THE PROCESS PEOPLE COME AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. I THINK THERE WOULD BE A WAY IF YOU HELD THE FILING FOR 30 DAYS TO GET THE LIEN SO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE BEFORE THEY GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

BECAUSE, OTHER THAN THAT, THEN PEOPLE WISER THAN ME NEED TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COMMISSION WANTS TO HEAR EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT WE DECIDE.

THAT'S A POTENTIAL.

>> WHENEVER THEY COME FORWARD ASKING FOR A ROW DEDUCTION.

BECAUSE YOU DO DECIDE CASES WHERE WE ACTUALLY GET CHECKS

>> THE FACT OF THE MATTER ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL AND DIFFICULT THINGS WE DO IS REDUCE FINES. AND THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT MEET HERE ON TUESDAY. NOT WITH ME BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT WE DO. WE APPLY THESE FUNDS AND THEN WHEN THEY COME RUNNING BACK AND THEY WANT TO RUE DEUCE THEM WE SAY OKAY WE'LL REDUCE THEM. SO WE'VE TAKEN A LOT OF CRITICISM FOR THAT.

THEY'RE THE ONES PUTTING THIS ORDINANCE IN. THEY WANT TO HANDLE ALL THE REDUCTIONS, YES, SIR. THAT'S OKAY WITH ME. BUT LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER THING ABOUT THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE HERE. I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A LONG TIME. AND THERE WERE TIMES WHEN I HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE FINES THAT WE WERE APPLYING AND SOME OF THE FINES THAT WE -- AND WHERE WE WERE APPLYING THEM.

AND I'LL DISCUSS MORE ABOUT THAT. BUT THEY'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO STANDARDIZE THIS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAINTENANCE OF LAWNS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IT IS A 25, $50 FINE. NOT 150 OR $200.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT, A LITTLE MORE OF A FINE. IF IT'S SOMEBODY THEY'VE HAD A DIFFICULT TIME DEALING WITH, THERE MAY BE AN UPCHARGE FOR THAT. I THINK THEY'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF IT. AND WE'VE ALSO HAD THE CONVERSATION THAT WHEN WE APPLY THESE FUNDS THAT IF YOU GET SOMEBODY'S ATTENTION YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING RESULTS. THAT REALLY CAME ABOUT WITH THE TURTLES THAT GOT KILLED ON THE BEACH. THEN THERE WAS PUBLICITY THEY THAT WERE GOING TO BE CHARGED $250 A DAY, UP TO $250 A DAY FOR KILLING THE TURTLES. AND ALL OF OF A SUDDEN EVERYBODY TOOK NOTICE. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE OVER THE YEARS THAT HAVE STANDARDIZED THIS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.

CHAIRMAN: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FILING, WHATEVER THAT FILING MAY BE, IS SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS NOT ONLY WITH US BUT WITH THE CITY COMMISSION.

BECAUSE IF MICHELLE'S STANDARD IS WE FILE IT AND IT'S 30 DAYS, THERE'S NO APPEAL TO THE BOARD, THEN ALL THE APPEALS ARE GOING TO THE CITY COMMISSION. WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR BAD IDEA, WE CAN HAVE AN ADULT BEVERAGE SOMEWHERE AND TALK ABOUT IT SO PEOPLE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT. IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT RIGHT. SO THAT'S A PUBLIC -- THAT'S AN INTERNAL PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION

>> WHAT IT REALLY MEANS AND IT WAS MY INTENTION TO DO THIS AND I SPOKE WITH MICHELLE ABOUT IT--

>> I DO HAVE SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHILE I STILL HAVE IT ON MY MIND.

>> SURE

>> SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE WE DID NOT RECORD THIS DOCUMENT IN A TIMELY MANNER, WE'VE HAD AT LEAST TWO SALES THAT HAVE GONE AND WE DIDN'T GET ANYTHING. WE GOT NO ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT HAVING THAT TIMELY PROCEDURE. CHAMPION I'M NOT EXPRESSING AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF THE

[01:15:02]

APPEAL. BECAUSE EVERYBODY WHO COMES HERE AND SENDS US A LETTER FOR AN APPEAL YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY DO NOT PASS GO AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE COMMISSION.

THESE GUYS AS THEY USED TO SAY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE BRONX, NEED TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT.

CITY ATTORNEY: THE ORDINANCE IT SELF DOES PROVIDE AND THE STATUTE'S OKAY WITH THIS. THE STATUTE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I JUST SAID. IT SAYS... A CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ORDER IMPOSING A FINE. SO, THAT'S YOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS. THAT'S YOUR ORDER.

OR A FINE PLUS REPAIR COSTS MAY BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND THERE AFTER SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN. SO THE MINUTE YOU RECORD IT, IT IS A LIEN. UNDER 162. IF IT SAYS AT THE BOTTOM OF OUR FINDINGS OF FACT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE NEED TO CHANGE IT. BECAUSE THE STATUTE THAT I AM READING, 16209 SUB-3, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. SO, IF YOU ARE IMPOSING FINES, EVEN IF IT'S NOT UNTIL OCTOBER 11TH, IT'S A LIEN AS FAR AS THE STATE'S CONCERNED. SO THE ORDINANCE THAT -- THAT DOESN'T MEAN THINGS CAN'T CHANGE. WE STILL HAVE TIME TO CHANGE IT. SINCE WE'RE NEIGHBORS NOW AT THE PECK CENTER WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT UP TONIGHT. NOT JUST TO SAY BY THE WAY THE COMMISSION SAID WE NEEDED TO DO THIS SO THERE.

CHAIRMAN: I WAS THERE WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IT.

CITY ATTORNEY: BUT I THINK THE INTENT AND YOU ALL JUST PROVIDE YOUR FEEDBACK. IT SOUNDS BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT THINGS TO DO AND THE ONES THAT WE DO HAVE -- WELL THE ONES WE HAVE -- THE CASES THAT NORMALLY COME BEFORE US, I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER ONE FOR $150 THAT ASKED FOR A REDUCTION. I REMEMBER FIVE FIGURES AND SIX FIGURES.

BOARD MEMBER: I WAS TALKING ABOUT $150 A DAY.

CHAIRMAN: TAKE THE FIRST CASE REDUCTION TO $5,000 THEN IT GOES THE STAND ARE OF WHAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD. YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO SIT HERE GET PAID THE BIG BUCKS SOMEBODY WHO IS A CONSTITUENT WHO IS GOING TO SAY $5,000 IS TOO MUCH AND GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. ALL I'M SAYING IS IF WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT GOES INTO EFFECT, EVERYONE WHO KNOWS AN INDIVIDUAL ON THIS BOARD IS GOING TO COME IN AND THERE WILL BE AT LEAST A LOGICAL PLACE FOR THEM TO COME TO REDUCE THEIR FINES. NOW IF THE CITY COMMISSION WANTS TO TAKE OVER ALL OF THAT, THERE MAY BE SOME SUPPORT ON THE BOARD FOR THAT.

THIS BOARD. BUT IT'S THE -- KATIE, YOU HAD YOUR LIGHT ON

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING FOR A SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 15TH.

AND SOME OF THE POINT THAT YOU ALL HAVE BROUGHT UP TONIGHT MAY BE THE COMMISSION -- IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COMMISSION TO HEAR THESE IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE TO BE PRESENT AND SPEAK ABOUT THEM.

CHAIRMAN: WELL WHY DON'T THE NEIGHBORS GET TOGETHER IN THEIR BUILDING AND DECIDE WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS. AND IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION OR THERE'S SOME CLARIFYING INFORMATION BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER 15TH, WHY DON'T YOU SEND IT TO US AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO TROUBLE TALKING. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OPINION CITY ATTORNEY: THE LAST THING I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT IS KIND OF MY INTENT. AND I THINK MICHELLE'S TOO. AND THAT'S HOW WE UNDERSTOOD IT. IS THAT THE ONLY TIME THESE CASES WOULD COME BEFORE YOU IS IN THE FIRST 30 DAYS. AFTER THAT FIRST 30 DAYS THAT YOU IMPOSE THE FINES -- CHAIRMAN: TOMORROW I AM GOING TO SIGN A LETTER THAT KATIE IS GOING TO PREPARE AT SOME POINT AND TIME ON THE WAY TO THE Y AND I WILL SIGN IT. AND IF THAT'S FILED THAT DAY, IT'S ALL OVER.

RIGHT.

CITY ATTORNEY: RIGHT. AND THE ORDINANCE IS PROPOSING THAT IT SAYS THAT JUST SO WE HAVE A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM TOO THAT THESE ORDERS, YOUR ORDERS IMPOSING FINES, IT SAYS ARE GENERALLY RECORDED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD ISSUING THE ORDER. SO THAT MEANS FROM TODAY, NOT FROM OCTOBER 11TH I HEARD ONE OF THE CASES WAS THE DATE FOR COMING IN TO COMPLIANCE. IT'S FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF TODAY. SO, REALLY THOSE FINES WON'T START KICKING IN UNTIL OCTOBER 12TH FOR THAT ONE CASE.

CHAIRMAN: BUT THEY CAN'T COME TO US.

CITY ATTORNEY: THEY CAN ON OCTOBER 31ST.

CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS MY QUESTION BEFORE AND THE ANSWER AS NO. WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T DO THAT HERE NOW. SO, THINK ABOUT IT. AND IF

[01:20:04]

THE DECISION IS ALL APPEALS GO THE CITY COMMISSION, THEY'RE ADULTS, THEY CAN VOTE FOR IT. OR IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A PERIOD OF TIME FOR 30 DAYS AND WAIVE THE RULES OR AT ARE ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS SO IT'S 30 DAYS BEFORE US, THAT'S PROBABLY FINE TOO.

CITY ATTORNEY: THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SHORT PERIOD OF TIME? YES OR NO.

BOARD MEMBER: I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. THERE'S AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THIS BOARD THAT'S HAD PROBLEMS WITH WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.

AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND MAKE SURE TO GET IT ON THE RECORD THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CAME FROM.

THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW IN 2006 OR 2005 AND SAID EVERY TOWN LIKE THIS HAS GOT TO HAVE A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SO, WHERE DID IT COME FROM? WHEN I TRIED TO FIND OUT, I COULDN'T FIND OUT. SO WHAT DID IT COME FROM A HOME ASSOCIATION IN SOUTH FLORIDA THEN IT GOT VOTED ON? IS THAT WHERE IT CAME FROM? THERE'S A COUPLE OF -- CITY ATTORNEY: I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU. SINCE I'VE BEEN AROUND.

>> AT LEAST MOST OF WHAT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE USED TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE. THERE WAS SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE SUCH AS THE PARKING OF RVS, BOATS AND TRAILERS. THAT WAS ALL IN THERE. IT WAS JUST IN THERE IN A DIFFERENT FORM. AND BACK IN, I GUESS IT WAS AROUND 2006 OR SO, THIS CITY HAD SOMEBODY COME IN AND THEY CONTRACTED TO REWRITE WHAT IS NOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I STILL HAVE OLD BOOKS THAT HAVE THE TABS ON THE PAGES OF WHAT TURNED IN TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO THAT WAS WORKED ON FOR AT LEAST A YEAR IF NOT TWO. SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT.

ONE TO TWO YEARS. SO IT WASN'T JUST PULLED FROM A HAT.

BOARD MEMBER: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THAT A LOT OF IT WAS ALREADY THERE. BUT IT WAS A BIG DIFFERENCE. AND THE BIG DIFFERENCE WAS WE REACTED WHEN WE WERE CALLED UPON. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DIDN'T GO OUT AND SAY OH SO AND SO IS IN VIOLATION, WE'RE GOING TO FIND THEM IN VIOLATION.

>> BUT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT DOCUMENT. WHAT HAPPENED WAS -- BOARD MEMBER: WELL YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY AT THE TIME SAYING WAIT A MINUTE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS IN THE PAST, WHY ARE WE DOING IT NOW. NOW WHAT YOU'VE GOT IS THE CITY COMMISSION SAYING BUT IT'S THE LAW. AND YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE LAW IN ONE SITUATION AND NOT IGNORE IT IN ANOTHER. BUT THEN THE SAME CITY COMMISSIONER WHEN HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT HE IS SAYING, OH NO, WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT. WE GOT TO GO TO THE STATE AND GET THAT CHANGED. BUT MY POINT IS, THESE THINGS ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHEN THEY PASS THE ORDINANCE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE FROM THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER SITTING IN THEIR MEETING LISTENING TO PEOPLE SAYING, YOU KNOW, HEY YOU'VE GOT $18,000 WORTH OF FINES FOR TTHIS FOR THE RV IN YOUR DRIVEWAY SO, YOU KNOW--

>> THERE'S ONE BODY THAT CAN CHANGE THOSE LAWS. AND IF PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THEM ON THE BOOKS, IF THEY FEEL THAT THOSE ARE UNFAIR LAWS, THEY NEED TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THEY NEED TO HAVE THEM CHANGED. IT'S FINE WITH US. IT'S ONE LESS THING FOR US TO ENFORCE. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO US.

BOARD MEMBER: I BUY THAT 100%.

CITY ATTORNEY: AND I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU LEAVE HERE TODAY WITH THAT WHATEVER EVERYBODY. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT TO YOU. LET'S BE SPECIFIC ABOUT BOATS, RVS. THAT IS 100% IN CONTROL OF THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT. PERIOD END OF STORY.

I DON'T CARE WHERE IT APPEARS.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS NOT WRITTEN BECAUSE IT WAS SANKED BY THE STATE. IT WAS 1985 WHERE THE STATE SAID EACH TOWN IN FLORIDA HAS TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT, AND AGAIN, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BOATS AND RVS. SO, BOATS AND RVS AND WHETHER PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEM, PEOPLE IN TOWN NEED TO TALK TO THEIR CITY COMMISSIONERS AND LET THEM KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. AND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS NOW WE HAVE A

[01:25:03]

PROACTIVE APPROACH. THAT'S POLICY TALK FROM THE CITY COMMISSION THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. YOU WILL GO AROUND AND PROACTIVELY ENFORCE OUR LAWS.

CHAIRMAN: LET ME JUST SCAMP A QUESTION SO WHEN TAMMI GOES BACK AND LOOKS AT THE PROCEDURE AND SHE IS GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE. WE ARE COMFORTABLE AS A BODY HAVING AT LEAST A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS TO REVIEW CASES ON APPEAL? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

BOARD MEMBER: I AM.

CHAIRMAN: SO DEPENDING ON THE PUNK TILL YEAH OF THE STATUTE WHEN IS FILING A FILING. I MEAN, THAT'S THE QUESTION WE'RE ASKING. SO -- CITY ATTORNEY: AND I'M SAYING I JUST READ THE STATUTE.

CHAIRMAN: BUT BEFORE WE DO THINGS OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD AND SOMEBODY SAYS LAWYERS KEEP ON CHANGING THEIR MINDS YOU KNOW THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. AT LEAST WE'RE DOING IS IF WE CAN HAVE A 30 DAY APPEAL PERIOD, THEN ALSO PROBABLY AFFECT HOW AND WHEN WE APPLY OUR FINES ALSO. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT. BUT IF THERE'S NO APPEAL PERIOD, THEN LET THEM HAVE AT IT. BUT MY GUESS IS THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR EVERY APPEAL.

CITY ATTORNEY: RIGHT. I MEAN, AND WHEN THIS COMES UP AT THE NEXT MEETING I WILL MAKE SURE THEY KNOW. WE'LL GET DATA ON HOW MANY OF THOSE YOU HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

CHAIRMAN: ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WHEN IT BECOMES A POLITICAL MATTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT CHANGES THE DYNAMIC.

CITY ATTORNEY: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

CHAIRMAN: SO IF ANYBODY SAYS YOU CAN GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION WE'RE RUNNING FOR OFFICE IN 2020 AND ASK FOR A REDUCTION, YOU KNOW. I'M JUST AN OLD BRONX DEMOCRAT.

>> AND TYPICALLY, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME, IF THEY DON'T COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE TIME THAT YOU GIVE THEM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO UNTIL WAY DOWN THE ROAD. THAT'S JUST MY EXPERIENCE.

CHAIRMAN: AND THAT'S THE POINT.

THEN THE FINES ARE GOING TO BE RELATIVELY HIGH I WAS GOING TO SAY ASTRO NOMIC AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING TO THE COMMISSION.

>> I AM JUST LETTING YOU KNOW.

CHAIRMAN: THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WITH EYES WIDE OPEN WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

>> YEP. YOU ARE CORRECT.

CITY ATTORNEY: THE ONLY REASON THIS EVEN CAME UP IS BECAUSE THE STATE LAW SAYS ONLY THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY CAN SATISFY THE LIEN.

CHAIRMAN: THERE'S LOTS OF REASONS WHY IT CAME UP THAT'S THE SHORTHANDED VERSION OF THAT ONE.

CITY ATTORNEY: BECAUSE I THINK THE BEST PRACTICE REALLY IS FOR IT TO BE HERE. FOR THE ENTIRE TIME.

BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE.

CHAIRMAN: AND WE ARE A LITTLE LESS FORMAL THAN THAT. THAN THEY MAY HAVE TO BE. SO, YOU KNOW, -- PROGRESS IS MOST IMPORTANT PROGRESS.

>> I THOUGHT WHEN THE TERMS GOT KILLED IT WAS A TERRIBLE THING.

IF I SAID THAT THE WRONG WAY.

CITY ATTORNEY: YOUR POINT WAS VERY WELL TAKEN.

BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THE PUBLICITY THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

CITY ATTORNEY: UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, WE TEND TO HAVE SHORT MEMORIES. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THAT ALREADY.

BOARD MEMBER: BUT THEY DO REMEMBER THE $250 FINE A DAY.

CITY ATTORNEY: IT ENDED UP THEM DOING A $5,000. BUT I LOVE THE WAY YOU DID IT. YOU SUGGESTED THEY PAY AMELIA ISLAND SEA TURTLE WATCH. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS FABULOUS. IT WAS GREAT.

>> HOW MANY YEARS AGO WAS THAT? CITY ATTORNEY: IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

BOARD MEMBER: 10

>> AT LEAST.

CHAIRMAN: SO KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING, MS. BACH.

LET US KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS DECIDE. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE AT LEAST 30 DAYS. ANY OTHER BUSINESS? BOARD MEMBER: I MAKE A MOTION WE ADJOURN THE MEETING.

BOARD MEMBER: SECOND! BOARD MEMBER: I WANT TO SAY YOU DID A GOOD JOB TONIGHT CHAIR KAUFMAN. APPRECIATE IT.

>> JUST BRIEFLY I WANT TO INTRODUCE YOU TO ASHLEY MANNING.

SHE WILL BE TAKING OVER AS SECRETARY PROBABLY STARTING IN

[01:30:01]

JANUARY. SO, WE'RE GOING TO BE TAG TEAMING FOR A COUPLE MORE MEETINGS THEN SHE'LL BE TAKING OVER FOR ME FOR A WHILE.

CHAIRMAN: JUST AS THEY USED TO SAY IN THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT US JUST SPELL OUR NAMES CORRECTLY BOARD MEMBER: UNLESS I'M WRONG THE NAME IS SMITH.

CHAIRMAN: JUST MAKE US LOOK GOOD IN

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.