Laserfiche WebLink
Boa 97 PAGE 453 <br />administrative hearing had become a battle of the experts and was <br />very complicated. Also, it was the first time that particular -rule <br />was litigated, so there was no precedent. He summarized the <br />credentials and testimony of the numerous expert witnesses. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked how broad a field could be pursued <br />if they decided to seek recovery of the attorney fees, and Mr. <br />Hennessey pointed out that it was clear that Indian River County <br />had incurred significant costs and significant delays. He felt <br />causes of action may exist for tortious interference with <br />contractual and business relationships, civil conspiracy, fraud, <br />and at least one instance of a breach of contract. <br />County Attorney Vitunac asked if Mr. Lewis recommended that we <br />pursue the attorney fee issue and whether there would be additional <br />costs to the County. <br />Mr. Lewis advised that it would take some legal research to <br />look at potential causes of action and the most current case law. <br />He estimated another $5,000 to analyze the various causes of <br />action. He was curious about the civil conspiracy theory because <br />of the patenting nature of property in this project which might be <br />worth investigating. He suggested it would be prudent to analyze <br />the matter, consult with County Attorney Vitunac privately, and <br />then meet in legal session with the Commissioners. <br />Commissioner Bird thought there must have been some case law, <br />and Mr. Hennessey advised that there is a great deal of case law <br />regarding public participation suits and protection in being able <br />to pursue an administrative hearing when dealing with a public <br />entity. In this case, however, an individual who had contracted <br />with the County to assist the County in providing a solution for <br />protecting its beaches and shores had brought this action. It is <br />a different scenario and goes beyond public-spirited participation <br />in an administrative hearing. <br />Mr. Hennessey advised they will be investigating matters which <br />go beyond the administrative hearing itself, matters that were <br />involved in the permitting process. That is the issue of concern <br />raised by staff and which was raised in part at the administrative <br />hearing. <br />Commissioner Macht thought there was written evidence of, at <br />best, an unethical relationship between one of the appellants and <br />the authorities in Tallahassee. <br />Mr. Hennessey advised that the Board may also consider a <br />complaint, even if they do not consider a lawsuit, since engineers <br />are governed by the state and by their own organizations. <br />29 <br />March 5, 1996 <br />