Loading...
Item Q4BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date:January 16, 2013Division:County Attorney Bulk Item: Yes xNo __Department:County Attorney Staff Contact Person: Derek Howardx3470 __________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to make or accept a settlement offer in Keegan v. Monroe County and State of Florida, 9-CA-893P. ITEM BACKGROUND: Christine Keegan filed suit against MonroeCounty and the State of Florida in 2009. Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint seeks compensation for an alleged regulatory taking claim pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a) of the Florida Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution based on the application of the Monroe County Rate-of-Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and other land development regulations. Count II seeks compensation for an alleged unconstitutional development exaction based on the open-space (non-clearing) requirements under the County’s Tier System.The State of Florida maintains that it was never properly served by Plaintiff, and has taken no action in the litigation to date. Plaintiff voluntarily aggregated her subject two lots and applied for a ROGO allocation on January 13, 2004 to build one single-family homeon the subject property (Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Angler’s Park). After four (4) years in the ROGO queue, Plaintiff applied for administrative relief under former Sec. 9.5-122.3. Plaintiff was granted administrative relief in the form of an offer to purchase by Resolution No. 180-2008. Plaintiff did not accept an offer to purchase and so her application remained in the ROGO queue. Plaintiff did not pull her application from ROGO when she filed her suitin 2009,which alleges Plaintiff has been denied her “all or substantially all reasonable economic use of the subject [property].” Therefore, as of the 2009 date Plaintiff filed her action, her ROGO application remained active in the queue along with other applications competing for a ROGO allocation.On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff was awarded a ROGO allocation.Plaintiff asked the County to toll her allocation because it was on the FEMA injunction list. Monroe County continues to toll Plaintiff’s allocation. Based in substantial part on the awarding of the allocation after Plaintiff filed suit, Monroe County filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2012. That motion is currently set for hearing before Judge Garcia on January 18, 2013. On December 28, 2012, the County served a motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees to Monroe County against Plaintiff and her attorney for raising unsupported claims subjecting them to the sanctions provided in § 57.105, Fla. Stat. Plaintiff’s counsel communicated that Plaintiff may be willing to settle her suit if Monroe County pays her court costs and attorney’s fees that are estimated to be $1,600. This amount is substantially less than what the County’s actual cost of litigating the case to closure would be, even if the County were to prevail on itspendingmotion for summary judgment. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:None . CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:Grant authorization to make or accept a settlement offer in Keegan v. Monroe County & Stateof Florida. TOTAL COST:Approximately $1,600.00BUDGETED:xx Yes __No COST TO COUNTY:Approximately $1,600.00SOURCE OF FUNDS:N/A REVENUE PRODUCING:xxAMOUNT PER MONTHN/AYear N/A Yes No APPROVED BY:xx County AttyOMB/Purchasing Risk Management ____ DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Robert Shillinger, County Attorney DOCUMENTATION:TO FOLLOW__xx__ Included Not Required_____ DISPOSITION:AGENDAITEM #