Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/13/1986 R Naples, Florida, May 13, 1986 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in ~nè for the County of CoJlier, 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 Courthouse Compl.x, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John A. Pistor VICE-CHAIRMAN: Anne Goodnight Frederick J. Voss Max A. Hasse C. C. "Red" Holland ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Fiscal Officer; Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerk; Donald B. Lusk, County Manager; Neil Dorrill, Assistant County Manager; Pam Brangaccio, Deputy Assistant County Manager: Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Tom Kuck, Public works Administr~tor; Vickie Mullins, Community Development Administrator; Ann McKim, Charles Gauthier, and David Weeks, Planners; Tom Crandall, Utilities Administrator; Dave Pettrow, Zoning/Planning Director; George Archibald, Transportation Director; Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; Nancy Israelson, Administrative Assistant to the Board: and Deputy Chief Ray Barnett, Sheriff's Department. Page 1 ~GQ( 004 P~(;( 119 '! _........._,._~"'---_..--".._""'--.,"_._......_-_.,~.~,..''''...-~..-.-...-,.....- am 094 nr" 128 May 13, 1986 Tape '1 Item '1 ~GEND~ - ~PPROVED WITH CHANGES commi..ioner H.... mov.d, .eoondGd by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that the agenda be approved with the following chang.s: a. Item l2C to be heard at ll:OO A.M. b. Item 10C to be heard at 2:00 P.M. c. Pet. R-86-1C scheduled for 5/20/86 to be rescheduled for 6/3/86 per request of Petitioner. d. Item 12E added by Commissioner Voss re discussion of water pressure in North Naples. Item f2 MINUTES OF REGULAR BCC MEETING OF 4/8/86 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that the minutes of the regular board meeting of ~pril 8, 19B6, be approved as presented. Item '3 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS PRESENTED Commissioner Pistor presented Employee Service Awards to the following employees: Jorge Alvarez - Road & Bridge Cindy Faulkner - County Attorney's office Marie Dvorak - Building Inspection Glen Lange - Road & Bricge John Jefferson - Building Maintenance 10 years 5 years 5 years 5 years 5 years Item 14 RESOLU~ION &6-79 RE PETITION AV-S6-004, K. L. MEFFERT, RE VACATION OF 6' SIDE ~ASEMENTB, LOT 3, BLK 73, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 2 PART 1 - ADOPTED Leg~l notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 27, 1986, and May 4, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of - - - Page 2 ....'"..-"""'.........,~,-_.."--_.,'..._,....,~....~'''.._'~''" May 13, 1986 publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition AV-86-004 filed by K. L. Meffert, requesting vacation of the 6 foot side easements on Lot 3, Block 73, Gclden Gate, Unit 2, Part 1, so petitioner may build up to interior side lot lines. Public Works Administrator Kuck stated that " Letters of No Objection" have been received from all pertinent utility companies. He stated that the Water Management Advisory Board has approved the petition admin~'1tratively and the Engineering Department has reviewed the petition and has determined the easements are not required for drainage purposes. He noted that Community Development and Plan Implementation reviewed the petition and have no objection to its approval. He noted that the zoning on this property is C-5. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the publio hearing be olosed. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-79 re Petition AV-8~-004, Þe adopted. ~CQ( G94-ç:,,! 129 Page 3 ,~. May 13, 1986 Item IS RESOLUTION B6-S0 RE PETITION AV-S6-00S, WILBON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL , PEEK, INC. REQUESTING VACATION 01" PARTS OF TRACT "B", AND ALL OF TRACT "E" OF QUAIL CREEIt, UNIT 1; ALL OF LOTB 3 , 4, BLOCIt "8", ALL OF LOTS 1 , 2, BLOCK "T" AND PART OF T~CT "BB" QUAIL CREEK UNIT 2 - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 27, 1986, and May 4, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition AV-86-005 filed by wilson, Miller, Barton, 5011 & Peek, Inc. requesting 'acation of parts of Tract "8" and all of Tract "E" of Quail Creek, Unit 1; all of Lots 3 & 4, Block US", all of Lots 1 & 2, Block "T" and part of Tract "BB", Quail Creek, Unit 2. Public works Administrator Kuck stated that this petition is a request to vacate a portion of the above-described plat to allow the petitiçner to replat said portion. He noted that the replat is a com- panion to the vacation, adding that "Letters of No Objection" have been received from ali pertinent utility companies and the Water Manage~ent Advisory Board has approved the petition administ~atively. He noted that the Engineering and Community Development dc~~rtments have no objection to this petition. He indicated that this property is zoned PUD. commissioner Voss Moved, seconded by commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. commissioner ~oss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-80 re Petition AV-B6-005, be adopted. " j/. Page 4 &GOK 094w·,131 ~ :. . , -"..--.--."" ..... , ~..~..,.. ,_,_~_~;~=~",,,,_~_.",_^.',"._~_,,".",,,,''''''_h'·.~~ May 13, 1986 Ite. U RBSOLUTION 86-81 RB PETITION V-86-4, MIKE EVANISH, REQUESTING 2.5 FEET V~RIANCE FROM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3483 BALBOA CIRCLE - ~DOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 24, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-86-4 filed by Mike Evanish requesting a 2.5 foot variance from the required rear yard setback for accessory structure of 10 feet to 7.5 feet for pro- perty located at 34C3 Balboa Circle. Planner McKim stated that the objective of this petition is to allow a pool and screen"enclosure to remain at their existing loca- tions, adding that the subject property measures 75 feet by 100 feet and is zoned RSF-4. She stated that the property cQntains a single- family dwelling unit and a swimming pool with screen enclosure, noting that the pool and enclosure, which were installed in 1985, both encroach upon the required rear yard setback for accessory ø~ructures of 10 feet. She stated that the pool encroaches approximately 9 inches and the enclosure encroaches approximately 2 feet and the peti- tioner is requesting a 2.5 foot variance. She stated that based upon the size and shape of the lot, staff is of the opinion that genuine land-related hardship does not exist and furthermore, given the loca- tion of the house on the lot, it appears a pool and enclosure could have been located on the property to meet all setbacks. She reported that the applicant submitted one sheet which included the survey, plot Page 5 ~GQK 09 4~f,~ 143 .~"'. ----' , ......~..,,_____w~ ,,,.,,,__~.A_,,",,._~"'^'_"~ ....... am 094fl"; 144 May 13, 1986 plan and construction plan for the pool and screen enclosure, but the survey was not drawn to scale and showed a lO.5 foot setback, ~Ihich exceeded the requirp-ments. She stated that the plot plan, although drawn to scale, did not have the rear setback correctly measured according to the scale of the plan, neither did it have the same rear setback as shown on the survey. She said that to review building permits, e~pecially for additions and accessory structures, the Zoning Department accepts plans not drawn by a certified architect or engineer. She noted that often the plans are only hand drawn sketches, not drawn to scale, with the intended setback dimensions shown and the Zoning Department relies on the survey to check the required setbacks. She noted that the builder appears to have built the pool and enclosure according to the plot plan, not the surveyor the setbacks as shown on the building permit and it is the applicant's responsibility to submit correct consistent information and build according to the building permit. She indicated that the setback encroachment was discovered during a complaint investigation. She stated that there are no special conditions or circumstances that exist as the lot is not irregular in shape, and meets or exceeds the lot width and area requirements, and is typical of the lots within poinciana Village. She stated that granting the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and in addition, granting this variance may set a precedent for after- the-fact variance requests for properties on which a land-related Page 6 - - - ,~·..w,··.·~>"""",--.."",·~·_",··_~·",,"_"~-~·-""·_·__" May 13, 1986 hardship does not exist. She stated that the recommendation of staff Í8 for denial. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, planner McKim stated that there is a pool being built on the property immediately to the rear and they questioned their required setback versus the setback of the peti- tioner's pool. Commissioner Voss questioned if it is required to have a land sur- veyor certify the location of all structures on a plat, to which Planner McKim replied negatively. Community Development Administrator Mullins stated that there was an ordinance brought before the Board twice which was sent back to Staff to rework. She stated that another ordinance is being drafted to bring before the Board for consideration. Mrs. Marilyn Evanish, Petitioner, stated that a pool buiJder was hired who designed the p001, applied for the permit and constructed the pool, adding that they were told that a standard pool runs about 15 feet wide and 28 feet long and the lot was not big enough but a ten foot wide pool would fit in the yard. She stated that she had no idea that they were in violation of a setback requirement until they were contacted by the Zoning Department. She stated that they looked at different alternatives and there was not any that could be utilized to their benefit. She presented a petition from her surrounding neigh- bors indicating that they have no objections to the pool or screened enclosure. ~QQK GD4w·\14.5 Page 7 ". .' . .,.,..=,^,~..."._ ~_.."...,...~,_."~"..,_,,....o~~__·..,"_~ 'ODK 094n:.:14.6 May 13, 1986 Mrs. Alice Astling stated that she is the neighbor that lives right behind Mrs. Evanish and she never had a complaint and has no objection to this pool remaining where it is. Mrs. Evanish stated that she feels that there is no detrimental effect upon the surrounding property and she would like the petition approved. Mr. Figgo, of Casa Pools, stated that when they built the pool it was built from the plot plan which showed a 7-1/2 foot setback and not a 10 foot setback. He stated that he has built both pools and they are both completed, noting that the neighbor's pool meets the required setback. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse aud carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Tape 12 Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-81 re Petition V-86-4, be adopted. Page 8 - - - ~---_....".,".,..;",..._.."~,."~"..."..".,,..__....,.",._......,._---.~- May 13, 1986 Item '7 RESOLUTION 86-82 RE PETITION V-86-S/ GEORGE W. SHEPARD, JR., REQUESTING A 10 FOOT V~RIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE PL~CEMENT OF A SIGN, FOR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 27, 1986, as evidenced by Af:fidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider petition V-86-5 filed by George W. Shepard, Jr., requesting a 10 foot variance from the required front yard setback for signs of 15 feet to 5 feet to allow for the placement o~ a sign, for property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Planner Weeks stated that the objective of this petition is to place ð free-standing sign in the yard fronting on pine Ridge Road. He stated that on November 19, 1985, the Board approved a setback variance for signs on the subject property, but due to staff error, the request and subsequent approval was for 3 feet instead of the 10 feet r.eeded. He noted that the County's purchase of the petitioner's land for a right-of-way reduced the front yard from approximately 28 feet to 15 feet, which created a land-related hardship due to the widening of Pine Ridge Road. He noted that due to the hardship created from government action, staff is recommending app~oval. He noted that there are traffic control and directional signs located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road and if 800~ 094w.: 14.9 Page 9 þl . ICD~ 094-w,: 150 May 13, 1986 the proposed advertising sign wcre located too close to this intersec- tion the signs might be blocked from the motorists view, adding that Staff is requesting that a stipulation be placed on the petition if it is approved that indicatcs that the sign shall be located at least 100 feet west of the east property line. He stated that after making a site inspection, it was noted that there would be no traffic hazard. In answer to Commissioner Holland, Planner weeks stated that the sign will be a directional sign and will not be placed on the struc- ture, adding that it will be perpendicular to the structure as opposed to flat on the wall. Assistant County Manager Dorrill stated that ð hardship was put on the owner of the building by the County, adding that it has caused him to reverse the face of his building, as the front d00r now used to be the back ~cor. He noted that this is the final issue that would need to be resolved. Planner Weeks stated that the petitioner proposes to place the sign at the entrance to his building, which is at the west end of the building, adding that he wants it two to three hundred feet from the property line. He stated that the petitioner feels that if he places the sign closer to the intersection, by the time the people see the sign, they are past the driveway to his business. Coœmissioner Vo.s moved, .econded by commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-82 re Petition V-86-5, Page 10 .. - - - - - May 13, 1986 be adopted subject to the stipulation that the sign shall be located at least 100 feet west of the east property line. Page 11 aGOK 094-01'., 151 I~ <41 . .... . ........__.,~ ..... "'_..."''''''''''''''''''..;"-,~...,"_.._--,....~,,..~"., May 13, 1986 Item fa PBTITION MP-a6-2C, u.s. HOME CORPORATION-RUTENBERG DIVISION, REQUESTING ~ POUR FOOT VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 30 PEET TO 2G FEET FOR PROPERTY AT 13B~ FOXFIRE LANE - APPROVED planner Weeks stated that the objective of this petition is to allow a single-family dwelling unit to remain at its existing loca- tion. He reported that the subject property is located on the north side of Foxfire Lane, is slightly irregular in shape and contains approximately l/4 acre. He indicated that the property contains a 8ingle-f~mily dwelling unit for which a building permit was issued in October, 1985, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in March, 1986. He stated that the house has a front setback of 26 feet instead of the required 30 feet, but the house could have been located on the lot to meet all the setbacks without any problem. He noted that the approved building permit states the correct required setbacks and the accompanying plot plan shows the house meeting all setbacks, but the discrp.pancy is between the design of the house shown on tj,e plot plan and the design ~hown on the construction plans. He said that because the Zoning Department staff only reviews the plot plan to check deve- lopment standards such as lot width, setback, etc. and the Building Department reviews the building plans for compliance with the Building Code, the discrepancy was not detected. He indicated that the r.ouse design constructed is the one shown on the construction plans, but a new correct plot plan was not re-submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Staff, adding that the two designs are essentially a mirror ICDK 094 ~q 155 Page 12 ¿I,. . . acDK 0941'1r., 156 May 13, 1986 image of each other and if one design was flip-flopped, it would become the other design. He stated that it appears that both designs could be located on the lot to meet all required setbacks, but due to the slightly irregular shape of the lot and the protrusion of the garage, the flip-flopping of the house resulted in a four foot encroachment into the front yard setback which was discovered when a location survey was required by a title insurance company. He stated that approval of the requested front yard setback variance would not have a detrimental effect upon adjacent properties and since this variance request is for a property within the Foxfire PUD, the cri- teria under Section 7.27j applies. He noted that it sets forth that the Board, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, may approve minor ~hanges in the location of siting 0f buildings, and it is staff's opinion that this request is minor. He said that the ~ir- cumstances leading to this variance request were due in p~r~ to the different plot and building plans submitted by the applicant and vulnerability to error in the building plan approval process that exists. He stated that had the setback problem been identified prior to construction and a variance applied for, there would have been no apparent justification for such a variance, however, with construction now complete and with reference to the circumstances mentioned above, Staff is compelled to recommend approval. He noted that Staff and all appropriate Counly agencies reviewed this petition and have no objec- tion to its approval. He indicated that the CCPC held their hearing Page 13 - - - Kay 13, 1'8~ on May 1, 1986, and unanimously recommended forwarding Petition MP-86-2C to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, adding that no one spoke for or against the petition at the meeting and no correspondence has been received. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Petition MP-86-2C, us Homes Corporation, Rutenberg Division, requestinq a four foot variance from required front yard setback of 30 feet to 26 feet for property at 1389 Fox~ire Lane be approved. Item f9 BID 86-957 FOR CONSTRUCTION ·OF CLAM PASS BOARDWALK - AWARDED TO GARLAND , ~ARLAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $B17,902.16 SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS. ST~FF TO PROCEED WITH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TXE MASONRY W~LL ~ PARKING LOT BUFFER AND REPORT B~CK TO THE BCC IN TWO WEEKS WITH THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE BEACH ACCESS FACILITIES AGREEMENT WITH ALL MATTERS RESOLVED. Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News or. March 19, 1986, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed wi~h the Clerk, bids were received for Bid #86-957 for the construction of Clam Pass Boardwalk until 2:30 P.M., April 16, 1986. Public Works Administrator Kuck stated that the objective of this item is to update the Board on the status of the proposed improvements to Clam P~93 Park, to discuss and execute the third amendment to the beach access facilities agreement and to award Bid 86-957 for the boardwalk project. He stated that on November 15, 1983, the Board executed a three-party agreement for beach access facilities which was &CQK 094-1>:<:; 157 Page l4 ,.,~-- - \..... I 1m OÐ~ n?158 May 13, 1986 between westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., Can-American Seagate Corporation, and the County and provided that Can-American agreed to design and construct, at its own expense, an improved, paved, and well-landscaped approximately 2-acre parking lot; an improved com- mon accessway fr0m the western terminus of Seagate Drive to said parking lot; an improved accessway from said parking lot to Outer Clam Bay: beachside facilities on the western side of Outer Clam Bay; and a gate house for the security of the parking lot, and the County agreed to accept and opcrate these facilities. He noted that the agreement also provides, with reference to access and parking lot parcel, that upon either the commencement of ccnstruction of the Boardwalk by the County or commencement of the construction of the Hotel by Can-American, Westinghouse Communities shall convey to the County the land upon which the parking lot will be constructed, whicl. shall be approximately two acres in size~ and grant to the County a common, non- exclusive access easement from the western terminus of Seagate Drive to the parking lot. He stated that Westinghouse Communities delivered to the County on April 29, 1986, a letter of intent to provide these documents. He reported that the agreement also indicates that in the event that the County obtains all governmental approvals and permits for a Boardwalk Beach Access System prior to January l, 1985, and in the event it appears that the County can complete construction of the Boardwalk on or before October 1, 1985, then Can-American Seagate shall contribute, prior to commencement of construction, an amount of Page 15 - - - May 13, 1986 money equal to the ~stimated cost to construct the dock-boat-dock access system. He noted that the agreement also states that the Boardwalk shall be constructed directly westward from the eastcrn side of Outer Clam Bay to the western side of Outer Clam Bay. He indicated that these are the provisions that were contained in the original agreement in November, 1983. He noted that on March 23, 1984, the County applied to th~ DER, DNR, U.S. Corps of Engineers, and the u.s. Coast Guard for permits, adding that several months later a property owner in Seagate Subdivision threatened the County with a lawsuit over the fact that he felt that the proposed location of the boardwalk interfered with his riparian rights and the County Attorney, recognizing that this type of lawsuit might take years to settle and would be very expensive, said it would be to the County's advantage to get the northern location permitted. He stated that the County Attorney recommended that new permits be applied for using the revised northerly location and on November l3, 1984, the first amendment to the agreement was executed and on July 30, 1985, the second amendment was executed. He stated that these two amendments merely provide extensions of the completion dates due to the fact that the County had to go back to the necessary agencies for revised permits. He stated that in January, 1985, the County applied for permits based on the new boardwalk location and on April 4, 1986, the last of the required per- mits were received. He reported that on April 23, 1986, bids were rece¡ved for the construction of the boardwalk with the low bidder ~OQK 09 4 ~':' 159 Page 16 ",' aoaK (]~~q16O May 13, 1986 being Garland and Garland in the amount of $817,902.l6; Gulf Piling being second with an amount of $881,234.00; then Ford Piling with an amount of $979,000.00. He stated that in addition to the construction cost, the Board s,ould be apprised of additional estimated costs for piling lengths for the Boardwalk in the amount of $50,000; furnishing of electric and telephone lines to the beach facilities which is optional at an estimated cost of $30,000; potable waterline to beach facilities, which is also optional at an estimated cost of $30,000; staging area and building for tram system estimated at $30,000; purchase of trams to provide transportation to the beach at an esti- mated cost of $60,750; engineering services and inspections throughout the construction phases estimated at $40,000; and a masonry wall along the south side of the entrance road and parking lot estimat~d at $45,000; with the sub~ot~l of the additional cost amounting to $285,750. He indicated on an overhead map the general location of the masonry wall, adding that the wall between Seagate Subdivision and the entrance ro"ad parking lot was a compromise between the County and residents of Seagate Subdivision over the location of these facilities with reference to the buffer strip. He noted that the previous County Attorney, the Public Works Administrator, and the County Manager are of the opinion that either Westinghouse Communities or the Hotel should construct the wall at their expense. He stated that the resi- dents were promised a masonry wall and it is imperative that it be provided to them. He noted that other facilities to be constructed by Page 17 - - - May 13, 1986 the hotel and turned over to the County include the paved two acre parking lot, improved access from Scagate to the parking lot, the gate house for the parking lot and beach side facilities on the western side of Outer Clam Bay. He noted that the proposed third amendment to the agreement, in addition to extending the completion date for the construction of ~he boardwalk, provides a $60,000 cash contribution to the County ba~ed on their estimates of the cost of the dock-boat-dock facility as outlined in the original agreement. He noted that they have also offered an additional $65,000 contribution if tied into the concessionaire agreement. Commissioner Pis tor questioned how the parking lot was moved from a position north of where it is now proposed, adding that there was supposed to be a lOO foot buffer between Seagate and the parking lot, to which Mr. Kuck stated that this was taken from the original PUD of the Westinghouse project. Mr. Kuck stated that this came ~p before in September, 1982, and it was the Engineering Department's recommen- dation that the parking lot be located to the north of the buffer ~trip a~ it was ~hown in the PUD document. Commis~ioner Hasse questioned if the parking lot is part of the park, to which Mr. Kuck stated that it was a commitment in the origi- nal PUD that when they were to give the County the 35 acre park area, they also were to provide two acres for the parking lot. He stated that the parking lot is a necessary amenity to the beach facilities and the boardwalk is located on land owned by the County, which is part of the beach facilities. ~GQK fJ94-r~.·,' 161 Page 18 ~. '1."'" I '., &OaK 004Nr,! 162. Hay 13, 1986 Commissioner Holland stated that if this is part of the park, it would prohibit alcoholic beverages from being sold there or within five hundred feet of the park. Commissioner Voss stated that he does not believe that the board- walk and the parking lot is part of the park. Mr. Kuck stated that there are two separate parcels, adding that the 35 acres were d~eded several years ago and the County is still waiting for receipt of the two acre parking lot parcel. County Attorney Cuyler stated that beach access points are excluded from the five hundred foot setback requirement, adding that if these were beach access points then that specific provision of the ordinance would not apply in any case. Tape '3 Commissioner Hasse stated that there are beach access ooints onto the Gulf of Mexico that are considered parks and this is a beach access point. Assistant County Attorney Weigel stated that with reference to the previous record that may exist to the relocation/redesignation of the two acre parking site, on Novemb~r 9, 1983, former Community Development Administrator Virta explained to the Board that there was a differentiation at that time with the site of the parking lot and it would now be within the 100 foot buffer area, but the PUD itself had a rather general description of the buffer area, adding that it simply stated that it was along Vanderbilt, u.s. 41, and Seagate Drive and Page 19 - - - -~.... ._.--_..,- May 13, 1986 that the particular area of the parking lot was not Seagate Drive itself. He reported that Mr. Virta's rccommendation to the Board was that a parking lot could go within that buffer area and the Board then approved the parking lot as it is presently designated. Mr. Weigel stated that Mr. Richard Aaron is representing the Hotel interest and he will probably have some changes with regard to the proposed third amendment. He stated that on February 15, 1986, the minutes of the meeting indicat~ that there was discussion of a contribution by the Hotel in excess of $100,000 at that time. He stated that the third amendment indicates a change of name of party for the hotel from the Registry Hotel to AUO, the Association of Unit Owners of the Registry Hotel, adding that Mr. Aaron will address the change for the Hotel interest and would suggest and request that he be able to explain to the Board's satisfaction the reason for change or how it would effect the agreement or guarantee that w~y or may not exist. He stated that the County wants to be sure tha: the organization is of the same backing power and capability to respond to the obligatio~~ that are adopted in the first agreement and the amendments thereto. He stated that discussed within the Third Amendment are three particular exhi- bits which are not attached to the proposed third amendment as they were bulky. He noted that he has originals of the exhibits if anyone needs to review them, adding that they address one parking lot area itself and the s=hematic or blue print for the parking lot does not show the construction of a wall along that parking lot as it exists at aOOK (]!J4p)c.ll63 Page 20 Þ," lOOK 094 p r.T 164 May 13, 1986 the present time. He noted that the second exhibit shows the beachside facility as propos~j, and the third exhibit is a document that shows proposals for the hookup between the hotel and the board- walk itself. He stated that if the Board were to approve this third amendment, the hotel would have some flexibility in their hookup up to the boardwalk. He stated that there are some variables in regard to the beachside facilities which the Board may wish to entertain now or at a future date concerning water and sewer hookup, telephone and electrical linkage, etc. He noted that the Hotel has the obligation to build the beachside facilities, but he has talked with the Hotel in regards to a breakout of certain cost figures in case the County should look to providing improvements to the beachside facilities that are beyond the original concept that is being proposed by the Hotel interest. He noted that an example is electrical power at the site, adding that the Hotel has a gas generator proposal for electrical power at the site and if the County should decide to have ~ land line hookup running out there it will be more cost and Mr. Aaron will be able to discuss a break-out of the figure that they would otherwise be expending toward the electrical generator that might be used for a separate power provision for the facility. He stated that the County may also want to know ~bout the variables for water and sewp.r hookups as opposed to a well being drilled on the site and/or deposit tanks for waste. He stated that these things are within the concept of the beachside facility project itself. Page 2l - - - ,_......_....____,;"....~ _ '..~..,."._,,~.~._>.......,._...' .____..~_..,"..__.'."'""'~~,,·o>.... May 13, 1986 Public WorkB Administrator Kuck stated that as he previously indi- cated Garland and Garland was the lQW bidder in the amount of $817,902. for the construction of the boardwalk, adding that in their bid they stated that they would be unable to provide a 100% perfor- mance bond. He stated that they are willing to post an approved c~sh security in the amount of $150,000 in lieu of the performance bond. He noted that the number two bidder also had a letter indicating that they would not be able to furnish a lOO% performance bond either. He Btated that he is recommending that due to the difference between the first and the third bidder of approximately $160,000, that the contract be awarded to Garland and Garland and that they post $l50,000 cash security that would be subject to approval by the County AttorneY'B office. He stated that when they are paid for materials on hand, the County will check that there are waivers and releases so that the County will be protected in that fashion. County Attorney Cuyler stated that as a general rule a performance bond is required as part of the specifications to be sure that the work is done, that the material, labor, and men are paid. He stated that there is a provision that allows an alternative type of security if the Board knows what is involved in the security and makes a finding of fact that the security is equal to a performance bond and fully protects the County. He noted that i~stead of having a bond to protect the material suppliers, the County would get a sign-off in advance indicating that all the people had been paid and in addition to that, there would be a $l50,000 cash security. ðGDK 094 w.I.165 Page 22 ¡I. . ¡-.."* m~ ü94w".l66 May 13, 1986 Assistant County Manager Dorrill questioned if the Letter of Cre- dit could be called as a result of the agreement, to which Mr. Kuck replied affirmatively. Assistant County Manager Dorrill questioned if the bid indicated a unit price on all items, to which Mr. Kuck replied affirmatively. Mr. Richard Aaron, representing Shelter-Seagate Corporation, stated that the letter that accompanied the proposed Third Amendment referenced the idea of connecting the $65,000 to the concessionaire agreement, adding that the letter and the proposal was merely for discussion purposes, adding that it is not the intention to tie the $65,000 to concessionaire agreement, noting that there will be a contribution of $125,000 that will have nothing to do with the con- cessionaire agreement. He stated that historically there was never an amount agreed upon, because the agreement only spoke to a r.ontribution based upon a formula derived from a cost of a dock-boat-dock system, and his estimate was around $60,000 for that~ He stated that the contribution is greater than what the agreement calls for. He noted another issue involved is the substitution of parties, adding that in the 1983 agreement it provides in Article 16 that this agreement and all rights under this agreement may be assigned and transferred by Can-Am and its successors only with the written approval of the County, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and only to subsequent owners or operators of the hotel and upon assignment or transfer, all terms, conditions, benefits, obligations, and rights Page 23 - - - ""___",,,_R.. V ,......,-~-_.:~-,_.....,....._,-""""..,~'~....'''.- May 13, 1986 contained herein shall obligate and inure to Can-Am's successors and assigns. He stated that this provision is being followed, noting that it was always contemplated that there would eventually be a specific entity that would be the main operator of the hotel and that is what is designated in thp Third Amcndmcnt which is specifically the Association of Unit Owners of the Registry Hotel at Pclican Bay, Inc. which is a Florida corporation in existence. He reported that the Third Amendment is basically housekeeping, adding that it provides for the extension of time bp.cause the County has not met the deadlines due to the application problems caused by the Seagate residents that has also cost the taxpayers' a iot of money. Public Works Administrator Kuck stated that a deadline date of April 1, 1987, is being recommended for completion. Mr. Aaron stated that one of the contingencies under discussion was that the County have substantial progress toward the boardwalk before an extension or contribution could be agreed to, adding that assuming the Bid is approved this date, that substantial progress would appear to be going forward. Commissioner Pistor questioned who is going to put in the water and electricity, to which Mr. Aaron stated that this has not been deter- mined because there were too many unsettléd questions, noting that the beach facility originally was going to be at the south end, waste and potable water was going to be hauled by boat and power was going to be by electric generator. Mr. Aaron stated that they now feel that their ~CQK D94~ '.! 161 Page 24 ".">.,--,.."<".",...,,_...,.'""'''''''-"',,.,,-,...._"".,~"''.''''".....,., ~'. am 094 rv,\ lû8 May 13, 1986 obligation will be a generator power supply, adding that if the County wants to run out land lines for potable water and power in lieu of spending the money for the generator, they will give the money to the County to add to their expenditures for the power and water. He stated that he intends to put in a septic system as the area is ade- quate to handle a drainfield and there would probably a well for flushing water and the potable water would probably go out in bottles. He stated that in lieu of all this, the $11,000 that it would cost for a generator would be given to the County. Commissioner Voss stated that this is something that cannot be resolved this date, adding that it will take time to settle this matter and they could come back to the Board at a later date. Commissioner Voss stated that he is concerned with the wall around the parking lot, noting that the Hotel itself infringes on the privacy of the people in Seagate and the wall is necessary but he does not feel that the County should pay for it~ Public Works Administrator Kuck stated that his recommendation is that either the Hotel or westinghouse or a combination thereof, pay for the wall. Tape f4 Assistant County Attorney Weigel stated that he has been in con- tact with Westinghouse and they have not responded toward offering a contribution, notwithstanding the fact that he brought to their atten- tion that with the original designation of the two acre parcel to be Page 2S .. - - ,,',....,.,-----"'-,.~-'- __",~~" .'w,_,~_,,·,.,,···.·__~_··_"',,···,,__·"·~·..,__ May 13, 1986 used for a parking lot, that it was not in the buffer zone and if they were allowed to make that change and designate different property for its uses as a parking lot at the present it requires a wall to meet the concept of the facility that fits within the community and the PUD itself, but there was no response in anyway as to a contribu- tion. He noted 'hat the parking lot and wall are part and parcel together as far as his office is concerned and the concept of creating facilities that fit within the community and essentially within the original PUD concept were to be compatible. Commissioner Voss stated that the wall is needed, but he does not believe that there is any lev~rage with ~nyone. Mr. Kuck stated that the Hotel has indicated that they would give the County the amount of money that it would cost to landscape that area, which is approximately llOO feet long where the wall would be required. He stated that on March 6, 1986, he contacted Shelter Seagate Corporation regarding the wall and on March 10, 1986, a reply was received indicating that they accepted the responsibility of building the wall. He noted that on April 22, 1986, Mr. Aaron indi- cated in a letter that they would not participate in the wall. He noted that if the wall goes up, they will still have to landscape the remainder of the parking lot, adding that at one time they had pro- posed putting heavy vegetation along that 1100 feet and the plan was reviewed with the residents of Seagate Subdivision and that was not acceptable to them at the time and the outcome of the meeting was that ðCC~ 094>-v< 169 Page 26 ,._........._"·o."·;"_.··~ ------------. ,Þ.. ..' ,-",_....._-,.,..~,,-_.,..~----~.--.- ~m 094 PJ~.l170 May 13, 1986 they would be furnished a masonry wall. He noted that the Hotel was requesting a wall 8 feet in height and the County was discussing 6 feet because in order to go 8 feet in height, it would require a variance with regards to the zoni~g. He stated that the height of the wall has ~ot been resolved .at this time. --*** Recess: 10:35 A.M. - Reconvened: 10:45 A.M. ****- The following people spoke with regards to the construction of the Clam Pass Park boardwalk, citing the need for a masonry wall, the need for showers, electricity and water, the need to progress with the boardwalk construction and the need for at least the $l25,000 contri- bution: Frank Gargiulo Thomas Gross David Bennett Mary Lou Houston Mike Zewalk Attorney Lucille Espey prepared a third amendment whi~h she presented to the Commissioners, noting that the dock has been deleted in her amendment and she would request that this be the position of the County in these facilities, because of the environmental concerns, the homeowners concerns and the stipulation with regard to the riparian rights indicated that there would be no dock-boat-dock facilities. She stated that she is asking that the stipulation and the resolution that was approved a few years ago be attached to the third amendment so that it would indicate that there is no ambiguity again about cer- tain limitations. She stated that on her third amendment the stipula- tion is incorporated, there is a place to indicate the $l25,000 Page 27 - - - R". " "'___'_""_M'_"M__'____" ,-...._~.,,_o..~,<~__.·,."'"""_,~",··,.."'-.-,__ May 13, 1986 figure, there is language indicating that the plans for the connector would be submitted ~nd approved later, and that AUO recognizes their responsibility in relation to this agreement. Tape U Mrs. Espey stated that they would request that as this third amendment reaches its final conclusion that special attention be given to the exhibits as this is where the most important portions of the agreement are presented. Assistant County Attorney Weigel stated that Mrs. Espey's point of clarification in regard to no boating or docking facility in her pro- posed third amendment is not addressed in the amendment to the agreement that exists at the present time, although the plans them- selves show no boating or docking facility. He stated that his office would like to review what has been submitted, adding that he does not see any problem in fine tuning the ultimate draft of the third amend- ment so that it takes into account the various points of clarification that have been brought up this date. He noted that the $l25,OOO contribution appears to be a matter of record this date and in the ultimate draft of the third amendment this could be addressed to show when the obligation shall be paid at a date certain or at a date com- mencing with construction, so that there is no question as to when the money must be paid to the County. He noted that the parking lot as it exists on the exhibit does not show a masonry wall at the present time and, therefore, the approval of that exhibit to any draft is something &CQK 094w,,171 Page 28 ._·~·~_",_m'\'tr ¡" am (]94 P~~! 172 May 13, 1986 that needs to be taken care of. He stated that the connector to the boardwalk is separate from what has been proposed by Mr. Aaron in the third amendment. Commissioner Pistor stated that he thought that when it was ðe~ideð to not have the dock-boat-dock that was when the offer was made by Can-Am to ccntribute an amount that was equivalent to what the cost of that would be. Mr. Aaron stated that there was always an obligation to contribute an amount that was determined by that, but there was the option also to build a boat dock system in addition to making the contribution, whether or not the boardwalk was ever built. He noted that once the boat dock system ~tipulation was out, the extra $65,000 was a contri- bution. He stated that he has not seen the proposed amendment made by Mrs. Espey, but the connector issue is only from the ber~ to the boardwalk and would not cross water, adding that it is only a matter of a few feet and it is at his expense. He noted that the issue of the wall is of great concern, but his obligation is clearly spelled out. He stated that the parking lot is to be clearly landscaped, adding that this is the public parking lot, adding that they are responsible for some kind of bUffering in the form to be agreed upon. He noted that there were several meetings as to what form would be agreed upon, and the $65,000 contribution could be used for the wall. County Manager Lusk stated that it has been agreed that there would be an 8 foot wall behind the property of Mr. Gross and the Page 29 - - - ..,...-"'"-.-....-.,;.<=.... ',...--"..~"...~--,-.. ."...._~.~,' ". .._~-....._._....'~" May 13, 1986 adjoining properties and then dropping down to 6 feet. He steted that as far as some of the additional cost, the concessionaire could pro- vide some of these expenses, adding that there could be a contract advertised now and some of the cost could be the water, the electri- city, etc. Public Works Administrator Kuck stated that it would be a good idea to go out for bid on the concessionaire agreement at this time, but he would like to get the wall clarified. County Manager Lusk stated that it is obvious that the hotel is going to refuse to pay for the wall and Staff recommends that the wall be built and if this is' the 'case, the èounty may have to pay for it, but some of it could be recouped on the concessionaire agreement. Mr. Kuck stated ~ha~ after all the changes have bee~ incorporated into the ~hird Amendment, a final form will be brought back to the Board for approval. He stated that the boardwalk is a separate item and it is to everyone's advantage to award the contract. Mr. Aaron stated that he would like to go ahead and get the parking lot started that they are supposed to build and in that regard, there may be some adjustment on that because the plan is that the parking lot is going to be used as a staging area by the contractor for the boardwalk so he would not want to complete it to the point that it would be damaged, but they would like to get it started. He stated that the parking lot and the boardwalk need to be approved with the idea that the parking lot will have a masonry wall and whoever wants to build it can do so. ~OOK 094 W.; 173 Page 30 ..,--____""_"·"'"·"m"."'.,~,,,.·>M.,"".·,.."..oœ·~ ·_··-"--"'-~__II'" I' .""" . ..,.... . aOOK 094 f1~' 17-4 Hay 13, 1986 Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Bid '86-957 tor the construction ot the Boardwalk be awarded to Garland and Garland in the amount ot $817,902.16 with the stipulation that the approved Recurity in the amount ot $150,000 be posted with the County and that payment tor materials and equipment not incorporated in the work shall be accomplished and the supporting documents satistactory to the owner betore payments are made. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and oarried unanimously, that Statt be directed to proceed with the design and oonstruction ot the wall and parking lot and bring back to the Commission in two weeks, the financing method and the tinal Third Amendment. Item 110 STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH DNR STUDYING THE FEASIBILITY OF PARTIAL CONTROL OF JANES SCENIC DRIVE IN THE FAHIOlliATCHEE STRAND BY THE DNR AND nRING A REPORT BACK TO THE BCC ON JULY 22, 1986 Mr. Nay Landrum, Director of the Division of Recreation and Parks of the Florida Department of Natural Resources, stated that he would like to have the management of Janes Scenic Drive under his depart- ment. He stated that he does not propose to close the road to legiti- mate use, but it needs to be closely managed in conjunction with the Fahkahatchee Strand State Preserve. He noted that this Preserve is an area extending southward from State Road 84 to the Tamiami Trail and south of that to the salt water in Florida Bay consisting of about Page 3l - - - '~"",,,<>~~~,,,.....-..,---^....,-,-,,,"-~-,._",.,,. -', . -~",""",,,-----,,,, -, . ,....~-----,_. " '.........'.--....--...,...,"".--"'..-..-.......,.'" May 13, 1986 80,000 acres of which approxim~tely 65,000 acres are already in public ownership. He noted that most of the remaining properties are scat- tered individual lots which were sold off by Gulf American Land Company and GAC many years ago to various owners and the consolidation of those private properties into public ownership has been a slow and tedious process, but it is continuing. He noted that the Preserve is one component of the master plan for the Save our Everglades, and the various components are proceeding and will fall into place. He stated that the Fahkahatchee Strand is an area of immediate concern and it is one of the most exceptional areas in the State Park system and does have nationwide significance as the area is truly unique. He stated that it deserves maximum protec~ion and professional manage- ment. He stated that making the issue more urgent and timely is the fate of the Florida Panther and this area supports a s~all breeding population for them, adding that they would like to manage the strand in a way so that the population could continue. He noted that the Strand is significant with or without the Panther and is an area that needs to be carefully managed. He noted that there are three staff assigned to the Strand at this time, noting that he has requested from the present session of the Legislature an additional 7 positions for the Strand and he feels confident that at least 2 or 3 of those posi- tions will be approved. He noted that his concern at the moment is the fact that there is a road passing through the Strand which in effects bisects it so that there are two management areas rather than ~CðK mJ4 r:r.1175 Page 32 ,;.. . ~.~....,------"_.,,,,,.,~.,"~~ ,..,. ..__.~,..,,"----~--- , . .. JOOK OD4f',r.! 176 May 13, 1986 one and neither one can be as effectively managed es the whole can. He stated that he would like to appeal to the County to place this road, which is not a County road, under the management of the State Park system so that it can be incorporated into the overall management program. He stated that this road comes through the S~rand and then dissipates into a maze of roads laid out in the old Golden Gate Estates Subdivision, adding that as the area develops people will start relying on this road as a major thoroughfare to get back and forth. He stated that as the traffic builds up, it would exacerbate the management problem that already exists as the road has become a raceway, an access point for unlawful vehicle use, and an access point for poachers and illegal hunters. He noted that this is creating problems in the management of the Strand in trying to rcstore the area to a remote and pristine wilderness area that will best support the types of conditions that were there naturally. Tape " Commissioner Voss stated that a study waD made recently by the South Florida Water Management District indicating that there were possible future wellfields for the County in that general area, and questioned if it becomes necessary, will the State let the County go into the area and put in wells for potable water, to which Mr. Landrum stated that this could be worked out, adding that as long as the wellfields could be placed in areas that are not environmentally sen- sitive there would be no problem. Page 33 - - - , _.-......,..~ ^ May 13, 1986 Assistant County Manager Dorrill stated that the Big Cypress Basin Board has recently drilled test wells throughout the area. Commissioner Holland questioned if the State has the money to pur- sue the balance of the areas that are shown in brown on the overhead map, to which Mr. Landrum replied affirmatively, adding that they are being pursued a~ this time, jointly, by the State and the Federal Government and most of it will be acquired by the Transportation Authorities as a part of the overall plan to route I-75 through the area. Commissioner Holland stated that there are people in the area that are complaining that their land has been taken, but they have not been paid for it over the last seven or eight years. He stated that there are no facts or figures regarding this matter and he would also like to know how many people legitimately use Janes Scenic Drive now. He stated that he would feel more qualified to make a decision on this matter if he had such information. He stated that he did not feel that a decision could be made this date. Mr. Landrum stated that he simply wanted the Board to hear his request and would hope that they would see fit to allow them to explore the matter in detail with the County Staff, and he could arrange for a survey of the traffic. He stated that the road is not going to be closed off, adding that there are two types of traffic that he feels is legitimate and appropriate, which he would provide for; one is the public visitor, the ones that want to go to the ~GDK 094!'1.r,< 177 Page 34 Ii . aODK (]94 PA~! 178 May 13, 1986 public area and enjoy it and they would be provided access by the road from the south end at Copeland which would be open during the day and entire daylight hours, to come and go as they please, and the others are the property owners that depend on this road for access to their property, and tt,,~y would have access by giving them a key 50 tha t they can come and go as they please. Commissioner Holland stated that there are a lot of people that use the area for bird watching and questioned how they will get in if there are not manned gates. He stated that avid bird watchers are out at daylight and there will not be anybody there to open the gate before daylight for these people. Mr. Landrum stated that there are three people living within e half mile of whcre the control point will be and access i£ provided after hours and before hours for many of the State parks now for bird watching and night fishing. He noted that the road will be left open at the ~pper end so that peopJe can pass through for emergency pur- poses. Mrs. Pat Carroll, Engineering Department, asked that the Board not take action today but that Staff be authorized to do the proper research and that they work with the DNR and come back with a report outlining the issues involved. She stated that if the survey is done for about a month, she could come back after the Board vacation on July 22, 1986. Deputy Chief Barnett stated that this issue has been discussed before and they are trying to close the north end of the road again, Page 35 - - .. May 13, 1986 adding that the Sheriff's Department will probably make the Same objections as the last two times that thcy tried to do this as they have to get into the arca and it is the only road that cuts across and he cannot issue five hundred keys to the deputies to be opening and closing locks. Mr. Landrum ~taced that the problem is caused by the people that can come in one end and go out the other, adding that if people know that they have to go out the same way they came in, they will not usually go in for mischievous purposes. He noted that if this is a concern, these details can be worked out, noting that he could provide for a manned gate at that point. Deputy Chief Barnett stated that the access is needed at various times as there is a lot of smuggling and planes land there and depu- ties come in from both ends. He stated that this is one o~ the few roads that runs between U.S. 41 and Alligator Alley, noting that there is Route 29 which is needed for evacuation at times and could also be taken out in a Hurricane very easily, which is the only other alternate route out of the Everglades area. He stated that a gate is not going to stop the smugglers, adding that it will only stop the legitimate people that want to go there. Mr. Landrum stated that more often than not, the people that use . the road use it for illegitimate purposes and they will make provi- sions for the Sheriff's Department to get in and out of the area. He stated that, if necessary, they would put a manned entrance station there. Page 36 ~GOK 0940)'·:179 IeOK 094",r~180 May 13, 1986 Commissioner Holland stated that he has a real problem with this issue and does not think that anything should be done on this. Mr. Landrum stated that thcy would be willing to do this on a trial basis for a year if the Board would like. Assistant County Manager Dorrill stated that the Staff is in favor of improving th~ management of the Strand for a number of reasons, but they are not going to allow the DNR to enter into an agrecmcnt with the Board that would limit or restrict the County's ability and the requirements and liability that the County has over that public road. He stated that if an agreement and report is brought back to the Board, it will be an agreement that is fair anJ subject to termination by either party in the event that problems arise, but Staff does have more than a casual interest in this matter. He stated that there are a number of problems that have to be worked out but they did not want to pursue it until there was some conceptual approval from the Board. Mr. Terence Fitzgerald stated that the only thing that he would like to see to help protect private property rights is the notifica- tion of all affected property owners along Janes Scenic Drive. Mr. M. A. Spencer stated that he bought ten acres in the Strand and his only way out would be through J3nes Scenic Drive or the old farm road that bounces off the end of Miller Blvd. onto U.S. 41, because if they close Alligator Alley then he is closed in. He stated that if it is managed, it would help regarding vandalism. commissioner Voss moved, secondeð by commissioner Goodnight and carrieð unanimously, that Statf be authorizeð to work with the DNR anð Page 37 - - - ..~",.",.;...__,...,.~,~"" "~''''''~''''"b.·..,,'';_·''.'·'''''_'''''''_'''''''' "·"-""O""'="~~'.'~'_< .....,~"'"_,_ ..... Kay 13, 1986 other interested groups to study the feasibility of partial control of Janes Scenic Drive and report back to the Board on July 22, 1986. Item 111 r7 C~BLB FRANCHISB ~GRBEMBNT WITH DBLTON~ BROADCASTING - ~PPROVED County Attorney Cuyler stated that this standard form for a franchise agreement was presented to the Board about 6 or 7 months ago and at that time, there was some question about the parent company, Deltona and their relationship to Deltona Broadcasting and whether it would interfere with access rights and the Board instructed Staff to discuss this with Deltona Broadcasting end to address it in the agreement which has been done. He referred to Page lO, Section XV of the Agreement indicating that it provides for any cable franchisee who has a non-exclusive franchise in that same area, may request use of those ea~ements and shall be granted the use of those easements sub- ject to any stipulations that the Board may want to place on that. Commissioner Holland moved, .econded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the TV Cable Franchise ~greement with Delton. Broadcasting be approved. &OOK 094 W.! 181 Page 38 ~ :- ., i ~ ~ '- .\ . '~e- ''¡oôê' 094t$(1.196 : '.: c . May 13, 1986 ..... Recess: 12:03 P.M. - Reocnvened: 1:45 P.M. ..... Itelll 112 STAFF ~UTHORIZED TO HIRE ~ 8E~RCH ORGANIZATION WITH REGARDS TO LOC~TINQ PLANNERS AND RETURN TO THE BCC WI7H A CONTRACT. TWO-PHASE ~PPROACH REG~RDING IKPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMOKALEE LAND USE STUDY - APPROVED Deputy Assistant County Manager Brangaccio stated that the Board asked staff to prepa:e a plan for the implementation and enforcement -f the recommendations contained in the Immokalee Master Plan, adding that the County Manager's office continues to recommend to the Board a two-phase approach to this plan, the implementation and the enfor- cement. She noted that the first phase has already begun as Staff has reassigned a Zoning Investigator who will be in Immokalee for five days a week rather than three days a week, which was started on May 5, 1986. She noted that the rest of the Zoning Investigators were reworked in order to facilitate this action. She noted that the second part of the Planning and Zoning recommendations is that the existing Staff and technical planning section will begin working on detailed studies of street names and addresses that were recommended in the study. She reported that the second phase of implementing the study would come in an expanded service budget request that has already been submitted by the Community Development Division for $53,913 which includes a Planner II and a Zoning Enforcement Officer to implement and enforce the study, addlng that these positions will come up for review with the Board in July and it will be recommended Page 39 - - .. Hay 13, 1986 at that time that the Board approve the early advertising and filling of these positions if they are approved in the budget hearings in July. She indicated that the rest of the study will be completed in 8 to l2 months after the two positions are on full-time. County Mana(er Lusk stated that one of the problems is that within the next couple of weeks, he will be approaching the Board with a Growth Management budget to implement the Growth Management Act and in that there will be a request to hire at least 3 planners and it is going to become very difficult to hire· planners because all the other . . counties in the State of. Florida are going to be putting planners on staff also. He noted that the Plan has to be rewritten by December, 1987, and when planners are hired, priority is going to b~ put on the planner as to what he will be doing as there is a time limi t on the growth management plan and there is also the necessity for the Immokalee study. He stated that his recommendation is going to be that the planners start working on the growth management plan. He noted that this cost item will be around $700,000 to $800,000. Commissioner Voss stated that with every County in the State looking for Planners, the County should start looking now and maybe the County should hire a search firm to locate planners for them. County Manager Lusk stated that this is part of what he will be bringing back to the Board in the next couple of weeks. Tape '7 commissioner Voss move4, seconde4 by Commissioner Goodnight an4 oarried 4/0, (commissioner Holland not present at this time), that ~CQK OM-w.' 197 Page 40 ....J.. ^ ...~.__.,,_.__...,<..._~''''''___~v_ 1m 094plr.l198 May 13, 1986 Staff be authorized to look for a Search organization to help locate pl~nners and come back to the Board with a contract. ..... commissioner Holland returned at this time ..... commissioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the two-phase approach regarding implemen- tation and entorcem~nt ot the Immokalee Land Use Study be approved. Item 113 STAFF INSTRUCTED TO NEGOTIATB ~ CONTRACT WITH WINBOR/FARICY ~RCHITECTURAL FIRM FOR ~ NEW COURTHOUSE STRUCTURE Facilities Manager Camp stated that the Board instructed Staff to advertise, receive and evaluate proposals for architectural engi- neering services for a new courthouse, adding that a committee was established and 16 architectural firms submitted proposals and 6 or more were invited to be interviewed and 3 top firms were picked. He stated that the top firm was Winsor/Faricy Architects, Inc. from Saint Paul, Minnesota; second was Wade Setliff & Associates of Lakeland, Flor ida; and third was the Design Arts Group, Inc. of Tampa," Flor ida. He stated that the recommcndation "is that Staff be authorized to nego- tiate a contract with Winsor/Far icy as the top firm and, should nego- tiations fail, to go with the second or third firm. commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that statt be instructed to negotiate a contract with Winsor/Faricy Architectural tirm tor a new courthouse structure. Item 114 ROUTINB BILLS - ~PPROVED FOR PAYMENT Page 41 - \ - - .",_"__,,,,,,~,,,,,,.",,_._~,,,.>;_,~...."".·o.·,,,,,·.,,~,o._.·_,. ".;.,_.",,,.,.~,,.....,._-~.,.~,.-'~'-- MAY 13, 1986 Pursuant to Resolution 8l-lS0, the following checks were issued through Friday, May 9, 1)86, in payment of routine bills: CHECK DESCRIPTION CHECK NOS. AMOUNT $2,448,451.42 Vendors 142877 - 143136 Item '15 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 86-261/262; 86-266/268; AND 86-271 - ADOPTED Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Holland and carried unanimously, that Budget Amendments 86-261/262; 86-266/268; and 86-271 be adopted. Item 116 $9,952.73 P~YMENT TO PARAMOUNT PRESS FOR PRINTING OF FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR THE $24,240,000 WATER-SEWER DISTRICT REFUNDING ISSUE - ~PPROVED Fiscal Officer Giles presented a bill relating to the $24,240,000 Water-Sewer District refunding that occurred December 31, 1985, adding that it is recommended by the Financial Advisors that this bill be paid. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the $9,952.73 payment to Paramount Press for printing of the final official statement for the $24,240,000 Water-Sewer District refunding issue be approved. Item 117 COUNTY ATTORNEY AND ATTORNEY JOE FIXEL INSTRUCTED TO INVESTIGATE ~LTERN~TIVES REGARDING PROVIDING EGRESS AND INGRESS TO ~LLIGATOR ALLEY AND REPORT BACK TO THE Bce PRIOR TO THE BCC VACATION County Attorney Cuyler stated that the last time this issue came up the Board asked that he look into a couple of items, one of which ðCOK 094-f:'.1 199 Page 42 .~ ---"'-'-~""-"'-'.'~" ,,,._-,,.,.,~.......-....-.---_.~.~,.__-.--- '-!' em 094p.l~t200 May 13, 1986 was a document that had been issued by the County Engineer around 1963 or 1964 and the property owners were claiming that this had a certain significance. He noted that one of the items that was presented by the public at the previous meeting was that certain documents have been issued by the County and that property owners had relied on that document and had transferred property to the County and the County then transferred that property to the State. He reported that he looked at a number of documents that lead up to this tran3action and it does not appear that the County has the rights that the public is hoping that they have, which is to stop the State from its eminent domain powers. Mr. Joe Fixel, eminent domain counsel, stated that he has done research to determine if the County could stop the State from pro- ceeding with the 1-75 project as originally designed as a limited access facility and his research .has determined that the County cannot do this. He stated that one of the powers that the State has is to acquire property, whether it is private or public, for a project like this. County Attorney Cuyler stated that one of the considerations that the Board has to look at is whether this document has any significance or not and his opinion is that the document does have significance as it formalizes some of the rights that these individuals may have with regards to what their access rights are, what their compensation rights are, but with regards to the County stopping the State with this document, it cannot be done. Pag~ 43 - - - _,~__",~_~_~,-"___"__",,,,-,,,",,,,.,,_...,___..,.,,",.....,,___,v_._, May 13, 1986 Commissioner Holland stated that Collier County and Broward County as well as the State, agreed on acceptance of the right-of-way from various individuals for State Road 84 and at the same time, there is documentation that even specific locations of access points were sent to Collier County that were listed from DOT's office fixing the loca- tions of these access points and there has never been anything done to change that agreement to his knowledge. Mr. Fixel stated that the agreement is a very important agreement because more than 20 years ago, certain property interests were created for a great number of people and now that the State is acquiring those property interests known as access rights, then the significance of that document is that the people have a right to be paid for losing that valuable property interest that is going to be taken from them, but in terms of those agreements serving as a bagis to stop the State from proceeding with the I-75 project, it cannot serve that purpose. Mr. Fixel stated that the power of eminent domain is one of the harshest most severe powers that any government can have, adding that is serves as a basis every week in this State for different state agencies to take people's private property against their will when they do not want it taken and to force the sale of it. He stated that there only two instances when a man is entitled to a 12 person jury in this State and that is when his life is on the line because he is being accused of a capital offense or when his property interests are aOOK 094 P~Gt 201 Page 44 ~':"''''. ----~ . ,IÞ.' .' I': 'GOK a9~ p¡r.t 202 ;:0 l ~"' May 13, 1986 being taken by government by excise of power of eminent domain. He stated that these people gave this property on the condition that they would have this access and now the State is saying that they are going to take that access and they have filed suits on portions of the pro- perty on Alligator Alley the early part of this year. He noted that orders have been entered allowing the State to acquire that property. Commissioner Holland questioned if the State would have to rescind the action that was taken that specifically describes the ingress and egress points, to which Mr. Fixel stated that to exercise their power of eminent domain, they would probably not have to rescind it, but if they did it would not in anyway extinguish the property rights that were created when those agreements were entered into. Transportation Director Archibald stated that in the early 1960's the County and the State both supported the Alligator Alley project and the County's part in that project was to acquire th~ right-of-way from the property owners for a strip approximately 400 feet wide and the County obtained that right-of-way from most of the property owners by donation, the premise being that those property owners would be gaining road access that they would not have if the roadway was not constructed as proposed. He noted that the 400 feet that WðS acquired for the alley included 50 feet on both the north and south side of the roadway and that 50 feet was to provide lateral access to permitted access around the alley itself. He stated that based upon the origi- nal construction drawings there was provided access approximately Page 45 - - - --~._.." ".",~ >.. ~,~"--",~,,,,,,,,,,,-,^_..,,,._-_..... May 13, 1981 every two miles and property owners both north and south of the alley would gain access t~ those two mile permitted access locations by this 50 foot right-of-way. He stated that when the County completed their phase of the project, the rights-of-way were given to the State of Florida, which was the end of the County's role at that point in time. He noted that th.. right-of-way that the State has on the south side is not sufficient and the State currently needs an additional 125 feet. Tape '8 Commissioner Pis tor stated that there may have to be consideration given to an access road from the landfill eastward to State Road 29. Mr. Tom Berry, 1-75 pro~ect Manager for the Florida Department of Transportation, stated that one thing that is different is the way that the Department of Natural Resources acquires land versus the way the Department of Transportation acquires land, adding that they are in a situation whereby if they have to go to eminent domain proceedings, they are bound by Statutory requirements to make payments in a timely manner, and they are required to deposit an amount equal to the value in a court account and they are bound upon a final judgment of a time frame that is 30 days or less to make payment to the property owners. He stated that they are proposing to buy l25' on the south side of the Alley fee simple and the remainder of the property will be deter- mined in the appraisal process for damages for the remainder and that amount also is being paid to the property owner for the loss of access. He stated that if this goes to Jury trail, the Jury would decide on the amount. &CD~ 094 r~·.! 203 Page 46 ,..... . ,...,,"...~...'""'~""_""'''',"'''"'_'"_W__ 1m 094 "1'.! 204 May 13, 1986 Commissioner Voss questioned if anything that is said or done at this meeting will have any effect on the plans for Alligator Alley, to which Mr. Berry stated that he could not answer this, but the road will still be built and there will be no access road or access to 1-75 by the property owners. Commissioner 'Iasse stated that there could be a cloverleaf built that would not interfere with the people's property. Mr. Berry stated that most of the letters from the people object to the fence, adding that it is required thðt aU access rights to and from the Interstate facility be acquired prior to the construction and the fence is a convenienc method of providing access control. He noted that in this particular case, there is the normal interstate fence requirement as well ðS the endðngered species requirement for a higher fence. The following people spoke against the construction of 1-75 and the installation of the fence, the need for access rights, the limita- tions of eminent domain, the rights of the property owners; Puul Erickson, Attorney Tape f9 M. Dan Nickel Tape no M. A. Spencer County Attorney Cuyler stated that he cannot say whether these E. Lamar Richardson people with property have a compensable interest because it has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. He stated that all these issues have been looked at and the question is really defining the limits and Page 47 - .. - Kay 13, 1986 where that limit gives rise to a defense, but ne sees nothing that would limit the powcr of eminent domain in this situation. He stated that he does not want anything that is said this date by the Commission, Mr. Fixel or himself to indicate that the County is foregoing any pOFsible claims that thc County may have directly in this issue. He noted that if it is within the ability of the County to stop the project, the County will try to do this, adding that some claims are being pursued at this time that are primarily related to drainage, and they may be related to portiwns of roads that are taken. He stated that as far as the County representing particular indivi- duals, the County cannot do that. Commissioner Pistor stated that there could be a work:!l:lOp held to discuss the problems and get answers to questions. Mr. Berry stated that he does not know if a workshop is what is needed as they are trying to work with each property owner and each property owner has ð different problem. Commissioner Holland stated that these people need to know when the plan calls for the first ségment of the road to be built, to which Mr. Berry stated that construction will start in the beginning of 1987 at C.R. 951 and go eastward toward State Road 29. Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the County ~ttorney and Mr. Fixel be directed to investigate alternatives regarding providing ingress an~ egress to ~lligator Alley and report back to the Board prior to their vacation. !CQK OD4w.!205 Page 48 ,.#,~ _,._..,....~."'____._~,."'...'"..~H~...·~_·· ......._'_"0._._..-- ....."_"',~"~,,....,.,. _""_......__. 094f'1~206 May 13, 1986 ..... Recess: 3150 P.M. - Reconv~nedl 4:00 P.M. ..... Item 118 RESOLUTION 86-83 SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO RENEW THE GENERAL REVENUE S~J(ING PROGRAK - ~DOPTED Commissioner Pistor stated that this item is to support a Federal Revenue Sharing program to send to all the Congressmen, etc., noting that the Resolution was prepared for adoption by the Board. Commissioner ~oss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried 4/0, (Commissioner Holland out of the room), that Resolution '6-83 supporting ~ederal Legislation to renew the General Revenue Sharinq program be adopted. Page 49 - .. - , "~.,~>..,..",..~._,-~....,.",..y..,.,,-~.,,-"- Kay 13, 1986 Item 119 RESOLUTION 8'-84 PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBORDINAT3D PARI- MUTUEL TAX REVENUE BOND IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $590,000 TO FINANCE THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS TO CLAM PASS PARK - ADOPTED County Attorney Cuyler stated that bond counsel was under the impression that this resolution had previously been adopted and they provided a new resolutior: amending it as there were some minor word changes, adding tnat there is no concern over those changes. He stated that there are a number of places that he has corrected the resolution to indicate $590,000 instead of $580,000 as Fiscal Officer Giles had indicated. He stated that he is asking that the Board adopt the resolution without the title that reflects amending and to change the $580,OO~ figure to $590,000. commissioner Voss moved, seconded by commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 86-84 providing tor the issuance ot a subordinated pari-mutuel tax revenue bond in the prh...,ipal amount ot $590,000 to tinance the cost ot the acquisition and construction ot various improvements to Clam Pass Park be adopted. Page 50 ~GOK OD4 W., 20.9 ,-,~""""",,,,-"'-"----'-"~"''''''^'~''''''^ .._-,.<-,,.,,..''''---_.~~..'..- ".-, ~._~...._--_......,......-... aCOK 094 w·r 234 Kay 13, 1986 Tape 111 Item 120 BO~DS TO CONTRIBUTE $300 TOWARD GRADUATION PARTY FOR COLLIER COUNTY HIGH SCHOOLS Commissioner Pistor steted that he was called about this metter, noting that it is a good idee to have these parties. He steted that after contacting the School Board, he found out that they contributed $300 instead of $1000 for the party. commissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Voss and carried unanimously, that the Board contribute $300 toward the gra- duation party for collier County High Schools. county ~ttorney Cuyler stated that the publio purpose of the issuance ot the money is that these parties are organized tor the pur- pose of drawing students to activities where there is not alcoholic beverages so they do not drink and drive. Item 121 REQUEST FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO SET UP RULES ~ND STANDARDS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS OF TRANSMISSION LINES TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE - NO ACTION TAKEN Commissioner Pistor stated that this item is ceiling upon the Floride DER to edopt rules and set reguletions for electromagnetic field effects. He noted that in Hillsborough County they have run into some legal problems over transmission line casements and they would like other counties to support them in getting the State to pass certain rules and standards whereby the County would be held harmless and the Electric Company would be responsible for any problems that Page 51 .. .. .. f 'J-.' ./ó ".- \~~.. ~ . _,~,,,,,",,,,,,_",_r <_m'_._"__"""""""""____,_-,··--<·--..·'''·,·-~,,·, :"j ~;,¡ . May 13, 1986 come from the transmission line emissions. He noted that this is for the Commission to decide. Commissioner Voss stated that they are asking the County Commission to ask the DER to set rules regarding this matter, adding that he does not think that anything should be done regarding this. It was the general consensus that the Board would not take any action on this matter. Item 122 ST~FF INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED WITH ENGINEERING DESIGNS ON EXPANSION OF WATER F~CILITY REG~RDING RUNNING LINES TO THE NORTH NAPLES AREA AS SOON ~S POSSIBLE TO IMPROVE SAID WATER PRESSURE AND ENGINEERS TO MAKE PRESENTATION ON MASTER PLAN . Commissioner Voss stated that the water pressure is down allover the County, but in North Naples it is terrible, adding that there should be something done about it. Utilities Administrator Crandall stated that at times the City has been pumping 90 pounds of pressure and if they had large water mains all the way to ~he northern part of the county, there would be no problem. He stated that if they had adequate supply or adequate pumping capabilities there would not be a problem either, but their. transmission mains are not large enough. He stated that they are working on improvements and they are planning on building additional storage tanks in the north area regardless of when the County is able to get off their system and take over the five million gallon storage tank. He stated that they recognize the need for additional storage &COK (]94 PA~[ 235 Page 52 .._-----""_....~"'_....""."",,.,.....- ,cor: 094 w.¡ 236 Kay 13, 1986 and additional pumping. He stated that they do not have the ability to fill the five million gallon storage tank and they still want to ~ervice Pelican Bay. He ~tated that if an additional tank is built north of that area, the County may not be able to fill that tank and be able to pump back out of it. He stated that he has a plan that would take care of the pressure problems in the north end. He referred to the location of the Regional Treatment Plant noting that he is currently planning for expansion to 10 million gallon capabi- lity. He stated that presently only south of the plant is being served, but the 10 million gallon expansion is anticipated to serve the needs for seven year~ to the south. He indica~ed that the optimum capacity of operating a plant is 80\ and he would like to see it operating at 80\ immediately. He referred to an area on an overhead map indicating the location of the second regional treatment plant because of the good groundwater supply. He noted that the Master Water Plan calls for one plant to be tied to the other plant at a main corridor anticipated to be a36 inch line, which would enable one of the plants to feed everything north and south if necessary for short periods of time in the event that the other plant was out. He stated that he could design now for this line. Commissioner Voss questioned how much it would cost to install the line to the north end, to which ~Ir. Crandall stated that it would cost between four and five million dollars. Mr. Crandall stated that eventually this will have to be constructed if the service to the north end is to be provided and by Page 53 .. - - .. ! f . 1...:. /~, ...·~r / " :~' M:l.Y 13, 1986 contract, the County says that they a=e going to serve it. He noted that the Vineyards would like the County to serve them water, adding that they may be interested in a contribution to aid the constr.uction in order to get that water. Commissioner Voss questioned how long it would take for the addi- tion to the water tank, to which Mr. Crandall stated that it would be about l8 months. Commissioner Voss stated that if approval was given now, it would take that long to get the engineering done and the line to the tank. Assistant County Manager Dorrill questioned when the Master Water Plan will be completed, to which Mr. Crandall stated that it will be a couple of months, but this would fit in with the plan. Commissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that statt be instructed to proceed immediately with the engineering designs tor the expansion ot the water tacility in order to run the lines to North Naples to improve the water pressure tor that area and to have a recommendation regarding the tinancing ot same and have the Engineers make a tormal interim presen- tation on the Master Water Plan. - .. ~, ~ &COK 094 p1(.r 237 Page 54 ,. ICG!: 094 Plr.t 238 Kay 13, 1986 ***** The following items were approveð and/or adopted under the Consent ~qenda by motion of Commissioner voss, .econded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously I Itelll '23 CONTRACT WITH THB DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ~FFAIRS FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPRBHENRIVE PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM See Pages,;{ 1t3 -o?.s~ Item '24 PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF QUAIL CREEK, UNIT III, ACCEPTANCE OF ONE- YEAR MAINTENANCE SECURITY AND RELEASE OF ESCROW AGREEMENT See Pages ri.."Í ~ -dS"'f Item .25 FIN~L PLAT OF LOCH LOUISE - SUBJECT TO STIPULATION. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS See Pages Ql.s.s-;,1.S 7 Final plat not to be recorded until the required improvements have t:en constructed and accepted or until approved security is received. Item 126 BID 86-965, J~CK , BORE FOR MARCO ISLAND MEDIAN IRRIGATION - AWARDED TO J , R CABLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN AMOUNT OF $68,160 Item f27 FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL CREEK, UNIT 4, AND ACCEPTANCE OF SECURITY FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS See Pages ð.sl!- ,;«(,'f Item '28 FIN~L PLAT OF JAEGER PUD - SUBJECT TO STIPULATION. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ~GREEMENT OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS Page 55 - - - ........'"_..._,.."""'-"'''''....,...~.'.~.,,",'',.,.......,., .""""",,,,.... '"~~,~"._;.,,-"'..--..,.--.......... , .- ¡ f' '. )):/:,- ;. ~'1 ~. It ~-~¡: ,,' ('.,,' :6:,l~"'f\ ; .~~. ·f;ft.,~:,: ~,1' . ;~~,:~ ,,::,,·-...:~í '" ,~.; May 13, 198' See Pages PJ.t.s- ~C.7 Final plat not to be recorded until the required improvements have been constructed and accepted or until approved security is received. Item 129 ~PPOINTMENTS ~ND REAPPOINTMENTS MADE TO THE JTPA PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL FOR 3 YEARS (July 15, 1986-July 14, 19B9) Reappointment: J. R. Humphrey wi 11 ie Anthony Donald Ashley Sylvester Humphrey New Appointments: Donald Berry Cliff Essig Thomas A. Smith~ :Ed Gauthier Itelll 130 ~GREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OF SANT~ BARBARA LANDINGS, A.A.H. DEVELOPMENT, INC. RE INTERIM ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT ~A~ILITIES _ SUBJECT '1'0 STIPU~TION See Pages é{c'j- ::?70 Item 131 ~CCEPTANCE OF QUIT C~IM DEED FOR 30 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SANDY LANE See Pages :? 7/ - ~ 7 ~ Itell 132 ~TER AND SEWER F~CILITIES ~CCEPTED FOR QUAIL CREEK UNIT 3 - SUBJECT '1'0 STIPU~TIONS See Pages O.R. Book l195. Paqes 000127-000153 Itell 133 ~UTHORIZ~TION OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR DEPARTMENT/DIVISION DIRECTOR ~PPLICANTS FOR INTERVIEW EXPENSES UPON PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY MANAGER FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL REQUEST ~CQK 094 PAC,[ 23.9 paqe 56 ---..,.......,.- aCOK 094 p~~t 24.0 May 13, 1986 Itell 13 .. CBRTIFIC~TES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLL AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER 1985 Nos. l88-19l Dated 4-25-86 1985 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY Dated 4-29-86 No. 1985-172 It_ '35 EXTRA g~IN TIMB FOR IKHATB NOS. 50429, 50335, and 42254. Item 13' DUPLICATB TAX CERTIFIC~TE NO. 2~95 ISSUED TO JAMES M. MONAHAN, JR. DUB TO LOSS See Pages Item '37 ~7"'> RESOLUTION 8'-85 ENDORSING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TAG, REGISTRATION AND TITLE OFFICE IN COAST LAND MALL See Pages ¡; 7 If' .;¡ 7..5'" Item '38 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection, the Chair directed that the fOllowing correspondence be filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: 1. Memorandum dated 04/01/86 from Dept. of Administration re proposed retirement contribution rates - October 1, 1986. Referred to Personnel, Pam Brangaccio, Lori Zalka and filed. 2. Letter dated 04/30/86 from Benito Diaz, Carroll & Halberg, P.A., requesting information re traffic light and inter- section at Colden Gate Pkwy. & Goodlette Rd, pursuant to Page 57 ~.~í.'~'- ~ ' -,..' ,. i:.i.. , '~..>O"".'. . ,. ." . 1:. .~ I?¿(C"':;' . "iI..·· - - - """''''''''''''''''''-__-,n ,- ¡ ,dl:. ,..r::~.'\ . f",¥'~ . .f/ )" ." May 13, 1986 the Public Record~ Act, re: Robert Crawford, File No. 4619 - BHD/S. Referred to Key Cuyler, Neil Dorrill, Tom Kuck, George Archibald and filed. 3. Letter dated 04/28/86 from Bob Palmer, Submerged Lands Section, DNR, advising of their interest in mangroves. Referred to Vickie Mullins, Dr. Proffitt and filed. 4. Memo~ da..ed 04/l7/86 from Fiscal Officer James C. Giles to: Doug Greenfield, EMS Director, re E.M.S. Preliminary Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 1986. Thomas Olliff, Acting Fleet Management Director, re Fleet Management/Motor Pool Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 1986. Ro~ert Fahey, Solid Was~e Director, re Solid Waste Disposal Financia¡ Statement~for the period ended March 31, 1986. All mèm08 referred to Lori Zalka and filed. ... 5.' 1985 Annual Report, Crime in Florida, Received 04/10/86 from FL Dept. of Law Enforcement. Referred to BCC and filed. 6. Letter dated 05/01/86 from Thomas L. Stice, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission notifying of upcoming Experimental Alligator Harvest on Lake Trafford, beginning 08/25/86 through 09/05/86. Referred to BCC, Sheriff Rogers, Dr. Ed Proffitt and filed. 7. Minutes: Filed A. Collier Soil & Water Conservation District - 04/24/86 B. Golden Gate Community Center - 01/28/86, 02/25/86 & 03/25/86. Revised Guidelines and Rules - 04/29/86; Calendar of Events for April, 1986. C. Library Advisory Board - 03/27/86 8. Letter dated 04/29/86 from Lieutenant Governor Wayne Mixon, Secretary of Commerce, explaining the Florida Small & Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985 and advising interested parties to provide the name of an appropriate contact person. Referred to Don Lusk and filed. &CQK 094PJr.r 241 Page 58 aCGK 094 PV.! 242 May 13, 1986 9. Memo dated 04/l6/86 from Sheriff Aubrey Rogers re Second Quarterly Report - Sheriff's Confiscation Trust Fund - Fiscal Year 1985/86. Referred to Lori Zalka and filed. 10. Memo dated 04/24/86 from U.C. Consultants, DCA, requesting verification of Enterprise Zone. Referred to Vickie Mullins and filed. *** There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at by Order of the Chair. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD{S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ç¡~ PISTOR, CHAIRMAN ,\ \JUAIì/¡ A\'ì:tST: "/ ~W~LpI~ Jt;REbGAN, CLERK :;.' :. I \ ('" ';,' . ~I~_:;_' ~J~t)~~ .~"~~. .', ,,"These: l1Ii~utes approved by the Board on Þ'~/&:~;:.6 as presented --- ...."f ... or as corrected Page 59 ,. . - - - I , , í, p ¡t·, :".'; 1./~~~1 ." "--"'--"',.........._"--""~"'-,_...........,,."',"",........,._..~.~, ~._~~._._> ''',-,"~_._-~,~~.,"~,--,...~._,