By Michael Howell
After over a year and a half of discussions, delays, and negotiations between the Ravalli County Board of Health and Florence property owners Tim and Elaine Burt over alleged sanitation violations on their rental property on Long Avenue, a tentative settlement agreement that was finally worked out last month was rejected at the last minute by the Burts because it required them to admit having violated the Ravalli County sanitation regulations. The Burts’ attorney claimed that no admission of guilt was mentioned in the discussions that led up to the prepared settlement requirements. She called the admission of guilt a “deal breaker” that was added at the last moment without consulting them.
The Department of Environmental Services first started working with the Burts over what it considered sanitation violations on the property in March of 2015. After over a year of sporadic meetings and delays, a letter demanding compliance was sent to the Burts in April 2016. Another five months would pass before a tentative settlement was reached in August that included a list of requirements about the property, including number of inhabitable buildings and on-site inspection procedures as well as an $8,400 fine. The fines, calculated at $200 per day for every day in violation, initially totaled $24,000.
Then it was suggested that, since one delay had to do with a meeting that the commissioners cancelled, the fine could be figured from April 7, 2016 through July 7, 2016, which would be 13 weeks and equate to $18,200.
County Commissioner Jeff Burrows, who serves as chairman on the Health Board, thought that was still too steep and suggested that a fine based on a period from April 7, 2016 to the date that the Burts’ current attorney, Rachel Parkin, contacted him on May 18, 2016, seemed reasonable, which would total $8,400.
Despite some opposition from a couple of members, the board did come to consensus on the $8,400 figure.
When the Burts’ attorney called the first line of the settlement agreement a “deal breaker,” at the last meeting, Commissioner Burrows said, “Admitting something is wrong is fundamental to the agreement. If there’s no guilt, then why are they agreeing to pay a fine?”
The Burts’ attorney said that standard language in settlement agreements was that there was no admission of guilt and her clients were not willing to do that. Asked why, she said that it would be a public document and prospective purchasers will look at it. The Burts have the property for sale.
No one on the Board of Health was willing to change the admission of guilt language or leave it out.
Deputy County Attorney Dan Browder told the board that their only other option was litigation. He said if they chose litigation it would include asking the judge for a preliminary injunction prohibiting any occupancy on the property until a ruling was issued. He said he anticipated that a judge would grant the request. The Burts’ attorney disagreed.
“We’ve kind of drawn a line in the sand and you’ve kind of drawn a line in the sand,” said Burrows. “We’ll give you a minute to discuss it with your clients if you want.”
After a short recess in which the Burts convened in private with their attorney, they returned to say the deal was off, if the board would not delete the admission of guilt.
The board refused and voted unanimously to request the county attorney to pursue litigation in the matter.