Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/20/1986 R I Nðples, Floridð, Mðy 20, 1986 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, thðt the Boðrd of County Commissioners in ðnd for the County of Collier, ðnd ðlso ðcting ðS the Boðrd of Zoning Appeðls ðnd ðS the governing board(s) of such special districts ðS hðve been creðted according to law ðnd having conducted business herein, met on this dðte at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Build_ng "F" of the Cour~house Complex, East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John A. Pistor VICE-CHAIRMAN: Anne Goodnight ,.--'- ALSO PRESENT: Frederick J. Voss Max A. Hðsse C. C. -Red- Holland Jðmes C. Giles, Fiscðl Officer, Carmen Ruiz and Maureen Kenyon (10:15 A.M.), Deputy Clerks: Donðld B. Lusk, County Manager, Neil Dorrill, Assistant County Mðnðg~r; Ken Cuyler, County Attorn'YI Pam 8r.no.ooJo1 Doputy ^,.l.tant County ManaOO!1 Tom Ku~kl ~lic Wor~. ~ini.tr.t?r ViQ~ie ~~ll~n" Commun~ty ~@lopaent Administrðto~; David Weeks ðnd Barbara Cðcchione, Plðnners: Dðve Pettrow, Zoning/Planning Director: Dr. Brandt Henningsen, Natural Resources Management Director; John Madajewski, Director of Utilities Engineering: Nancy Israelson, Administrative Assistðnt to the Boðrd: and Deputy Chief Rðy Barnett, Sheriff's Department. A~,'" m~ Og4H~r276 Page 1 ICOK 094 PJ,,~285 Mðy 20, 1986 Tape U Item f1 AGENDA - APPROVED WITH ADDITIONS Commis.ioner Voss moved, .econded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the agenda be approved with the to11owing additionss ð. Item 5C - Proclamation designating the week of May 22-29, 1986, as "All-Americðn Buckle-up Week," added at the request of County Mðnager Lusk. b. Item 9B4 - Recommendation to approve ðnd execute lease ðgreement between Board of County Commissioners ðnd Corve~tes of Naples, Inc., added at the request of County Mðnager Lusk. c. Item lOB - Resolution ðmending a resolution providing for the issuance of ð subordinated pðri-mutuel tðX revenue bond in the principðl amount of $590,000, ðdded ðt the request of County Attorney Cuyler. Item f2 MINUTES OP APRIL 15, 1986 AND APRIL 22, 1986, ~PPROVED AS PRESENTED Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the Minutes ot April 15, 1986 and April 22, 1986 be approved as presen~ed Item 13 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Commissioner Pistor presented Employee Service Awards to the following employees: Page 2 - - - ~1~¡\ "R" "·,~,'1. . 'I-'.'~ '.~A d~'~ ri:~,;, ',' ~.' ~, . .~tf~:'..· Mðy 20, 1986 Hermðn Huttman, ROðd & Bridge Nancy Isrðelson, Board of County Commissioners 10 years 5 years ('..(~. "\ ' ~.) ;. .: .~, ' Itell U PROCLAMATION DESIGN1t.TING MAY 22, 23 and 24, 1986, as "POPPY DAYS" _ ADOPTED tJpon readi·.~q ot the proclamation, COllUllissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that the proolamation desi'}nating May 22, 23 and 24, 1986, as "Poppy Days" be adopted. ,{~~:J.... ., !ODK !l94-r-,qf 28ß Page 3 """,.' ,,0"':'0'- ~: . ~~ May 20, 1986 %tea IS PROCLAMATION D!:SIGN7\TING THE WEEK 01' MAY 22-29, 1986 AS "ALL-AMERICAN ~UCKL!:-UP WEEK" - ADOPTED Upon re.dinq ot the proclamation, Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the proclamation desiqnatinq the week ot May 22-29, 1986, as "All-American Buckle-up Week" be adopted. &CDK 094n~.1288 Page 4 May 20, 1986 I tam " PETITION R-S'-lC - REZONE FROM RMP-16 TO PUD ~OWH AS THE TRAILS OP QUAIL RUN - CONTINUED TO JUNE 3, 1986 Commissioner Hasse stðted that this petition was put on the Agenda ðS an add-on lðst week for a continuance from today to June 3, 1986, ðnd moved th~t the Board e~tend the public hearing to November 11, 1986. Commissioner Hð~se ðdded that the public hearing is two weeks awðy ðnd notice hðs been too short to give the people an opportunity to be present. He sðid it is only right that the Board listen to people in the ðrea: most of the people who have gone and ðre going North expected to be heard todðY, ðnd it was ð 4/4 vote ðt CCPC meeting which indicðtes that there WðS a greðt deðl of controversy about this mðtter. County Attorney Cuyler stðted that in the event a zoning petition is continued for a period of time thðt mðy be as little as three or four months, that in effect constitutes ð denial by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Cuyler stated that from a legal perspective if there is ð continuance which constitutes a denial ðnd the Board does not hear the facts involved in the petition, thðt will very likely be considered an arbitrary decision on the BOðrd's pðrt which probðbly will be subject to attack. Mr. Cuyler indicated that the Board of County Commissioners hðd ð meeting with the Collier County Plðnning Commission to discuss these ðCnI: íl94~,., 290 Pðge 5 aOOK 094 mot 291 May 20, 1986 types of continuðnces ðnd whðt options were availðble to this Board, whjch right now ðre being formðlized ðnd reduced to writing for pre- sentation to both boards. He noted thðt one item thðt cðme out of that meeting WðS that in the event either the developer or the staff requested ð continuance, that one continuance would automaticðlly be allowed by the Board of County Commissioners for ð period of two to three weeks. He added that he knows realizes the problems with people going bðck North, but nothing was formðlized to avoid that type of problem. Commissioner Hðsse noted thðt if this public heðring is put off thðt long, mðny more people will be gone for summer vacation. Commissioner Voss ðsked if ðction is deferred on this matter until November without concurrence of the petitioner tha~ constitutes deniðl of the petition? County Attorney Cuyler said that there is a very good argument that that would be the case. Commissioner Hasse cited ð similðr cðse in Golden Gate where there was a continuðnce to the fðll, and Mr. Cuyler stated that in thðt pðr- ticulðr instðnce the petitioner concurred with the continuðnce. He added that in this case if the petitioner is here and he wants to con- tinue, he sees no problem. Commissioner Hasse ðsked Mr. Cuyler to notify the petitioner to be here for the scheduled date of the public hearing and Mr. Cuyler concurred. Commissioner Holland stðted thðt he would like this item heðrd in its entirety, because the way it has been presented at this point, Pðge 6 - - - Mðy 20, 1986 the developer could build in excess of 500 units without having to come before this Co~mission. He ðdded that there has been talk about subsidized housing, which is not true, but he would like to have a full hearing on it ðt the time for which it is advertised. Motion died tor lack ot a second. Item '7 ORDINANCE 86-22 RB PETITION R-86-2C, FORSYTHE, HUMPHREY AND ASSOCIATES, REPR~SENTING DR. RONALD H. STANHKE, REQUESTING A REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CASTELLO DRIVE - ADOPTED Legal notice hðving been published in the Naples Daily News on April l8, 1986, ðS evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public heðring WðS opened to consider Petition R-86-2C, filed by Forsythe, Humphrey and Associates, representing Dr. Ronald H. Stðnhke, requesting a rezone from C-l to C-) for property located on the south side of Castello Drive. Planner Weeks stated that the subject property is locðted on the south side of Cðstello Drive, eðst of US-4l ðpproximately 200 feet, and approximðtely a third mile south of Pine Ridge Road, ðS outlined in red on the zoning mðp, ðnd thðt the objective of the petitioner is to construct retail ðnd professional business offices on the site which presently contains the Olympiad recreational facility. He said that the lðnds to the north are zoned C-4 ðnd C-l, lands to the east ðr~ zoned RSF-4, lðnds to the south are zoned RMF-6 ðnd C-4. and lands to the west are zoned C-4; and to the north is the Tan9lewood pro- fessionðl office plðza ðnd shopping center, to the east are single- !COK 0940:'.,292 Page 7 ¡cox 094,,~!293' Mðy 20, 1986 family residences and a water retention areð, to the south are single- family residences ðnd the Witch's Brew Restðurant, ðnd to the west are commercial buildings. He sðid that the proposcd rezone meets the minimum number of points required for non-residential rezone by the Collier County Comprehensive plan: however, it should be noted that no points were awðrded for ðccess because US-4l is currently operating at a level of Service "D". He said that Staff has determined thðt the amount of traffic generated by this rezone, by the proposed uses, would be less thðn 5' of the trðffic on US-41 and, therefore, stðff hðs no objection to this rezone. He noted thðt the subject property is currently zoned C-l which does not permit the existing indoor recreational facility, therefore, it is an existing non-conforming use: the previous zoning was General Retail Commercial b~t with the county-wide rezone in 1982 the existing use was mðde non-conforming. He said that the proposed rezoning to C-3 with the provisional use for indoor recreation would permit the existing use ðnd remove the non- conforming status. He ðdded that the development of the remaining por- tion of the property for retðil and offices would provide an integrated pðrcel withi~ the sðme zoning district ðnd ðllow for a better designed site plan with limited ðccess and ðdequate pðrking, and is, therefore, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that based upon the surrounding zoning and land use, ðlong with the proposed and recommended mitigation measure, staff finds the proposed project to be compatible with adjðcent properties. Pðge 8 .. - - .',+ May 20, 1986 Mr. Weeks noted thðt the submitted site plan is conceptual in nature: if this petition is approved, the petitioner would have to provide ð more detailed site plðn for review by the staff. He indi- cðted that the stðff ðnd ðll ðppropriðte County ðgencies have reviewed the petition and have no objections to its approval subject to the stipulations ðS o~tlined in the Executive Summðry. He sðid that the Collier County Planning Commission held their public heðring on May 1, 1986 and unðnimously recommended forwðrding this petition to the Boðrd of County Commissioners with th~ recommendðtion of approval with one additional stipulation in regðrd to extension of the plðtted alley thðt presently runs up to ðnd ends at the property boundary: the Engineering Depðrtment has recommended that this ðlley be continued through the property out to Cðstello Drive, which could result in the petitioner ~osing two or three parking spaces. He sðid that the Planning Commission has stipulated thðt if the extension of the alley results in the loss of these pðrking spaces, dropping the number of parking spðces provided by two or three below the amount that is required, thðt those number of spðces be waived. He summarized by sðying that at the Planning Commission meeting no one spoke for or ðgainst the petition and no correspondence has becn received: however, after the Plðnning Commission meeting, it was realized thðt inadver- tently the fOllowing stipulation had been omitted, it WðS included in the staff report but not on the agreement sheet which WðS signed by the petitioner: M'DI: 094.-".r 294- Page 9 "".."--_._-,~_...",=,,,,,,,"...~.,",",,_..,-....",,,,,,,,,,- ..-_____...""....... J. 09~ ri',~ 2Ð5 May 20, 1986 "Pinal .ite plan approval meeting all requirements ot the Zoning Ordinance, including the required butter and parking." Mr. Weeks concluded by sðying that the staff recommendation is for approval subject to the stipulðtions within the stðff report, including the additional stipulðtion by the Planning Commission and the stipulation that WðS omitted in the agreement sheet. Commissioner Voss ðsked if the requirement about including the required buffer WÐS not ðmbiguous with respect to the alley possibly taking awðy from the requirement, ðnd Mr. Weeks stated thðt the present site plan does not show whðt was intended with regards to the buffering ðnd the landscðping thðt is ðround the parking facility, ðnd thðt is why there is ð stipulation that the petitioner has to come back for the appropriate staff zoning to see that the landscðping thðt is required around the parking facility in ðddition to the buf- fering is done, ðnd perhaps parking should say "lðndscðping ðdjacent to parking" per the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. A. J. Forsythe of Forsythe, Humphrey and Associðtes, stated that Plðnner Weeks covered the request very precisely, ðnd the peti- tioner is asking that this property be rezoned so the existing buildir.g will be conforming and permit the office building that is proposed on the west side of the lot. Commissioner Voss asked Mr. Forsythe if he concurred with the staff recommendations, and Mr. Forsythe ðnswered he was familiar with them and there WðS no problem. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carrieð unanimously, that the pUblic hearing be closed. Pðge 10 .. - - ,-",.'....._._,,,.,.., ···""""'··"'··"",V"_'.'AA__',,"__.,_ May 20, 1986 Commissioner Voss =oved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and entitled below be adopted subject to tinal site plan approval, including the required butter and parking and subject to Petitioner's Agreement, and entered into Ordinance Book 23: See pages...3 S' '1- .3 Y..s- ORDINANCE 86-22 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2 THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 49-25-5, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CASTELLO DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF US-4l IN SECTION l5, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, FROM C-l to C-3: AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Item fB RESOLUTION ~6-86 RE PETITION AV-86-007, THOMAS ~. BOARDkAN AS AGENT FOR PETITIONER REQUESTING TO VACATE A PORTION OF 14TH ST., EASTOVER SUBDIVISION, IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May May 4 ðnd ll, 1986, ðS evidenced by Affidðvit of Publicðtion filed with the Clerk, public heðring was opened to consider Petition AV-86-007 filed by Thomas K. Boardman, ðS agent for Petitioner, requesting to vacate a portion of 14th St., Eðstover Subdivision, Immokalee, Floridð. Public Works Administrator Kuck stðted that "Letters of No objec- tion" hðve been received from ðll the appropriate utility compðnies "and the Water Management Advisory Board, the Engineering and !CDK D9~~f.,2!JB Page 11 '~"-' .,..._..._" '·"k"~.,_".~_.·..._....",_,_,,,..._,.._~,,.,^, ....._, _~=,_,; .~.. _"<Å_'",,~""_"""_"'_'''_'"H -_._~""~~.,~ "'-......-.-".......""""'..-''',.,...'''..-,...'''''''''',@."..- aCOK 094 m.t 297 Mðy 20, 1986 Transportation Departments have ~evjewed the petition and hðve deter- mined the vðcation would not affect drainage or ðccess to others. He said stðff is recommending approvðl of this item. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner VOSS and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-86 re Petition AV-86-007, be adopted. :t" Page 12 - \ - - "'<.' ';"_'._,-,.~"....~-"",'~...",....,,,,"-,.,-.,~,,,~_._-,,,,.,,,.,,,,,,.. .~ . ICOK 094 ~A(.t 29.9 May 20, 1986 Item '9 PETITION A-86-1 APPEAL O~ PLANNING/ZONING DIRECTOR'S DECISION THAT A PROVISIONAL USE APPROVED IN 1972 FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES HAS SINCE EXPIRED AND IS NO LONGER VALID Community Development Administrðtor Mullins stðted that this is an appeal of the Plðnning/Zoning Director's decision that a provisionðl use ðpproved in ~972 for outdoor recreðtion facilities has since expired ðnd is no longer valid. She added that the objective is for the Board of Zoning Appeðls to hear the ðppeal and decide if the Planning/Zoning Director's interpretðtion ðnd decision is correct or if it was made in error. She said the decision being ðppealed con- cerns Section l3.1 (e) of the Zoning Ordinðnce, "Any provisionðl use shall expire one (l) year from the date of grant or issuance, if by thðt ððte the use for which the provisionðl use was granted has not been commenced." She indicðted that at the request of the owner on August 8, 1972, the Board of County Commissioners granted a provi- sionðl use which permitted the property to be used as a commercial, outdoor recreation facility, specifically ðS ð driving range. She added that the property is 23ž acres, located on Radio Road, and is adjðcent to and pðrt of the Naples Twin Drive-In Theater. She said that since 1972 the land for the driving range was cleared; however, no fðcilities were constructed, nor were any of the allowed provi- sional uses actually started. She noted that in 1982 the Board of County Commissioncrs adopted Zoning Ordinðnce 82-2, ðnd ðmong the ",' ~ . .' .\... ~c. ......;,. >- (.., <!) ,".._J .,... , "..: '1..' e' , J Page 13 . ··f'T_~·'i"~"'''''''''_· ',"" '" ," ;-" ~ ~. ·"íI-s..:.¢~!:.'t'~4."".·_ . ,.....'. .: ~ '. ." ..~.:r..\:;........!.~ ' "',., _". '.\ ,.':."",.' .. ..,..... ,.,' .,' .~.., -'... . ~ ~ .... .. . . . . . '. . :·:'.~i·_·.~· . ..... ro" .:". or' ,-', -. ,,".1t;~~·i..~~~œ- ", ..'....._ '····.;;.·"1·\ :,', '. .' "-'.'" "- '~>::";".::::;J.;¿.. ._"..,...'O;"....,__,.____..___""_-_....~ Mðy 20, 1986 various provisions of this Ordinance, it is provided thðt the zoning regulðtions shðll supers~de any and ðll zoning regulations, resolu- tions or ordinðnces, repealing all ordinances in conflict. She stated that it is the opinion of the staff that Section 13. (e) under Ordinðnce 82-2 is clear ðnd unðmbiguous. Further, she said, ð provi- sional use whicp was approved l4 years ago mðy not be an appropriðte use today ðS development has altered surrounding uses, and should this provisionðl use be deemed valid it would likewise validate other pro- visionðl uses approved prior to 1982. She said thðt the records aVðila~le to staff indicate that 110 provisionðl uses were approved between 1977 and 1981, and the number of actual provisional uses started is not known. She stðted that it should also be noted that the intent of Zoning Ordinance 82-2 to supersede previous ordinðnces and ðpprovðls is demonstrated through Section 6 of th~ Zoning Ordinðnce, which addresses grðndfathering non-conforming uses, vesting of uses, etc. Additionally, she added, use of this particulðr lðnd is not prevented ðS the current Zoning Ordinance does offer legal means to seek use ðS ðn outdoor recreation facility. She concluded by saying that the recommendðtion is that the Board of County Commissioners support the Planning/Zoning Director's decision and interpretation thðt the provisionðl Use approved in 1972, which has not been constructed nor stðrted, is expired and no longer valid. Attorney Richðrd B. Lansdale, representing the petitioner, stated Mr. A. W. Cook has owned the Naples Twin Drive-In Theater, located on ~m 094 PJf.[ 300 Page 14 094 PJGt301 May 20, 1986 East S.R. 84, for many yeðrs. Tape U Mr. Lansdale requested Chðirman Pistor to include in these pro- ceedings a copy of the petition ðlong with a copy of the Notice of Public Heðring and Affidavit of Publicðtion for 1981 ðnd a copy of Ordinance 82-2. He stated that in 1972 Mr. Cook drew two petitions asking for provisional use for his 23 acres as a driv0-in theatcr and ðS ð golf driving range. He said thðt the Board of County Commis- sioners, as well as the applicðnt, ðt that time considered these two petitions as one ðpplicðtion ðnd cited from the minutes of thðt meeting, "ðpplicant wishes to provide ð golf driving rðnge, miniðture golf plu3 a drive-in theðter." He stated th9t Mr. Cook, at that time, proceeded to build the drive-in theater and becðuse of economic con- ditions at the time did not put in the driving range, which WðS part of the applicðtion. He indicated that his client's position is that the land is still zoned A-2, ðnd when the zoning was changed in 1982, Mr. Cook received no notice of this change wherein provisional uses were being stopped. He added that the reason he asked the notice be included in the proceedings is because that notice, which was intended to advise the public of zoning changes, says absolutely nothing about prohibition or changes in provisional use. Mr. Lðnsdðle stated that work had begun on the provisional use, and the aerial map indicates where roads were put in and the lðnd WðS cleared. He noted that if the two petitions are put together, the whole project was substan- Pðge l5 .. - .. May 20, 1986 tially completed with the exception of the golf driving range. He asked that the Commission find ðS ð fðct that work had stðrted and give Mr. Cook 3 or 6 months to finish the project. Commissioner Pis tor stðted thðt provisional use did not have a limit and in 1982 the County mðde it specific thðt it was quite limited, ðnd Mr. Lansdale said that it is still a property right and he does not like to see it tðken ðway without notice. County Attorney Cuyler stðted thðt this will not ðffect the drive- in movie portion. Commissioner Pistor said if the drive-in theater is there and if provisional use WðS withdrawn it would be non- conforming use, and County Attorney Cuyler stated that ðn attempt would not be mðde to stop thðt use. County Attorney C~yler stated that the notice requirements were met becðuse, ðS the entire Boðrd knows, this was ðn Ordinðnce establishing regulðtions for the entire County ðnd it is not possible to notify every single person that may hðve some interest in the Ordinance. Commissioner Holland stðted thðt the Commission has tried to encourðge open areðs ðnd the owner should be permitted to use it for that purpose. County Attorney Cuyler stated thðt the problem thðt the staff has is not so much with this particular petition, but if the Board grants this petition on the basis that a l3 or l4 year old pro- visionðl use that was never commenced can go ahead, the staff feels thðt they may lose control of those people who may have l2 or 14 year old provisional uses that the Board mðY, in fðct, wðnt to control to a '&DDK {J94~f:! 3"02 Pðge l6 .- &CD'{ 094 Pl~ot 3'03 May 20, 1986 higher degree: if the Boðrd sets a precedent thðt these people cðn begin those any time they want to, that is what the stðff is concerned about. Zoning/Plðnner Director Pettrow stðted that stðff is not recom- mending ð deniðl oecðuse they do not feel it is an inðppropriate use, all they are saying is thðt the petitioner has been given ðlternðtives of Recreationðl and Open Space Zoning, C-2, C-3, C-4 ðnd C-5, so that he can come bðck and petition. He ðdded that based upon the infor- mðtion gleaned from researching the subject, it is entirely likely that the area can certðinly be used for this kind of recreational ame- nity. Mr. Lansdðle stðted thðt the main worry with this particular applicðtion seems to be thðt if this one is granted, it will open the door for ðny others that are lying dormant. He said thðt that is not necessarily so bccðuse ðll that has to be decided from the evidence presented today is thðt the project WðS begun ðnd that the driving range WðS only ð small part of it; it WðS considered as one applica- tion by the Commission then and it is considered by the ðPplicant ðS one, so therefore, a small part of it was not done and the owner wants to finish the small pðrt without going through the long procedure of rezoning. Commissioner Hasse asked if some work was done on the golf driving range, and Mr. Cook answered affirmðtively. Commissioner Hasse asked if thðt would not constitute an effort towards putting in a driving Pðge 17 - - - May 20, 19B6 range even if it WðS seven yeðrs ðgO? He commented thðt he did not think thðt this would hðve any great impact on any kind of provisional use; this mðtter could not be utilized ðS ð precedence. Mr. Cuylcr stated that with regðrd to the starting of the operation which was clearing of trees, that is within the factual realm thðt the Board can look at, but the stðff should explain what did happen. Commissioner Hasse asked whðt percentðge of the land is utilized at the present time directly relðted to the drive-in, ðnd Mr. pettrow answered that it was by sepðrðte petition for this purpose: there was land cleared prior to the 1982 Ordinance and there WðS no construction of any faci- lity nor WðS ever a use put into effect ðnd all this occurred before 1982. Mr. Lðnsdðle stðted thðt for technical reðsons it WðS two sepðrate petitions, but when the last one was decided, they were lumped together into one decision by the Board of County Corrmissioners. Commissioner Pistor ðsked when the ðerial photogrðph was taken and Mr. Cook answered in 1974, but shortly after the theater opened construction WðS stðrted on the driving rðnge ðnd due to the economy it WðS stopped; but roads and drðinage were put it. Mr. pettrow pointed out thðt the definition for "development" is the act or process of placing buildings or structures on ðllotted pðr- eels, and there was no construction whatsoever on this parcel of land; the pðrcel under Exhibit "E", which is the photograph, the legal shown &COK ŒJ4 p'~r 304- Page 18 094.mt305 May 20, 1986 under August lO, 1972, WðS not for the ðreð where they have the pre- sent drive-in, it was solely ðnd explicitly for the ðrea that was cleared ðnd cleðred does not mean construction. He added that no one is objecting to ð golf range or any recreðtionðl use going on the site. Mr. Lðnsdðle ðsked if the petitioner hðs to rezone and go through the whole process, ðnd Mr. pettrow stðted thðt the petitioner cðn apply for recreational open space with a provisional use, ð C-3 or ð C-4 with provisional use or a C-5 as ð principal permitted use, and he assumes the ðpplicðnt would pursue recreationðl with n provisionðl use. Commissioner Hollðnd asked Mr. pettrow whðt WðS acceptable under the zoning thðt he indicated would be necessary for thi~ petitioner to complete the driving range? Mr. Pettrow stðted that the petitioner would need the C-3 Zoning and under provisional Use for C-3 recreational and open spðce is allowed which would cover golf driving range, archery, tennis, ðll types of uses that the petitioner is talking about. Commissioner Voss said that the merit of the driving rðnge is not being debðted, but a technicality, and both the County Attorney and Community Development say thðt the provisional use hðs expired, and he questioned how the Board can overrule the staff in ð case like this? Mr. Lansdale stðted that from the evidence presented, suf- ficient work was done on the lðnd to show that work WðS started back in 1972. Pðge 19 - '. - - "'·,'''"........'..._·'~f; Mðy 20, 1986 Public Works Administrðtor Kuck stðted thðt he hðs not had ð chðnce to review the site developmenL plan thðt WðS submitted in 1972 and in the event one was not submitted, a site plan review would be required, plus they would be required to meet today's stðndards for wðter mðnagement. Commissioner Voss stðted that standards have chðnged so much ~ifice 1972 that the drainðge plðn that the petitioner had then is not ðpplicðble today. Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Kuck if he has visited the pro- perty, ðnd Mr. Kuck ðnswered he hðd not ðnd does not know if any member of the staff has or not. Commissioner Holland asked Mr. pettrow the same question, ðnd Mr. pettrow answered he ha~ visited the property. Commissioner Hollðnd asked Mr. Pettrow if he found that the County hðd issued a permit to cleðr the land again and Mr. Pet trow ðnswered "No," that he WðS unaware of that. Mr. Cook said the permit was obtained Jðnuary 27, 1986. Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Pettrow if he WðS unðwðre of that, ðnd Mr. pettrow said "No," thðt he visited the site in March ðnd there was clearing at that time but he does not know whether it was the older one or the recent one: there WðS a road- way, dirt ðnd trees were down in the vicinity. Tape f3 Community Development Ad~inistrator Mullins stated regardless of whether a lðnd-clearing permit WðS issued or not, that does not constitute that use was started, because the use was a golf driving rðnge: the use ia not cleðring the land ðnd the use is not installing drainðge. ~COK (]94.w.! 306 Page 20 ,.. ".. -"'<I ~ aCOK 094PAr.r307 Mðy 20, 1986 Commissioner Hollðnd asked Ms. Hullins what she would Sðy the permit WðS issued for, what was the reason for it? Ms. Mullins said thðt she WðS not ðware of the circumstances of the permit but she can re3earch it. Nðturðl Resources Management Techniciðn Henningsen stated thðt in Jðnuary the petitioner cðme in ðnd Kðte Muldoon of Naturðl Resources Mðnagement mðde ð site inspection ðnd the majority of the property had been cleðred: the petitioner hðd come in requesting to clear some trees on the periphery ðnd some selective thinning. The petitioner showed his originðl PUD document, he sðid, from l4 years ago and Naturðl Resources Management Department was under the assumption that once thðt document hðs been grðnted, it is good ðd infin\tum even though that is being changed now. Dr. Henningsen indiccted thðt those were the circumstðnces for granting thðt selective tree-cleðring permi t . Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Responding to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Weeks sðid thðt the total ðpplication fee would be be ð little over a $1000. Commissioner Hasse asked if it can be included in the application that the site is to be utilized for ð golf driving range end the ðccessory type of use and it cðnnot be used for ðnything else, other- wise the petitioner can come forward in 3 months ðnd say he wants to put ð development on the site? County Attorney Cuyler ðnswered that Page 21 - - - May 20, 1986 it would depend on whðt the petitioner requested but, ðS Mr. Pettrow indicðted, they hðve 3 or 4 optJons ðnd they would normðlly be allowed the uses for whatever that zoning district would be. Mr. Cuyler indicated that the item before the Board today is really this ðppeal that the petitioner has brought ðS to what their options ðre, ðnd whether they wðnt to come in for recreðtional open- space rezone would be up to them ðnd at this point the Board cðnnot control whðt hðppens with thðt. Mr. Cook stated that he is not ðgainst rezoning, but that in this case time is of the essence: if he goes through rezoning it would take a yeðr or a year and a half to complete this project. Commissioner Voss stated that what is being debated is whether or not the provisionðl use has expired ðnd the legal staff ðnd Community Development stðff say it has expired. cOllllllissioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Hasse and carried 4/1 (Commissioner Holland opposed), that Petiti~n A-86-1 be denied. Item '10 RESOLUTION 86-87 RE PETITION PU-86-5C, FORSYTHE, HUMPHREY AND ASSOC. REPRESENTING DR. RONALD H. STANHKE, REQUESTING PROVISIONAL USE FOR INDOOR RECREATION ON CASTELLO DRIVE - ADOPTED Planner Weeks stated thðt this is ð petition for provisionðl use for indoor recreational use that accompanied rezone Petition R-86-2C which the Board ðpproved earlier this morning. He sðid that the &COK 094 Pl·,t308 Page 22 ,. ,.~______ø,_.~ ....'.....~,_"'>O'..,<.""......",,"'..""'_____,;'"··, 094 PAr.t 309 May 20, 1986 provisional use will allow the petitioner to keep the existing indoor recreationðl uses; that is, the Olympiad, rðcquetball and other recreational fðcilities. He indicðted that staff recommendation is for approval, and the stipulations are covered under the rezone. Commi.sioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimov31y, that Resolution 86-87 re Petition PU-85-6C, be adopted. .' , Page 23 .. - - __..,e ''''~~'"'A,,;,_,~,,··~.·r'"_'·.'''~··'··'''____ May 20, 1986 ..*.* Recessl 10100 A.M. - Reconvenedl 10:15 A.M. at which time Deputy Clerk ~enyon replaced Deputy Clerk Ruiz *.... Itelll 111 WAIVER OF TIME LIMIT FOR RESUBMITTIl!G A REQUEST TO REZONE A-2 TO PUD ~OWN AS FOXBURN - APPROVED Planner Weeks stated that the petitioner would like to waive the time limits for resubmittðl of ð rezone petition after denial by the Board on April 8, 1986, under Petition R-85-27C which was the Foxburn PUD locðted on the south side of Rðdio Road adjacent to the east side of Foxfire Subdivision. He noted that section l4.l3.b of the Zoning Ordinðnce stðtes thðt when the Boðrd hðs denied ðn ðpplication for rezoning, the Plðnning Commission shall nol thereðfter consider any further ðpplicðtion for the property for a period of 12 months from the date of such action nor shðll they consider an application for any other kind of rezoning for the property [or a period of 6 months. He reported that Section 14.14 ðllows the Board to waive th~se time periods by three ðffirmative votes when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to fðcilitðte the property develop- ment to Collier County. He noted thðt Mr. O'Marð sent ð letter stating the reðsons for his request. Assistðnt County Manager Dorrill stðted thðt the Boðrd needs to tðke ðction bðsed on the merits of the letter, noting that Mr. O'Mara should not speak. County Attorney Cuyler stated that Mr. O'Mara had requested a reconsiderðtion pursuðnt to the reconsiderðtion ordinðnce and he did ~COK 094w:314 Page 24 <·"~·__.c",,~,.·.,,., _',' .,,"____...,~<>.._,,_._........~'"_~_' .. ".~. .ai\ ,~~..-., i..;'ì,¡. .~) ~... . i~: .~.. " "" :;~ >.," 094w.t315 . . . May 20, 1986 not meet the time limits ðnd he is now requesting a waiver of the prohibition against petitioning for a rezone, therefore the Boðrd would be waiving the time limit thðt the petitioner hðs to wait in order to file ð p~tition for a rezone. commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and oarried unanimously, that the waiver of time limit tor resubmitting a request to rezone approximately 65 aores trom A-2 to PUD known as FOxbUrD be approved. Item '12 aBSOLUTION 86-88 AUTHORI2ING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, MARINA LANDINQ GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AND DELTONA CORPORATION FOR ARTIFICIAL REEF MATERIAL - ADOPTED Dr. Henningsen of Nðtural Resources Mðnagement stated that this item has to do with the ðcceptðnce of materiðl for the Artificial Reef Program ðnd the next item has to do with hiring of ð contrðctor to prepðre, transport and sink the mðteriðl. He noted that Natural Resources Mðnðgement is recommending that the Boðrd ðuthorize the exe- cution of ðn ðgreement by the County to ðccept dredge pipes and pon- toon materiðls from the Marina Landing General Partnership for use in the artificiðl reef progrðm of Collier County. He stated that in addition, he recommends that the Board accept $4,000 from the Deltona Corporation to help defray costs incurred for the removal of the dredge pipes ðnd pontoons from their present location and their sub- sequent preparðtion and sinking ðt the reef site. He stðted that in the fall of 1985, Mr. Hinkly of the Deltona Corporation hðd agreed to Page 25 - - - ~.""",,".,,_,"_."__'''''''''_''''.~'''_'''''"-"'"',",,__'''''''''''''''''''''",.þ,·,,_..,,~."_~H"'.<·"'·'_^ May 20, 1986 mðke available to the County a sizeðble collection of steel dredge pipes and pontoons, mðteriðl which will mðke ðn excellent artificiðl reef. He stated that during these discussion Deltona pledged $4,000 to help defray removal cost of these materials, ðdding that the dredge pipes and pontoons ðre on property locðted between Smokehouse Bay and Elkcam Circle of Mar~o Islðnd. He stated that the property WðS sold to the Mðrina Lðnding Generðl Partnership during April of 1986 ðnd the new owners have ðgreed to make ðvðilðble all dredge pipes and pontoons for the artificiðl reef program of the County. He noted that the signed contract outlining details of these agreements hðs been included with the Executive Summðry and, in the intere~t of the artifjcial reef program and the citizens of Collier County, the Nðtural Resources Manðgement Department recommends thðt the Board authorize the contractual agreement between the County, l1ðrina Landing General Partnership ðnd the Deltona Corporation. COllllllissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commi.sioner Voss and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-88 authorizing the execution ot a contract between the County and the Marina Landing General Partnership and the Deltona corporation tor Artiticial Reet Material be adopted. ,.';', " &CDK 094 P1~~ 316 Page 26 '"~~-'___ I ~ May 20, 1986 Item 113 RESOLUTION 86-89 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OP AN AGREEMENT WITH COAST REEF TUG FOR REMOVAL, TRhNSPORTATION AND REEF CONSTRUCTION _ ADOPTED Dr. Henningsen of Naturðl Resources Management stated that this item hðs to do with the hiring of the contractor to prepare, transport and sink the materiðl off-shore of Naples, adding that after Natural Resources Management WðS ðssured of the opportunities to uti- lize the dredge pipes ðnd pontoons, he solicited for bids for the pre- parðtion, removal and sinking of the reef materiðl. He noted that from the four bids received the lowest Wðs from Mr. Carl Predmore of Coast Reef Tug for $14,000, ðdding that a contract was negotiated with Mr. Predmore and a signed copy of this ðgreement hðs been included with the ðgendð mðterial. He stated that importðnt points of the pro- posed reef construction include that the total cost of the reef construction will be $l4,000 but with the $4,000 from the Deltonð Cr poration, the County's expense will be only $lO,OOO: the reef material will augment an existing reef located about 5 miles southwest of Marco Islðnd which is compðtible with the existing locðtion of the reef mðterial and, therefore, simplifies and reduces the expense of the reef construction. He said that Mr. Predmore will have a total of 80 dðys to complete the construction: has agreed to adhere to specifi- cations for reef construction, ðnd he will not be paid for his ser- vices until the end of the project and after Natural Resources Mðnðgement has inspected the reef on the bottom 'of the Gulf of Mexico. ~OOK 094$'.r,[3'28 Page 27 094PI-.t327 Mðy 20, 1986 He reported thet ðny portion of the reef thet is unðcceptðble as to violðting the terms of the agreement, Natural Resources Management has the right to deduct pðyment in proportion to that percentðge of the totel reef mðteriðl from the totel money paid to Mr. Predmore. He steted thet Nðturðl Resources Manðgement recommends that the Chairman be euthorized to execute ðn ðgreement with Coast Reef Tug for the removðl, construction ðnd sinking of the ðrtificial reef materiel. In ðnswer to Commissioner Voss, Dr. Henningsen stðted that he hðs no plðns at this time to try ðnd regulðte the fishing. Commissioner Pistor stated thðt if this is ðpproved, it is cl~aning up a bad areð on Mðrco Islðnd ðB well es helping to build reefs neðr Merco Islðnd. In ðnswer to Commissioner Hesse, Dr. Henningsen stated that his department is going to re-mark ðll the existing reefs and all the future reefs ðnd they ðre in the process of trying to develop a progrðm where the re~fs will be checked on a monthly or bi-monthly bðsis end they will be re-labeled with buoys if necessðry. COllllllissioner VO.. moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-89 authorizing execution of an Aqreement with Coast Reet Tuq tor removal, transportation and reet construction be adopted. Pðge 28 - - - 'CDK 094 PAr.t 337 Mðy 20, 1986 Item 114 CONTRACT AWARDED TO CEMENT PRODUCTS CORPORATION TO FURNISH COARSE FILL MATERIAL AT THE NAPLES LANDFILL AT $5.05 PER TON DELIVERED Public Works Administrðtor Kuck stðted thðt the objective of this item is to ðpprov~ the written quote for the purchðse of speciðl fill mðteriðl thðt wi}" meet the DER's requirement which was effective December 1, 1985. He stated that bids were received on November 19, 1985, for fill material necessðry to construct a 26-acre lined cell at the Nðples Landfill to meet DER requirements for renewal of the Landfill Operðting Permit. He stðted thðt the bid in the ðmount of $2.90 per ton was ðwðrded to Cement Products Corporation. Tape '4 Mr. Kuck stated that on December 1, 1985, DER made several changes to the rules, regulations ðnd requirements for lðndfills ðnd two of them had a major impðct on the cost ðssociated with the construction for the new 26-ðcre lined lðndfill. He stated thðt these changes and their net fiscðl impðct re3ulted in two chðnges, with Change No. 1 being ð reduction of two feet in the amount of bðse fill material required which resulted in a savings of ðpproximately $348,000, and Chðnge No.2 was becðuse DER's requirement that the two feet of liner -3 over be sUfficiently porous to allow a flow rate of 1 x 10 cm/sec ~r better, noting that the material previously bid would not meet the ~ew specifications and, therefore, the ðdditionðl cost for this ~aterial over that previouSly bid was estimðted to add an additional ~150,000. He stðted that in order to keep this project on schedule, Pðge 29 - - - ---~.,_. "'"~..._--"''''_._-'''''''._~."..." ... ·"",·,_,___··.""".,"--"",'~~_M'"·'" May 20, 1986 written quotes were solicited by registered letter from 6 firms on May 8, 1986, and on May 16, 1986, seðled written quotes were opened by the Purchasing Director to furnish lOO,OOO tons more or less of this spe- cified mðteriðl. He stðted thðt the low bid for this product was CPC in the ðmount of $5.05 per ton. He stated thðt three other bids wcre received, but it is his recommendation that CPC be ðwðrded the contrðct. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Kuck stated that on the two changes there would be a savings, adding thðt the additional cost is for the fill materiðl required by DER, but the net for the two chðnges is a savings on the overall project. Commissioner Hasse moved, seconded Þy COllllllissioner Voss and carrie~ unanimously, that the contract be awarded to Cement Products Corporation to turnish coarse till material at the Naples Landtill at $5.05 per ton delivered. rMlK 094w·!338 Page 30 h....'~..·~_...~"o~~.. '""" ~""_..__""""'''~''~'''' '" ''',",...". .m Og~ w.t 339 May 20, 1986 Item US AGREEMZNT WITH BIG CYPRZSS BASIN BOARD/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ALLOWING THE BASIN/DISTRICT '1'0 ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTROL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS MAJOR WATERCOURSES IN COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED Wðter Management Director Boldt stðted that the objective of this item is to consièi!r ð proposed agreement with the Basin/District con- cerning the control, operðtion and mðintenðnce of various major water- courses in the County. He stated thðt the County ðnd the Bðsin hðve common wðter resource goðls and objectives and there is an excellent working relationship with them. He stated that the Bðsin's proposal WðS works hopped before the Board last fðll and at thðt time, it was agreed in principle on the ideð and Stðff was directed to work with the Basin to develop a specific ðgreement which has been reviewed by County Staff, and the legal staff of the District, the B~sin and the County. He noted that the Basin Board acted upon it's finðl draft on April 25, 1986, adding that there have been minor revisions mðde which the Basin will have to review. He noted that adoption of this agreement would have certain obvious ðdvantages and disadvantðges, adding that the Basin would ðssume the maintenance responsibilities and there would be less of a strain on the County's budget ðnd there would be more financial resources available to maintain the other canðl systems in the County ðnd to undertðke the improvements to the mðjor canal systems that ðre going to be required under the Capital Improvement Elements of the forthcoming revisions to the County's Page 31 - - .. "-_...,~""~.,.""..._,...-- May 20, 1986 Comprehensive Plan, which has been mðndated by the State. He noted that the Basin payu it's funds by ðn ad valorem tðX solely upon the tðx base of Collier County, therefore, the overall tðx on the indivi- dual taxpayer would remain rel~tively the Sðme. He stated that this is the first fiscðl year that his Depðrtment has hðd close to the amount of money that has been needed to ðdequately do the job of controlling the ðquðtic plants in the cðnals. He noted that disðdvan- teges include the potentiðl duplicðtion of equipment, storðge facili- ties, and supervisory personnel and the elðborðte record keeping system thðt is required by the Florida Depðrtment of Nðtural Resources to qualify for their cost shðring progrðm. He stated that he receives about 50' reimbursement from the Floridð Depðrtment of Natural Resources on the mðjor part of the program. He stðted that there is the possibility of confusion among the generðl public as to who would be responsible for specific watercourses ðnd who to cðll with complaints about the condition or the need for attention. He stated that this should be dealt with by Wðy of a large educðtional-type program. He stated that his recommendðtion is if the County will have the ability over the long-term to ðdequately fund this aquatic control progrðm, it would be reasonðble to keep the entire program under County control, but if the funding ability is uncertain, it would be logical to accept the Bðsin and District's offer to assume the maintenðnce responsibility for the various watercourses specified in the agreement. m~ (J~I~f aM) Page 32 ~,..._..,...^. ,.,<,.,,""'~"""""'........ <.~~"~--...",".~,,¡-_.;..-----<"""""""'~"'-'- am 09~w,!341 May 20, 1986 Commissioner Pis tor questioned if there would be more money available for the maintenðnce of the cðnals ðnd drainðge if the Basin takes it over, to which Mr. Boldt stated thðt phðsed in over a five yeðr period the role is switched from the County to the Basin ðnd the County's funding requirements would hopefully go down, but some of the secondary systemE will have to be expanded. He stðted that he will be ðble to take cðre of some of the cðnðls that he has not been able to take care ot recently and improve the canals and the drainage systems. Assistant County Manager Dorrill stðted thðt the County will be doing a little more construction-relðted work as it concerns drainage and the Basin as well ðS the District hðs a primary policy that they will not undertðke construction-related projects thðt ðre of a drainage nature ðnd for ðreðs such ðS District 6 area ðnd the problems on Davis Blvd. this will give the County an opportunity to pursue some construction-related work ðnd ðS facilities ðre completed, the District and the County will mutuðlly determine if other projects will be added to the maintenance list in the future. Mr. Fred Vidzes, Executive Director of the Big Cypress Bðsin Board/South Florida Wðter Mðnðgement District, stated thðt the things that he is looking at ðre the additionðl responsibilities that the County is going to be faced with in light of the Growth Management Act and the requirements that are going to be imposed. He stated that there will be major capital expenditures that will have to meet the growth of the County. He stðted that the Basin is currently respon- Pðge 33 - - - ,--~--~--=""",.,."-,-,.,._".~,, ." "~-'-""'''.'''''~<'~~~_._"~- Mðy 20, 1986 sible for 25 to 30 wðter control structures sCðttered throughout the County and the County is responsible for other structures, ðdding that when the major modification program of these ~tructures is started to improve the operðting capabilities ðnd flexibility, a field stðtion will hðve to be aeveloped, which means that people will be added to the pðyroll. He stated thðt ðnytime services are increðsed that the public demands, the costs will rise. He stðted thðt they will try and control the cost by relðting them to the natural growth of the County and the nðturðl expðnsion of the tðx base. He stðted thðt they will attempt to ðvoid redundancy by close liaison in the development of the budgets, adding thðt in the long-term this will be an advðntageous way to go. He stðted that this Board has acted on this and discussed it at length and he is asking for the Board approvðl and they will then go to the District Governing Board at its next meeting. He stated that they will then proceed to define the individual systems that he will be responsible for. Commissioner Voss moved, ..conded by co~~is.ioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the Agreement with the Big Cypress Basin Board/south Florida Water Management District allowing the Basin/District to assume the responsibility tor the control, operation and maintenance ot various major watercourse. in Collier County be approved. Mr. Dorrill stðted that there is a contract to four-lane and improve Airport Road from Cougar Drive north to Immokalee Road and one ~COK 094 p¡-,r 3'42 Page 34 "~"'~"'~_"M~';__" "'~~'="_''''___'."'_''''~'."-~ ___""'.." -"~-'-"""'-~"'ij ,-" --~_... '00'- 094: p~r;t 343 Mðy 20, 1986 of the canals and wðtercourses shown to be transferred involves the canal on the East dide of Airport Road and questioned if the contrac- tor will undertðke any improvements that would be effected as a result of giving the ownership and responsibility of thðt cðnal to the District? Mr. Kuck stated thðt they ðre waiting receipt of the permit for that project. but the canðl will be widened ðlong there ðnd water control structures will be put in at eðch end. Mr. Vidzes stðted that this would be no problem to the Basin, adding that this hðs been tðken into .consideration. Pðge 35 - '- - - 094 pm 353 Mðy 20, 1986 Item '14 CULTURAL CENTER FOUriD~TION , WESTINGHOUSE LE~SE ~GREEMENT - WITHDRAWN County Attorney Cuyler requested that this item be permanently withdrawn until such time as the Cultural Center Foundation notifies the County agðin, ðS he has received a request from the Foundation indicating that they no longer request thðt the County leðse them pro- perty ðt the Pelica~ Bay area. commissioner Voss moved, .econded by commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the cultural center 7oundation and westinqhouse Lease Aqreement be withdrawn. Item 117 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD AND CORVETTES OF NAPLES, INC. FOR A GYMXHANA, AUTOCRCSS AND LOW-SPEED RALLY RACE AT THE IMMO~LEE ~IRPORT ON MAY 24 AND MAY 25. 1986 - APPROVED Public Works Administrðtor Kuck stated that this is ð request to approve and execute e leðse agreement between the Board ~nd Corvettes of Nðples, Inc., adding that they ðre requesting the us~ of the Immokalee Airport on May 24 ðnd May 25, 1986, for the purpose of holding a Gymkhanð, Autocross and low-speed rally rðce. He stðted that he is recommending approval of this item. commissioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Kasse and carried unanimously, that the Agreement between the Board and Corvettes ot Naples, Inc. tor a Gymkhana, autocross and low-speed rally at the IlIIIIIokalee ~irport on May 24 and May 25, 1986, be approved. ..,:. .~. , ., Pðge 36 - - - ~~-""------". ! . ....~.~-,..."."......_".~,,,....."";,.."-...,,,...__... May 20, 1986 Item U8 HOLE, MONTES' ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROCEEO WITt! ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THB WATER AND SEWER BOND ANTICIPATION NOTB AND REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1986, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $19,800 - APPROVED Utilities Administrative Assistant McNees stated that Hole, Montes & Associates are the Utilities Enginecr of Record and served as the County's engineering consultðnt regarding the 1985 Series Revenue Bonds ðnd they ðl~o worked on the 20l Plðn and the Water and Sewer Mðster Plan. He noted that there are four events occurring now that will require engineering review ðnd input, which are the modi- fication of the current system development fee ordinðnce, the compre- hensive utility rðte study, preparation of a bond ðnticipðtion note, and sale of 1986 series revenue bonds. He noted that Hole, Montes & Associðtes involvement in the previous related work will allow con- siderðble sðvin~s of manhours and expense if they are ðllowed to do this work. He stated that they ðre recommending that the Board authorize Hole, Montes & Associðtes to proceed with engineering ser- vices relðted to those four items in an ðmount not to exceed $l9,BOO. commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Hole, Montes' Associates, Inc. proceed with engineerinq services related to the Water and Sewer Bond Anticipation Note and Revenue Bonds, Series 1986, in an amount not to exceed $19,800. &CCK (]94 p~r,[ 358 Page 37 t... :1~' "1:...... ,..___.__W'_""·'_··' "..., "0; ""_....-.>'''''''''..'"'._~.,",'__".__.'...__.h''..~.·,·"...·_' aCOK 094 PA'ot 3Gl May 20, 1986 Ite. 11' REAL BSTATE DEPARTMENT TO PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF ALL AVAILABLB PROPERTY THAT THE COUNTY OWNS AND BRING BACK IN TWO WEEKS. STAFF DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH THE GROUND WORK FOR REFUNDING THE 1980, 1982, AND 1985 BOND ISSUES. STAFF TO PROCEED WITH OBTAINING ADDITIONAL MONEY ON THE 1985 SALES TAX ISSUE FOR THE COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT . County Manager Lusk stated thðt this is to discuss the refunding of the bond issu:, adding thðt there has been a lot of questions about available money for the Capitðl Improvement projects. He stðted that he has asked Administrðtive Assistant Olliff to give ð presentation on the Capital Improvement projects ðnd the ðmount of money that is needed. Mr. Olliff r~ferred to an overhead chart noting that there have been some mðjor chðnges in Building "A" and Building lOB" in whðt WðS originðlly budgeted for construction projects at the beginning of this fiscal year and WðS not spent ðnd is still in the remaining budget. He stated that the revised expense estimate shows thðt no money will be spent on these projects because the plðn has been revised for Building "A" due to the new courthouse structure and Building lOB" has been postponed until after completion of the Health Department Buildirg. He noted that the new contract that was let for Buildings "C", "D" ðnd the wðrehouse to Kraft Construction is different than the original budget because the plans were expanded. He referred to a list of all the projects and their status, noting that the completion dates are tentðtive. He stated thðt this list is all the capital pro- Page 38 - - - -....- - .". ."""........_._--_..,,".."~"".-.^^. ~.<--,..._--_."'...,...-""'"...-,.. ^_.^......"",.,.~...'""'.."^~,,-."._.,,.__._,-"...._~.._-._.----,- Mðy 20, 1986 jects that are plðnned currently ðnd some of them are underway at this time. He stðted thðt what he is trying to show is the difference bet- ween remaining cðsh on hand ðnd the actual projects that have been slated ðnd why there is ð difference between the funds left and the funds ðnticipðted. County Mðnð;pr Lusk stðted thðt in the State budget, there is $500,000 for the new Health Building, ðdding that he does not know if this will stðY in ~~e budget or not. He stated that the County has requested ð million dollars. Mr. Olliff stated that the remðining funds thðt the County has for the rest of these projects is $7,l80,000 ðnd the totðl completion cost is $10,620,000. He stated that this does not include the changes to Buildings "A" or "B". Mr. Lusk stated thðt ðS far as the Health Building, there is a budget showing of $l,lOO,OOO ðnd hopefully, the County can build a $2,000,000 Heðlth Building. He stðted that with the $l,lOO,OOO figure there will be a shortðge or the County will be restricted as to what cðn be built. Mr. Olliff stated that the $l,lOO,OOO figure is only what the County is committed to. County Manðger Lusk stated thðt the bðsic issue is thðt with what has been plðnned, the County is $3.4 million short which does not include whðt needs to be done for the Health Building, Building "A" or Building "B", or the location of the Parks Administration. He noted )COX (194 PA,,[ 3'62 Page 39 "<.,."'.....".__...''''',~_._.'.'~...._ ___-=.....If! n__ -"~_. _"'m......._~..'··,_,_·_,,·.'""·,,'''"_~·,,'',····...,'',,·____ 094 l'J'.t 3ß3 Mðy 20, 1986 that within the next yeðr it hðs to be decided whðt is going to be done with Utilities. He stated that if the Board decides to fund the $3.5 million with a new refunding bond issue, it will take care of the necessary projects, but not the ones he previously listed. He noted that there will be a shortfall even if the Board decides to fund the $3.5 million, but that shortfall could probably be dealt with in the ad valorem tðxes by committing to one-tenth of ð mill each yeðr because those project are two to five yaars from now. Commissioner Hollðnd questioned if the County could eliminate some of the property that is sCðttered ðll over the County to try ðnd off- set some of the cost rðther thðn going deeper in debt, to which Commissioner Pistor directed Mr. Kuck to have the Real Estate Depðrtment put together a list of ðll the properties thðt the County hðs to see if some of them could be eliminated. Tape '5 Mr. Dðve Fischer of Fischer, Johnson, Allen & Burke, Financial Advisors to the County, referred to summary sheets, noting that the first pðge describes the sðvings on the sales tax bond issue. He stated thðt it shows a debt service savings of $2,845,000 which is the difference between the old debt Service ðnd the new debt service and has a present vðlue of $l,20l,000. He noted that he would like to explðin present value, the actual savings of an issue, noting that the differences in debt service in pðyments per year would be $2,845,000 and present value is used to describe the vðlue of money through time Pðge 40 . - - - -,~._--"'--'--""'-''''--''''"'. ""..,..,,,~~._..,.__.".",."œ'·__'~'_"'"'__~··_ Mðy 20, 1986 which meðns thðt if thcre is ð $1,201,000 this date ðnd the County waited through the length of the Bond issue, it would be worth $2,845,000 in the end through investments, as ðn exðmple. He stated that the summðry sheets ðlso lists the estimated issuðnce cost and it shows non-recoverðble cost, the modern dðy refunding, because of Law 38-38 which does not ðllow the County to recover some of the issuðnce costs. He stðt~d that on this particulðr case, issuance costs of $495,000 cðnnot be recovered through arbitrðge, but the insurance pre- mium can be recovered becðuse it is considered cash management and through the life of the issue, it is recovered in the program of investment. He noted thðt the second summary sheet refers to the Public Park and Recreation Issue which WðS the general obligation bond issue and that hðd lO\ bonds ðnd the market now is between 7-l/2 and 7-3/4\. He noted that it shows that if these bonds were refunded, the debt service sðvings would be $796,000 with the present value of $425,000 approximately and it also shows the cost to do it. He noted that the lðst issue is the Gasoline TðX issue ðnd it shows the refunding would sðve ðpproximðtely $868,000 with a present vðlue savings of $182,000 with corresponding cost involved. He stated that when all three issues are combined, there would be a total savings of debt service of $4.5 million and a present value savings of $1,809,000. He stðted that most of these bonds ðre between 9-l/2 ðnd LOt, which would mean a 2\ reduction in accomplishing the refunding. He stðted that he needs to know if the refunding should proceed ðnd am {]94p~"[3Ð4 Page 4l ~'-___"·'~_'·'-""';~',^e~~_",_.._._~",... " <--"""""",.>___~._,__^f >,""___,,",,,,_ "..""'".."'",.._...."'.,""'._,-~,-".- 'CGf: 094,I"t3G5 May 20, 1986 also if the Boðrd wðnts to add money to the Sales TðX Bonds for new capital improvements for the courthouse. He stated thðt he would estimate that there would be an issuðnce cost of $40,000 to $50,000 saved at this time versus six months from now because there is only one Official Statement and only one bond printing. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Fischer stated that if new bonds of $4.3 million were added on to the sðles tðx issue, the ðddi- tionðl debt ser\ice would be $365,000 approximðtely but with the sðvings of $92,000, there would be ð net increase in sðles tax necessary to service the issue of $273,000 to get the ðdditional $4.3 million new money. He stðted that there is ~ limit on what can be issued on this particular issue. In answer to County Mðnðger Lusk, Mr. Fischer stated that this would ðctually generðte ðbout $3.8 million for the County. In ðnswer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Fischer stated thðt with regards to the park issue, there would have to be a referendum to obtain ðdditionðl money. Fiscal Officer Giles questioned how the present value savings of all three issues of ðpproximately $l.8 million calculated, to which Mr. Fischer stðted that it is rolled back ðnd the interest rate of the bond issue is ðssumed, which gives a net present value. Mr. Giles stðted that the present vðlue is figured and then the cost is deducted to give a figure of $1.2 million, to which Mr. Fischer replied ðffirmatively. ~'. Pðge 42 - - - ""-"'_"-~",-~~.,--""",..,.","-"=-",.,.~....,,,~,-,,. Mðy 20, 1986 Mr. Lusk stated that if the Boðrd decides to go ðheðd with this issue this date, there is still a point that the Board can decide not to do this after they know the ðctuðl cost. Mr. Fischer stated that the investment bankers would go to market in a few weeks and then he would come back with the results of going to market and then there is another chance to ðccept or reject the sðvings. Mr. Giles stated that on some of these advanced refundings, there is a little bit of a problem for existing investors in that when the call date comes, their bonds ðre retired and they may have hðd hopes of hanging on to the bonds for 20 years ðnd then all of a sudden they get notice that they hðve to return the bonds. Mr. Fischer stated thðt when these bonds ðre called early, they get a 2\ premium. Commissioner V03S stðted thðt the County is committ~d to a construction program and the money has to come from somewhere and this is a logicðl place for the money to come from. COllllllissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that Btatt be directed to proceed with the ground work tor retunding the 1980, 1982, and 1985 bond i.sues. Commission Holland stated that ð tðx was pðssed last year for Capital Improvements and questioned how much could be derived out of . that tax to be committed to the needs over the next few years, to which Mr. Fischer stðted thðt ðS far as borrowing now ðnd building &CûX Og~w.t3Gß Page 43 '-'~--,._-_.............-"~..~.., ICO~ 094 P1Gl 3G7 May 20, 1986 over the next three yeðrs, the money cðn be borrowed ðt 7-1/2 or 7-3/4% and cðn sit in the bank and earn money. Commissioner Pistor stated that the money from the Capital Improvement tðx can still be used for other items thðt ðre not being funded with the new money. Mr. Lusk stðted that there is ðround $700,000 a year that is obtained from this tax and it was committed to about 4 projects. He stated thðt the biggest project in the next few yeðrs is going to be the parks ðS they need to be finished and there will always be pro- jects for the Capital Improvement Funds. Commissioner Voss moved, øeconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that Statt proceed with obtaining additional money on the 1985 Sales Tax issue tor the Courthouse Construction pro- ject. Item 120 RESOLUTION 86-90 AND RESOLUTION MWS 86-8 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OP LIP~ STATION SITES ON MARCO ISLP~ AND ACCEPTING THE POUR EASEMENTS _ ADOPTED Assistðnt County Attorney Anderson stðted that this is a resolu- tion regðrding the Marco Sewer Phðse II assessment project, adding that there are a total of 7 easements that the County needs to complete this project. He noted that 4 of the easements have been acquired at no cost to the County ðnd 3 still need to be ðcquired. He noted that those property owners hðve indicðted thðt they ðre unwilling to give the County, free-of-charge, the easements, ðdding Page 44 .. - .. "'~-'""""___~""__"'''''''__'''''' ""_·.;"O""'''__·'''''~''''~' ,'...~__.".,_ "'"'<"'""_"""~',-""""._",.._.,"~,~...,.~._-...._-"--,,,",._,,,"",,-""""-"""-""'~ Mðy 20, 1986 that the Florida St~tutes requires that the Commission ðdopt a resolu- tion bofore it proceeds to condemn any property. He stðted that this resolution ðuthorizes proceeding with condemnation if necessðry and also authorizes ðcceptðnce and recordation of the 4 eðsements that have alreðdy been granted. Commissioner Voss moved, .econded by Commissioner Qooðniqht and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-90 and Resolution MWB 86-8 authorisinq cðndemnation ot litt .tation sites on Marco Island and aocepting the tour easements be aðopted. " , :¡ ; it:'· r¡ ,. ~,¡ ;. ;~ ~m Og4F ~r3Ð8 Page 45 _E__,,,, ~I i ¡&OK 094 PAr.t373 May 20, 1986 It_ 121 RBSOLUTION 86-91 AMENDING A RESOL~TION PROVIDING 70R THB ISS~ANCE 07 A 8~BORDINATBD PARI-M~T~EL TAX RBVENUB BOND, SERIES 1986, IN THB AMOUNT 07 $580,000 - ADOPTED County Attorney Cuyler stated that the Boðrd ðdopted a resolution last week correcting what he preceived ðS ðn error in chðnging the $580,000 figure to $590,000 and it turns out that this WðS not in fact an error. He st~ted that this resolution bðsicðlly negðtes the efforts that he went through lðst week and changes the $590,000 figure bðCk to $580,000. commi.sioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-91 amending a resolution pro- viding tor the issuance ot a subordinated pari-mutuel tax revenue bond, Series 1986, in the amount ot $580,000 be adopted. See Pages-3 Ft. - .3 i7 Item 122 ROUTINE BILLS - APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Pursuant to Resolution 8l-l50 the following checks were issued through Friday, May l6, 1986, in pðyment of routine bills: CHECK DESCRIPTION CHECK NOS. AMOUNT Vendors 143137 - 143497 $l,3l7,279.96 ;'.." BCC Payroll 029259 029871 $ 268,481.45 Item 123 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 86-276/278 - ADOPTED Commissioner Goodnight moved, .econded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that Budget Amendments 86-276/278 be adopted. Page 46 ¡'" !.!.'" '. - - .. Mðy 20, 1986 Item 124 PAYMENT TO SIGNATURE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OP $571.99 FOR THE BALES TAX REPUNDING BONDS SIGNING SERVICES - APPROVED Fiscðl Officer Giles indicated that he has a bill from the Signature Company fo. $571.99 for signing services for the Sales Tax Refunding Bonds Series 1985, that hðS been recommended for pðyment by the Financiðl Advisors. COllllllissioner Voss moved, .econded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that payment to signature Company in the amount of $571.99 for the Sales Tax Retunding Bonds signing services be approved. Tape .6 It.. 125 RESOLUTION 86-92 AMENDING RESOLUTION 81-195 BY PROVIDING FOR A SEVEN MEMBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE '1'0 THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION UNIT AND APPOINTING DR. MARVIN GUHAM - ADOPTED Public Works Administrator Ruck stated that he is recommending that insteðd of 6 members there be 7 members for the Mðrco Island Beautification Unit ðnd one of them would be from the Mðrco Islðnd Association of Condominiums and the other member would b~ selected by the Beautificðtion Advisory Committee themselves. He stðted that they are recommending thðt Dr. Mðrvin Graham be appointed. cOllllllissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-92 amending Resolution 81-195 by providing for a seven member advisory committee to the Marco Island . Beautitica~ion unit and appointing Dr. Marvin Graham as the represen- tative tro I the Marco Island Association of Condominiums b. adopted. &CDK 094 PJq 3'74 Page 47 r! ~: f~ : -¡ . ~ i ' . Q94 PJr.[ 379 Mðy 20, 1986 ***** COlllllli8sioner Voss moved, seconded by COllllllissioner Holland and carrit'd unanimously, that the tollowinq items be adopted and/or approved under the Consent ~genda: ***** Ite.. 12 6 rISCAL OrrICK INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED WITH PAYMENT TO DAVIDSON INSULATION , ACOUSTICS, INC. FOR CEILING WORK IN BUILDING "G" Item 127 PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OP PELICAN II~Y, UNIT 4, PHASE 3, AND ACCEPTANCE OF ONE-YEAR MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND RELEASE AUTHORIZED FOR PERFORMANCE BOND ~O. 8093-02-04 PROM THE FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $311,600 Item 128 PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF PELICAN BAY, UNIT 4, ADDITION AND ACCEPTANCB or ONE-YEAR MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND RELEASE AUTHORIZED FOR PBRFORMANCB BOND NO. 8111-29-93 PROM THE PEDERAL INSURANCB COMPANY IN THB AMOUNT OP $36,478. Item 129 LEASB AGREEMENT BETWEEN BCC AND OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT CORP. TO PROVIDE OPPICE FACILITIES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT See Pl:lges .3 t?K" -.3'1lf Item '30 MEMBERSHIP t:J'I' THE BEACH NOURISHMENT STUDY "1m-HOC COMMITTEE" APPROVED TO DETERMIrm THB dCOPE OP SERVICES AND EVALUATE THE RESULTS OP THE BEACH NOURISHMENT STUDY Henry Maxant, North Naples/Vanderbilt Beach Area Chris Holley, Community Services Director, City of Nðples John Grðver, Councilman, City of Naples Jack Eden, Marco Island Dr. Mark Benedict, The Conservancy Harold Huber, Collier County Engineering Director Dr. Ed Proffitt, Nðtural Resources Management Director Pam Brðngaccio, Deputy Assistant County Manager Item '31 LAKE TRAFPORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DEED NO. 460 Page 48 - - .. May 20, 1986 See Page ...3 9..!J-- .3 9 t. Itelll 132 AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD POR THE PURPOSE OP UTILIZING SCHOOL BUSES '1'0 TRANSPORT SUMMER RECREATION PARTICIPANTS See Pages 397 - .3 tj"!' Item 133 AGREEMENT WITH PLORIDA STATE MUSEUM FOR A MANATEE EXHIBIT See Pðges .:399- 1.1.00 Item 134 EXPENDITURB or BUDGET PUNDS BY UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT POR PURCHASE or A rORD RANGER ECONOMY 4 x 4 PICKUP TRUCK PURSUANT TO CURRENT STATE CONTRACT FOR SAID VEHICLE Item '35 BID '86-955 POR BASE STATION RADIO AND PREQUENCY CHANGE - AWARDED TO BVERGLADES COMMUNICATIONS , NAPLES COMMUNICATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,035.44 Legðl notice having been published in the Nðples Daily News on Mðrch 12, 1986, as evidenced by Affidðvit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received for a base stðtion rðdio and frequency modifications until 2:30 P.M., April 2, 1986. Ite. #3' RBSOLU'l'ION "-'3 AUTHORIZING RISK MANAGEKENT DIRECTOR '1'0 REPRESENT COUNTY IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT See Pages JL P / - ",tO~ Item #37 CERTIFICATBS FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLL AS PRESENTED BY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OPFICB 1985 TAX ROLL &COK 094p)(.t380 paqe 49 .._-",=+,.~".."-.."""-~-,,,..,~...".~,.,~,,,,~..~ , OD4 PAGl381 . " ¡ . ··1 May 20, 1986 192 - 198 5/1/86 - 5/13/66 1985 TANGIBLE PZRSONAL PROPERTY 1985-173/174 1985-17 5 1985-177 5/5/66 - 5/6/66 5/7/86 5/19/86 , . Item 138 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - PILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection, the Chair directed that the following correspondence be filed and/or referred to the vðrious depðrtments as indicated below: 1. Letter dated May 5, 1986, from Betty Curry, Fire Commissioner, Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue District, requesting thðt the tax referendum of l\ for 3 yeðrs to build ð new fire station in the District be shown on the ballot in the fall election. xc: Don Lusk ðnd filed. 2. Check received on May 9, 1986, in the amount of SlO,S39.26 from the Office of the Comptroller for the finðl invoice from Nðtural Resources Management Depðrtment. xc: Jim Giles with original, Vickie Mullins, Dr. Proffitt, ðnd Filed. 3. Letter dðted 5/7/86 from Louis L. Wainwright, Secretary of Dept. of Corrections, to Sheriff Aubrey Rogers ðnd Commissioner Fred Voss regðrding inspection report dated April 30, 1986 _ Collier County Stockade - lst follow-up inspection. xc: Neil Dorrill, Filed. 4. Letter dat~d 5/6/86 from Louis L. Wainwright, Secretary of Dept. of Corrections, to Sheriff Aubrey Rogers regarding inspection report dðted April 30, 1986 - Collier County Jail _ 1st follow-up inspection. 5. Letter dated 5/8/86 from Peter M. DeManio and Kay, P.A., regðrding injuries of Kðrlð Ann Heine and Susðn Kurke Heine, at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway ðnd Goodlette Road. xc: Ken Cuyler, Tom Kuck, Sherry Rynders, and Filed. 6. Announcement received from DNR on May 9, 1986, regðrding a public workshop to be held on May l6, 1986 at 10:30 A.M. in Pinellas County regðrding proposed ðmendment to Chapters l6B-24, l6B-33, FL Admin. Code, and Section l6B-33.085, F.A.C. Pðge 50 - - .. Mðy 20, 1986 and Section l6B-24.0075, F.A.C. Permit Fees. xc: Pam Brangaccio, Vickie Mullins, Dr. Proffitt, and Filed. 7. Memorandum dðted 3/3l/86 from Jeffrey S. Bragg, Administrator of Federal Emergency Mðnðgement Agency regarding Publication of Proposed Rule Chðnges for the National Flood Insurðnce Progrðm. xc: Ken Cuyler, Vickie Mullins, Tom McDaniel, and Filed. 8. Memorðndum dated April 29, 1986 from James C. Giles, C.P.A., regarding Report of Expenditures and Remaining budgets as of Mðrch 31 1986, for Justice Center and Courthouse Expansion projects. xc: Lori Zðlka, Filed. 9. Letter dated 5/8/86 from Jðmes C. Giles, C.P.A., to Charles B. Hudnell, Director, Fðrmers Home Administration, District V, regðrding FmHA Quarterly reports thru June 30, 1985. xc: Lori Zalka, Filed. 10. Letter dated 5/2/86 from Jðmes C. Giles, C.P.A., to Mr. L. Thomðs Giblin, Bond Counsel, Nðbors, Giblin, Steffens & Nickerson regarding Disclsoure letter relðted to sðle of $88,000,000 Solid Waste Revenue Bonds. xc: Filed. ll. Voluntary Dismissal dated 5/l2/86 from Lðnd ðnd Wðter Adjudicatory Commission re Pine Air Laker- DRI Development Order No. 85-5 ðnd Ordinðnce 85-67 issued by Collier County. xc: Pðm Brangaccio, Vickie Mullins, Filed. 12. Minutes received from: ~ .City·of Naples 4/16/86 ðnd 4/23/86. EMSAC 4/9/86 and ðgendð for 5/14/86. Pðrks & Recreðtion Advisory Boðrd 5/l7/86 ðnd agenda for 5/l5/86. l3. Letter dated 4/29/86 from C. E. Racster, Manager Safety Compliðnce, Sch1umberger Well Services, offering comments on the proposed Ordinðnce ðpplying to detonation of explosives. xc: Ken Cuyler, Tom Kuck, ðnd Filed. l4. Received on 5/7/86 a motion to withdraw as Co-Counsel and response of Public Defender Twentieth Judicial Circuit to withdraw files by Public Defender Tenth Judicial Circuit in 247 Pending Appeðls; Cðse No. 85-272, et aI, Jerome Haggins, et al., Appellants, v. State of Fl., Appelle. xc: Clerk William J. Reðgðn, Ken Cuyler, ðnd Filed. l5. Letter dated 5/6/86 from Robert L. Patton, Controller, Tax &COK 094 P~~E 3"82 Page 51 aOOK 094 Plr,¡ 383' Mðy 20, 1986 Collector'. Office, attðching a distribution recap showing year to dat~ totals for 1983/84, 1984/85 and 1985/86. xc: Lori Zalka, Filed. *** There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at ll:35 A.M. by Order of the Chðir. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL 9. ßt1 A. PISTOR, CHAIRMAN UGAHÕ A ~ ',l'.";". Q/ W~L~ ~'~~!~ftA~N, CLERK ~~ .','/ :7 -·~~£),c ,.... ...'t. '4j~e~ë'minÞtes approved by the BCC on gH]II~\') ~ as presented I or ðS corrected 6'-/6-P~ Page 52 - - - -...- "~,"".,~"",."..." ,_.......".._~_...,""~.....,.'",.....'",._.>,'"