Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/07/1989 R Naples, Florida, November 7, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders VICE-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volpe Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance Director; Annaliese Kraft and E/lie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Tom Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Guyler, County Attorney; David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney, Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator; Mike Arnold, Utilities Administrator; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Ken Baginski, Planning Services Manager; Dave Weeks, Bob Lord, Project Planners, Stan Litstnger, Growth Management Director; Barbara Cacchione, Chief, Lol~g Range Planning; Jeff Perry, Chief Planner, Transportation; Harry Huber, Technical Services Supervisor, Leo Ochs, Administrative Services Administrator; James Burch, Chief Environmental Specialist; Ma~tha Skinner, Social Services Director; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron C. Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office. Page 1 November 7, lgsg Tape #l Item ,3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Co=-iesioner Shanahan moved, ascended by Conteeloner Hesse and carried unanimously, that the Agenda and Consent Agenda be approved with the following changes: Ite,A 9El - Added - Recommendation to Approve and Execute a Limited Use Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and the South Florida Sports Car Association, Incorporated, a Florida Corporation, providing for the use of a portion of the Immokalee Airport on November 11, 1989 and November 12, 1989 for an Auto Cross and Low Speed Rally Race. Item 6B1 - Continued to November 28, 1989 - Donald P. Pickworth representing Speakeasy of Collier County, Inc. requesting a Rezone from RS-4 to C-3 for a parking lot imme- diately west of Spanky's Restaurant, located on the west side of Airport Road and approximately 1/2 mile south of Golden Gate Parkway. Item IH2 - Continued to November 14, 1989 - Recommendation for approval of an Agreement with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. to provide professional engineering services during the bidding and construction phases for the Marco Island Beach Restoration Project. Item 9H3 - Continued to November 14, 1989 - Recommendation to enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources for the performance of the Collier County Environmental and Sand Source study. (Companion to Agreement for Professional Services with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.) Item 9H4 - Continued to November 14, 1989 - Recommendation to approve an agreement for professional services with Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Program. Item 9B1 - Moved from Consent Agenda - Item 14B2 - Recommendation to advertise and receive proposals for consulting services to perform highway capacity ,~al.ual analysis of potentially deficient roadways within Collier County consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. Item 8B - Continued - John Hooley representing Eastgate Office Center, Undivided Block 75 of Golden Gate Unit 2. Item MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 AND OCTOBER 3, 1989 - APPROVED Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner GoodnAght and caz'.ied unantmcualy, that the minutes of September 19, 1989 and October ;J, 1989, be approved as presented. Item ,SA EMPLOYE~ SqRVICE AWARD - PRESENTED Page 2 November Commissioner Saunders presented a Service Award to: Jose Hernandez, Solid Waste - 5 years Item #$B STE~ ~REDLE~ RECOGNIZED AS ~IPLO~EE O~ THE MONTH ~OR NOVEMBER, lgS~ Commissioner Saunders recognized Stephen Fredley as Employee of the Month for November, 1989 and presented him with a plaque and cash award. He congratulated Mr. Fredley of the Maintenance Department for his dependability and dedication. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 17TH THROUGH DECEMBER I?TH AS "HELP AN ANaEL MONTH" - ADOPTED Commissioner Goodnight read a proclamation designating November 17 through December 17 as "Help An Angel Month". She urged residents of Collier County to demonstrate the Christmas spirit by helping a needy cniid with a Christmas gift. Com--iesioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Com-issioner Shanahan and cmrried unanimously, that the Proclamation designating November 1?th through December 17th as "Help an Angel Month" be adopted. A representative from McDonald's restaurant accepted the Proclamation and reported that HRS selects the children for the program and Collier County assists over 1,000 needy children at Christmas time. He thanked the Board of County Commissioners who have supported this program for the past 4 years. Page November 7, 1989 Item #SD C~IROPRACTI¢ WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED Coniaaloner Hasee read a proclamation designating the week of November 6 - 12, 1989 as Chiropr&ctic Week in Collier County, Florida. and moved for its adoption, aeconded by Commissioner Shanahan ~u~d carried unanimousl¥. Dr. John W. Mart~n, Chiropractor, accepted the proclamation. Page 4 (.~]{)1 ! November ?, 1989 Item It, C3 R~$OLUTION 89-342 APPROVING THE REMEDIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PER TH~ STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on October 30, 1989 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Remedial Growth Management Plan Amendments per the Stipulated Settlement Agree.nent for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Stan Lttsinger, Growth Management Director, noted that on September 5, 1989 the Board of County Commissioners approved a Stipulated Agreement with DCA which was executed by all parties on September 14, 1989. He indicated that the Board of County Commissioners approved initiation of a special emergency amendment process on October 10, 1989. He explained that the following elements are required to be amended: Future Land Use, Capital Improvement Elements for Public Facilities, specifically the drainage sub-element, amd Conservation and Coastal Management. He reported that the Agreement further stipulates that the Remedial Plan Amendments adopted pursuant to this Agreement must be consistent With and substantially similar in concept and intent to the ones identified tn this agreement (Exhibit "B"), or be otherwise acceptable to the DCA. He stated that specific language amendments to the Plan elements as they appear in Exhibit "B" of the Agreement and other related or supporting changes are included as outlined, meeting the spirit and Intent of the parties and implementing the remedial amendments. He noted that the Plan Amendments under the emergency amendment procedures provided for in Chapter 163 F.S. require a unanimous vote for final adoptior . He advised that Staff recommends the Board of County CommissieneFs approve the remedial amendments proposed resolution for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Commissioner Volpe questioned the difference between the material submttt,d today and what was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lttstnger replied that there are some Page 5 November ?0 1989 changes to the Future Land Use Element, deletion of Policy 5.1 and initially recommending the Amendment of Policy 5.9, but based on the recommendation of the CCPC, Policy 5.9 will not be changed. SPEAKERS FOR THE AMENDMENT~ SPEAKERS AGAINST THE AMENDME, NT~ Attorney Charles Lehman, Siesky & Lehman Attorney James H. $iesky, Siesky & Lehman Attorney Bruce Anderson, Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton, P.A. Robert Duane, Hole, Montes & Associates Their reasons for speaking against the Amendments were as follows: DCA does not require changes in Sections 5.1, 5.9 or LU-I-34; erosion to rights of property owners, Section 5.9 allows flexibility to the Board of County Commissioners and will be instrumenta3, in adopting the ~o~tng Ordinance; add on amendments do not meet intent of Ordinance; Staff- ~hould go through regular amendment process procedures, not emergency amendment procedures; public advertisement states that only the remedial plan amendments called for in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement are the sub3ect of the hearing; Board of County Commissioners is considering amendments other than the amendments called for in the Settlement Agreement; public is not aware of the changes in Sections 5.1 and 5.9; amendments will put cloud on par- tially commercially developed properties; the rights granted in the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, should be retained; private property rights are being eroded, and deletion of Section 5.1 will leave people in limbo while the zoning re-evaluation process is underwav. Attorney Bruce Anderson of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton, passed out the Notice of Public Hearing and referred to the h~ghlighted sentence: "The purpose of the hearing is to consider transmittal of remedial amendments called for in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs." (Copy on file wi%h Clerk to the Board). He explained that the emergency Page 6 November 7, 1989 procedure is not an appropriate vehicle to use to add other amend- ments, and noted that the purpose of the emergency procedure utilized under an emergency deadline is to adopt those amendments required in the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Saunders stated that, painful as it is, he agrees with Attorney Anderson, and commented that when the Board of County Commissioners was asked to approve an emergency amendment procedure, it was for the Stipulated Settlement, not for other amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He advised that he had no problem with Section 5.1 and its adoption, and noted that Attorney George Varnadoe had recommended adoption of Section 5.1 because he had a client off Radio Road who would be affected. Commissioner Saunders commented that the concept is sound, but he is not sure why the County ts using the emergency procedure to amend the Comprehensive Plan In other areas. Mr. Lttsinger explained that Paragraph 27 of the Stipulated Agreement provides for concurrent amendments to implement specified actions and noted that this is a transmittal hearing for review, not adoption. He stated that Staff includes these amendments because they do support the stipulated changes, implement the zoning re-evaluation ordinance, and eliminate the possibility of a period pending th,~ eli- mination of Section 5.1 at a future date, during which a minor change in a Development Order that could create a consistency determination beyond the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Barbara Cacchione. Chief, Long Range Planning, explained that LU-I-34 creates a consistency internally within the Comprehensive Plan tn conjunction with the Zoning Re-evaluation Proguam. She stated that when the Zoning Re- evaluation Program begins, all properties considered "developed" in that Ordinance will be allowed to continue, based on the language of LU-I-34, as it ts amended. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Cacchione indicated that Policy 5.9 and LU-I-34 deal with developed property and how much they are permitted to expand. She noted that Page ? November 7, 1989 Staff felt that Policy 5.9 addresses what developed and unimproved property is through the definitions in the zoning re-evaluation program, and the change to 5.9 may not be needed. She explained that LU-I-34 is a clarification of the language In the plan, so that no inconsistencies occur later on between the wording in the Comprehensive Plan and what is called for in the implementation of the ZoninG Re-evaluation Program. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Attorney Anderson roplied that a number of his clients will be affected by the ZoninG Re-evaluation Program. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan sets the outside parameters within which zoning re-evaluation must occur, and his two clients worked side by side with the County and signed the Settlement AGreement. He emphasized that changes other than the Settlement AGreement can be addressed in the amendment cycle beginning in January, a more appropriate time. A discussion followed about the rights of a property owner and developm,~nt of his property. Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, pointed out that he has a client who owns a piece of property behind a shoppinG center, zoned RSF-4, which permits 3 dwelling units per acre. He stated that in the process of filinG a zoning application for a PUD, his client will come in with a density at 4 units per acre or below, and noted that by removinG Section 5.1, he must wait until the zoninG re-evaluation is implemented, which could be 2 years. He explained that at this time, a member of Staff reviewing the existinG conditions surrcunding the property would determine if the zoninG is appropriate, go to Section 5.1 and determine if it is at or below the density currently per- mitred. He pointed out that agreement could then be reached between Staff and the applicant, the spirit and intent of the Plan. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the problems that Staff foresees if Section 5.1 is retained7 Commissioner Saunders commented'that Attorney Varnadoe represented an owner of a PUD on Radio Road, with a Page 8 November 7, 1989 commercial tract on it, who moved the commercial tract to a more appropriate location, thus reducing the density, and the Board of County Commissioners approved It. Assistant to the County Manager Olltff noted that the entire development then became consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that minor ad3ustmenta could be made to all Inconsistent zoning, making the zoning less intensive in density, and with the result that the inconsistent zoning becomes consistent wlth the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if Policy 5.1 is not amended, the next amendment cycle will not become effective until 9 or 11 months after January, and a full year has now been allowed for every development that ts inconsistent to make a minor adjustment and become consistent. He explained that the language of the stipulated Settlement Agreement says that Development Orders should not be Issued that are inconsistent, but St'ali would be forced to ~ecause of the language in Policy 5.1. M>'. Olltff stated that he had drafted language given to County Attorney Cuyler for review as follows: "Policy 5.1: Any change to a Development Order, whether residential, commercial or industrial which is exempt from, or receives an exception to the zoning re- evaluation program, or is determined to be vested, which constitutes a reduction in, or equivalent density or intensity shall be deemed con- sistent with the Future Land Use Element" He explained that this revised language has been reviewed by Staff and County Attornek Cuyler. He Indicated that he tried to draw up language which Staff ts comfortable with, al/owing flexibility to make good ad3ustments to developments that are found to be compatible or vested. Commissioner Shanahan commented that Mr. Olltff would like the revised language of Policy 5.1 used, rather than the language tn the remedial amendments. Mr. Olliff explained that this language satisfies the comments made at the CCPC by the public that addresses the Intent of good amendments to plans tLat are vested or compatible. Mr. 0!ltff explained that Section 5.9, dealing with expansions, Page 9 November 7, 1989 can be addressed through the zoning re-evaluation definition, and noted that Staff and the public had no problem deleting Section 5.9. He noted that LU-I-34 is basically the same type of Issue as Section 5.9, but it is not a policy or goal within the Plan. He advised that Staff would be forced to Issue Development Orders which Staff feels are inconsistent. He stated that the COPC recommended Section 5.1 be deleted, and Section 5.9 and LU-I-34 be retained. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olltff replied that the suggested language would require Mr. Duane's client to go through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program. Attorney Siesky commented that a request for a zoning density reduction is a bilateral action that requires Board of County Commissioners' approval, and the property owner does not have the right to force a zoning reduction that would be consistent with the Plan. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Attorney Slesky indicated that ne had not seen the new language. ¢ometesioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hesse and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler advised that there is no problem with respect to the public hearing enter- taining the amendments that were not part of the Settlement Agreement. Commissioner Saunders suggested voting for all of the chances except for the proposed change to Section 5.1 and LU-I-34. Cometssioner H&sse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan, and carried unanimously, that Resolution 89-3¢2, approving the Remedial growth Management Plan Amendments per the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for transmittal to the Department of Community Affaire, be adopted. Commissioner Saunders expressed concern that Section 5.1 does not honor the procedure the Board advised property owners would be followed. He suggested that Section 5.1 be left in the Plan. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Olliff did not know if there Page 10 November 7, 1989 were any applications pending with respect to Section 5.1, but noted that Staff will be forced to recommend that all applications are con- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Saunders stated that he will vote against any changes to Section 5.1 or LU-I-34. A discussion followed about the new language in Section 5.1. Commissioner Volpe commented that no commitment the Board of County Commissioners made was violated, and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement implements the County's Zoning Re-evaluation Program which addresses the concerns of Mr. Duane and Attorney Anderson. He explained that these properties will have to go through the Zoning Re- evaluation Program before they come before the Board of County Commissioners, and he views it as a process, not a violation of a com- mltment. He pointed out that the issues were addressed before the OCPC and there will be an opportunity to have the discussion again. Commissioner Goodnight commented that the individual developments can b~ addressed as they come up. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the new language in Policy 5.17 Commissioner Volpe questioned what the CCPC recommended, and Mr. Olliff stated that the CCPC recommended deletion of the Policy. Commissioner Saunders commented that the CCPC did not see the new language. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Litsinger pointed out that the 60 day time frame expires on November 15, 1989 and Staff needs time to prepare the amendments for transmittal to the DCA. Commissioner Saunders indicated that 3 options are available in reference to Section 5.1.: 1) delete it in its entirety, 2) adopt the language submitted by Staff this morning, or 3) leave it as it is. Co~issioner Haase moved, seconded by Co,missioner Volpe, that Staff's proposal of this morning be adopted. Ms. Cacchtone assured the Board of County Commissioners that the Long Rapge Planning Staff has reviewed the new proposed language and has no problem with it. Upon call for the question, the motion failed 3/2. (Co~-tssioners Page 11 Nove~l~er ?, 1989 Sawed.rs and Goodnlght oppoaad). County Attorney Cuyler advised that as part of the emergency pro- cedure, the motion must be approved by 5 votes. Co~ssioner Shanahan Loved, seconded by Co~issioner Hesse, that th~ language recommended by Staff ~n LU-I-34, be adopted. Upon call for the question, the motion fa~led 3/2. {CO.~lsfonera Sa=riders ~nd Goc~n~ght opposed). A discussion followed regarding whether or not a unanimous vote is required. County Attorney Cuyler noted that Staff can obtain comments from DCA on these items and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lltsinger commented that transmitting the proposed deletion of Section §.l does not commit the Board to adopt the amend- m~nt, and on April 1, 1990 after the adoption hearings, the Zoning Ku-evaluation Ordinance will have been received. In ~esponse to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler advised that he will doubl~-check the voting requirements for transmitting the amendments. Mr. Litsinger advised that he had one letter from George Varnadoe of Young, Van Assenderf, Varnadoe and Benton, that is to be entered ~nto the record, which is on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board. Page 12 November 7, 1989 PETITION PU-89-11, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA, REPRESENTING LLOYD L. BOWEIN, REQUESTING PROVISIONAL USE 'g" OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A USED CAR LOT TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND ARECA AVENUE - DENIED Bob Lord, Project Planner, advised that Petition PU-89-11, filed by Dr. Neno J. Spagna representing Lloyd L. Bowein, is a request for provisional use "g" of the C-4 zoning district for a used car lot located in Section 11, Township 50, Range 25 East. He noted that their objective is to obtain approval of a provisionally permitted use; a used car lot in the C-4 zoning district, at a site located on the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Areca Avenue, approximate]%' 3/4 of a mile south of U.S. 41. He stated that the property consists of Lots ! and 2 in Block "D" of the Sable Shores Subdivision comprising an area of 0.47 acres of combined land. He in~icated that the provisional use is consistent with the criteria listed in Section 13.1.d. of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance (82-2), and the CCPC denied this Petition at their public hearing on October 5, 1989. He reported that lO0 plus citizens signed a petition against the proposed used car lot and this Petition has been reviewed relative to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and no inconsistency had been Identified. He explained that the Growth Management Plan provides for a transitional period in which all existing zoning classifications will be evaluated as to their vested or non-vested status. He reported that during this period, the Plan permits development to con- tinue consistent with the existing zoning until the evaluation takes place and notice is given of the appropriate zoning changes. He stated that admitted provisional uses in any given zoning category are also interpreted as consistent with the Growth Management Plan, however, Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny Petition PU-89-11 based on the CCPC vote of 4/2 for denial. Dr. Nsno Spagna, representing the Petitioner, Lloyd Bowetn, indicated that there are two items he would like to clarify. He noted that this site is located across the street from the marina south of Page 13 November 7, 1989 the bridge on Bayshore Drive, south of U.S. 41, in a C-4 zoned district at the present time, and the property owner also owns the property immediately north and east of the subject property. He explained that at the public hearing for the CCPC, most of the objec- tions came from the low cost r~ntal housing units, approximately one block south of the subject property. He reported that the biggest objection was the used car lot deteriorating the atmosphere of the surrounding area. He noted that the area contains mixed development, and a few weeks ago, east of the subject property, the County issued a group of red tags requesting the property owner to bring the property up to the building construction code standards. He advised that the area will not be deteriorated by a used car lot, and noted that the intention of the property o~ner ts to go in with a permitted use which ~ould help revitalize the area. He stated that a used car lot is com- patible with the area, meets all requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and the other uses permitted in the C-4 district Include an automobile service station, cocktail lounges, commercial recreation areas, marinas, new car dealerships, including sales of used cars, nightclubs, restaurants, including drive-ins and fast food stores and the Petitioner's request ts not out of line wlth the permitted uses. He explained that the owner has owned the property for approximately 2 years and would like to do something more with it other tb;~n u~Ing it as a rental unit, however, he does not want to get into the use~ such as drive-ins or lounges, which would have a more adverse impact on the area. He pointed out that if the owner has no other choice, he will consider any use to recoup some of his investment In the property. He stated that the used car lot will fit into the area, with sales of 20 cars not generating an excessive amount of traffic, certain con- dttions brought up by people in opposition which have been adhered to, all requirements set forth by Staff and the review agencies have been complied with and the Petitioner feels that a used car lot would uplift the area and set the stage for the improvement of currently Page 14 November 7, 1989 surrounding properties. Commissioner Hasse questioned tfa used car lot would be conducive to the the upgrading of the area such as Bayshore Drive? He commented that the Petitioner owns the property to the north, which he has some questions about. Dr. Spagna stated that he did not know of any impro- vements that have taken place in the neighborhood since the widening of Bayshore Dri%'e, except for painting or minor fix-ups. He pointed out that he would rather have a used car lot within his neighborhood than a bar or lounge. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Dr. Spagna ~ndicated that the property owned to the north by the Petitioner will have no connection to the used car lot. Comm~ssioner Volpe questioned the stipulation a~reeing to waive any rights he may have under the County's Re- evaluation Program, and asked if the Petitioner was p-n,,ltted to establish a used car lot in this district would he be allowed vested rights7 Mr. Lord replied that once the property is developed, vesting rights would take effect. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Dr. Spagna advised that there would be no services at all. Dr. Spagna reported that under the C-4 district, a filling station or n~'~ car dealership selling used cars would be permitted. Commisslone~ Hasse questioned 37 spaces for 20 cars7 Dr. Spagna advised that the parking is required by the County's Zoning Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Nasse, Mr. Lord reported that there are 30 parkln~ spots for the sale of used cars and 7 spots for employee parking, total3lng 37. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Commissioner Saunders explained that Staff is required to follow the recommendation of the CCPC, but Staff's original position was to approve the Petition. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lloyd Boweln, the Petitioner, stated that the property to the north has a two-story building with apartments on the top and stores on the bottom. He indicated ~hat he has resided in the area most of his life and has not noticed ar:y particular upgrading of the area, other than the four- Page 15 November 7, 1989 laning of Bayshore Drive. He explained that in addition to the marina, which has four levels and chain link fences, there is a plumbing supply and repair store, a bar, and a restaurant in the area. He pointed out that minor repairs are allowed. He stated that the used car lot will not be a Davis Boulevard used car lot type. He noted that he will be spending $50,000 or better for landscaping, improvements, Faring, etc. He advised that he was unaware of any opposition to the Petition until he went to the CCPC meeting. He indicated that a used car lot is totally compatible with what is in the area, and will not have the impact that the marina does. reported that he would like to make the property economically feasible and noted that the owner of Cricket Lake seems to be the main opposi- tion. He stated that, in his opinion, the majority of the signatures on the petition are tenants of Cricket Lake, not property owners. He pointed out that if the used car lot is not allowed, he may have to sell the property and the uses al/owed would b~, in his opinion, less desirable than a used car lot. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Bowein explained that he did not see a big difference between using 20 spaces or usln~I SO spa- ces for used cars. FOR PETITION SPEAKERS AGAINST PETITION John Grifflth, 320 Cricket Lake Drive Delores Griffith, 320 Cricket Lake Drive Mary Ann Kazura, 3365 Lakeview Drive Kathy Slingo, 564 Cricket Lake Drive (Petition with 103 signatures from the Bayshore/Areca area (On file in the office of the Clerk of the Board) (Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Bob L. Adams (On file in the office of the Clerk of the Board) Dantele Davis, 2259 Queens Way Page 16 November 7, 1989 Ed Magero, 3330 Lakeview Drive Marion Davidson, 2480 Lakeview Drive and repre- sentative for Windstar Development Their reasons were: increase of crime in the area; a used car lot will affect the upgrading of the Bayshore Drive area in a negative way; a used car lot is unsightly; vandalism and theft in relation to automobiles in the area will increase; Petitioner's other building in the area not well maintained; crime will increase; traffic congestion; loitering; will attract vagrants and undesirables to the area; safety of children in area at school bus stops will be Jeopardized; property values will be affected negatively; glare from lighting; and a used car lot is incompatible with the area. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mrs. Griffith indicated that renovations are going on at Areca Avenue to improve the area. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Ms. Davidson noted that the area has improved over the past ten years and is still being improved. Mr. Bowein explained that the property he owns on the nc:th side of the proposed location for the used car lot is being fixed up, but will not be finished until the eviction process for his tenant is completed. He stated that he did not see how a used car lot could ~ncrease crime in the area, and noted that a bar would have Just as many cars parked there as a used car lot. He advised that he will have lights and alarms to provide a safe and secure place. He ~ointed out that he has a direct cut on to Bayshore Drive and Areca Road, which can be maintained with a C-4 use, and because he will not be using that cut, he does not see how traffic would be impacted by the used car lot. Com2%issloner Hasse commented that part of the message he is recetvin~ is that Mr. Bowein is not a good neighbor and pointed out the phutographs (not provided to the Clerk to the Board) depicting the Page 17 November 7, 1989 condition of his property. Commissioner Hasse stated that he has dri- ven by and noticed too many automobiles parked there, which indicates the building is not properly maintained. Mr. Bowein explained that some of the debris in the photographs has been removed. Commissioner Volpe stated that these issues do not relate to the issue the Board of County Commissioners is being asked to decide. Commissioner Volpe commented that there is a certain stigma attached to used car lots. Dr. Spagna indicated that the crux of this issue is that the use has to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and noted that provisional use allows a used car lot, subject to whatever conditions the Board deems necessary to be com- patible with the surrounding area. He explained that the Petitioner is willing to ab]de by CCPC and Staff requirements. He ~tated that his client would be the first in line to help improve the neighborhood. Cc~selon~r Huse ~oved, seconded by Co~miesioner Shan~han, that Commiss~oner Volpe indicated that he ts not a proponent of used car lots, but pointed out that the use is C-4, and the Peti%i~ner has the right to use that property. He commented that something will there, whether it is a used car lot or some other commercial use. Commissioner Saunders concurred. U~n =all for the ~estton, the motion cmrried 3/2. ''''' Recess: 10:40 A.M. - Reconvened: 10:S0 A.M. at which tX~ ~ Cl~rk Hoff~ replaced Deity Clerk Kraft It~ PA~ ~IOV~INI ~SE~ING ~E RITZ-C~LTON HOTEL, ~Q~STING ~~ USE OF ~ - ST~ TO ~UATE O~IN~CE ~ ~IBILI~ OF ~ OF ~XS NA~ ~I~D FOR A LONGER T~; USE OF ~ ~~ ~OU~ ~ S~ON County Attorney Cuyler advised that the question has arisen as to the interpretation of Staff. He stated that his understanding is that the Ritz is inclined to appeal that decision. He indicated that Staff Page November 7, 1989 has come into contact with a situation that they do not handle on a day-to-day basis, and they are suggesting that there may be additional factors that need to be factored in under the two week temporary use permit criteria, to allow the Commission to extend that under certain circumstances. Planning Services Manager Bagtnskt explained that the existing ordinance provties for an applicant to apply for and receive a permit for a tent structure for grand openings, carnivals, etc. He noted that the ordinance states that a 2 week, non-renewal permit can be provided. He suggested that amendments or modifications could be made to the ordinance which would restrict the use of the tent to a two week period, but under unique or unusual circumstances, through peti- tion and approval by the Commission, It may be extended beyond that two week period. County Attorney Cuyler indicated that because Staff is facing an unusual situation, he believes that they are willing to recommend something along the lines to allow the Board to look at additional criteria on a case-by-case basis to extend the two week period. He explained that the Ritz-Carlton Is looking at the tnterpretak~n that has been made by Staff, and noted that the two week period ts not spe- cifically for any one time during 6 month~. He stated that the interpretation has been made that a petitioner may acquire a te;nporary use permit which is good for two weeks, and they are only allowed to do this once every 6 months. He advised that he indicated to the representatives of the Ritz that this ts merely an interpretation, and ts sub3ect to appeal. He noted that under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance there ts a stay of any proceedings until the Board of Zoning Appeals considers that appeal by a petitioner. He stated that Staff has Indicated that if they receive direction from the Commission to have the ordinance amendments in front of the Board, those two situations may cotncld~ and the entire situation can be addressed at one time. Page 19 Hovember 7, ~989 Commissioner Hasse questioned the length of time that the tent has been up? Mr. Joseph Freni, General Manager of the Ritz-Car/ton Hotel, advised that in lgsg the tent was put up in early January, and was taken down in June. He stated that that same condition existed in lg87 and 1988. Commissione- Volpe indicated that this is a unique situation, and the ordinance may be flawed. He stated that he cannot visualize that the type of tent that the Ritz has, is the type of tent that this ordinance was intended to address. He noted that consideration should be given to the definition of a tent. Mr. Baginski informed that if the Ritz had chosen to put in a more permanent structure, i.e., a chickee hut or similar use, they could have put drop sides on it, floors, and electric, and there most likely would not have teen anything said. Mr. Freni stated that this is the second time that he is appearing before the Commission, requesting a permanent solution to this situation. He noted that he has been meeting with Staff since his first visit, and discussions have taken place regarding the various options that are available. He Indicated that he has f/own in the architect that was involved in the design of the building. He explained that he is prepared to appeal the ordinance if n~'essary, but he would not want to have his business interrupted this season, until a permanent so/ut/on is determined. He explained that the faci- lity is inspected by the fire department prior to each event, all the other normal inspection processes have taken place and continue to take place, and there is more parking than is required. Commissioner Shanahan questioned how much time Mr. Frenl needs so that there is not a business interruption? Mr. Freni stated that he sees June ~st as the latest date for use of the tent. Commis~iuner Volpe questioned whether Mr. Freni is continuing to book event~ during this hiatus? Mr. Freni replied that he has not Page 20 November 7, 1989 been booking any events during this time. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that he would like to see a solu- tion worked out. He noted that this Is an unusual situation, and the tent has been up in 1987, 1988, and 1989 for several months. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether Mr. Freni will be providing the Commission with a long-term permanent solution? Mr. Freni advised that he needs at least 30 days to do a market analysis, and he would like to cost out a permanent structure. He noted that he can come back to Staff with firm ideas within a 30-day period. Commissioner Volpe stated that he believes that the Ritz needs to h~ve a long term solution, but noted that in his mind, it is not a t~nt. The following persons spoke in favor of the tent at the Ritz-Carlton: Mr. Bob Moates Ms. Jeanne Haynes Mr. David Amico Those persons in favor of the tent, c~ted: The Ritz is a good neighbor, and this is an unusual situation; the facility has added a new dimension to Naples; a number of events are held in the tent, and there is a need for It; and the Ritz has been a positive influence on the community. Mr. George Keller, President, Collier County Civic Federation, stated that the tent is in violation of the Building Code and Zoning. He noted that there ts no question that the Ritz has been a good neighbor, but questioned whether an exception can be made for them which violates the County's ordinances? He suggested that the Code Enforcement Board cite the Ritz, and bring the case to a hearing, and if they cnntinue to be in violation, they will be subject to a $2§O/day fine. He noted that the facility is not actually a tent, it does not comply with the Building Code, and no permf', has ever been issued. County Manager Dorrill stated that he is not sure that there are Page November 7, 1989 any cited BuildinG and/or Safety Code violations as indicated by Mr. Keller. County Attorney Cuyler advised that he approached this situation from a legal point of view, and not a planninG point of ~iew. He indicated that if the Ritz chooses to appeal the interpretation, the proceedings are stayed under the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Dudley Goodlette stated that County Attorney Cuyler clarified the point that he wanted to raise. He indicated that the Commission would not be setting a precedent by permitting the appeal of the ordinance to go forward. There were no other speakers. Co~mteeloner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodntght, to direct Staff to evaluate the ordinance for the purpose of g~ving the ~d of C~ Co~ssioners some flexibility ~n dete~n~ng whet~r tents of ~hls nacre should be ~r~tted for a longer b~sed on ~e c~r~t~ces; ~d to ~rmit the use of the tent t~ph the eea~on. Comm~sioner Saunders stated that he Is maklng ~he mot]~ with ~he recommenda~ion ~o Mr. Freni that the Ritz appeal the decision of Staff ~n reference ~o the proposed v~olat~on. He noted that the tent has been used for the past three years for 6 months at a time, and there ~ not a s~ngle person on County Staff or the County that was not aware ~hat the tent was being used for this per~od t~me. ~e ~ndtcated that he believe5 tha~ ~t would be unfair, at th~s time, to stop tha~ use when the hotel has planned bookings for the com~n~ season. Mr. Freni advised that until there is a long term solution, he w~ll not Look any future events. County Attorney Cuyler s~ated that as long as the appeal the Commission ~s not violating any or~inance ~n u~ll for the ~est~on, the motion carried Item~H1 V~IOUS 0~IONS ~TI~ TO A TO~IST D~LO~ T~ IN COLLIE~ CO~ - NO A~ION Page 22 November 7, 1989 Assistant to the County Manager MacKenzie presented three options relative to a Tourist Development Tax. Mr. MacKenzie advised that Option 1, was defeated by the Tourist Development Council on June 27, 1989, by a vote of 5/4. He explained that this option provided for a Special Taxing District to be created for the purpose of levying a Tourist Development Tax which would extend from the Lee/Collier line, south to SR 952. He noted that the rate of the taxation would be 2%, generating approximately $1.36 million in revenues, and would sunset after six years from the time of enactment to be reinstated by County-wide referendum only. He ~'eported that the proposed distribution of revenues were to be approximately 50% to be used for Collier County Beach Nourishment Pro- Ject within the Taxing District, for an approximate amount of $600,000 - $?00,000, depending on the actual revenues. He noted that the remaining 50% would be used for tourist promotion - 25% to market international tourism, and other off-season tourists; and 25% to deve- lop a summer cultural festival under the auspices of the Center for the Performing Arts. Mr. MacKenzie stated that Option 2 ts the same as Option 1, with the exception of the boundaries: Lee/Collier line to 2 miles east of CR 951, south to and including Goodland on SR 92. He indicated that this option would basically encompass most of the commercial area of the County. He reported that the tax rate would be 2% for three years then 3% for the remaining three years, with sunset after 6 years. He explained that $2.7 million would be generated the first year, with revenues distributed as follows: 50% for the maintenance of the completed Beach Renourishment Projects currently being undertaken separately by Marco Island and the County; 50% for promotional activi- ties - 251~ 2or off-season travel and International tourism, and 25% for the development of off-season cultural events. Mr. MacKenzie noted that Option 3 is the same as Option 2, with the exception of the boundaries which would be as follows: The entire Page 23 November 7, 1989 County with the except/on of the Immokalee Fire Control District. He stated that revenues to be generated at 2% would be approximately $2.73 million and would be used for the following: 60% for the per- mitring of Beach Nourishment Projects within the County as well as providing for the maintenance of the Beach Nourishment Projects once completed; and 35% for promotional activlt~es as outlined an Optlon 2 and 15% for the development of off-season cultural events. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether the tax would be collected locally or by the State Department of Revenue7 Mr. MacKenzie advised that the tax will be collected locally. Commissioner Shanahan asked Mr. MacKenzie what his personal feelings are relating to recommendations and suggestions on this issue? Mr. MacKenzie suggested that the Commission lay aside this ~ssue for a period of time being defined as one year prior to the planned completion of the Beach Nourishment Project, or until some other form of financing is discovered. He explained that his reasons are threefold: 1) The revenues that are generated will not substi- tute for beach nourishment. He advised that the most recent estimates on the cost of the renourishment project is in the neighborhood of $18 mil/ion. Commissioner Saunders advised that he is involved with a q~oup that has a contract to purchase a facility that potentiall~, could benefit from more tourism or beach renourishment, and noted that he may have a conflict of interest. County Attorney Cuyler stated that the tax itself would not cause a conflict, but the fact that the tax funds would be used to the bene- fit of the principal that Commissioner Saunders would by employed by, may caus- a conflict. Commissioner Saunders indicated that he will file a Conflict of Interest Form, and abstain on this item. Mr. MacKenzie continued with explanation regarding his suggestions: 2) The use of bed tax revenue as compared to other tax Page 24 November 7, 1989 alternatives are limited, as outlined by the law. 3) Confusion which may result from placing a Tourist Tax on the same ballot with a possible Sales Tax. Commissioner Volpe informed that Collier County is the only coastal community in the State of Florida that does not have a Bed Tax/Tourist Development Tax. He noted that when reviewing the minutes of the Tourist Development Council, he believes that there are com- ments that everyone should be made aware of. He stated that if the hotels/motels and tourists are not paying for some portion of beach renourishment, it will be very difficult to tell the permanent resi- dents that they should fund the renourishment project through ad valorem taxes, as one alternative. He stated that he has heard the concerns of the industry, and he is sensitive to them, but without some type of a sunset, once this tax is in place for d period of time, there could be m change in the use of those revenues. He indicated that in some way, a mechanism should be found to continue to provide revenue, particularly during the summer months. He noted that he is not persuaded by the fact that placing the Tourist Development Tax on the same ballot as a potential Sales Tax referendum will confu~e the informed electorate. He reported that another concern of the hotel/motel industry, is that these revenues will not be used for other things, i.e. a baseball stadium. He stated that the:~. ha~ got to be safeguards so that the tourist industry will be able to retain input as to how these revenues will be expended in the future. He suggested that one of three options be put to the vote of the electorate. Commissioner Hasse concurred with Commissioner Volpe, noting that he does not see any reason why both issues cannot be placed on the same ball=~ He Indicated that he favors Option 3. The following persons spoke in opposition to a Tourist Development Tax: Mr. Stephen Wheeler Mr. Mary Needles Mr. Mike Watkins Mr. Michael McComas Ms. Dawn Norgren Mr. Robert Stakich Ms. Rosemarie D'Haem Mr. Philip Francoeur, Sr. Mr. Russ Atklsson Page 25 November 7, 1989 The speakers in opposition to the Tourist Development Tax cited the following: tourists are already paying their fair share; no dete~'- mtnation has been made that the tax will produce a significant amount for infrastructure needs; in lieu of revenues from the tax, many spon- sors would be pleased to fund cultural events; other counties that have a bed tax are not pleased with it; the tourist industry is opposed to the tax; 70% of the tourists year round are from within the State of Florida and they will be sub3ected to the tax; a service tax is difficult to collect; Chambers of Commerce are the leaders of tourism and they do not want the bed tax; the average voter will never know how unfair this tax is to the Hotel/Motel Associ%tton; Sunset Laws do not sunset, they are renewed; Marco will be taxed, and It is unfair to tax an area that is already taxing itself~ a 1~ increase in sales tax would benefit the community more than anything else; The following persons spoke in favor of the Tourist Development Tax: Mr. George Keller Mrs. Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Womr~n Voters of Collier County The following are reasons in favor of the tax which were ~tated: Collier County has great needs, and the residents would like ~:he tourists to pay for structures that are needed; if the t~x is added with the sales tax and reported to the State, it will be easy to keep everyone honest. Results of a telephone survey conducted by the League of Women Voters of Collier County indicates that 93.77% of those polled want well preserved and well maintained beaches; 83.77% responded that tourists and seasonal visitors should pay a fair share of the c~ts in maintaining beaches; 69.55% responded that a Tourist or Bed Tax collected at hotels and seasonal rental units would be a fair way to pay for renourishing beaches, and the Marco/Goodland resi- dents that were polled responded by 69.~3% to the the same question; ~esponse by the Clty of Naples was 72.6~ agree; response from North Page 26 November 7, 1989 Naples ts 78.4% agree; Golden Gate responded 72% in agreement; East Naples responded 77% tn agreement. There were no other speakers. Commissioner Hesse moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe to accept Option 3, with stipulations relating to how the money is spent; proposed tax to be placed on the ballot of the next County-wide elec- tion; Staff to sresent other methods by which the tax may be utilized. Cmtssioner Volpe amended the motion to include a ~uneet provi- sion of three ~ars, and that the use of the revenues be used s~eclft- cally for the ~atntenance of the Beach Nourishment Projects, promotional activities, ~d the d~elopment of off-season ~ltural ~nts ~ored ~der the auspices of the Naples/Marco Phtlha~onlc. Co~tsstoner H~se accepted the ~en~ent. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he will be voting against ~he motion. He noted that after hearing the testimony provided by MacKenzie as to why the Tourist Development Tax should be laid aside, he is convinced that there should be a better definition of a bed tax before the County Jumps into the situation. Commissioner Goodntght Indicated that Immokalee will be ex~mpt from this tax, but Port of the Islands and Everglades w~ll be effected. She e~latned that Port of the Islands ts not selltr:g tourist o~ed Co/lieF County beaches, and Everglades ts not selling tourism on the Everglades beaches, adding that she does not see hc>w the Tourist Development Tax will benefit District 5, and therefore, she will be voting against the motion. U~ call for the ~estion, the vote was 2/2 {Co~tssioner S~ers a~ataAned, Co~issAoner's Sh~ and Goo~A~ht op~sed). Page 27 November 7, 1989 $**** Recess 1:05 P.M. - Reconvened 1:15 P.M. at which time Del;fury Clerk Kraft replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman *'*** It~ ,9H5 REPORT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION HEARING CONCERNING THE PELIC~3Z BAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - CONTINUED FOR ONE WEEK Commissioner Volpe filed Form 8B and abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest. County Manager Dorrtll advised that a report of the findings (On file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board as Exhibit "A") regarding the results of the continued legislative hearing this past Tuesday afternoon will be provided by Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager. He explained that two Commissioners participated in the delegation meeting this past Tuesday afternoon, and he had personally invited Senator Dudley to participate today if he felt a desire to do so. He noted that Senator Dudley ~s out of town on personal bus~ness, but re~-rved the right to come back and appear at an appropriate time. He no~ed that there are a number of people from the Pelican Bay Governing ~oard present who will speak. Mr. McLemore reported that on November 5, 1974, Chapter f4-462 Laws of Florida became a special law creating and governing the Pelican Bay Improvement District (PBID). He explained that th~ law provided for the water management, water and sewer facili~!es ;ind ser- vices in the District. He noted that subsequent amendments to the legislation provided for the expansion of powers to provide addit~onal services related to the financing of recreational, road, school and mosquito control services and facilities. He advised that currently PBID provides water, sewer, irrigation water, right-of-way main- tenance, water management and street lighting services. He stated that in oz.~er to preserve the economic advantages afforded by r~aso- nable waFtewater services, the Board of County Commissioners required, as indicated by the stated legislative intent of the enabling legisla- tion for PBID, that the water and sewer district be merged with the general purpose government at the option of the County Commission at Page 28 November 7, 1989 such time as the water and sewer infrastructure was established, viable and functional, the guarantee of the sponsor had expired and the interest of the bondholders had been met. He reported that on February 17, 1989 the Board of County Commissioners authorized the engineering firm of Hole, Montes & Associates to proceed with the development of a study to determine the feasibility of the County suc- ceeding to the rights, duties, functions and obligations of PBID as provided tn Chapter 74-462 Laws of Florida. He stated that on August 15, 1989 representatives of Hole, Montes & Associates presented the findings of its report concluding that the action of the Board to invoke its succession rights related to the operation and maintenance of PBID's water, sewer and irrigation water system appeared to offer substantial long term benefits to the pro- perty owner of PBID and the citizens of Collier County, and suggested that the Board of County Commissioners continue to explore the poten- tial succession. He advised that on October 18, 1989 representatives of the County appeared before the Board of Supervisors of PBID and requestod that the Board cooperate with the County tn its study of possible suc- cession by the County. He explained that on October 24, 1989 the Collier Legislative Delegation held a public hearing for the pu:'pose of considering legislative amendments by PBID to eliminate the suc- cession powers of the Board of County Commissioners from law. He noted that at the hearing, State Senator Fred Dudley offered a substi- tute proposal which would require the County to comply with Sections 4 and § of Florida Statutes 190.046 tn the execution of its succession powers to PBID. He reported that on October 31, 1989, the Board of County Co~!,sioners Issued Resolution 89-341 concluding that the legisla~tvl~ proposals offered by Pelican Bay and Senator Dudley were not in the best interest of the citizens of Collier County. He explained that on November 3, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners received a letter from Senator Dudley critical of the Board's opposi- Page 29 November 7, 1989 tion to and advising the Board of his intent to file the proposed legislation. He stated that on November 3, 1989 representatives of the County Staff and Hole, Montes & Associates traveled to the head- quarters of PBID to examine the public records of the district to complete its assessment of the feasibility of the County succeeding to the rights, duties, function, and obligation of PBID as provided in Chapter 74-462. Re stated that upon completion of their analysis, the study team presented its findings to the County Manager's Office, finding that si~nificant opportunities exist to enhance the efficiency, reliabi- lity, and cost effectiveness of the services provided by PBID, as a result of the County's succession to the rights, duties, functions and obligations of PBID as provided in Chapter 74-462. He reported that the studies provided by the team are attached to th~ document and available for the public record. He stated that St~lff's conclusion in reviewing all studies from Staff and Role, Montes & Associates are as follows: 1) The amendments proposed to Chapter 74-462 Laws of Florida as proposed to the Board of Supervisors of the Pelican Bay Improvement District seek to undo the prc~,'¢tive measures which were created through the wisdom of prior Boardr~ of County Commissioners to prevent actions on the part of PBID that would serve the special interest of PBID at the expense of the ~ntelest of the community as a whole and serve to erode the concept of general purpose government rendered under Home Rule Law, 2) Actions on the part of PBID to issue additional utility bonds for the purpose of making improvements to PBID's water and sewer and irrigation water systems would serve to perpetuate the inefficiencies of the PBID system and do irreparable violence and harm to the economic advantages of regic,:~l water and sewer services that occur to the benefit of all the customers of the regional system, 3) the County can provide water management, right-of-way maintenance and street lighting services to the property owners of the district of equal quality as, if not more Page 30 November 7, 1989 efficiently, and as if not more cost effectively than that now pro- vided by PBID, 4) The County can provide water, sewer and Irrigation water services of better quality, more efficiently, and more cost effective than water, sewer, and irrigation water services now pro- vided by PBID, 5) The County can provide for future expansion, future improvements, and future operations and maintenance of the water, sewer, and irrigation water services of better quality, more effi- ciently, and more cost effectively than that which can be provided by PBID, 6) Actions on the part of the PBID Board of Supervisors to pro- mote special interest of the district at the expense of the general public, to erode the concept of general purpose home rule government, and to limit the economies and efficiencies afforded to the customers of PBID through regional water, sewer, and irrigation water systems creates a condition in which the Board of County ~ommlssioners has avail&hie to no choice but to exercise its rights to succeed to the rights, duties, functions and obligations of PBID as provided in Chapter 74-462 Law of Florida. He noted that in conslderat~on of facts contained herein, Staff re=ommends the following: The Board of County Commissioners ~hould instruct the Staff to prepare in conjunction with legal counsel, a proposed resolution necessary to succeed to the powers, rights, duties, functions, and obligations of PBID as provided in ChaDter 74-462 Laws of Florida, and the Resolution should provide the following: all contracts of the district for supplies, services, and other things of value shall remain in force until such time that the Board of County Commissioners shall determine otherwise appropriate; all PBiD employees shall remain in the employ of the district until such time as the Board of County Commissioners shall determine other- wise app~opriate; all fees, charges, assessments, taxes and other rates of revenue shall remain unchanged until the Board of County Commissioners shall otherwise determine appropriate: any and all acti- vities related to the issuance of long term obligation note~ and bonds Page November 7, 1989 are suspended until such time as the Board of County Commissioners shall otherwise determine appropriate. He explained that there are several back-up documents attached to the report from which the fin- dings, conclusions, and recommendations were determined and Staff stands ready to answer any questions. Attorney Joseph McMackin III, representing the Pelican Bay Improvement District advised that the district is shocked at Staff's report. He noted that they expected that the County Staff would sit dowT~ with a committee appointed by the district to discuss a proposal for the County to provide sewer services to the PBID. He indicated that no such meeting has occurred and on Friday, 6 representatives from the County came to the district office, went through the District's files, accumulated a stack of paper approximately 36 inches high, requested copies be made and delivered to the C'3unty Staff. He explained that the basic element of this issue is whether the County can provide sewer services to the residents of Pelican Bay as effi- c]ently and economically and of equal or better quality than what is now being provided by the District. He emphasized that Staff has not asked for a decision, and is holding a ~un to the PBID and as"ing the Board of County Commissioners to pull the trigger. He pointed out that the District feels Staff wants to take over Pelican Bay, regardless of the benefits to the citizens. He advised tt.at during the legislative delegation process the District has tried to compro- mise with County Staff and no compromise is possible. He explai!~ed that Senator Dudley's letter expresses dismay at his treatment by County Staff, and PBID feels that they have been treated shabbily as well. He reported that PBID would like the Board of County Comm~ss~cners to allow the Dlstrlct Commission and Staff to sit down and discuss the matter, and come to a recommendation on the merits of the issue. Commissioner Saunders concurred that someone is holding a gun to someone's head, but he disagrees with Attorney McMackin as ~o who is Page 32 November 7, 1989 holding the ~un. He noted that he was presented with the specter of special legislation being presented next week in Tallahassee, eliml- nating any authority that Collier County would have in reference to the district, making a change in the special legislation setting up the district, and in addition to the change concerning the Board's authority, giving additional authority to the PBID. Attorney McMacktn replied that the District is asking for equal footing to negotiate the Issue and come to a conclusion. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners not accept Staff's proposal and allow the negotiation process to proceed. Commissioner Shanahan questioned why Staff was advised that there were no records relevant to the bond issue or borrowing in the near future, although they left with a stack of papers 3S inches high? Mr. Jim Ward, Assistant Manager, PBID, indicated that Staff had requested ail files relative to internal correspondence with any bond counsel or bond underwriters relating to any future issues, and there are no ror:?espondence files that relate specifically to that issue. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Ward reported that it took him 7 hours to pull the information from the documents, i.e. personne] of staff going back to 1984, all current bond documents for current bond issues, all minutes of the Board of Supervisors since 1974, all of the agenda letters of the Board of Supervisors since 1985, copy of every agreement the District has outstandinG with developers banks, etc. evidencing indebtedness within the District, copies of current water management, water and street lighting budgets and all backup materials etc. Commissioner Shanahan questioned what the plans of the Di6trict are in relation to providing documents relating to the bond issue and/or additional borrowing or financing7 Mr. Ward responded that County Staff has been provided a current Phase III facilities expan- sion repor~ outlining the proposed wastewater treatment plant expan- sion and some ancillary expansion programs, and a current rate analysis which shows what the rates will be over a period of time Page 33 November 7, 1989 relating to that specific bond issue. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Ward indicated that there is specific bond information relative to the financing plan for expansion. County Attorney Cuyler stated for the record exactly what was requested by Staff: all records relevant to any anticipated bond issue or borrowing in the near future, ipcluding any correspondence, memos or other information concerning the process of issuing, insuring or guaranteeing such bonds or proposed indebtedness. Attorney Cuyler noted that it is his understanding that Staff came away with nothing regarding that paragraph, which indicates to him that there is nothing. Attorney Cuyler stated for the record that the paragraph he read was one of approximately ~6 requests for public records. Mr. Russ Mudge, a resident of Pelican Bay, advised that he is currently a member of the Board of Supervisors of the PBID and serves as its treasurer, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. He noted that he is here to try and convince the Board of County Commissioners that the property owners of Pelican Bay should be the ones to decide who can best serve their needs. He explained that the Pelican Bay Improvement D~strict was established in 1974 to protect the property owners of Pellcan Bay and the County in the event of failure of the development. He reported that was the intention of the drafters of the legislatlon is to not turn over the successful development to the County, resulting in a higher cost of services to Pelican Bay and a substantial ii,crease in facilities cost to the Collier County taxpayers. Commissioner Shanahan commented that the County felt it was not in the best interest of the public to move ahead and change the enabling legislat~on. Mr. Mudge questioned why it is not in the best interest of the public? Commissioner Shanahan pointed out that the County feels that it can provide better quality service at equal, better or more competitive rates. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Mudge explained that there are 5 Board of Supervisors elected by the Page 34 November 7, 1989 people at a nominal salary of $100 per month, and advised that the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ward and his employees total 14. Mr. Mudge explained that there is a District Manager under a monthly contractual arrangement at an annual salary of $26,000 part time. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Mudge indicated that the District Manager is Gary Moyer, a former Westinghouse employee. Tape #4 Mr. Jim Dunwtddte, a resident of Pelican Bay, and a member of the PBID Board of Supervisors stated that he ts serving on the Board to protect and enhance the residents of Pelican Bay. He advised that he ts a retired engineer, and tn his opinion the report done by Hole, Montes & Associates is biased in favor of a takeover, and Inaccurate tn Its engineering conclusions. He emphasized that this report should not be the basis for any decision by the Board of County Commissioners. ~e stated that Wilson, Miller, Barton, Sol/ & Peek, Inc. prepared a ~tudy for PBID making a comparison and they arrived at figures of 12 million vs. 18 or 22 million as far as County expenditures are con- cerned. Commissioner Saunders commented that the PBID is pursulnj the change in special legislation which says that the takeover by the County for the PBID facilities should be based on: 1) can Collier County provide service of equal or better quality, and 2) can ,~ullter County provide the service at equal or better cost, be taken InTo con- sideration, and 3) the voting of the PBID Board. He advised that he ts prepared to vote to tell Staff to proceed to take over the facili- ties, because the PBID has placed the Board of County Commissioners in a position of eliminating the Board's authority, and he ts prepared to act on tha~ authority before PBID has that opportunity. He stated that he is also prepared to have Staff meet with PBID's staff to deter~ltne over the next few months, whether the County can p:~ovide the service at equal or better quality and cost, if the PBID will ask Senator Dudley to take the gun away from the County's Page 35 November 7, 1989 head. Mr. Mudge stated that neither he nor Jim Dunw~ddie, can make that commitment, that should be left to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Saunders questioned if either Mr. Mudge or Mr. Dunwtdd~e would advise what they would recommend to the PBID's Board of Supervisors? Mr. Dunwiddfe advised that a board meeting is scheduled one week from tomorrow and questioned if the Board of County Commissioners would wait until then? Commissioner Saunders replied that that will not work because the special session is scheduled for that day. He suggested that an emergency meeting of the PBID be called and explained that he is concerned that the special legislat~on proposed ellminates the authority of the Board of County Commissioners to takeover the facilities of the PBID. He advised th&c the only way he will vote not to take over the facil~ties is if PBID's Staff and Cc,~nty Staff meet to determine whether the County can provide better and more cost efficient service, and the PBID directs Senator Dudley not to submit the special legislation. In response to Mr. Dunwiddie, Commissioner Saunders advised that the issue is who can prou!de better and cheaper service over a period of time, not simply what th~ rate will be on the day of takeover. Mr. McLemore requested that assurance from the PBID Board would agree that it would not proceed to issue addit~onal bonds relative to improvements of the PBID system durtng this period. Mr. Dunwiddte stated that there has been no official action by the PBID to do anything about coming out with a new bo~d issue. A discussion followed about the special legislative meeting. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the posit~on of the PBID if the County were able to prove quality of service, efficiency and equal or better cos'~? Mr. Mudge stated that there would be no question, but to go with the County. Co:~issioner Saunders suggested that a special meeting be called by the PBID for the sole purpose of asking Senator Dudley and Mary Ellen Hawkins not to submit any special leg~slation next week at the Page 36 November 7, 1989 transportation session and during the next several weeks; no bonds be issued; the PBID shall not take any action making it impossible for the County to take over the system; and County Staff and PBID meet to review the consultants report to see who can ~n the long run provide the most cost effective high quality service. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that in the afternoon session last week, Mary Ellen Hawkins' position was that she would not take any action relative to the legislation, until she had a chance to review Senator Dudley's position. Commissioner Saunders indicated that the Board of County Commissioners would want a letter from the PBID to both representatives requesting that there not be any special legisla- tlon submitted ~n reference to this issue because of an effort by the Collier County Staff to meet with PBID staff. Commissioner Saunders advised that in fairness to Senator Dudley, bls secretary called Senator Dudley's office when the issue first came u9 to explain that the Board of County Commiss~oners meeting would be rather short and not go until the afternoon, and whatever time he could get here, h~s schedule would be accommodated. He notud that the message was given, the call was not returned. He explained that no one is trying to exclude or criticize Senator Dudley in reference to handling this. · ''''Recess: 2:10 P.M. Reconvened: 2:30 P.M. County Manager Dorrlll reported that during the recess he met with PBID's staff and they have agreed to advertise and meet in a spe- cial session on Friday and, on the recommendation of their chairman, will require that the Board request Senator Dudley to withdraw any considerat~on of this bill during the upcoming special legislative session. He noted that Staff acknowledges that they cannot bind them- selves' to ~his today for failure to meet in emergency session on Friday. He advised that they have agreed not to incur or proceed to incur any debt between now and March 1, 1990, and in the interim would continue to develop analysis of cost and other items contained in last Page 37 Novemb~? 7, 1989 week's resolution for both boards relating to this Issue. He requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County and he to proceed and develop necessary legal instruments to proceed for failure on their part to develop the assurances they have offered today. Attorney McMacktn advised that he had spoken with the Prestdgnt of the Board of Supervisors, and he Intends to call a special meeting for 4:00 P.M. Friday, November 10, 1989 and will recommend the following: in exchange for the County agreeing not to take over the District in a hostile, adverse manner, the Board of Supervisors direct a letter to Senator Dudley requestinG him to withdraw the bill from November call tn the Senate, not Issue any bonds financing expansion prior to March 1, 1990 and finally reiterate their continuing Intent tu negotiate tn gond faith with Collier County to come to a businesslike answer to the issue. In response to Commissioner Sounders, Attorney McM'acktn reported that Mary Ellen Hawkins will also be Informed. Commissioner Sounders suggested that this item be continued until next Tuesday in the unlikely event the Board of Supervisors d,es not agree with recommendation of Its counsel and the President. He explained that if the Board of Supervisors agrees with the proposed solution, the Item will be taken off the County Commission agenda on Tuesday. He suggested that County Manager Dorrtll or someone from Staff attend the meeting, showing the spirit of cooperation with PBID. Co~mtssioner Sounders moved, seconded by Coaissloner Hasse that this matter be continued to next Tuesday. Commissioner Shanahan pointed out that the spirit of cooperation is ess~n':!~,l to this issue. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/0. (Coatssioner Volpe Novelbe~° ?, 1989 Item ~B1 ADVERTISEMENT AND RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO PERFORM HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL ANALYSIS OF POTENTIALLY DEFICIENT ROADNAYS WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S GROWTH ,MANAOEMEI~ PLAN - APPROVED Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advised that this Item recommends approval for Staff to proceed with obtaining proposals from local consultants to study traffic levels of service on certain roadways. He explained that consistent with the concurrency manage- ment system of the Gr.~wth Management Plan, Staff will determine ser- vice levels on major roadway networks on an annual basis by looking at the peak hour, peak season volumes. He indicated that the present studies will continue, but tn the future there may be a need for more ~peciftc studies to be done. He explained that detailed studies will be conducted of the time to travel certain segments of road to deter- mine whether or not the delays tn travel time indicate, in a very spe- cific manner, whether the level of service on the roadway is different than the level of service Indicated by volume alone. He reported that Staff ts seeking approval to proceed with the proposal process, recognizing it will take some time to get a consultant firm on board. He advised that it is anticipated there will only be a few road segments to be studied, and the cost of those studies may be borne by the Transportation Fund, Community Development Fund or development commitments. Commissioner Volpe questioned the expenditure of $50,000 and whether or not the MPO, rather than outside consultants, could deter- mine the service levels? Mr. Archibald indicated that Staff studies will b~ .~;ntinued, and at the end of the year an annual report will show the volumes on major roadway networks. He reported that from that volume data, road service levels for comparison to concurrency and the Growth Management Plan can be determined. He explained that 'in addition to those volume studies, there may be a necessity for a very detailed corridor analysis, which involves intersection capacity, detailed turning movement and the time to travel studies on corridors Page 39 November ?, 1989 determining if the information provided by a volume service level is different than the information from other factors. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald explained that the first level of review made by the County and the State is based on one factor only, the volume of traffic on the roadway. He advised that if the ;oa~ corridor ts above or below standard, there ts a requirement for more detailed study consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual and a con- sultant is needed to be on board and available to undertake that study, although the cost of the study may not be borne by the County. In response to Comm~ssioner Vo]pe, Mr. Archibald indicated that the $50,000 figure is the highest figure that he could come up with over a 12 month period, and the Intent ts to assure that if those detailed analyses are necessary or driven by some sort of land deve- icpment activity, the study would be undertaken through the County's c~nsultant, but the cost would be borne by a third party. He noted as an example that S.R. 951 between U.S. 41 and the Marco Island bridge has 3 major contracts, 2 of which are funded in the State's f've year plan, but the southern segment of that project is not funded. Mr. Archibald explained that the southern segment of S.R. 951 from Mainsail Drive, south to the bridge, contains very little delay to traffic on that roadway due to the fact that there ts only one inter- section, and the capacity of that segment of roadway may be different than the capacity designated by studying generalized traffic volume. He reported that the level of service by the volume method may be level of service "e", while the level of service based upon actual travel time add delay factors and intersection capacity factors may be higher, ~n,i that is the need for the study. He explained that in that situation. ~taff would like to have a contract available to be used in case it is needed. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Archibald indicated that the study will include studies on either State or County roads, and wou]~ give more specific information faster. In response to Page 40 November 7, 1989 Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald indicated that the Highway' Capacity Manual sets forth the procedures to be used and the first procedure to be used is the generalized volume tables that have been established at the State level from the Highway Capacity Manual. C~isstoner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried unani~ousl¥, that Staff be authorized to advertise and re~eiv~ proposals for consulting eerwices to perform Highway Capacity Nmn~ml analysis of potentially deficient roadways within Collier County c~tst~t with thm C~'s Gr~h ~ge~nt PI~. It~D1 ~Q~ST ~R ~O~S~S PR~ESS FOR ENGI~ERING SERVICES FOR ~E DESIGN OF NA~ LI~S ~ S~R ~ESS~E ~INS ON I~O~LEE ROAD WAI~D. ~ILITIE$ D~ISION A~ORIZED TO ~GOTIATE ~ AGRE~ FOR ~E DESIGN OF ~E I OF ~ ~-~ING ~O~ FOR I~O~EE ROAD ~ ~ I~ION OF U~ING HOLE, MO~S ~ ASS~IA~S, INC. TO ~ ~ It response to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant Utilities Administrator Fred Bloetscher advised that Hole, Montes & Associates hl~s the contract to design Immokalee Road from U.S. 41 to C.R. 951. He stated that the contract for the water portion of the project of Immokalee Road was signed tn 1986, prior to the time the Water Master Plan was completed, and because the time for the design of the highway project to be finalized is approaching, the design of utility improve- ments should be done now. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Commissioner Goodnight explained that the contract from 1-75 to C.R. 951 was extended; the contract In 1986 was for U.S. 41 to 1-75 and that has been expanded from 1-75 to C.R. 951. Commissioner Volpe suggested that the expansion should have been done at the same time. Mr. Bloetccher concurred. Mr. Bioetscher indicated that the recommendation is to declare an emergency based on the timing for this project, and waive the formal bid pmocess allowing Staff to enter into negotiations with Hole, Montes & Associates to incorporate the water and sewer design. County Attorney Cuyler advised that tt ts a waiver of the consultant selec- tion process. Page 41 November 7, 1989 ~issioner Shanahan norad0 seconded by ¢o---taaloner ~ocx~ntght and carried ~nant~oual¥, that an energency be declared and the formal consultant selection process be waived authorizing Stafff to enter into n~llotiattonswith Hole, Montes & Associates to incorporate t~e ~ter and ~r design for the fonr-laninG project for Immokalee Road. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Uttlttles Admfnfstrato~ Mike Arnold advised that the road projects are started tn advance prtor to the water projects, creating a time problem. He explained that Staff has discussed bringinG a summary to the Board of County Commissioners in Generic form saying that the road contracts are out there, and he noted that Staff would like to tag on to the water projects and have Mr. Archibald word his RFP's to take Into account the possibility of utility design, thereby not having to waive the consultant selection ~rocess. Page 42 Nover.~ber 7, 1989 LIMITED USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION]~-llS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA SPORTS CAR ASSOCIATION, INC. , PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF A PORTION OF THE IMMOKALEE A~'F~ORT ON NOVEMBER 11, 1989 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1989 FOR AN AUTO CROSS AN~ LOW SP~ED RALLY RACE - APPROVED Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advised that the Limited Use Agreement provides for a sports car group to use Immokalee Airport at the County's current site for November 11 and 12, 1989, this weekend. He noted that the agreement has been prepared, ts stan- dard and sets forth setting forth requirements for insurance, FAA nottftcatlon, cash bond for clean up and a series of standard Items. He stated that Staff recommends the agreement be approved for the two day event, and Staff will monitor the activity at the Airport. Commissioner Huse ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and c:,rried unanimously, that the Limited Use Agreement between the Board ~f County Co~tsstoners and The South Florida Sports Car Association, Inc., providing for the use of a portion of the Immokalee Airport on N~mber 11 and ll, 1989 for an auto cross and low speed rally race, Page 43 Novemter 7, 1989 Item #11Al & #1lA2 BUDGL~ AMLrlTDMENTS 90-8; 90-9; 90-13; 90-16; AND 90-18 THROUGH 90-24 - Finance Director Yonkosky reported that Budget Amendment 96-16 makes a change in Solid Waste and the $36,300 normally provided eo the Sheriff to provide litter cleanup is being done by Community Development and the money is being transferred internally. He reported that Budget Amendment 90-18 deals with making payment for a court reporting services due to the size of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board Meetings, and the County is asking that it be reapproprlated for next year. Cemissioner Goodnight moved, aeconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Budget Amendmenta 90-8; 90-9; 90-13; 90-16; and 90-18 through 90-24 be adopted'. Item #liD BU~ET AM~q~DI(ENT APPROPRIATING THE UNPAID BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5Y,400 ON THE CONTRACT WITH MOORE GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. FOR PAYMENT IN FY 1989/90 - APPROVED Finance Director Yonkosky explained that this Item is to appropriate $57,400. for the computer system that was scheduled to be paid last year which has not been paid. Commissioner Hasse moved, aeconded by Commissioner Goodntght and carried unanimously, that the Amendment to the FY 1989-90 budget representing the unpaid balance on the contract with Moore Gov=rn~ental Syetem~, Inc. be approved. Item #12A DISCUSSION OF INDIGENT HEALTH CARE - COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF TO DEVELOP A REPORT RE pRIMARY HEALTH CARE NOT ATTACHED TO INDIGENT HEALTH CARE AND THE RECOUP OF HEALTH CARE FULl? FROM THE STATE AND STAFF BE INSTRUCTED TO RECOUP THE 65~ MATCHING ~JTt~TT FROM THE STATE Commissioner Goodntght reported that she had been In Tallahassee regarding the health care program and needed direction from the Board of County Commissioners. She passed out a copy regarding changes that will be discussed at a future meeting. She advised that the Co¥~nty ,:ould like to eliminate primary health care from indigent Page 44 November 7, 1989 healthcare. She explained that the majority of the people tha'u Social Services have been assisting have not been part of the primary care, but rather emergency care. She explained that primary health care in the health care program has been eliminated, but she has been that Governor Martinez is not going to sign the bill unless the mary care is attached to it. She advised that there is talk that a health care bill passed several years ago will be reduced from 10 million dollars to 6 million dollars, and counties not involved as of January 1, 1990, will not be included. She noted that the bill passed several years ago requires that all counties be included after October 1, 1989. She reported that during the budget process, $77,000 was allocated for Collier County's 30% match of the money, but it has been reported that Collier County will not get any money at all even though the State law is not being changed. She questioned if the Board feels that Staff should be instructed to obtain Collier County's portion of the money if the Governor signs the $6,000,000 bill7 Commissioner Saunders advised that Commissioner Goodnight should work w]th Staff and develop a report to resolve the issue of primary care not be]ng attached to indigent health care. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Goodnight explained that there are two parts to this bill; 1) out of county indigent care requires the County put $4.00 per capita in a special fund, but she advised that the County put $125,000 into the fund with the understanding that Collier County would go to the $4.00 per capita; and 2) for in county indigent health care, there would be a 65/35 split, with the County matching the and the ~tate matching the 65%. She reported that the Governor vetoed that b:13 and the State has worked out a compromise reducing the bill to $6,000,000, but she advised that HRS says that only those who were participating in the program on the first of January, 1989 will be able to obtain part of the $~.nOO,O00. She indicated that Collier County did not participate in January, but the money was budgeted in October, and Collier County will not get its money because the State Page 45 Novem:-.:r 7, 1989 says It will not follow through. She advised that she would like direction from the Board instructing Staff, If the Governor signs this bill, to recoup Collier County's 6§~. Commissioner Shanahan and Commissioner Saunders concurred. Commissioner Ooodntght moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried unanimously, that Staff be instructed to recoup the 6~ ~atchtng grant from the State. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried unanimously, that Commissioner Goodntght continue to work on separating primary care from indigent health care. ''**s Commissioner Goodntght moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried 5/0, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and or adopted. .s..s Item --14Al P~-SOLUTION 89-343 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 19, BLOCK 12-~L_TGOLDEN GATE __UNIT NO. 4. PHILIPP BAUMANN Item #14A2 RESOLUTION 89-344 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 2, .SOUTH I~IMOKALEE HEIGHTS. (SUPREME CLERMONT AND ANISE CLERMONT}. Item ,14A3 RESOLUTION 89-345 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED 'ST COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 14, BLOCK ? OF NAPLES r'k,'.w, SUBDIVISION, .U~_IT NO. I (WALLACE AND RA/~_EL ENDRE~). Pagan_l-e, (- Item #lil¢ RESOLUTIOi~ 89-346 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED 8¥ COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 26, BLOCK 243, MARCO B__F,A__C~_ UNIT SIX (JO~HN AND. MARION KENNEDY). Item ~14A5 RESOLUTION 89-347 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPF~DED BY COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 10, BLOCK 6, NA£'LES ~SARKIS JOHN MURADYAN . £. /- Page 46 November 7, 1989 Item #14A6 RESOLUTION 89-348 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER ~3ND$ EXPENDED B~f COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 1, BLOCK 290, GOLDEN GATE (OSCAR AND KATHLEEN PATINO}. See Pages ~/--P4 /-' ~ ~ Item#leA? RESOLUTION 89-349 FOR ASSESSMXNT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXl~KNDED B~ COUN~ TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 6, BLOCK 69 MA~CO BEACH UNIT 2 (OSORIO INVESTMENTS N.V. }. See Pages ~~ Item #14A8 RESOLUTION 89-350 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED BY COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 3, BLOCK 298. ~co BEACH WIT ZI~ CLESTER E. WACr~.AR, III m~O PA~ICIA W_ACKI~NAH;. Item #14A9 RESOLUTION 89-351 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED BY COUNTer TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 32, BLOCK F, SABAL SHORES SUBDIVISION (CHARLIE D. WILLIAMS) See Pages ~~_~.A Item ,14A10 RESOLUTION 89-352 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNDS KXl~ENDED BY COU~FI"f TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3, BLOCK 92, LOT 12 (LEONARD D. WISNIEWSKI). See Pages~. ~ Item #14All FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF "GATES MILLS" SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS That the final plat not be recorded until the required impro- vements have been constructed and accepted or until approved security is received for the incompleted improvements and that construction shall be completed within 36 months of the date cf this approval. 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 3. That no building permits be issued until the final plat is recorded. See Pages ~~ Item #14A12 AGRE~ENT TO ESTABLISH RESOLUTION FOR EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT OF ~V/NDS~AR SUBDIVISION - SUBJECT TO LETTER OF CREDIT lt~ #14B1 See Pacjes ~/-~. /3 Page 47 Nove~b~..x' ?, 1989 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF NAPLES FOR MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL ~YSTEM ALONG GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY. Item #14B2 moved to Item Itn KESOLUTION 89-353 ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE COMMITTEE REGA~ING T~E REVIEW AND STUDY PERTAINING TO THE POTENTIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A COUNTY-WIDE GENERIC INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SYST~i-I Ite~a #lCD1 BID ~89-I4,?? FOR AN IBM 6262-T12 PRINTER AND OCR PRINTER - AWARDED TO _.INTERNATIONAL ~USINESS MACKINES OF FORT MYERS FOR $20~889.00 RESOLUTION 89-354, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FCR T]tE COUNT~ SeePage Ite~ ,14E2 APPRAISAL AGREEMENT~ WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. AND HANSON APPRAISAL COMPANY' RE PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT PROJECT IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $245a000.00 Item #14E3 LEAVE P~NI~ FOR A PERMANENT EMPLOYEE FOR JACK RANDOLPH - ESTABLISHED Item #14E4 EX~CUTION OF A CONTRACT (VIA PURCHASE ORDER) WITH EDISON COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S INTTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE CERTIFIED PUBLIC MANAGER TRAINING TO SUPERVISORY AND MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL FOR 10 SESSIONS WITH 25 PARTIC:?.%NTS AT A COST OF $56,250.00 See Pages NOTE¢ D0~~ ~~ ~ ~ 0FFICEASOFJAN~ 15, 1990~ ¢IERTIFICATE~ OF CORRECTION AS FRESENTED B~f THE PROPERTY APPRAISER 696-697 634-635 1979 TAX ROLL 1980 TAX ROLL 1981 TAX ROLL lo/5/s9 lo/5/89 Page 48 Nove~i~er 7, 1989 643-645 709-710 401-402 277-278 264-265 248-249 387 389 1988-140 242-244 247-248 1982 TAX ROLL Item#1412 1983 TAX ROLL 1984 TAX ROLL 1985 TAX ROLL 1986 TAX ROLL 1987 TAX ROLL lO/5/89 lO/5/89 lO/5/89 lO/5/89 lO/5/89 10/5/89 lO/5/u9 lO/5/89 1988 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1988 TAX ROLL 10/30/89 9/5 - 9/19/89 10/5/89 1989 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 1989-1/1989-6 1989-8/1989-14 1989-16/1989-24 1989-28/1989-37 11/1/89 11/1/89 lo/24 - 31/1/89 11/1/89 SATISFACT~,3R OF LIE~ FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages ~'/~, /.~, (~ Item 914I MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection, the Chair dtrected that the following miscellaneous correspondence be referred and or filed: 1. 10/31/89 Notice of Committee Meeting, House of Representatives, November 7, 1:00 p.m.to 2:30 p.m. re discussion of issues regarding the Special Session on Transportation. Referred to Neil Dorrlll, George Archibald and filed. 10/31/89 Notice of Committee Meeting, House of Representatives, November 7, 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. re Joint Meettng of Committees on Highway Safety and Construction, Page 49 November 7, 1989 Public Transportation, Finance and Taxation and Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations. Referred to Neil Dol'rtll, Finance, Transportation, and filed. 10/31/89 Notice of Committee Meetlng, House of Representatives, November 13, 1:00 P.M. to 4:00 p.m. presen- tation on Joint Select Growth Management Implementation Committee's oversight advisory report and Affairs on Urban Sprawl. Referred to Nell Dorrill, Growth Management, and flied. 10/25/89 State of Florida Division of Adminlstrative Hearings for cases: The Conservancy, Inc. vs. Collier Development Corp., and DER, Case No. 88-6212; The Sierra Club, vs. Collier Development Corps, and DER, Case No. 88-6215; The Conservancy, Inc. and Florida Audubon Society, vs. Collier Development Corp., and DER, Case No. 89-4159; Citizens to Preserve Naples Bay, Inc., vs. Collier Development Corp., DER, Case No. 89-4407; DCA, vs. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Case No. 89-1841DRI 89-6. Referred to Nell Dorrill, Stan Lttstnger, Frank Brutt, and filed. 10/20/89 letter to Chalrman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, from Patrick Kenny, Environmental Specialist, DEA, re Collier County - WRR File No. 111714815. enclosing short form application involving fill and dredge activities. Referred to Nell DorrilI, Bill Lorenz, Frank Brutt, and filed. 10/27/~9 Notice to elected and appointed public officials from C.O. Morgan, P.E., DOT, re State Project No. 03001-1515, State Road 84 from County Roau 31 to County Road 951 in Collier County, Florida. Referred to Neil Dorrtll G~orge Archibald and filed. ' Minutes: A. 11/8/89 Agenda for CC Advisory Committee for the Homeless. Referred to BCC. B. 11/2/89 Agenda for Collier County Planntng Commission. Notice to Owner 11/19/89 Notice to Collter County Board of County Commissioners and Kraft Construction Company under order given by Trane Company, a Division of American Standard, Inc., that they will furnish labor, and materials or supplies for heating, ventilating, and/or air conditioning equipment for the Collier County Government Center. Referred to Net1Dorrtll, Skip Camp. 10/18/89 Notice to Collier Collier County Board of County Commissioners from George Mathers, SnyderGeneral Corp., under an order given by BCH Mechanical advising they have furnished air conditioning equipment, materials and services for improvement of real property described as Collier County Government. Referred to Nell Dorrlll, Skip Camp, and filed. 10/23/89 Notice to Board of County Commissioners from Tlncher Concrete Construction, Inc. under an order given by T.A. Forsberg, Inc. of Florida, that they have furnished concrete work to Central and South Wastewater Transmission Facility. Referred to Nell Dorrlll, Skip Camp, and filed. Page 50 Novem~'~-~ 7, 1989 Copy of Notice of Non-Payment dated 10/27/289 to H.D. Rutledge and Son, Attn: Joe Davisewlcz, 1741 Colonial Blvd., Fort Myers, from Hughes Supply, Inc., Klm Ltndgren, Regional Credit Manager advtstng that pursuant to a contract with Mid Coast Plumbing, Inc. they have not been paid for '~ervlces pro- vtded to the Health Services Building. xc: Nell Dorrill, James Giles, and filed. 10. 11. 10/24/89 letter to Board of County Commissioners from Sam J. Coldtng, Property Appraiser, advising of error in that the County will receive a personal property tax bill for property which is exempt from taxation and should be disregarded. Referr-~d to Finance Department and filed. 10/26/89 letter to Collier County Board of County Commissioners from Edward Yaun, P.E., Supervising Professfonal, SFWMD, re: C.R. 951Four-Lantng Improvements (Phase I), Location: Collier County, S2/TSOS,R26, enclosing General Permit Notice of Rights. Referred to Nell Dorrill, George Archibald, and filed. 12. 10/30/89 check made to order of Board of County Commissioners, No. 016856 for $122,669.00. Budget Refund for 1988. Referred to Budget Department and filed. 13. 10/24/89 letter to Commissioner Butt Saunders, from A. W. Addison, Deputy Tax Collector, with attachment indicating amount of postage used and, therefore, due for first tax notice mailing, $32,923.23. Referred to Budget Department and filed. 14. Letter dated 9/19/89 from James H. Stesky of Stesky and Lehman, P.A., to Sam Coldtng, Tax Collector, re property owners that were assessed taxes on the wrong parcel of pro- perty, xc: Filed. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was ad3ourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 3:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL /'~URT n ~AONDERS, CHAIRMAN /These /inut~,p~roved by the Board on as presented or as corrected 0,)(), 3 Page 51