[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM]
[00:00:04]
>> WE MAY HAVE NONVIDEO PARTICIPANTS.
[Additional Item 1]
>> DO WE NEED TO SEEK AN ALTERNATIVE AT THIS POINT? SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION TO SEAT MR. THOMPSON.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO SEAT MR. THOMPSON.
>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> HAS EVERYONE HAD AN
[2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES OR OUR LAST MEETING ONANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTION? >> NO.
>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
>> ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT?
>> NO. I DO HAVE A LITTLE TALK I
[4.1 NEW BUSINESS - JASMIN PLACE, LLC, 17 JASMINE PLACE, CASE 2020-0327. 6. ADJOURNMENT]
WANT -- JUST BRIEFLY -- JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR NEW MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABOUT DISCUSSING BUT NOT VOTING AND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SUNSHINE IF YOU DON'T MIND.WE HAVE A FULL BOARD. OF COURSE EVERYBODY IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. BUT IN GENERAL TONIGHT MR. THOMPSON, YOU ARE VOTING MEMBER.
YOU WILL DISCUSS AND VOTE WHEN THE TIME COMES.
THE -- BUT IN GENERAL ALTERNATE MEMBERS IF YOU ARE NOT SEATED AS VOTING MEMBER YOU GET TO DISCUSS AND PARTICIPATE, YOU CAN TRY TO CONVINCE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS BUT YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO VOTE ON THE ITEM. AND THROWN WITH REGARD TO SUNSHINE LAW WE KNOW THAT SUNSHINE LAW IN FLORIDA IS MADE UP OF REALLY TWO PART. ONE IS OPEN MEETINGS.
WE DO ALL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE SUNSHINE. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS ANYTHING BASICALLY THAT YOU WILL GET LOTS OF E-MAILS AND RECORDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND YOU WILL E-MAIL PEOPLE, TOO.
PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY MAY REACH OUT TO YOU AND SAY I GOT THIS NOTICE AND YOU'RE ON THE CODE BOARD.
ANYTHING TO DO WITH CODE BOARD FOR YOU IS A PUBLIC RECORD.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT COMES ON YOUR PERSONAL PHONE OR IF IT COMES ON CITY E-MAIL ADDRESS, NO MATTER THE MEDIUM OR THE DEVICE.
IF IT'S ABOUT CITY BUSINESS BASICALLY YOUR BUSINESS WITH THE CODE BOARD IT IS PUBLIC RECORD. SO PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THAT.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU REPLY TO E-MAILS.
THAT THOSE COULD BE REQUESTED AND MAY PUBLIC.
THE OTHER IS OF COURSE,EN PHONE CALLS AND VOICE MAILS TEXT MESSAGES ARE PUBLIC RECORD. IF YOU ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I DO RECOMMEND STAYING AWAY FROM TEXT MESSAGING WITH REGARD TO YOUR CODE BOARD BUSINESS. BECAUSE OUR PHONE COMPANIES GENERALLY KEEP THOSE TEXT MESSAGES ALTHOUGH THEY CAN BE DELETED AFTER THE TIME. AND THEY WILL ONLY RELEASE THEM BY COURT ORDER. YOU DON'T WANT SOMEONE THAT'S REALLY GOTTEN ANGRY WITH US FOR SOME REASON TO DECIDE TO FILE AN ACTION IN COURT TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THOSE RECORDS.
TRY NOT TO TEXT MESSAGE, BUT, AGAIN YOUR E-MAILS ARE ALL PUBLIC RECORD. ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVE FROM THE CITY YOU GET AGENDAS, STAFF REPORTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, THAT'S ALL PUBLIC RECORD.
AND WHAT YOU CAN DO I'M JUST GOING TO ASK KATIE AND HARRIET,
[00:05:02]
DO THEY HAVE CITY E-MAIL ADDRESSES OR DO THEY USE THEIR PERSONAL E-MAIL? YOU CAN ASK THE CITY CLERK TO HELP YOUR TO ARCHIVE CERTAIN E-MAILS UNLESS YOU DO IT YOURSELF. WHAT I MEAN BY ARCHIVE.FILE THEM IN FOLDER IN YOUR E-MAILS AND DOCUMENTS IN A DOCUMENT FOLDER THAT YOU CAN ACCESS LATER IF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IS MADE. BECAUSE THE REQUEST LIKELY WILL BE MADE THROUGH THE CITY. BUT WE WILL HAVE TO REACH OUT TO YOU TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY RECORDS THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A COPY OF. ARE THERE IN QUESTIONS ABOUT
THAT? >> DID I MISS SOMETHING? [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.
IT'S ON MY NOTE HERE. I CAN'T READ LIPS.
>> SO WHENEVER YOU GET AN E-MAIL FROM US DON'T REPLY ALL.
IN FACT WHEN I SEND CITY COMMISSIONERS E-MAILS, THE VERY FIRST THING I PUT ON CAPS DO NOT REPLY ALL.
BECAUSE IT COULD TURN OUT TO BE A SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATION AND BY THAT I MEAN, THE SUNSHINE LAW SAID WE DO OUR BUSINESS HERE IN PUBLIC WITH NOTICE AND MINUTES TAKEN OF THE MEETING AND ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC. BUT WHEN YOU REPLY ALL IF FOR SOME REASON. I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS.
BUT IT COULD HAPPEN SOME DAY WHERE A BOARD MEMBER STATES THEIR POSITION ON A CASE, OH I THINK THIS PERSON IS GUILTY AS HELL OR WHATEVER. AND IF ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER SEES THAT AND THEN YOU REPLY ALL TO KATIE OR ME, THAT CAN BE A SUN SHINE LAW VIOLATION. PLEASE DO NOT HIT REPLY ALL IN RESPONSE TO E-MAILS FROM THE CITY.
ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANKS, KATIE.
>> WE ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO YOU.
WE'RE HERE FOR YOU. >> YOU ARE HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING THE CITY. >> NORMALLY YOU WILL SEE ME REPRESENTING THE BOARD AND CITY TORNADO BECAUSE IF I GET INVOLVED WITH STAFF. I REPRESENT STAFF.
YOU ARE ACTING AS JUDGES THE CITY IS PARTY AND THE RESPONDENT IS A PARTY. SO TONIGHT WE HAVE MRS. VALERIE FALKMIRE REPRESENTING THE BOARD. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS. N THE -
>> THIS HEARING THIS EVENING WILL BE HELD ACCORDING TO QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES. ACCORDING TO THETY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA STATUTES.
AND THE STAFF WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE REPORT, WHICH I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY RECEIVED A COPY OF.
AND IF THE RESPONDENT IS HERE. THE RESPONDENT WILL BE PERMITTED TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. AND AT SOME POINT THERE WILL BE A MOTION TO DELIBERATE AND AT THAT TIME THE EVIDENCE WILL BE CLOSED. THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE.
AND THEN BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT TESTIFIES BOARD WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THE STAFF'S REQUEST IN THEIR REPORT AND AFTER A DECISION IS MADE THE RESPONDENT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL IF THEY WISH TO DO WITHIN 30 DAYS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> LET ME ASK THE MEMBERS OF BOARD. HAS ANYONE HAD EX-PARTA COMMUNICATION. FIRST CASE UNDER NEW BUSINESS IS JASMINE PLACE LLC17 JASMINE PLACE CASE NUMBER 2020-0327.
VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 26-101H. FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE AND THOSE WHO ARE AT HOME WATCHING SECTION SAID A FIRST VIOLATION OF THE RESORT RENTAL DWELLING REQUIREMENTS NOT HAVING VALID PERMIT OF THE SECTION WITHIN ANY 12 MONTH PERIOD SHALL BE FINISHABLE BY CITATION AND FINE OF 1,000.
APPEALS FOR VIOLATION SHALL BE MADE TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE.
IF MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION OF THE SECTION OCCURS IN ANY 12-MONTH PERIOD, THE OWNER OF THE RESORT RENTAL DWELLING
[00:10:02]
PROPERTIES WILL BE NOTIFIED ON EVALUATION AND THE CITY WILL PROCEED TO PROSECUTE THE VIOLATION THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PROCESS. JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, ON TUESDAY I RAISED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CASE WITH MISS BOYD. THEY ARE ON FILE IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND SO REPRESENTING ON BEHALF OFTHE CITY. >> I AM REPRESENTING THE CITY.
AS MATTER OF OTHER. I NEED TO TAKE AN OATH.
>> IS ANYBODY HERE GOING TO TESTIFY?
>> THEN CLERK ADMINISTER TO OATH.
>> I DO. THIS IS A SIMPLE CASE.
IT'S DIFFERENT IN THAT THE CITY DID PROCEED UNDER THE RENT ALORDINANCE 26-101 OF CITY CODE. AND WHAT THAT SAYS BASICALLY IS THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE RESORT RENTALS.
ARE R-3 MULTIFAMILY. THERE'S SOME PLACES AND HOMES ON THE BEACH THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE NOT ZONED R-3 BUT FOR YEARS AND YEAR THEY DID RESORT RENTALS AND NEVER STOPPED. THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED IN.
IN THIS CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TOWN HOME THAT IS RIGHT OFF OF JASMINE AND IT IS JUST WEST OF 14TH STREET.
IT'S CALLED JASMINE PLACE. KIND OF ACROSS FROM THE SHOPPING CENTER THERE. THOSE ARE STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND THEY ARE I BELIEVE R-2 ZONED. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR RESORT RENTALS AND THIS PARTICULAR UNIT OWNED BY JOHN SMITH IS NOT PERMITTED FOR RESORT RENTALS.
I WILL GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY.
ON MAY 14TH, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR CITATION SENT TO JOHN SMITH FOR RENTING OUT 17 JASMINE PLACE AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITH OUT A PERMIT. AND IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE THAT DOES NOT PERMIT SUCH ACTIVITY. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS 1,000 CITATION THAT HE WAS MAILED. AND HE DOES HAVE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN TEN DAYS. HE DID ON MAY 26TH.
WE RECEIVED THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL FEE OF $75.
ON JUNE 16TH, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD BY A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.
MR. HARRISON POOLE. AND MAGISTRATE ISSUED THEIR ORDER -- HIS ORDER ON JUNE 17TH AND UPHELD THE CITY CITATION OF FINE WITH 1,000 WITH ALL ADMINISTRATIVE COST.
AND THE FINE AS I SAID BEING PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF JUNE 16TH. BY JULY 18TH, WHEN WE CHECKED, THERE WAS NO FINE PAID OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
AND MICHELLE FORSTROM CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER CAME TO MYS OF WHICH HAPPENED TO BE NEXT DOOR AND ASKED ME WHAT WE WOULD DO. AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENT OF A FINE.
ONE IS TO TAKE YOUR CLAIM TO COURT.
NOW IN THE COURTS IN FLORIDA AT OUR LEVEL ON THE TRIAL LEVEL AND LOCAL LEVEL, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT WHAT THEY CALL JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. BECAUSE IT WAS 1,000 PLUS I THINK A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN 300 ADMINISTRATIVE COST, THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN US TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT.
WELL, I KNOW IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT HERE AND OTHER COUNTY THE RULE YOU HAVE TO GO TO MEDIATION FIRST.
I HAVE TO SIT MEDIATE A CLAIM UPHELD BY A SPECIAL MANAGESTRATE AND MAKE TAKE 50 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR OR ABOUT 500 TO SETTLE THAT COLLECT THE ENTIRE FINE AND THE TH THEED AED A MINUTE TRAYSIVE COST. I LOOK AT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE 26-101. I THINK IT'S SUB-H THERE'S A DEFINITION H-2 SPECIFICALLY OF JOINT LIABILITY.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY IS EXPLAINED AND DEFINED TO BE LIABILITY FOR EXAMPLE IF THEY HAVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY RENTING THEIR UNIT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER THEY ARE BOTH LIABLE FOR 100% OF THE FINE WHICH MEANS THAT EACH ONE OF THEM OWES $1,000 IN IN SAME SUBSECTION SAYS THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE ENTIRE FINE. I TOOK THAT AND SAID I THINK WE
[00:15:02]
CAN DO A CODE BOARD CASE THAT SAID THEY DIDN'T PAY THE FINE.THEY GOT THEIR APPEAL. THEY DIDN'T SUCCEED AT THE APPEAL. SO LET'S PROCEED AGAINST THEM FOR NONPAYMENT OF THE FINE. AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS SO THAT WE CAN ATTACH LATER IF IT'S NOT PAID WE CAN ATTACH THE LIEN TO PROPERTY AND SOME DAY THE TAX PAYERS WOULD HOPEFULLY GET PAID THE FULL AMOUNT. AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE ADD UP ADMINISTRATIVE COST ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IT ISN'T NEARLY WHAT IT REALLY COST. WE DON'T PUT EVERY SECOND OF STAFF TIME. MY TIME IS NOT INCLUDED.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. I DECIDED TO BRING THIS TO YOU ALL TO FINE A VIOLATION FOR NONPAYMENT OF FINE.
WE CONTINUED TO WORK ON THIS CASE PAST THE UPHOLDING OF THE FINE BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. AND ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
I THINK THAT WE -- THIS BOARD NEEDS TO FIND A VIOLATION AND IF IT'S NOT PAID WITH WHATEVER THE TIME PERIOD YOU THINK IS FAIR IF IT'S NOT PAID WITHIN THAT TIME. WE SHOULD LIEN THE PROPERTY AS
SOON AS WE CAN AND MOVE ON. >> LET ME ASK.
101-H2 TALKS ABOUT THE VIOLATION AND IT SAYS ANY VIOLATION WITHIN MONTH PERIOD THALL BE FINE AND CITATION.
ARE YOU SAYING THE FAILURE TO PAY A FINE IS A VIOLATION OF THE
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SECTION, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ARGUING ANYWAY. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION. WHOEVER WROTE THE RESORT RENTAL DWELLING PERMIT CODE SAID THIS IS THE WAY.
THIS IS WHERE IT'S PUNISHABLE BY 1,000.
AND NOWHERE IN HERE -- UNLESS THERE'S OTHER VIOLATIONS WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS YOU CAN GET A SECOND BITE OF THE APPLE TO COME BACK TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY PRESCRIPTIVE
REMEDY. >> IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT CUMULATIVE REMEDY AT THE END OF 101.
I ADMIT IT'S UNIQUE. IT'S NOT ILLEGAL WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS JUBL JEOPARDY IN CIVIL. I ADMIT IT'S UNIQUE.
>> IT'S NOT DOUBLE JEOPARDY. IT'S NOT A FINE FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. BUT THE QUESTION WHETHER WE'RE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO ASSESS A FINE FOR THE FAILURE TO PAY FINES.
THE OTHER THING YOU CITED SECTION 1-12; RIGHT?
>> RIGHT. AND THAT SEEMS FAIRLY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE CITY MAY DO TO PROSECUTE THE FAILURE PAY FINES.
I SAYS THAT. JUDICIAL REMEDIES IS THROUGH THE CIVIL ACTION. ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
DOESN'T SAY IN THERE THEY CAN COME TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND ASSESS THAT. THEN THE OTHER -- THE MORE PRAGMATIC QUESTION IS IF THEY DON'T PAY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FINE AND THERE'S A LIEN WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
>> IT'S A LIEN. >> BUT YOU'RE NOT PROSECUTING IN A COURT OF JURISDICTION TO GET THE 1,000 PLUS COSTS; RIGHT?
>> I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PART. >> IF YOU WENT TO A COURT JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ORDER, AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY YOU GET THE FINE PLUS INTEREST PLUS
COST; RIGHT? >> I JUST TOLD YOU THAT, THAT YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> BECAUSE OF THE INFIRMILITY OF THE PROCESS YOU SAY WE HAVE THE
AUTHORITY -- >> I THINK BECAUSE OF -- AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME THAT'S FINE.
I'M SAYING THAT UNDER THE -- WHERE IT EXPLAINS IN H-1 AND H-2 MANAGER AND JOINT ARE LIABLE.
IT TALKS ABOUT PAYING THE ENTIRE FINE.
>> YOU ALMOST HAD ME THERE. BUT THE WAY THE CASE IS FRAMED IT'S AGAINST THE SAME YOU DIDN'T SEPARATE THE MANAGER FROM LLC.
THE APPEAL HERE IS TO LLC. IT'S THE SAME PARTY.
[00:20:06]
>> RIGHT. >> IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT PARTY.
THIS JOINTLY LIABLE. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE SUING MRS. SMITH AND THEN YOU SUE HER HUSBAND SEPARATELY BECAUSE THEY ARE JOINTLY SEPARATE LIABLE. HERE YOU SUE THE SAME INSTITUTION UNDER THE SAME NAME FOR JOINT SEVERAL LIABILITY.
IF IT WAS ANOTHER HEADING COMPANY.
THAT WAS LIABLE. LIKE ABC HOLDING THAT WAS HOLDING COMPANY FOR LLC. LLC DIDN'T PAY THEN YOU COME AFTER ABC. IT'S I DON'T KNOW WHO JOINT AND SEVERABLE PARTS ARE. THEY ARE EACH LIABLE FOR PAYING
>> LIABLE FOR PAYING THE ENTIRE FINE.
AND 101-H-2 SAYS -- THIS WAY YOU GO ABOUT GETTING.
GO TO MAGISTRATE. MAGISTRATE ENFORCES THEN
ENFORCED IN THE COURT. >> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. >> THAT'S YOU DISAGREE WITH IT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> MY SHULTS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE PROPER AREA. HOW DO YOU FIND OUT WHEN SOMEONE SHORT-TERM RENTS. HOW ARE THEY APPROACHED AND WHO DECIDES? HOW DO YOU GET THESE PEOPLE'S NAME? IN MY AREA WE HAVE A LOT OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. WHO FINDS THAT OUT THAT THEY ARE
SHORT-TERM RENTALS. >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS.
YOU CAN DO INVESTIGATIONS WHERE YOU THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE GOES ONLINE AND LOOKS FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT AND ATTEMPTS TO RENT IT AND GETS YOU KNOW CREDIT CARD AND ALL THAT. WE DONE THAT BEFORE TOO.
IN THIS CASE THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE IN THAT LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF TOWNHOUSES COMPLAINED. SEVERAL OF THEM COMPLAINED.
TOOK PICTURES AND WE HAVE POLICE OFFICERS GO TO THE HOME IN THE EVENING AND TALK WITH ONE OF THE RENTERS WHO ADMITTED THEY WERE RENTING IT FOR THE WEEKEND. BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT FOR WHAT YOU ARE HERE. WE'RE NOT REHEARING THE CASE.
>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> SIR, ARE WE SITTING TO H-2? >> THE CHARGE IS VIOLATION OF JASMINE PLACE LLC SECTION 26-101-H.
THAT'S THE CHARGE. >> BUT H-22 PERTAIN TO PROCESS FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE FIRST VIOLATION.
IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION, WOULD POTENTIALLY COME TO US TO FIND UP TO THE MAXIMUM DAILY IN THE LIENS.
>> THIS IS ONLY ONE VIOLATION. THIS IS VIOLATION?
>> THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT. >> WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION.
IT'S 101-H-2 BASED ON THE VIOLATION MAY 7TH THROUGH JULY
2019. >> DO WE HAVE A COPY OF 101-H-2.
>> IS IT PART OF THIS? >> NO IT'S NOT.
I SIMILAR SYMPATHIZE FOR YOU. I KNOW YOU DO.
>> I ALMOST THOUGHT BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAID ABOUT JOINT RECEIVE RIL LIABILITY. I THOUGHT MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER
>> THAT'S INTERESTED IN THE PARTY.
YOU COULD SWITCH TO THAT. THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE.
SAME PARTY FOR THE SAME VIOLATION WITH STATUTE THAT WAS DRASTICALLY REDUCED TALKS ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO SECOND OFFENSE.
NOT THE FIRST ONE. AND -- I'M JUST UNCOMFORTABLE.
[00:25:01]
>> I TOLD YOU I THINK IT'S UNIQUE.
THEY HAVE A LIEN ON THEIR PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW. >> I'M CONCERNED WITH THEIR RIGHT I'M ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE AUTHORITY THAT THIS BOARD EXERCISES. AND LET'S LEE IT AT THAT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
RAISE MY HAND. >> BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY ON VOICE. OKAY.
I CAN'T SEE YOU. IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, I
WILL MAKE A MOTION. >> CONSIDER YOUR HAND RAISED.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 26-101-H. I MOVE THAT WE GIVE THE LLC TEN DAYS TO PAY THE FINE, PLUS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
ON THE 11TH DAY ASSESS 250 A DAY UNTIL THE FINE IS PAID IN FULL.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> NO SECOND.
>> SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION?
>> I WILL MAKE RETROACTIVE BACK TO JULY IF THAT WOULD MAKE
ANYONE ELSE HAPPY? >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN JULY 18TH
AMENDMENT. >> I WILL MAKE THE FINE RETROACTIVE UNTIL JULY 18TH IF THAT WOULD BE A BETTER MOTION
FOR SOMEBODY. >> THE GUY NOT GOING TO PAY HE'S HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES TO PAY. LET'S PUT A LITTLE HEAT ON HIM
TO GET IT PAID. >> I THINK THE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECALL ON THIS OR NOT?
>> THAT'S >> HE'S IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 26-101. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION YOU DID.
I COULDN'T HEAR EVERYTHING YOU WERE SAYING WITH THE MASKS.
BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IF -- FIRST OF ALL IN RESPONSE TO BUDDY. I'M WITH ADAM.
I'M NOT SURE THIS COULD BE ENFORCED THROUGH US.
JUST THE PAYMENT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDER.
I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. YOU GUYS WERE FURTHER ALONG THAN I WAS. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY NO ONE IS SECONDING THE MOTION. IN ADDITION TO THAT.
I COULDN'T HEAR EVERYTHING TAMMY AND ADAM WERE SAYING.
BUT I COULDN'T FOLLOW THE AUTHORITY HOW IT ENDS UP BACK TO US TO BE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ORDER.
MAYBE TAMMY CAN SAY THAT AGAIN SO I CAN FOLLOW.
MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IN 26-101 IT SAYS THAT -- I'M IN THERE.
TELL ME WHERE SUB-H, AS IN HAROLD, ONE AND TWO.
>> THE PART WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABLE --
>> FOR PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE FINE.
OKAY. HOW DOES GET BACK TO US?
>> I'M SAYING THEY DID NOT PAY THE ENTIRE FINE.
AND THAT'S A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES WHICH IS IN AND BECAUSE AT THE END IN 1-12 WHICH YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AND THE END OF 26-101 TALKS ABOUT CUMULATIVE REMEDY.
1-12 OF THE CODE SAID WE CAN USE ANY AND ALL REMEDIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US. THEY DIDN'T PAY THE ENTIRE FINE.
AND SO I THINK THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF 26-101.
>> LET ME SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.
BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING. TAMMY, YOU HAVE TO GET BEFORE US WITH A VIOLATION. RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. >> YOU'RE SAYING THE VIOLATION
THEY DIDN'T PAY THE TOTAL FINE. >> CORRECT.
>> THAT WAS ORDERED BY THE MAGISTRATE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS APPEALED TO HIM AND HE
UPHELD THE CITATION. >> RIGHT.
MICHELLE ISSUED THE CITATION. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.
HE DID. THE APPEAL WAS DENIED.
[00:30:02]
THAT WAS UPHELD. IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER ACTUAL FINE OR WHETHER THEY VIOLATED ANYTHING, HE WOULD APPEAL TO THAT CIRCUIT COURT; RIGHT? ISN'T THAT WHAT I WAS READING. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDER CAN BEAPPEALED TO CIRCUIT COURT. >> OKAY.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING. HE'S JUST IGNORING IT.
ARE THE ENTITIES IGNORING IT? WE TRY TO GET ENFORCEMENT.
I'M WITH YOU THERE. AND THEN IN ORDER TO COME BEFORE US TO DO ENFORCEMENT YOU HAD TO HAVE A HAVE A CODE VIOLATION.
>> RIGHT. >> AND YOUR CODE VIOLATION IS EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY THE FINE IN FULL.
>> RIGHT. >> BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE STATES THAT. MOST OF OUR ORDINANCES DON'T.
AND IF IT DIDN'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE I WOULDN'T BE
HERE. >> LET ME SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE IF YOU READ SUBSECTION 2 MI MIS-C -- MISS CROW.
>> 101-H AS YOU GET TO ONE YOU GO DOWN TO TWO "ENFORCEMENT
PENALTIES." >> LET ME GET OUT OF ONE THING.
THIS THE PROBLEM WITH ZOOM. YOU HAVE TO HAVE MULTIPLE DEVICES TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING. OKAY.
GO AHEAD. >> IF YOU ARE DOWN AT 2, WHERE IT SAY A FIRST VIOLATION OF THE --
>> YEAH. IF THEY ARE BEING NOISY -- IF THE TENANT BEING NOISY IN ADDITION TO NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT.
THE OTHER VIOLATION. >> THE WAY -- THE WAY I READ IT AND OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE.
THIS VIOLATION IS SPECIFIC TO THE RESORT RENTAL DWELLING PERMIT. THE RRDP.
THIS IS FIRST VIOLATION RRDP REQUIREMENTS NOT HAVING PERMIT WITHIN 12 MONTHS IS PUNISHABLE BY $1,000.
GOES TO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IF IT'S UPHOLD ENFORCIBLE IN OUR.
IF THERE'S SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION THEN IT GO TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. THIS IS FIRST VIOLATION IS SPECIFIC TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE; THE REST OF THE STATUTE TALKS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER VIOLATION.
THAT WHERE IT REFERENCES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PROCESS.
IT SEEMS TO ME AND SUGGEST THAT THERE'S NOT A REMEDY TO ENFORCE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S ORDER BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT OR IT HAS TO GO THROUGH MEDIATION OR ARBITRATION OR THROUGH SOME OTHER LEGAL PROCESS, WHAT THE STATUTE SETS FORTH IT'S ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURT UNDER SECTION 1-12.
IF THERE WAS A SECOND VIOLATION. THIS IS NOT A NEW VIOLATION TO THE CODE BOARD. IT'S AN EXISTING VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN FOUND FOR ALL WE KNOW. THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS GOING ON AT THE PROPERTY NOW. THERE'S NO SUGGESTION IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS STATEMENTS THAT THERE'S ANOTHER VIOLATION. WE'RE GOING BACK THE SAME VIOLATION MAY 7TH TO MAY 9TH. THERE'S A FINE ASSESSED.
I JUST SAY DO YOU HAVE THE POWER TO FINE SOMEBODY -- NOT FOR VIOLATION OF THE CODE, FINING THEM FOR NOT PAYING THE FINE WHEN THEY SAY SPECIFIC REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE CITY IN THE
COURTS. >> I WOULD AGREE THAT, THAT SECTION SAYS -- GIVES A REASON WHY THEY CAN COME BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. BUT I DON'T THINK IT SAYS THAT'S THE ONLY TIME YOU CAN COME BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD. >> I THINK IT DOES IN TERMS OF THE FIRST OFFENSE. IF THERE'S A VIOLATION, RIGHT? NOT HAVING VALID PERMIT. YOU CAN READ TOGETHER WITH 12-MONTH PERIOD SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY CITATION AND FINE OF 1,000. CITATIONS IS MADE TO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT OTHER OFFENSES DOWN BELOW. THAT OCCURRED WITHIN A 12-MONTH PERIOD THE CITY SHALL PROCEED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.
THE FIRST VIOLATION SEEMS VERY SPECIFIC IN THE WAY DRAFTING IS STRUCTURED. WHOEVER DRAFTED THIS THINGS IF THERE THERE WERE MORE CODE VIOLATION IT COMES TO THE BOARD.
>> BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MORE VIOLATIONS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FIRST VIOLATION. NO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
[00:35:02]
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FIRST VIOLATION.FIRST VIOLATION HAS BEEN ENFORCED.
AND A FINE ASSESSED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ASSESS AN ADDITIONAL FINE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY THE FINE. NOT BECAUSE THERE'S A VIOLATION
OF THE CODE. >> WELL, I THINK THE WAY YOU SAY WHEN YOU UFINE TWICE IN THE SAME SENTENCE IT REALLY MAKES US WANT
TO BELIEVE YOU ADAM. >> YOU'RE BEING TRICKY THERE.
I THINK -- LET ME SAY THIS. THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. TO ASSESS AN ADDITIONAL FINE.
IT SAYS RIGHT THERE IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> I THINK THIS WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD TIME FOR VALERIE TO
TELL US WHAT SHE THINKS. >> I HAVE SOME -- I HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF TIME TO REVIEW THIS. I DO THINK THAT IT DOES SAY "IF MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION OR ANY OTHER CITY CODE -- I'M READING FROM PARAGRAPH 2 UNDER H.
-- IF ANY OTHER CITY CODE PROVISION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NOISE OUTDOOR LIGHTING DURING TURTLE NECESSARY NESTING SEASON. ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
THEN THE RESORT RENTAL DWELLING PROPERTY THE OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE VIOLATION AND THE CITY SHALL PROCEED TO VIOLATE THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD PROCESS AS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 2. IF THEY FIND A VIOLATION.
DOESN'T SAY A SECOND VIOLATION. FIND VIOLATION OF ANY THINGS.
IT COULD BE NOISE, OUTDOOR LIGHTING.
ARGUABLY MAYBE IT COULD BE DIDN'T PAY A FINE.
BUT ASSESSED LEGALLY BY THE CITY.
AND I THINK IT'S OF REACH TO THAT INTERPRETATION BUT I DO THINK IN THIS LANGUAGE THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO BE EXPANSIVE.
IF MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, YOU KNOW IF IT'S A SECOND VIOLATION, THEN THEY CAN DO THE 250 BUT ALSO INCLUDING YOU KNOW ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN.
OR ANY OTHER CITY CODE. AND MAYBE IT IS -- MAYBE THE I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THE SECOND VIOLATION THE MODIFYING ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
IT IS SAYING WHERE IN I CITY CODE PROVISIONS SO.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE MISS BACH COMES INTO IT.
I UNDERSTAND -- I THINK SHE'S FOUND PRESS AGAINST WHERE OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE THAT. I DO THINK IT'S A REACH.
I DO THINK THAT I COULD SEE AND RESPECT THE BOARD FOR MAKING A DECISION THAT REACHING IN THIS MANNER IS PERHAPS COULD BE INTERPRETED BY SOME PEOPLE AS EXCEEDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD AND YOU KNOW WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESPONSANT HAVING YOU KNOW A GOOD LEGAL ARGUMENT ON THEIR SIDE TO TRY TO REVERSE THIS. YOU KNOW I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT. I THINK THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION THAT MR. KAUFFMAN HAS STATED.
I HAVE RESPECT FOR THAT. I ALSO HAVE RESPECT FOR TAMMY TRYING TO EXPAND THE LANGUAGE TO BE ABLE TO INCLUDE THIS AS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME KIND OF CONSEQUENCE WITHOUT THE DIFFICULT AND EXPENSE OF GOING
TO GOING TO COURT OVER IT. >> I KNOW THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T HELP YOU MAKE A FIRM DECISION. BUT YOU KNOW IT JUST I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SEE IN THE SITUATION.
IT JUST DEPENDS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO TAKE THE MORE CONSERVATIVE ROUTE OR THE MORE EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION LIKE MISS BACH. YOU KNOW, IN SOME SENSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S MAYBE SAFETY AND DOING WHAT REALLY MR. SPEAKER KAUFFMAN IS RECOMMENDING TO GO TO COURT, TO ENFORCE IT.
THAT MIGHT BE SAFER I THINK FOR THE CITY.
>> FOR THE BOARD. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.
TELL ME, AGAIN WHAT THE OTHER OPTION IS.
WHAT MISS BACH'S OTHER OPTION? >> MISS BACH OPTION.
[00:40:05]
JUMP IN MISSTAYED. FINE THE FINE.IF THE FINE NOT PAID. PROCEED WITH A LIEN.
IT'S A FINE FOR A FINE AND IF THE SECOND FINE IS NOT PAID, THEN A LIEN WOULD BE ASSESSED IN 30 DAYS OR 32 DAY.
>> THROUGH THIS BOARD? >> THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION
HERE. >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S CINDY'S
QUESTION. >> THE OTHER OPTION IS TO GO TO
COURT. >> THE OTHER OPTION THE GO TO - COURT. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN STATUTE.
>> YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT TAMMY BECAUSE IT'S SMALL CLAIMS AND REQUIRE MEDIATION AND YOU WILL START IN INSIDE L THERE.
>> I'M SAYING THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY THAT IT'S WORDED THE WAY OUR CODE IS WORDED. THE WAY THAT FLORIDA LAW REACTS TO AND GIVES AUTHORITY TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.
THE WAY THAT OUR CODE IS WRITTEN.
THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD TO HEAR THIS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE UNLIKE SOME OF OUR OTHER ORDINANCES THAT DON'T TALK ABOUT PAYING THE FINE ITSELF. BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. ALL THINK I -- I THINK IT'S A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT'S RESPONSIBILITY OF THERE'S.
THEY BREACHED THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY THE ENTIRE FINE WHICHES UPHELD BY THE MAGISTRATE.
>> THEN THE SECOND VIOLATION. >> IS IT A SECOND VIOLATION?
>> I DON'T -- I THINK THAT'S AN ARGUMENT.
>> YOU THINK WHAT? >> NICOLE ASKED IS THAT THEN A SECOND VIOLATION? AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE SECTION WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT BASICALLY STEP TWO YOU CAN GO TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. I DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY.
THAT WASN'T MY INTENT. >> MAYBE IT HELPS IF GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY.
>> CAN I ASK QUESTION OF THE CITY.
>> GO AHEAD. >> LET ME SEE IF I ASK THIS IN RIGHT MANNER. WHEN IS THE VIOLATION SATISFIED?
>> WHEN THERE'S NO MORE ACTION. OR AFTER ALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
AND FINES ARE PAID? >> THE WAY -- THE WAY I SEE THIS IN THIS CASE OWNER HAD NOT SATISFIED THE VIOLATION UNTIL THE FEES ARE PAID. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IS THAT THE CASE FOR EVERYBODY VIOLATION THAT COMES
BEFORE US? >> THAT'S THE CASE WITH EVERY VIOLATION THAT COMES BEFORE US UNTIL THEY PAY THE FINE, THEY CAN'T TO BE IN VIOLATION. THE ACTUAL FIRST REASON THEY COME HERE MAY HAVE BEEN CORRECT D.
BUT IF THEY DON'T PAY THE FINE. THE FINES CAN'T TO GO UP.
HE'S STILL IN VIOLATION AT THIS POINT.
AND I AGREE WITH YOU. THAT'S ONE VIOLATION.
THE VIOLATION THAT IS FOUND MAY 7TH TO MAY 9TH.
THAT'S THE VIOLATION. IF YOU READ THE ORDER IT'S ESSENTIALLY IN THE RECOMMENDATION IT'S ASSESSING FINE FOR NOT PAYING THE FINE. IT'S NOT A NEW VIOLATION.
>> HE HAS NOT MADE AN EFFORT TO PAY THE FINE IN THREE MONTHS?
>> YES. >> WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE HIM PAY THE FINE? OBVIOUSLY HE'S NOT GOING TO PAY RIGHT NOW. WHY DON'T WE UP THE FINES UNTIL WE GET HIS ATTENTION. BECAUSE YOU HAVE ORDER TO MAGISTRATE TO ASSESS THE FAN CONSISTENT WITH STATUTE.
MAGISTRATE'S ORDER IS SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION IN THE COURT SYSTEM. WHETHER IT'S SMALL CLAIMS OR
ANYTHING ELSE. >> BECAUSE THE I DIDN'T COME BEFORE US. I CAME BEFORE HARRISON AND HE
MADE A DETERMINATION. >> CORRECT.
>> THAT PART HAD BEEN DECIDED. >> HE'S VIOLATION OF THE ORDER
FROM THE MAGISTRATE; RIGHT? >> RIGHT.
>> DID MAGISTRATE GIVE HIM 30 DAYS TO PAY?
I'M LOOKING AT THE ORDER. >> YEAH.
[00:45:01]
IT'S HERE. 1,000.ATTORNEYS FEES. PAYABLE NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS OF THE ORDER WHICH IS WHY THE STAFF REPORT REFERENCES JULY 18TH.
>> MAY I MR. CHAIR? >> GO AHEAD.
>> IF MR. SMITH HAD NOT APPEALED HIS ORDER TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AT ALL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE FINE AND APPROPRIATE TO CITE HIM FOR THAT, I WOULD HAVE STILL COME HERE TO APPEAL IT IF HE DIDN'T PAY.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT THIS AN APPEAL OF SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ORDER. I LOOK AS FAILURE TO PAY THE
FINE. >> FAILURE TO PAY A FINE VIOLATION OR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE ENFORCEMENT?
>> I THINK IT'S A VIOLATION. BECAUSE OF HOW THIS ORDINANCE READS. THAT YOU MUST PAY THE ENTIRE FINE. YOU LIABLE FOR THE ENTIRE FINE.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION.
>> MR. SMITH IS NOT PRESENT. >> HE HAS AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM. WHO ENFORCES THAT JUDGMENT?
>> THE CITY. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.
>> IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE THE
ORDER. >> CAN WE CUT THE POWER OFF?
>> IT'S A SELF-HELP REMEDY. >> IT'S NOT A BUILDING CODE THING. BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING I THINK -- MY MOTION IS STILL OUT THERE.
>> ANYONE WILLING TO SECOND THE MOTION AT THIS POINT?
>> NO SECOND. WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD? I THINK THE QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING WITH WHAT 26-101-H-1 WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE TAMMY'S. I THINK WE GOT A MOTION OUT
THERE'S NOBODY SECONDED IT. >> RIGHT.
THE MOTION FAILS. THIS COULD BE SPECIFIC ABOUT IN AN EXCHANGE THAT SCOTT AND I ASK WHAT VIOLATION.
VIOLATION WAS 26-101-H-2. WHICH IS THE FIRST VIOLATION FOR THE RESORT RENTAL PROPERTY. IT'S NOT A ONE.
IS ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE?
>> THEN IT'S A QUESTION OF OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE -- IF ONE OR MORE VIOLATIONS. AND IF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FINE
THEY CAN BE CHARGED. >> THE QUESTION IS FAILURE OF
PAY FINE VIOLATION OF CODE? >> CITY ATTORNEY, CAN WE GET -- I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.
LIKE IS IT OR IS IT NOT? WOULD ANYTHING CHANGE IF
ANYTHING WAS REPRESENTED TO US. >> I THINK VALERIE HAS GIVEN US
ENOUGH ON THIS. >> ALL I'M SAYING IS I'M JUST SIMPLE COUNTRY LAWYER FROM UPSTATE NEW YORK.
I'M LOOKING AT THE STATUTE. THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT.
PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE WITH ME. BUT THAT'S IT.
>> IS THERE ANY MOTION? TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE?
>> NO ONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION.
NO ONE WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE HEARING.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN TO ME.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN.
[00:50:01]
WILL THE CLERICAL THE ROLL.>> IS THAT A NO? >> THAT'S A NO.
WAS TAKEN ON THIS CASE. >> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION.
[INAUDIBLE] I WAS TOLD IF -- [INAUDIBLE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.