Loading...
EAC Minutes 02/05/2003 RFebruary 5, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAPLES FL February 5, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00AM in regular session in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Naples FL, with the following members present: Members: Thomas Sansbury Michael G. Coe Erica Lynne Alexandra Santoro Michael Sorrell John Dowd Ken Humiston (arrived at 9:10 AM) Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barb Burgeson, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White, Stephen Lenberger, Ray Bellows Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA February 5, 2003 9:00 A.M. Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") -Third Floor Maureen Kenyon Minutes & Records II. III. IV. Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of January 8, 2003 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions Aa Special Treatment Permit No. ST-2002-AR-3457 "Half Circle "L" Ranch" Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26 & 27 Township 46 South, Range 30 East Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3161 "Naples Botanical Garden PUD" Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East V. Old Business: VI. New Business: Hazardous Waste In Cemeteries (Coe) Implementation Activities for the GMP Amendments (Staff) VII. Council Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Environmental Services Department Administrative Assistant no later than 5:00 p.m. on January~ 31 2003 if you cannot attend this meetinq or if you have a conflict and will abstain from votinq on a petition (732-2505). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. February 5, 2003 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Government Complex, Building "F" 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 9:00AM Minutes February 5, 2003 Chairman Thomas Sansbury called the meeting to order at 9:00am. Attendance: Members: Thomas Sansbury, Michael G. Coe, Erica Lynne, Alexandra Santoro, John Dowd, Michael Sorrell, Ken Humiston -Ed Carlson had an excused absence. Collier County: Bill Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Stephen Lenberger, Stan Chrzanowski, Patrick White, Ray Bellows II. Approval of Agenda -Barbara Burgeson added an item titled Current Events. III. Approval of Minutes -Alexandra Santoro moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 2003. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. III. Land Use Petitions A) Special Treatment Petition No. ST-2002-AR-3457 "Half Circle "L" Ranch" Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, & 27 Township 46, Range 30 East -There were no ex parte disclosures. -Mr. White swore in all those who would be testifying. Page 2 February 5, 2003 -Mr. Lenberger, Environmental Services Department, reviewed the facts in the petition. It was a special treatment petition. A visualizer was to show that the property covered about 8 sections of land and was located about 5 miles East of Immokalee. A zoning map was used to show that one of the subject properties were zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay and located in Big Cypress. An aerial was shown to display the sections of land. Some of the properties were currently in agricultural zoning with row crops and pasturelands. The remainder of the property was wooded with different kinds of habitats. A flux map was used to show improved pasture, row crop activity, marsh and cypress habitats. There is quite a bit of pine and cypress in the area. The applicant wanted to harvest the pine and cypress in a long-term sustainable basis. The applicant requested to harvest the lumber on site and leave seed trees. The applicant decided not to clear cut areas but leave the seed trees for regeneration. Best management practices by the state will be adopted. Listed species that were known to be on the property are wood stork, Florida Panther, American Alligator, and one bird rookery was identified in a cypress area on the west side of the property. They requested technical assistance from the wildlife agencies. The agencies recommended a buffer zone around the rookeries and the wood stork colonies. The distance recommended is 2,000 feet. Black Bears are also believed to occur on the site. The agencies believe that without clear cutting and the leaving of seed trees there will be little impact on the black bears and panthers. The agencies recommended to the Foreman of the logging crew, that he inspect harvestable trees for evidence of RCW's and Fox Squirrels. If found, they are to be reported. -Mr. Sansbury believed that his employer may own property adjacent to the site. He abstained from voting on the matter and filled out the appropriate form. -Michael Ramsey, environmental consultant, stated that they were proposing to continue an existing site of forestry management. The site had been practicing for the last 40-50 years. -Mr. Coe asked what would happen if a RCW site was found. Mr. Ramsey stated that the crews were trained on what to look for when reviewing the site for the indicator. They would then contact the consultant and move to another site. Mr. Cutchall added that operations would be halted immediately. He explained that if evidence was found the buffer would be 1/4 mile around the site. -Mr. Coe made a motion to approve. It was seconded by Mr. Sorrell. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. (Mr. Sansbury abstained from voting). Page 3 February 5, 2003 B) Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ-2002-AR-3161 "Naples Botanical Garden PUD" Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East -Ex Parte Disclosures: -Mr. Sansbury stated that his employer has no financial interest in this petition. His employer serves on the board for the Naples Botanical Gardens. Mr. Sansbury has worked with the staff of Naples Botanical Garden and advised them on matters concerning the gardens. His staff has advised them as well. He added that he did not believe there was any benefit to himself or his employer. -Erica Lynne stated that she belonged to two groups, Collier County Fruit Growers and The Native Plant Society. The groups have heard presentations on the gardens and Erica Lynne added that she has had casual conversations on the matter. -Mr. White suggested that Mr. Sansbury should abstain from voting due to an "appearance of conflict". Mr. Sansbury concurred, abstained from voting, and filled out the appropriate form. -Mr. White swore in all those testifying. -Ray Bellows, Chief Planner with the Planning Department, discussed the petition. He stated the petition was a request for a rezone of 171 acres. The applicant was proposing the Naples Botanical Gardens, which would consist of conservancies, educational centers, exhibit gallery, nurseries, and a theater. The visualizer was used to show that the site was located on the west comer of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson. The Bayshore drive overlay allows for mixed uses. On the future land use map the site is located on the urban coastal area and the Bayshore Drive overlay. This district allows for conservancies and other mixed uses of a similar nature, along with residential units with a density of 3 units per acre. The project is consistent with this. Currently there is an existing shopping center that would be incorporated into this project. The access points and overflow parking points were located on the maps. -Mr. Lenberger, Environmental Services, stated that the subject property was -171 acres. It has a mixture of vegetative communities including disturbed areas. A map was used to show the disturbed portion of the property, marsh areas, cypress areas, oak scrub areas, and Gopher Tortoise burrows. An aerial was used to locate the same areas. The property has -79 acres of wetlands; -46% of the site. The project will impact -33 acres of wetlands. Mitigation for the impact will be upland compensation along the perimeters of the wetlands being retained, as well as the interior including some uplands, and enhancement to the preserve area. The scrub areas, pine Flatwoods, and gopher tortoise areas will be retained on site. There was an eagle nest on site, but in 1992 the nest fell out of a tree. Now the closest known active nest is about a ½ mile south of the first site on the southwest end of the property. There are 132 active gopher tortoise burrows and 92 inactive on site. None are proposed to be relocated but will be incorporated into the gardens and preserve areas. Wood storks and herons will be able to Page 4 IV. Vo February 5, 2003 continue utilizing the site. The petitioner provided an exhibit to show how the site connects to neighboring properties. -Alexandra Santoro asked if the lakes would incorporate a lot of the wetland wildlife that would be impacted from the wetland impacts. Mr. Lenberger stated that there are minimum requirements. Robert Duane, on behalf of the applicant, stated that they would substantially succeed the minimum LDC requirements. -Alexandra Santoro made a motion for approval. It was seconded by Mr. Coe. -Mr. Sorrell asked for clarification on the archeological survey. Mr. Hall, Terrell and Associates, stated that they had an outside consultant do a phase 1 survey. They found out there was a burial site on the SW end of the property. They tested the four target areas and found two potential sites, both were in areas of preserve that were being proposed to be left as native. They are trying to incorporate the northern site into the educational program. There was a recommendation to leave a 100-foot buffer around the sites once they determine the size. He explained that they are not proposing to change or alter the sites, and they want to use one of the sites for educational purposes. -The motion was recalled. All were in favor; the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. (Mr. Sansbury abstained from voting). -Tom Berger, Vice President of Naples Botanical Gardens, provided some information on the proposed project. They believe this garden will attract visitors. They have received grants from the state of Florida and the TDC, which have allowed them to do what they have so far and do significant site preparation. They are currently in the permitting and zoning process, on tract the approvals should be in by the end of the year and they would be able to start construction in early 2004. They are involving groups in the county for support. -Mr. Coe suggested that they approach girls and boy scouts. Mr. Berger stated that was a good suggestion. They have been in contact with the boys and girls club to see if a partnership was possible and discuss what they had to offer to the program. -Mr. Sorrell asked how many visitors they believe they will have on an annual basis. Mr. Berger stated they estimate 180,000 people annually, the same as the zoo. They hope this number would be achieved in 3 years. Old Business -There was no old business to discuss. New Business A) Hazardous Waste in Cemeteries -Barbara Burgeson informed the committee that they had contacted other staff members to see if there were any additional environmental issues that anyone was aware of. They contacted the pollution control department and several staff members that were familiar with the project. They were not aware of any new Page 5 VI. February 5, 2003 environmental issues or concerns. Ray Smith was to be present if there were any concerns. Barbara Burgeson stated that since he was not there, she believed he saw no concerns or new information for them to discuss. -Mr. Coe asked if there were any wells near that cemetery project. Stan Chrzanowski stated that there were no county or city well fields near the site. Mr. Coe asked if they began putting bodies into the ground. Mr. Bellows replied that the PUD and site plan were approved. The approval required the owner to do water monitoring of the wells, to test for formaldehyde and other chemicals used in the process. The first water monitoring report had been done. They have begun putting bodies into the ground. B) Implementation Activities for the GMP Amendments -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, provided the committee with an update on where they are in the GMP amendment implementation. He stated that Carlton Fields was hired as a consultant for the implementation. Other planning and legal consultants will be hired as needed. They hope that in late February the contractual services will be ready. The administrative hearing on the rural fringe challenge has been concluded. They expect a final order by April or May. If a favorable resolution is attained, then the rural fringe amendments will be effective shortly thereafter. If the decision is unfavorable, then the schedule will be changed. The eastern lands is currently in effect, there were no challenges. There are two efforts in the eastern lands implementation, the stewardship credit program and the stewardship receiving areas. They hope that the details will be worked out and the stewardship credit program will be implemented in the LDC amendments by the first cycle. They also are planning to work out the masterplan details and expect to incorporate the stewardship receiving areas in the last amendment cycle of this year. There has been discussion about having three cycles this year for the LDC amendments. The countywide LDC amendments are currently in effect. The rural fringe, subject to the challenge, would not be completed until January of 2004. They may have more time from a scheduling standpoint depending on when the judgment on the challenge is rendered. There are a number of other details that staff will be working on as part of the rural fringe amendments, that staff has put on hold due to the challenge. Current Events A) NGALA -Barbara Burgeson provided a handout that listed what is not permitted on any parcel that would potentially become a sending area. This was not site specific and was subject to the final order due to the challenge of the rural fringe. She did not comment on the possible conditional uses that may be applied for since the application had not yet been submitted. When it comes in, it will be reviewed under the allowable final order conditional uses, and at whatever time in the future that the administrative heating comes to conclusion, then they may need to review. -Mr. Coe asked when the first deadline was for NGALA to submit their application. Barbara Burgeson stated that she believed it was sometime in late September. She knew of two dates that they had extended for deadlines. Mr. Coe Page 6 February 5, 2003 stated that he believed that deadlines were missed at least by 60 days. He wanted to know at what point code enforcement would become involved. Barbara Burgeson stated that she is not familiar with the three items that were not environmental code enforcement cases, but the case that was on environmental issues had an extension date of November 30, and beyond that she was unaware of any other extensions. Mr. Coe asked if they had a public hearing with the county staff and why it was considered insufficient. Barbara Burgeson stated that it did take place but Mr. Coe would need to ask the planner. She believed it was insufficient due to some kind of error in advertising. -Mr. Coe proposed that staff be asked to write up stiff regulations to ensure that something like this cannot happen again. His concern is that this has been delayed so much that it can't go before code enforcement until March. Mr. White stated that the code enforcement board will be hearing this case at the end of the month. He also gave the committee information on recent cases of selective non- enforcement of particular provisions, in respect to the recent sign workshop. He explained that there is no means by which staff can be compelled to, in particular, prosecute one type of violation, one regulation, or series of regulations as opposed to another. This discretion is left to the chief executive officer of the local government. He urged the committee to consider that there really is no way that they can compel local government to enforce a particular regulation. His concern was that if staff was directed to perform a duty in this manner, then their chain of command would be challenged and a sensitive area would be upset. He cautioned that this request would upset the chain of command and the discretion of the county managers office would be challenged. -Mr. Coe asked if it was correct that Joe Schmitt did not have the authority to shut down an operation that is doing something against the regulations of the LDC. Mr. White replied that absent an extreme public health safety and welfare danger or life hazard, he believed it would be an improper exercise of the procedures that allow the county manager that type of enforcement. He has recommended to officials that have sought to take this kind of action, that whenever possible allow it to go through the courts. He added that in this case they haven't seen anything that rose to the level of public danger, if there had been then those actions to go to the courts would have taken place. Mr. Sansbury informed Mr. Coe that this was going through the process and although it may not be moving as fast as they would like it to, it still has to go through the process. He did not believe they could tell staff to do anything other than let this go through the process and express their feelings on the matter. -Mr. Coe stated that his point was to have staff draft something to properly support the LDC amendments. Mr. Sansbury pointed out that Mr. White was saying that he doesn't believe this is something that can be done. Mr. Sansbury did not agree that staff should be working on this. -Alexandra Santoro stated that she would like information on the status, especially from the code enforcement officers. She also stated that she wanted research on exactly what the process is for the county to enforce and all the various alternatives. Mr. Sansbury agreed that this was a good request and felt it would be very informative. Barbara Burgeson stated that she would place a presentation Page 7 February 5, 2003 on this for the April meeting since March was a full agenda. Mr. White added that he would be willing to work with staff to provide information on the regulatory fabric of the LDC, violations, and statutes. Barbara Burgeson and Mr. White agreed to get the information together in a packet for discussion at the April meeting. B) Conservation Collier Program -Barbara Burgeson stated that there were 54 applicants submitted for the nine positions. This will be on the BCC agenda in February. They expect the project to have a county staff person from the environmental division by the end of March. They expect that board to meet in April or March. She will update monthly on this item. Staff is currently drafting a letter. Staff has begun a process to determine which parcels in the Collier county urban area have greater than 50% vegetative cover. They have chosen to initially identify the parcels that are 50% and larger; 28 parcels. Staff will be sending a letter to the owner of these properties informing them that the county may be interested in purchasing the parcel and requesting them to contact the county if they are interested in selling. Mr. Lorenz corrected Barbara Burgeson and stated that in the urban area they are locating parcels with 10 acres or greater with vegetative groundcover. -Mr. Sorrell asked if it was willing seller only or eminent domain. Mr. Lorenz stated that it would be willing seller only. Barbara Burgeson stated that it went into the ordinance as willing seller only so that they could not proceed in any other manner in the future. C) Jesse Harding Case -Mr. Sorrell asked for details on the Jesse Harding case and the spending of money from the roads. Mr. Lorenz stated that the county manager established a task team with the transportation services staff to evaluate the situation. This task force will be able to provide more information on the situation in the future. -Mr. Coe gave a brief description of the case. He stated that Jesse Harding was a long-term residence and originally wanted to mine the area for dirt. This was against what he was permitted to do on the land. He then hired someone to come in and change his plan. The new plan was to put in five commercial fishing ponds. The EAC approved this predicated upon the county checking on it after a five-year period to make sure that the operation was a fish farm and not a mining operation. He understood that the county was now using the dirt from this operation and asked if anyone from the county has gone out to see if there is a chance of having a commercial fishing operation. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that his did not believe that an inspector had gone out in the last few months. He added that they spoke with Jesse Harding and he came in to renew his bond. Mr. Harding is only allowed to do one lake at a time and then it must be fished before he can start another lake, therefore there is no chance that he can do all 5 lakes at once. -Mr. Sorrel stated that he was a member of the division of forestry and he went to this site about 4-5 days ago, to see if they could camp on the site. He informed the committee that the lake that was initially built and is closest to Mr. Harding's house is currently stocked. This lake was originally on the site, but Mr. Harding Page 8 February 5, 2003 enlarged it. The lake that Mr. Harding is currently working on is 5-6 acres. Mr. Sorrell reported that Mr. Harding expressed intentions to complete the project and donate the land to the county with his name on it. -Mr. Chrzanowski noted that they have had people out to inspect the land in the past, nothing unusual was reported. Mr. Chrzanowski stated that he has been invited out to the site and he will go before the next meeting and report back. Mr. Coe expressed an interest in going with him. D)-County wide environmental codes and policies -Barbara Burgeson stated that copies of the new codes and policies would be mailed to the EAC for review. She urged them to contact staff with any questions. E) Eagle's Nests -Barbara Burgeson reminded the committee that they had reviewed the Audubon eagle as a part of a plat with a required PIS. They have an eagle management plan that identified at the original site of the eagle's nest. The eagle has since moved closer to where the building of home sites was to take place. The bald eagle management plan for this site is now undergoing amendments. They are requesting an exception to the 750-foot primary zone. Staff is expecting a response from Fish and Wildlife in the next week. She added that staff would not make an exception to the 750-foot primary zone without the federal agency doing so first and putting it in writing. Staff would also review it exception, if granted, to see if there were any modifications to be made. Staff does not expect the federal agency to make an exception. -Barbara Burgeson then discussed the Cocahatchee Eagle. She explained that this also went through review of this board a few years ago. The applicant is submitting a request through the army corps permit modification to remove the nest in order to place it on a platform in another area. The hope is that the eagle would move to the new area and nest and they would be able to construct the high-rise buildings on their masterplan. Barbara Burgeson stated that she spoke to Fish and Wildlife, who does not expect the federal agency to approve this. If this was done it would be in violation of the applicant's approved PUD and their existing eagle management plan from the county. This proposal may come back before the EAC in the future. VII. Council Member Comments -Alexandra Santoro mentioned that at one point the committee had discussed a "Rookery Bay" type of legislation. She suggested that a sub-committee be formed. Barbara Burgeson stated that on a staff level they were working on some legislation that would provide a buffer or details on the types of buffers that would be located around state and federal preserves, OFW's, and other types of properties requiring this type of protection. She had spoken with environmental staff at the interagency meeting last month, and they have concerns about what has gone up around Estero Bay and the Rookery Bay area. They would be interested in some kind of protection being drafted into legislation. -Mr. Coe was concerned about moving fast enough so that the legislation is in effect before they have to deal with a builder. Barbara Burgeson replied that they Page 9 VIII. February 5, 2003 want to make sure they research this thoroughly and a sub committee would be helpful with this research. Mr. Lorenz agreed. -Alexandra Santoro, Erica Lynne, and Mr. Coe expressed an interest in the being a part of the subcommittee. Alexandra Santoro stated that she would be interested in input from Rookery Bay and the Conservation. Mr. Lorenz stated that he would assign a staff member to be a coordinator for the subcommittee and they would have the ability to add time for other agencies to speak on the matter. -The next meeting is March 5, 2003. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order o£the Chair at 10:32 AM. Page 10 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST~ NAM....~,E--..E,LI;~,~T NAME--MIDDLE NAME ~ / CITY ~'.,~, '~:~,,- [~ COUNW ~/ DATE ON WHICH VOT~ OCCURRED7 --~ --~- NAMf.~QrF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMIS/~N, AU'i'HORITY, OR COM~EE THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION,'~,UTHoRITY OR C/MMI"~'~E ON - WHICH I SERVE IS A U~[~j~OF: / ,~ c~ ~ ~u~ [] O7~E. LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITIC,~L S[JBDIVISION: ~ / MY POSITION IS:''-'''~ - ~ / / WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending ~n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST (a) A measure came or will come before my agen/c,~f which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss;' _~----inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of , is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: by , which L Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME~_~ST NAME--MIDDLE NAM~ z ~ // ~, NAME OF.~3ARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION AUTHORITY OR CQ~MIYrEE /. . · ,. OLt~OMMITTEE 0,)~/ MAILING ~,D.,~:S,J~. ,.., ~ , '---x- / ~ .~ THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, ALrTHORITY CITY , & UN~ ~ ~UBDI~ISION: ~- ~ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY DATE ON WHICH VOT~OCCURRED ~ ~ ~ ~POI 7--:5--0 0 BY POSmONIS: O ELECTIVE/' ~IVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending 3n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form, INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conIlict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. iF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PA, GE I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO A'I-rEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST ', '- ! :~-...-~, , ~ ,.,t . . "),~_~"/ I~L.~.~""~ ~ereby disclose that on ~ (a) A measure came or will come before m~cy which (check one) __ inured to my special private gain o~; . ,.> ~inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, ~~ ~..L~ C.~ ~*~ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidia~ of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: by , which Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2