The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 02/24/1981 R Naples, Florida, February 24, 1981 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting 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 tlF" of the Courthouse Complex with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John pistor VICE CHA!R~l!\N Clifford Wenzel , C.R. "Russ" Wimer Mary-Frances Kruse David C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: Harold L. Hall, Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Darlene Davidson and Edna Brenneman (1:30 P.M.), Deputy Clerks; Terry Virta, Co~munity Development Administrator; Jeffory Perry, Zoning Director; Donald Pickworth, County Attorney; Kerry McQuinn, Assistant County Attorney; C. William Norman, County Manager; Thomas Hafner, Public Safety Administrator; Sandi Gibbs, Word Processing Director; Irving Berzon, Utilities Director; Clifford Barksdale, Public Works Administrator/County Engineer; Neil Dorrill, Administrative Assistant to the County Manager; Grace Spaulding, Administrative Aide to the Board, and Deputy Chief Raymond Barnett, Sheriff's Department. _..:-;.,~"-'''' ,J"".",~ " .....;..,.; . ..1 etlCf 059 PAd 535 J , ., ',' -/ I - . I ' ll!"~.~'''~. ")1'.'_ . , "~:r: '_:~~,:.-:-.;,!.S:,;~ ..'.: (, 'I: ,~,~I;~' ;,.' "':{"!i;:~!page i f. ..... , ., '. . I' . .' 0.. . . , '", ,'. :.'(.F~: eO~K 059 PACE 540 February 24, 1981 AGENDA - APPROVED WTIH ADDITIONS AND DELETION .' Commissioner henzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and carried unanimously, that the Agenda be approved with the following additions and deletion: 1. Consideration of use of land in Goodland - added to BCC Report. 2. proclamation re Engineering Week - added to Item 5. 3. Item 9H(1), re Community Services Grant - deleted. 4. Consideration regarding a contract with Southeastern Municipal Bonds, Inc., re purchase of up to t325,OOO bonds for Marco Water/Sewer District - Added to County Attorney's Report. MINUTES OF JANUARY 27 AND FEBRUARY 3, 1981 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Commissioner Wenzel Moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and carried unanimously, that the Minutes of January 27, ~nd February 3, 1981 be approved as presented. ,- PROCL'\~lATION ESTABLISHING THE ~:EEK OF 2/22 THROUGH 2/28/81 AS NATIONAL ENGINEERING WEEK - ADOPTED Chairm~n Pistor pr8sented a Proclamation proclaiming the week of February 22 through 28, 1981 as National Engineering Week to representatives of the Floride Engineering Society and the American Society of Engineers, same having been adopted on a motion offered by Commissioner Wenzel, seconded by Commissioner Bro~~ and carried unanimously. '. ' Page 2 \ '\ PETITION BD-80-lSC, ED HILLSTROM REPRESENTING THE VILLAS OF VANDERBILT BEACH, REQUESTING BOAT DOCL EXTENSION TO 57 FEET AT LOTS 21 and 22, BLOCK "A" AND LOT 20, BLOCK~'."B", VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES LOCATED ON VANDERBILT LAGOON - REFERRED BACK TO STAFF, CAPC, AND COUNTY ATTORNEY, BIOLOGICAL ASSESSr~ENT RE DER FILE NO. ll-3l848-SE READ INTO THE RECORD AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD: DER TO BE NOTIFIED OF BOARD ACTION .:' , :" , .i:~.,:: ,:'~':~f: . ..... 1.'..."-' Iof'.,rt:..,~ . __......._.. ______.__40> '.'t"t aoaK 059 PACE 542 February 24, 1901 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 1, 19r1 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition BD-BO-15C, as filed by Ed Hillstrom representing The Villas of Vanderbilt Beach, requesting a boat dock extension to 67 feet at Lots 21 and 22, Block "A" and Lot 20, Block "B" Vanderbilt Beach Estates located on Vanderbilt Lagoon. Community Dcvelop~cnt Administrator Terry Virta referred to the Executive Summary dated 2/11/81 and read the contents thereof. He pointed out the location of the proposed boat dock on a map, and noted that there is an existing vertical seawall on the adjacent property. Environmental Consultant Jay Iiannic read the Biological Assessment ,- for The Villas of Vanderbilt Beach, DER File 110. 11-31848 5E into the record, ex~laining that regardless of the outcome of the Board's decision rcgarding the subject boat oock, the developer proposes to construct a riprap scawall and an elevated tennis court/parking area that will extend beyond the shoreline, therefore, the DER requires that the report be read into the record and accepted by the Board. Dr. Harmic statcd that, based on environmental considerations, he is recommending approval of the subject petition, and that, regardless of the board's decision oh the subject boat dock, he will continue to recommend approval for the seawall and the tennis courts. After a brief explanation in response to Commissioner Wimer regarding the exact status of Dr. Harmic's employment with the County, .' Pag. 3 February 24, 1981 including the fact that he is presently employed as the Environmental Consultant to the County, and has agreed to remain so until such time as a replacement has been hired by the County Manager, Dr. Harmic stated that he has given consideration to the possibility of remaining with the County on a part-time basis, however, this has not been encouraged by his doctor. He said that he believes that the position is one that requires a full-time consultant; however, if the County Manager and the Co~munity Development Administrator both agree that they wish to have him remain on as a part-time employee, he would agree. Dr. Harmic concluded by stating that he still believes that the position of Environmental Consultant should be considered as a full time position. Mr. Edw~~d Hillstro~ stAt~d thAt the proposed docks could be retracted by 10 feet and still allow for sufficient water depth for small boats. In answer to Commissioner Wenzel, he said that the deve1o~er has not considered dredging for the docks, as the DER would not approve. nor would they approve a vertical seawall. Mr. Hillstrom addressed the concerns of the CAPC based on a "proliferation of boat docks" in the general area of the proposed dock, and said that there are not a lot of docks near this particular site. After a brief discussion regarding the position of the bulkheads relative to the subject project, the water de?th of the general area and the proposed span of the docks the following persons spoke in opposition to the subject petition: 1. Carl Gilzo, representing Vanderbilt Beach Property Association. 2. George Keller, representing the Collier County Civic Association Federation. aOOK 059 PACE 543 , '" Page 4 '--'-'~~~.'_._--'._._--"-'-'~'---_._~"'" ..- ---.'-"-.'.. ......"._,.-"..._..~,..._._- . ..... ~ , aoOK 059 PACE544 February 24, 1981 :~"t' ,.~,;: .'. ",.."ti';;.:," ~~~.:. ',.' " . d...~~.;..' ':~; . ". J,(....~ . ,~ Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that : :"i.,J;~.... , ~;-"'. ". the public hearing be'ciosed. " , ~ ",,' :,:;;. ::" 1.-..,'" .. . """..- County Attorney Pickworth explained that the Board has specific standards on which to base their decision outlined within the relevant Ordinance; he referred to five points that must be considered, and asked Mr. Virta if these had been considered by the CAPC and staff when making their recommendation for denial as outlined within the Executive',. ,; Summary and referred to earlier by Mr. Virta. He also stated that he sees no indication of these five considerations within the staff report included in the Agenda package supplied to the Board, and asked if this occurred throu9h omission. Mr. Virta replied that the entire staff report has been incorporated in the ^genda package, and that the recommendation of the CAPC clearly states that it was based on the fact that there is a lack of "need" for the extension into the waterway and on the "prolifera- tion" of boat docks in the general area. He said that the CAPC did consider the criteria outlined in the O,uinance and thilt thoy (C.".PC) are of the mind that they do not have tho "room" that would allow them to "turn down" a boat dock permit based on that criteria. In answet' to Commissioner Wimer, ~r. Virta said that he did not mean to intimate that the CAPC recommended denial because they assumed that the Board would vote negatively; he only meant that the CAPC does noe feel that they have enough discretion based solely on the criteria outlined within the Ordinance. Commissioner ~imer asked Mr. Virta if the CAPC specifically said this, and Mr. Virta replied affirmatively. Commissioner Wimer then asked Mr. Virta if the subject petition meets all the requirements within the Ordinance and Mr. Virta replied affirmatively, stating that Page 5 February 24, 1981 the staff recommendation to the CAPC was for approval. There was a discussion regarding the fact that the petitioner does not need to prove a "hardship" in this particular instance as they are not applying for a variance, during which Mr. Pickworth stated that it is his opinion that the Board has no grounds for denying this petition. Commissioners ~enzel and Brown withdrew their motion to close the public hearing after the discussion, and Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel, that Petition BD-80-l5C be referred back to the staff, the CAPC and the County Attorney, for investigation and consideration based on the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously, and Commissioner Wimer clarified his intent by stating that he wishes this matter to be brought back to the Board ~R Soon as possible; that he wants all recommendations to be based soley on the provisions of the Ordinance and that personal feelings regarding how the Board mayor may not vote is not to be considered. There was a brief discussion regarding the statement by Commis- sioner Yienzel that Ordinances should reflect the "peoples wishes., during which Attorney Pickworth said that this is not the purpose of an Ordinance; government only has the right to "protect the health and the welfare of the public. !OO~ 059 PACE 545 Page 6 February 24, 1981 PETITION CCCL-80-13C, SUBOCE~NIC CONSULTANTS, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FRO,'! TilE CCCL FOn THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING 11 ROAD\'IA'i/ARTIFICIAL DUNE STRUCTURE AT ~APLES CAY - DENIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 1, 1981 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCCL-80-l3C, Suboceanic Consultilnts, requesting a variance from the CCCL for the pur?ose of constructinq a roadway/artificial dune structure at Naples Cay. Environmental Consultant Jay Harmic stated that the Board has previously denied a similar petition for the subject property; that the petitioner has made certain modifications to the respective plans; and ; that the variance being requested has been moved inland approximat~ly 40 feet from the previously denied petition. He said that the staff's recommendation for denial is based on the fact that the changes are relativley insignificant and he added that the staff have concluded that there are n0 "established CCCL variance lines. on ildjacent prop- erties . Mr. David Tackney of Suboceanic Consultants, stated that there were considerable modifications made in order to reduce any adverse affects on the beach on the subject site; that according to U.S. Corps of Engineers studies, this particular site is not suffering from erosion, rather, it has enjoyed a certain degree of accretion. He explained because the subject property is narrow in shape the developer is proposing the roadway for access to the northerly portion of the property. Mr. Tackney referred to maps and drawings of the subject site, known as Naples Cay, and ex?lained the engineering and the rea- MOK 059 PACE547 , pag e 7 eOOK 059 PACE 548 February 24, 1981 soning behind the various components of the subject plan, including the construction of a roadway to the north; the reconstruction of the shoreline; the revegetation of portions of the site; and the reconstruction of the Gunes. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Tackney said that the construction of a bridge that was discussed at a previous public hearing has been considered, and that it was discounted because it would not offer the "dike" qualities of the proposed elevated roadway. He explained that this particular site is subject to "overtopping" in storm conditions, and specifically referred to Hurricane Donna and its effects on thio; ,,1 L". Ile said that the rOnd~lay wt)1I1<'1 help control this "overtopping" and aid in keeping the sand from being washed away after the water resedes. He said that the developer's aim is to protect the proper ~y from "breaching" and that is the reason for the roadway/arti- ficial dune system design. During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Tackney said that the petitioner requires the variance for two por~ions of the roadway; one section of 180 feet; the other for 220 feet. He concurred with Commissioner ~enzel that this constitutes approximately 50% of the length of the proposed roadway. ~r. Wafaa Assaad, of Wilson, Miller, Darton, SoIl end Peek, addressed the Board and stated that he believes the petitioner has provided the Board with all the details required; that ev~ry attempt has been made to incorporate the sta'.f's suggestions regarding the subject engineering plans and specifications so as to allow for efficient management of the beachi and that apart from all of this, there would be a great hardship on the part of the petitioner if he cannot gain access to one of the building sites because the subject variance is denied. He requested a favorable decision from the Board, Page B \ February 24, 1981 noting that he believes it is essential that the developer have access to previously-zoned developable lands within the subject property. When asked by Commissioner Wimer if the sole purpose of requesting the subject variance is to gain access to the site, Mr. Assaad replied negatively, explaining that the proposed construction will also enhance the land and protect it against storm damage. There was a brief discussion regarding the historical sequence of making this kind of a request, as alluded to by Commissioner Wimer who said that, usually, a developer does not request a "ariance in order to protect vacant land; he usually comes in ann requests a variance required to protect land that is developed. Mr. Assaad explained that because of the past history dealing with the development of Naples Cay, the developer does not fpp] that he can continue further until he is assured that the land , will indeed be developable. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Assaad stated that if the Board takes favorable action, the developer would still be required to receive approval for the subject construction from the DER and DNR. He added that the state will not consider the developer's application without first having received approval at the County level. County Attorney Pickworth concurred, adding that, historically, the State has encouraged the control of development through local governmental agencies. He also said that it may be that the County level criteria is different than that at the State level. Mr. Pickworth stated that the "conclusionary" statement made earlier that infers that the subject petition does not meet the "reasonably and contiguous uniform line" requirements of the Ordinance &OOX 059 PACE 549 Page 9 ~.:~.~..:-; ",:.::,,,,,,, .... ,. BOOK 059 PACE 550 February 24, 1931 requires more ~xplanation and he requested that this be expanded upon by Community Development Administrator Virta. Chairman pistor asked what kind of development is situated to the south of the subject property, including any construction seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Virta said that he believes that the property immediately to the south belongs to a Catholic Church, and he referred to a drawing that indicates a groin along that site of "uncertain history", the property south of that is the Seagate beach/park, which has picnic structures that project seaward of the CCCL; south of that is The Seahouse, which is constructed completely upland of the CCCL. He said that north of the subject property is a part of the Pelican Bay revelopment, with no intrusion on the CCCL. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Virta said that he believes that the artificial dune system that is part of Park Shore Unit 5 protruces seal.:ard of the CCCL, however, he cannot say this with certainty. In answer to Commissioner Kruse, ~r.. Virta said that the Catholic Church property line is adjacent to the ~CCL and that approximately 1/2 of that property is indicated in the drawing as being proposed for construction beyond the CCCL. Mr. Tackney referred to a recent aerial photograph of the subject site and the adjacent area which shows that there are structures seaward to the CCCL, including the Seagate Club House. After the discussion the following persons spoke in opposition to the subject petition: 1. Bernie Yokel, representing the Collier County Con- servancy. 2. George Keller, representing the Collier County Civic Association Federation. 3. Louise Polan, resident of the Seagate area. 4. Mike Zewalk, representing the North Naples Civic Assoc. Page 10 February 24, 1981 Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Tackney responded briefly to certain remarks made by the aforementioned speakers, including the fact that contrary to ~r. Yokel's statement, the beaches of Collier County do not "heal them- selves", if left alone, as proven in thc photograph of. the subject property after a hurricane, and he added that thc construction of artificial dunes would reduce the amount of materials that are deposited in the back waters as a result of the "overlapping", as well as reduce the number of times that "overlapping" would take place. In answcr to Commissioncr Wimer, Mr. Virta said that he is recom- mending denia-l of the ""LlLlun based on the f~ct that there III no established line of contiguous construction beyond the CCCL, and he concurred that the other information brought forth today dealing with any ~ ".her as;oect of the project is "beside the point" if the Board is to consider the criteria outlined in the relevant Ordinance. Commissioner Wenzel movad, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried 4/1, with Commissioner Kruse opposed, that the staff recommen- dation be accepted and that petition CCCL-SO-13C be denied. **............RECESS - TIME: 10:35 A.M. - 10:~5 A.M.................. &oox 059 PACE 551' 'Page 11 BOOK 059 PACE 552 February 24, 1981 PETITION A-80-6C, BnUcE WOOD, APPEALING THE ZONING DIRECTOR'S DECISION AS TO hHAT CONSTITUTES A FAMILY - DENIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on Februury 1, 1981 as evidenced by Affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider petition A-BO-6C, filed by Bruce ~ood, who is appealing the Zoning Directnr's decision as to what constitutes a family. Zoning Director Jeffory Perry stated that he has been advised by the petitioner that he will not be present and he, therefore, is requesting the Board to make their decision based on the information within the Executive Sum~ary dated 1/19/81, including his recommenda- tion for Genial of this a?peal. County Manager Norman said that it seems to him that the petitioner is really asking for the Ordinance to be amended, and he requested the Board to direct that the staff not process these kinds of requests as part of the "appeal" process. ,- Mr. George Keller, representing the Collier County Civic Associa- tion Federation, said that he believes that the petitioner is merely trying to "circumvent" the intent of the Ordinance and requested that the Board d~ny the petition. Commissioner ~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Venzel and carried unanimiously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried unanimously, that petition A-SO-6C be denied as recommended by staff. Page 12 February 24, 1981 PETITION A-8l-1C, B. V. LIMITED PART~ERSHIP, APPEALING THE ZONING DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE "R}1-2" NON-CONFORMING SETBACK REGU- LATIONS _ DENIED; STAFF DIRECTED TO STUDY AMENDING ORDINANCE RE ACCOrlHODATING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED TO COMBINING THREE OR MORE NON- CONFORMING LOTS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on February 8, 1981 and in the Marco Island Eagle on February 13, 1981 as evidenced by Affidavits of pUblication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider petition A-8l-1C, filed by B. V. Limited Partnership, appealing the Zoning Director's interpretation of the "RM-2" non-conforming setback regulations. Zoning Dircctor Jeffory Perry referred to the Executive Summary dated 1/27/81 and said that the petitioner has three non-conforming lots in Golden Gate City, each of which are subject to the less .. restrictive setback requirements outlined in Section 23, Subsection 13, of the pertinent Ordinance which allows the use of a set of reduced setbacks when a lot is substandard in size or shape and qualifies as a non-conforning lot of record. He said that the petitioner has combined these three non-con[u(:~ing lots and proposed to construct a multi-fa~ily building on the three combined lots as one parcel. He said that it is his determination that when any number of non-confor~ing lots are combined in order to be used as one parcel, and the total width and area of these combined lots is such that it meets standards that qualify that parcel as a conformin~ lot, then, the more restrictive setback requirements relevant to conforming lots apply, same requirements being found within Section IS of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Perry said that the Board should consider that there are many of these non-conforming lots in the Golden Gate and Marco Island area aDDK 059 PACE 553 Page 13 BOOK 059 PACE 554 February 24, 1981 ...' " and that any decision made today will also apply to them if they are " combined in a like manner. A discussion followed ce~tered around the epparent lack of any- thing contrary to the Zoning Director's determination within the Ordinance; that the Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous reg~rding this matter as observed by the Co~nty Attorney; and, that if the petitioner wished to build three separate buildings on each of these three non- conforming lots, he could enjoy the less restrictive setback require- ments on each of them, as explained by Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry also said that if two of the lots were combined, they would still fall in the non-conforming lot classification, as the minimum requirement of width and area would not be met; therefore, it is feasible that the peti- tioner could then build two buildings, one on a double lot and one on a single lot and enjoy the less restrictive setback requirements on each parcel; it is only when three or more lots of this size ar~ combined that the problem occurs because this is the point at which"the minimum width and area requirements are met for a conforming lot. Mr. E. Glen Tucker, Attorney representing the petitioner stated that he believes that the Board has the right to grant this appeal because there is nothing written that specifically says that combining non-conforming lots constitutes changing the status of those lots to that referred to in the Zoning Ordinance as .conforming"; that deter- mination is an "interpretation" made by the Zoning Director. He said that the use of these combined lots is not inconsistent with the intent of Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance; that the proposed building would cover less land space on the combined lots than if the petitioner were to build three separate buildings; ~nd, that the petitioner'S intent is to build an aesthetically pleasing building. He further commented that ., Page 14 February 24, 1981 as the proposed building is designed, it will not fit on the three combined lots without requiring a variance. He said that he did not feel that Mr. perry's statement that a favorable decision on this appeal would affect all ot~er non-conforming lots as it will still be required in all p~ch cases that all other zoning requirements, regula- tions, etc, would have to be met. He said that the Board has never made a similar decision, and that there is a need for a final deter- mination at this time. He said that he fully understands that Mr. Perry felt compelled to make his determination and that what he is asking for is consideration of the intent of the conforming to the non-conforming lot setback requirements. In ans~er to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. Tucker said that the peti- tioner could"not build the 12 unit mulLl-[a:lIily building on the com- bined lots with the larger setback requirements and still meet the minimum required square feet per unit regulations for the building. He said ~hat the only place that the setbacks cannot be met is along the back of th" hllildin0. and there is an alley\~ay there anyway. Mr. William Pattison, project architect, stated that the plans for the subejct building are such that the less restrictive setbacks ar~ required by the developer in order to have sufficient space for parking and other amenities that are proposed. He said that the petitioner could separate the building into two, however, this is not economically feasible nor would it be aesthetically pleasing. He said that the petitioner is only lacking 25 feet on the back side of the property; the remaining setbacks are adequate to meet all requirements. In answer to Commissioner Wenzel, the County Attorney said that the petitioner is not requesting a variance; that he does not have to prove a hardship; that hardships.do not apply here. He said that he 8'OOK 059 PACE 555 Page 15 February 24, 1981 BOOK 059 PAGE 556 foresees a problem with the "hardship case" if the petitioner were to come to the Board requesting one; as the lot is not "unbuildable" either as one parcel or as three single lots. He said that what the petitioner is asking the Board to do is make a "general interpretation of the Ordinance" th~t would be applicable to him and to any other person in the same situation. It was suggested that perhaps the staff could look into changing the setback requirements in the Ordinance to a "total su~ of all setback" requirement rather than each one addressed separately. In answer to Attorney pickworth, Mr. Perry said that this situa- tion has not come up too of en , except in Marco Island where there is a proliferation of non-conforming lots. He said the non-conforming lots in Golden Gate are numerous and unique in shape, and the potential for this situation coming up again in Golden Gate is there by virture of Lhes€ nurilbcr~. In answer to Commi~~inner ~enzel, Mr. Perry said that the only place there is any flexibility in setback require~ents is in an industrially zoned area. Commissioner ~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. In answer to Commissioner Brown, Attorney pickworth said that he feels that the language of the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically tell the BODrd which way a parcel that has been created by the com- bining of non-conforming lots is to be considered. Commissioner ~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel, that the Zoning Directors' decision be upheld; that Petition A-8l-l-C be denied; and, that the staff be directed to investigate amending the Zoning Ordinance so as to accommodate problems of this sort. Mr. Tucker said that he believes that the Board could rule favor- Page 16 -~ . ~ . . . ;.. February 24, 1981 ably on this petition and still uphold the intent of the Ordin8nce, 8nd Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see some "sentiment of relief" expresed for the petitioner in the motion. Commissioner Kruse said that she believes that the petitioner is requesting that the Ordinance be changed for "aesthetic purposes" and that she is not inclined to make decisions on that basis. Commissioner Wi~er clarified his intent by saying that he wants this investigation completed 8S soon as possible, in order to help the petitioner and other property owners in the same area. Upon call for the question the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 81-7 RE PETITI8N R-BO-39C, WILLIAM VINES REPRESENTING WiST FLGnI~~#I~~VCST~E~!TS, RF01JBSTTN~ A REZONING FROM "A" TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS BAY FOREST - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on January 16, 1981 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was openeo to consider Petition R-80-39C, filed by ~illiam Vines for ~est Florida Investments, requesting a rezoning fro~ "A" to "PUO" for property known as Bay Forest. Com~unity Development Administrator Terry Virta referred to the Executive Summary dated 2/12/81 and read the contents thereof, including the following stipulations that the CAPC has attached to their recommenation for approval: 1. Revision of the PUD Document as indicated in the Staff Report. 2. petition limiting the develpment of the project to 175 units until 1982 with any further units subject to BCC approval. 3. Amending the Master Plan to indicate the phasing periods of the proj ect. eoox 059 PACE 557 Page l7 ,.:.. 60DK 059 PAGE 558 February 24, 1981 Mr. Virta stated that the overall density of the subject project will be 5.6 D.U./acre and identified the general location of the project on an overhead map and drawings. Mr. William Vines, representing the Developer, outlined the proposed project, including the planned amenities; the fact that there will be a total of 697 units and a large amount of open spaces for recreation. He further explained the proposed preservation of the nutural bay forest urea which will have boardwalks constructed so as to allow the residents access to a gazebo. In answer to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. Vines explained that a portion of the buildings are proposed to u height of 15 storfp~ in order to offer the view of the bay forest and beach area to as many residents as possible; this view of the beach cunnot be seen until the height of six floors as the beach is lc~ated approximately 1 mile away. He also said that the proposed boardwalks, gazebo and boat docks are committed for only to the extent that the appropriate permits are obtainable. " Mr. Vines said that the developer is in agreement with the first stipulation outlined in the Executive Summary, however, he is not in agreement to the ones referring to phasing of the project because of possible unavailability of sewage and/or water services for the project. He took exception to the establishing of a quota for con- necting into water/sewer facilities and explained that this project is no different than any other and that all developments are constructed with full knowledge that these services may not be available at the time they are required for various reasons. He said that the developer will either have to wait until adequate service is available in order to construct the units, or they have agreed to build an on-site treat- ment plant, etc., until such time as they become available, or, they Page 18 February 2~, 1981 will provide funding for'the expansion of the system to the capability of absorbing the units proposed for construction. He said that he has discussed these alternatives with the County Utility Director and that he agrees to them. Commissioner Wimer suggested that perhaps the best thing to do is to "rubber stamp" all applications for building permits that there may not be adequate facilities aV2ilable at the time they are required by the various developments, and Utility Director Berzon said that all applications are inclusive of the verbage that indicates that "availability" is a prerequisite of "services". He said that the CAPe is responsible for the sug)ested figure of a quota of 175 units as the first phase for Bay Forest; this was not his recommendation. He said that h~ hi.5 r(o 0bjcctiun~ to rC::lo'..:i:1g this stipulation. In anS\'Ier to Commissioner Kruse, County Manager NormDn said that the recent adoption of an Ordinance requiring the issuance of building permtis based on the COl..3truction of facilities for these services is not applicable here because all the facilities will be constructed with the development; this would be a connection problem. Commissioner Wenzel asked who would pay for eXFansion for the water/sewer services so that developer'S needs can be met, and Mr. Berzon said that he sees two solutions: 1) Federal assistance throuJh the 201 pr09ram, which includes up to 75% of the cost for expa~sion; or, 2) using local funds acquired through system developnent charges. He said that he is now engaged in a feasibility study regarding this and added that perhaps the answer lies in the developers agreeing to committing to .up front" payment of system development charges in order to insure adequate expansion of these services. The discussion continued centered around this and other related issues including the problem of disposal that is aOOK 059 PACE 559 Page 19 &OQK 059 PACE 560 February 24, 19B1 presently "holding up" the 201 application, as explained by Mr. Berzon. Hearing that there were no registered speakers who wished to , address the subject petition, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded br Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner wimer moved, seconded hy Commissioner Kruse, that the Ordinance as numbered and entitled below be adopted, subject to stipu- lation =1, as outlined in the Executive Summary. Mr. Vines concurred that the petitioner agrees to that one stipulation and stated that the record reflects that the Petitioner has rccci':cd no gU11r~nt-pp" thilt water/sewer services will be available when needed. Ee said that one of the following things will be done at the time that these services required by the developer and are not av[~i: ~ble: - 1. The developer will have to wait until such time as they are available. 2. The developer will fund that portion of the Coun€y's system's expansion required to allow for providing the required services. 3. The developer will provide a temporary on-site plant to provide these services until such time as they are avail- able and at that point the developer will connect to that system. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 4/1, with Commissioner ~enzel voting in opposition. Page 20 ',' ,I,., . .--':!:!..- February 24, 1981 BOOK 059 PACE 562 SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN RE PETITION SMP-80-6C, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS BAY FOREST - APPROVED, SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND EXCZPTIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naples ,Daily News on January 18, 1981, as evidenced by Affidavit of publication filed with the Clark, public hearing was opened to consider petition SMP-80-6C, filed by William Vines representing ~est Florida Investments, requesting Master Plan approval for property known as Bay Forest. Community Cevelop~ent Administrator Terry Virta explained that this is a companion petition to the one previOUSly approved by the Doerd. He refprrp~ to the Executive Summary dated 2/12/81 and read the contents thereof including the following exceptions which were attached to the CAPC's recommendation for approval of the subject petition: 1. Article X, Section 16: The requirement for sidewalks within street rights-of-way shall be waived. All sidewalks shall be as indicated on the PUD Master Plan. 2. Article X, Section l~: Street name signs shall ge a~proved by the County Engineer but need not meet the U.S.D.C.T.F.H.W.A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Street pavement painting, striping, and reflective edging requirements shall be waived. 3. Article XI "action 17 F & G: Street right-of-way and pavement cross-section shall be as shown on the approved Master Plan. Street cross-sections shall be as follows: (See PUD Docu~ent) 4. Article XI, Section 17 H: The 1,000 foot maximum dead end street length shall be waived. Mr. Virta also read the following stipulations attached to the CAPC's recommendation for approval: 1. Revision of the PUD Document as indicated in the Staff Report. (See pages 3-5) 2. Petition limiting the development of the project to 175 units until 1982 with any future units subject to the Board of County Commissioners' approval. pag_ 21 February 24, 1981 3. Amending the M~ster Plan to indicate the phasing periods of the project. Hearing that thcre were no registered speakers who wished to addrcss the petition, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commis- sioner Brown and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried, 4/1, with Commissioner Wenzel voting in opposition, that Master Plan approval be grantcd, subject to the aforementioned excep- tions and pursuant to stipulation 11, (stipulations ~2 and 13 are to be deleted) re Pctition S~IP-eO-GC for property kno~m as Bay Forest. AGREEMENT \,;I'PH DR. RUTH TH01'!~S TO PROVIDE A PLI\N RE USE OF WORD PROCESSING IN COUNTY GOVERNr1ENT - APPROVED IN THE ~MOUNT OF ~2,000; FISCAL OFFICER AUTHORIZED TO FREP~RE BUDG8T AMENDMENT RE SAME Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 4/1, with Commissionr \';enzel opposed, that the Agreement with Dr. Ruth Thomas to provide a plan re the use of word processing in county govern~ent be ap~roved in the amount of $2,000 and that the Fiscal Officer be authorized to prepare the necessary Budget Amendment to transfer needed funds from the General Fund Contingency to the Word Processing Division. CONSIDERATION RE CRE~TION OF POSITION OF DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER - DEFERRED FOR ONE WEEK County Manager Norman stated that this is the appropriate time for consideration of the reclassification of the position of Assistant County Manager to that of Deputy County Manager because of the impend- BOOK 059 PACE 563 Page 22 &O~K 059 PACE 564 February 24, 1981 ing change of personnel in the former position. He said that he is proposing to add certain responsibilities to the position, including the line authority necessary to administer the departments and service functions of the Administrative Services Division. Mr. Norman also said that the proposed position of Deputy County M~n8ger would provide that the person holding that position could act on behalf of the County Manager during his absence. Mr. Norman said that approximately $2,000 to $3,000 would be required to cover the salary increase for the .emaining of this fiscal year, based on the classification of a pay grade 28 salary range, which represents a salary range some $1,200 higher than that outlined within the Executive Summary, same having been based on a pay gr~rle 27 in error. Mr. Norman explained that only the upgrading of the position is under consideration at this time, and that the actual appointment would require the Board's approval. He said that he would co~e back to the Board at a later date with a recommendation for the person to fill the " position as soon as possible after Mr. Walker leaves. Commissioner himer asked if there was any reason that this could not be deferred for a week, because his thoughts on the matter have changed somewhat since he read the Executive Summary, and he would like some additional time to study the matter. Commissioner Kruse con- curred, adding that she would also like more time. Mr. Norman replied that this is acceptable as Mr. Walker, the present Assistant County ~anager, has not made any cefinite plans. Commissioner Pistor commented that both Commissioners Brown and ~enzel would not be peesent at the next meeting and Commissioner Wenzel stated that he had no objection to deferring this for a week. PAge 23 February 24, 1981 Upon hearing no objections, Chairman pistor directed that this matter be deferred for one week. SHORT LIST RE FIRMS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE ONE - APPROVED AS PRESENTED: ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS RE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT AND COMPANY, FORT MYERS, FLORIDA RELATED TO HVAC STAFF AUTHORIZED TO WITH FIRM 11, WATSON Co:r.:nissioner \-lir.1er moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that the following "short list" be approved regarding firms for professional services as related to HVAC Improvements, Phase One; an~, that the staff be authorized to enter into negotiations >lith the ~l firm on the list regarding a contractual agreement in accordance >lith the Competitive Negotiations Act, as outlined more fully within the Executive Summary dated 2/16/81: 1: ~~tson and C0~ranYI Fort Myers, Florida 2. Blakely, Ward, Stuckey & Assoc., Pompano Beach, Flor ida 3. Sverdrllp F. Parcel, Jacksonville, Florida BOARD AUTHORIZES EXPE~DITURE NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES RE CONTRACT WITH POLIZZI/HEERY Administrativ~ Assistant to the County Manager Neil Oorrill explained that that there is a need to verify and/or produce existing "as built" conditions for each building in the complex, in connection with certain professional services of the firm of Polizzi/Heery. He said that this will not be a "study"; rather, it is one of the "additional or special services" addre~sed within Article 6, of the contractual agreement between the County and POlizzi/lIeery. He said that a current blueprint of all the buildings in the complex is needed and that they need to be inclusive of all the partitioning, changes, etc. in each building up to this date. eOOK 059 PACE 565 Page 24 ~ .. ;,~~'. _.n._ allM 059 PACE 566 February 24, 1981 There was a discussion regarding the f~ct that these drawings should be available here in the complex, and it was explained by the County Manager that although the outside structual plans are available I the interior plans are not. In answer to Commissioner Kruse, Mr. Norman said that he does not anticipate any further services that will be required from Polizzi/Heery that are not currently covered in the existing contract. He said that this was ~nticipated when the Board considered approval of the contract, and Commissioner Brown recalled having been involved in such a discussion. Conmissioner ~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 1/1, with Commissioner Venzel opposed, that the expenditure of up to $5,000 be approved for additional professional services under the Construction Program Management Contract with Polizzi/Heery. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL RE PETITION FP-Fl-3C, LELY COUNTRY CLUB, FOR TIMBERCREEK, PHASE ONE - GRANTED, SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS " Commissioner v:imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unani~ously, that the final plat approval re petition FP-81-3C filed by Lely County Club, for Timbercreek, Phase One be granted, subject to the following stipulation: 1. Plat ~ill not be recorded until approved security is received. CONSTRUCTION DHA\'iINGS AND FH'AL PLAT APPROVAL RE PETITION FP-Bl-4C COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR NORTH NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION - GRANTED, SUBJECT TO STIPULATION Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimOUSly, that the final plat re petition FP-8l-4C, filed by Page 2S February 24, 1981 Engineering Consultants, Inc., for North Naples Industrial Park Subdivision be granted, subject to the following stipulation: 1. Plat not to be recorded until approved security is posted. RESOLUTION 81-46, APPROVING THE STREET NA~lE OF MERRIHUE DRIVE - ADOPTED COffimissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that Resolution 81-45 approving the street name of Merrihue Drive, located in a part of Naples Improvement Company's Little Farms Subdivision and in a part of the Gordon River SUbdivision, be adopted. / aoo~ 059 PACE 567 "Page 26 BOOK 059 PACE 570 RESOLUTIONS 81-47 A~D 01-48, TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED BY THE COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCES ON TWO LOTS IN NAPLES PARK - ADOPTED February 24, 1981 Commissioner wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that Resolution 81-47 to recover funds expended by the County to abate a public nuisance on lot 21, Block 30, Unit 3, Naples park; and, Resolution 81-48 to recover funds expended to abate a public nuisance on Lot 10, Block 11, Unit 1, Naples Park, be adopted. " I I I I Page 27 :> .... February 24, 1981 RESOLUTION 81-49 REPEALING RESOLUTIONS BO-259 AND BO-265, TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCES - ADOPTED. Upon conclusion of a brief discussion regarding the fact that the Health Department is no longer involved in the particular process by which a determination is made as to compliance of County requirements regarding the mowing of lots found to be public nuisances, and hearing that this type of crror could be avoided in the future as explained by County Manager Norman, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that Resolution 81-49 rcpealing Resolutions 80-259 and 80-255, to recover funds expended by the County to ahate public nuisances, be adopted. , aOOK 059 PACE 573 page 28 ........ ..:r.: .""~~ .... "l'~~ February 24, 1981 PROPOSED PL~N FOR TRANSITION FROM PRIVATE ~MBUL~NCE COMPANY TO COUNTY- OPERATED SYSTEM - APPROVED WITH DELETIONS Public Safety Administrator Hafner presentcd for Board approval a comprehensive plan designed for an orderly changeover from a private ambulance company to a County-operated system, as prepared by him and as containe~ in the Executive Summary dated February 23, 1981, and also to request approval on the items listed in the proposal which need to be accomplished. Commissioner ~enzel move~ for approval of the recommendation. Chairman pistor s~conded the motion with the comment that it should be made clear that the suggested plan is not going to cost additional monics since funds to operate the ambulance service have been budgeted. Mr. Hafner explained that there has been $575,000 budgeted for the ; annual contract paYC1ent, under the present system, and, with six months of the contract year havin1 expired, there are six additional months to be considered. He said that during the current week he will start a budget in order to let the Board know the costs for the remainder of the present fiscal year. Mr. Hafner explained further that the costs which are detailed in the summary, in the amount of $44,270, will be funded from the current budget for ambulance service. Commissioner Wi~er ~oiced his concern over the proposed location of a trailer to house the ambulance headquarters on Courthouse grounds due to the possible difficulties which coul~ be encountered in emergency vehicles attempting to expeditiously depart from the parking lots. Various remedies were suggested to av~id problems including the installation of a signal system. Commissioner Wimer stated that, if the trailer was just a temporary facility, he, personally, would rathcr investigate the rental or lease of property for the subject purpose. ^ &OOK 059 PACE 575 Page 29 aOllK 059 PACE 576 . Pebruary 24, 1981 further suggcstion was made that the offer from the East Naples Fire Control District to house the headquarters there should be given con- sideration. Another item contained in the proposed expenditures w~s discussed, i.e. the purchase of a ParaMedic Supv./EMS Director vehicle. It was pointed out by Commissioner Wenzel that the projected purchase was for future needs. Commissioner Brown voiced skepticism that the County will be able to operate an anlbulance servi:::c ilt a lower cost than under the present ~ystem; however, he said that he will vote in favor of the plan because the residents of the County need aMbulance service. Commissioner ~i~er, referring to an additional item in the expenditure listing, inquired if the item for repairs on the units in the amount of $5, OCO should not be charged back to l>,'1lerican l>mbulance with Mr. Hafner stating that it would be. He further questioned if the service can be run for th~ s~me amount of dollars with Mr.-Hafner responding "we arc 0oin9 to do it". Commissioner Wenzcl reiterated his motion to approve the plan with Commissioner wimer seconding the motion if amended to exclude the eXpenditure for a trailer, in the amount of $8,500, and the vehicle, in the amount of $10,000. There was no objection to the amendment to the motion which curried by unaniT'lous vote. A short time later in the Session, Ms. Joan Hamilton, resident of the East Naples area, said that she has conferred with Chief Billman of the East Naples Fire District who has assured her that there are no problems with housing personnel or equipment at the Airport Road fire station. Commissioner Vimer commented on the possible savings involved. page 30 .' ~ February 24, 1981 BOARD ACTS TO ESTABLISH THE COUNTY AS THE PURVEYOR OF AMBULANCE SERVICE IN COLLIER COUNTY EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1981 Commissioner Wimer brought to the Commissioners' attention that, following a review of the minutes of the previous meeting, there was no record of the Board authorizing the staff to "go into the ambulance business". It was pointed out by County Manager Norman that that was the reason the plan presented earlier in the session was prepared - pursuant to Board directive. Commissioner ~imer moved that the County be the purveyor of ambulance services in Collier County effective April 6, 1981. Commissioner Wenzel seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There w~s a briet discussion reyarJing "exclusivity" with Com- missioner Brown statinq that he would not vote for a monopoly nor to put anyone out of business, voicing his support of the free enterprise system. CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, EFFECTIVE APRIL 6, 1981, TO DE ISSUED TO THE COUNTY FOR THE OPERATION OF AN AMBULANCE SERVICE Another aspect in the matter of the County's entry into the ambulance business, said Commissioner ~enzel, is the issuance of a certificate, following which he moved that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County be issued a County-Wide Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the operation of an ambulance service, effective April 6, 1931. Commissioner Wimer seconded the motion which carried unanimOUSly. 'OOK 059 PACE 5TI Page 31 r' . , , r .. .. .. . . '.,.-.. -, -. .... .. , - BOOK 059 PACE 580 February 24, 1981 BOARD AUTHORIZES CREATION OF POSITION OF AM3ULANCE SERVICE DIRECTOR publi'c. Safety Administrator H"fner informed the Board that five candidates have been interviewed for the position of Emergency Medical Services Department Cirector and that a unanimous choice has been made for the selection of one candidate. He provided the Board with details concerning the candidate, such as prior experience, present position, qualifications, and the like. Sitting in on the Selection Committee to review the candidates, said Mr. Hafner, were the County Health Director, Dr. Cox, the E~S Director of Lee County, Fiscal Officer Hall, and himself. There was a shorl LIscu5siorl ;..;ith rcg.::rd to the ar:"tion t.o hp. taken by the Soard with County Attorney pickworth explaining that all that is required is for the Board to authorl~a the position and the transfer of funds into ~he salary account to fund the position, pointing out that the staff has the authority to hire the individual in question. Commissioner ~enzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Ki~er and " unanimOUSly carried, that the Eoard authorize the creation of the position of Ambulance Director. BOARD AUTHORIZES LO~N IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FROM FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 11 CASH CARRY-OVER FUNDS, INTEREST FREE, TO GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT, TO MATCH PLEDGES, TO~ARD THE PURCHASE OF FIRE TRUCK Public Safety Administrator Hafner explained the ne~~ssity for the request from the Colden Gate Fire Control District to borrow funds from Collier County Fire Control District #1 cash carry-over funds, as set forth in the Executive Summary dated February 17, 1981. He said that the Golden Gate Fire Association has pledged S15,000 towar~ the down payment on the needed new equipment and that the Fire Fighters Page 32 . February 24, 1981 Association has pledged $5,000 for the same purpose provided that enough County funds can be acquired to match the contributions. Mr. Hafner said that a new pumper will cost $75,000 under a lease-purchase agreement. Co~missioner Wimer moved, sec~nded by Commissioner Wenzel, that the request be granted. Mr. H. H. Kieckhefer, President of the Golden Gate Fire Association, explained that t~e Fire Advisory Committee of the District has recommenced the purchase of the truck in question and the Association members felt strongly enough about the urgency of the pu:~hase that they have pledged $15,000 as a gift to assist in the down payment and cut the costs of financing in a joint venture with the Fire Fighters Ass<Jciation '..,ho have pledged $5,OCO. He said that the pledges were made with the understandin3 that they will be fulfilled if the County provides matching funds in the amount of $20,000, noting that $15,000 is the staff recommendation. Mr. Kieckhefer said that since the District is responsible for 49~ of the coverage in County Fire District One, he was given the impression that the funds would be available from t~at source, commenting that it was not made clear that it would be a loan. There was a brief discussion concerning the fact that any funds provided would have to be a loan and, also, whether or not the County could make such loan. Fiscal Officer Harold Hall explained the formation of District One, the separate fire districts wnich were inVOlved, the changes that have been made, millage rate, and the like. Mr. Hall pointed out that the current cash balance consists of funds which have been collected throughout the District and, since District ~QOK 059 PACE 581 Page 33 aoOK 059 PAGE 582 February 24, 1981 One is the legal entity, the money has to be expended for the benefit of the people in that District. Continuing, Mr. Hall said that the Board could at some time, if they so chose, enter into a contract in which there would be services contracted out and the money would be expended in the interests of the people in the District; however, he said that, as it stands now, there is not that kind of basis of distribution. It would be in the best interests of District One, said ~r. Hall, to make a loan to Golden Gate as they have previously done in the case of the Isles of Capri Cistrict because a service was being supplied to the District. But, said Mr. Hall, ownership of the funds should not change until the Board would adopt Some kind of overall plan for use of the funds - citing the construction of a building, contract with other agencies for services, and the like - something that could be defendable as being for the bencfit of the people in District One as a whole. Mr. Hall said that he cannot see any problcm with permitting the " Golden Gate District to borrow the funds as long as there is a note reccivable in District One's hands Gnd a note payable in the files of the Golden Gate District. The deliberations continued at length covering such aspects as the distribution percentage of the subject funds between the East Naples and Golden Gate Districts, tile ability to repay more thar. ~15,OOO from ad valorem taxes, the increase in the cost of the truck if the purchase is delayed for a period of time, and other pertinent areas of consideration. Mr. Hall pointed out that the 49/51 percentage of distribution ~entioned does not apply to the entire cash carry-over fund, but rather to the current year's fund. It was Commissioner Wimer's suggestion that, due to the confusion paq_ 34 -' ~ February 24, 1981 which has arisen, that the matter "go back to the drawing board and worked out". Mr. Hall said that the financial transaction being proposed could proceed by approving a $15,000 loan, or $20,000 loan if it is felt there are means to repay that amount and that it would not bother Golden Gate to owe the larger sum, and the truck purchased, as planned. Commissioner Wimer observed that perhaps the two entities involved should be given the opportunity to respond to the information that the money would be a loan and not a gift, which is their impression. The Commissioner reiterated his suggestion that action be deferred for one week for the assembling of facts and figures on which to base an intel- ligent decision. It "as C:.omnissioner Kruse's proposal that a loan of $20,000 be approved from the subject fund with the understanding that if the organiz2tion chooses to "back off" t:,e loan will not be implemented. And, in t~e meanti~e, continued Commission~r Kruse, the staff can be instructed to decide once and for all what disposition is to be made of the cash carry-over. She observed that the problem is tnat Golden Gate and East Naples Districts feel that the fund should be divided between them; however, she pointed out that the fund is an accumulation of monies from certain other districts. She suggested that the final disbursement may be up to 50% to Golden Gate which can be used to repay the loan. In conClusion, Commissioner Kruse renewed her suggestion that the loan be authorized with the final decision left to the organization's discretion. Commissioner ~enzel voiced the opinion that the Golden Gate District should be permitted to withdraw their share with Commissioner Wimer concurring and restating his motion to defer action for one week. BOOK 059 PACE 583 Page 35 800K 059 PACE 584 February 24, 1981 Commissioner Wenzel seconded the motion. Commissioner Wimer stated that it is his position that the fire truck is needed and should be bought; however, he dislikes the confusion surrounding the purchase. Mr. Hall observed that it would be wise not to try to make a . decision on the cash carry-over within one week since the process is a very involved one, noting his experience with the various water districts. At this point, Corernissioner ~irner withdrew his motion. Commissioner Kruse moved that an interest-free loan in the amount of ~20,OOO be iluthorized from Uistricl 0,,<: funGs to Colden Gate District to match the funds pledged towards the purchase of a fire truck. Com:nissioner ',':enzel second,,(1 the rr,otion. Co~missioner viner expressed concern over being "hack in the business of interest-free l02ns which we have worked hard to get away from". Mr. ~all explained that the problems before were due to the , fact that interest-free loans were nade from the General Fund as opposed to lOilns between two funds which are complimentary servic~-wi5e, and that he does not beliEve that there would be a problem in the proposill being discussed. 1.1r. Hafner requested that the [;lotion on the !'loor include the authoriziltion for the Fire Chief to SOllC;it bids on the fire ~ruck. CO[;lmissioner Kruse interjected that such action could create a problem if the pledges are withdrawn, with Co~missioner Wimer explaining that that is why he was desirous of having the action postponed for one week. Mr. Kieckhefer expressed the opinion that there will be no problem since the proposal is for $20,000 instead of $15,000 with Commissioner I(ruse inqUiring if thiG would be true when it is learned Page 36 February 24, 1981 that the funds involved will be a loan and not a gift. Mr. Kieckhefe~ explained that that would be out of his jurisdiction. He said that the vote was taken with the understanding that there would be matching funds and it was not clarified as to what the matching funds would be. TIle Chair called for the vote on the question and the motion was curried 3/1 lvith Co~missioner Brolm voting in opposition and Co~mi~sioner ~imer not voting, stating his reason for not ~oting was due to the fact, as stated during the discussion, that he did not have sufficient facts upon which to vote. COlOr.lissioner Kruse asked if there is not sone type of action which could be taken in the future to prevent cash carry-overs and the ensuing argur.lents such as the one being a~dressed. Chairman Pistor " said that he is not sure it is always possible, conmenting that hereto- fore monies have been paid out from District One to the various fire districts not just by percentages but by services rendered. Mr. Hall added the explanation that in the beginning there were four different contracts involved with four different amounts of monies; i.e. East Naples contract was on a per-call basis - paid a certain amount per vehicle and a certain amount per man hour; North Naples' contract was tied in to taxes. To go back and attempt to ascertain the ownership of the total dollar ar.lount is not sOffiethins which can be done very easily, said Mr. Hall, as he explained earlier in the Session. Commissioner Wimer made the suggestion that it could be done by taking the amount of taxes collected from the appropriate geographic areas, without considering the type of contract in effect, making a determination of the appropriate percentage, and the monies divided on that basis. Mr. Hall observed that the expenditures made for each of the subject districts would have to be considered with Commissioner Wimer aOOK 059 PACE 585 Page 37 800K 059 PACE 586 February 24, 1981 concurring. Regarding the amount of time involved in preparing the information, Mr. Hall estimated that it would take between 15 and 30 clerical man-hours to research the back records which are not on the computer, adding that, for the past three years, the figures are available from the computer and, ther9fore, would pose no problem. It was the Chairman's direction that Mt. Hall be authorized to proceed with an attempt to figure out en equitable distrihution of the funds as rapidly as possible, reporting back to the Board with his findings. The record was clarified to reflect that the action taken does not include the taking of bids for the fire truck. I\ELL PERIHTS NOS. '55.~10A, 8, AND C; r,5.0IA, B A:-JD C, AND 65.412A AND 8, I~ THE CITY OF NAPLES' ~ELLFIELD IN E^ST GOLDEN GATE - APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE, SUBJECT TO STIPUL^TIONS Pursu~nt to stoff reco~mendation in the Executive Summary dated February 11,1981, as prepared hy Public ~Iorks lIdministrat'or/Engineer , Barksdale, Commissioner \"enzel moved, seconded by Commissioner I<'imer and carried 4/0 with Commissioner Brown not present when the vote was taken, that ':'ell per;"its Nos. r,5.~lOA, 8, ilnd C, "'5.411A, B, and C, and G5.4l2A and B, in the City of Naples' well field in East Golden Gate, be approved for issuance, subject to the fol1o~ling I'.'M,",S stipulations: 1. Copy of driller's log shall be submitted to the County Engineer. 2. Water analysis regarding water quality shall be submitted to the County Engineer. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT ~ITH \,ILSON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL & PEEK, INC. RE FOUR-LANING Of GOODLETTE ROAD - APPROVED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE Public Works ACministrator/County En9in~pr BArksdale explained that the Supplemental Agreement (Consulting Engineering Services Page 38 February 24, 1981 Agreement) with Wilson, Miller, Barton, SolI & Peek, Inc., Consultants, being presented for Board approval is for the preparation of construction plans and specifications to four-lane Goodlette Road from u.s. 41 to Golden Gate Parkway (Item A on map included in Exhibit "A" of said Agreement) b2fore similar documents are prepared for Goodlette Road from the Parkway to pine Ringe RoaG (Item B of subject map). He said that this will enable an earlier construction start on the former road improvement. Mr. Barksdale expanded on the information contained in the Executive SU~mary dated February 10, 1981, pertaining to the specific project, including the increased costs involved. Hp informed the Board that the propo5ed Supplemental Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the Assistant County Attorney. Commissi.oner I'!iner moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 3/1 with Commissioner ~enzel voting in opposition, and Commissioncr Kruse temporarily abs2nt at the time of thc vote, that the Supplement~l Agreement with ~i1son, Miller, Barton, SolI & Peek, Inc., as detailed above, be approved for the Chairman's signature. aOOK 059 PACE 587 Page 39 February 24, 1981 QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR ROllO RIGHT-OF-WAY ~IITnIN 524, T48S, R25E - ACCEPTED FOR RECORDATION; PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE FOR ONE-YEAR MAINTENANCF. _ APPROVED Public ~Iorks ~.c1ministrator/County Engll.:>er BarkSdale referred to the map attached to the Executive Summary dated Jar.:.aq' 30, 19131 to locate the road riqht-of-way involved in the Quit C, ;m Deed being presented for Board approval, specifically described a~ being in the south one-half of the northwest qUArter of the northeast qu~rter of the southwest quarter, less the east 30 feet of Section 2d, Town=nip 48 South, Range 25 East - the westerly extension of Kirtland Drive in Willoughby Acres. Mr. Barksdale reported that inspections conducted by the Engineering C~part~ent indicate that the existing roadway meets all County standards and preliminary acceptance for a one-year period prior , to final acceptance is being recommended. Co:nroissioner Brolm r:lOved, secon<ied by Commissioner \o:enzel and carried 1,/0 with Commissioner Kruse not present, that the Quit Claim Deed for road right-of-way, as explained in detail by Mr. BarkSdale, be approved for the Chairman's signature, and that the subject roadway be given preliminary acceptance for one-year maintenance. aOOK 059 PACE 599 Page 40 Febru~ry 24, 1981 aIDS NOS. 471 THROUGH 475 FOR FURNISHING VARIOUS TRUCKS AND MOWERS _ AWARDED PURSUANT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on January 5 and 8, 1981 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received until January 28, 1981 for the furnishing of various truc~s and mowers pursuant to Sids H09. 171 through 475. Co;nrnission€lr \^;ir~€lr mov€lc, seconded by Conmission€lr Brown and unani~ously carried, that the subject bids be awarded, as follows, pursuant to staff recommendation, as set forth in the Executive Summary dated February 10, 1981, and that the Chairman be authorized to sign and t~e Clerk to attest the resulting A~reements: Bid ~o. 471 - Awarded to Ta~iami Ford in the aross amount nf ~~,l~P.'o for one 4x2 Half-T6n Pick-Up; and to Naples Dodge in the gross amount of 57,571.25 for one 4x4 Half-Ton Pick-Up. Bid ~o. 472 - Awarded to H. F. ~ason in the net amount of $57,924.00 for one Motor Grader. Bid No. 473 - Awarded to Tamiami Ford in the net amount of $43,030.54 for three five cubic yard gasoline engine Du~p Trucks; and to Wallace International in the net amount of $54,~39.00 for three five cubic yard Crew Cab Trucks. Bid ~o. 474 - All bids submitted for one ton Flatbed Truck rejected; Purchase of 1979 demonstrator Flatbed Truck from Lifts International, Inc. in the net amount of $15,995.00 authorized. Bid No. 475 - Awarded to Creel Ford Tractor in the sum of $16,G50.00 for one Tractor with hydraulic extension; Low bid for second Tractor rejected for budgetary considerations. Purchasing Director Frank Wilcox was present to present the staff recommendations and to provide additional details concerning the equipment being purchased, trade-ins involved, and other consid- erations. &OOK 059 PACE 601 Page 41 ~ 059 PAtE 602 February 24, 1981 CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR FY '81 OPERATING GRANT FROM STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA Pursuant to the recommendation of the Library Director in the Executive Summary dated February 10, 19E1, commis~ioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and unanimously carried, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Contract <Agreement) between the State of Florida Department of State, Division of Library Services and the Board of County Commissioners pertaining to the FY '81 Operating Grant. " , I Page 42<1 1 !oox 059 PACE 606 February 2~, 19A1 BOARD AUTHORIZES CONDUCTING OF CITIZEN RECREl\TIONAL FACILITY SURVEY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY; FISCAL OFFICER TO PREPARE BUDGET nEQUEST IN THE AMOUNT OF $450 Parks & Recreation Director Rollie Rice explained briefly the proposed Citizen Recreational Facility Survey, as detailed in the Executive Summary dated February 5, 19A1, is for the purpose of identifying recreational facilities that the County should construct as determined by the general citizenry and as recommendeo in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the survey will be tabulated by the Jr. Women's Club nembers from questionnaires mailed to approximately 1500 citizens throughout the entire County. In addition to the $300 received from civic organizations in support of the survey, $450 is needed for copying and mailing expenses. Commissioner ~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the Boa~d authorize the conducting of the subject Survey and that the Fiscal Officer be cirected to prepared the necessary Budget Amendment in the amount of $/'50. Commissioner ~enzel noted for the record that he will"not be governed by the results of the survey end inquired if questionnaires will be sent to all areas of the County inclu~ing those which generate the most taxes. Mr. Rice responded positively with the comment that the forms will be sent to every precinct in the County. Upon call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote. UTILITY EASE'\ENT TO PEl,': IT CONSTRUCTION OF I"ATER MAIN TO SERVE THE FOUNTAINS (UNITS 3, 4, AND 5) - l\CCEPT!D FOR RCCOR~ATION Pursuant to staff recommendation set forth in the Executive Summary dated February 4, 1981, as prepared by the Utilities Director, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried page 43 February 24, 1981 unanimously, that the Board accept for recordation the Utility Easement document to permit the construction of a water main to serve The Fountains (Units 3, 4, and 5). .. BOOK 059 PACE 607 Page 44 February 24, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER GAC UTILITIES, INC. RATE INCREASE ESTABLISHED FOR 9:00 A.M. MARCH 24, 1901 Followin1 brief comment by Utilities Director Irving 8erzon, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried by unanimous vote, that the date of March 24, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., be establishen ~s the c~te and time for consicer~tion of the rate incr2ase requested by GAC Utilities, Inc. ca~SIDEnATIO~ Of rAY GRADE, CLASSIFICATION, AND SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR LEGAL SECRETARY - DEFERRED UNTIL MARCH 17, 1981 County .i\ttorncy pick\'!orth ~ointec out to the Poorn what, in his opinion, appears to he an inequitable classification for the legal secretary, as cetailed in his memorandum to the Bo~rd dated February / 13, 1981, citing ex~~plcs to explain his reasoning. Co~~issioner Brown moved that the pro~osal and recommendation submitted by Attorney Pic~worth be approved. The motion died for lack of a second. It was Co~missi~ner ~i@er's suggestion that all pertinent changes be considered at onc time and not taken up s2parately. Chairman Pistor agreed with the Commissioner, adding the comment that the staff is currently prcparing a revision, or modification, of the current pay scale schedule. Attorney PiCkworth expressed his regret that when the current schedule was approved in October, 1980 he did not "catch" the fact that the Legal Secretary position was listed at a pay scale below that of the Executive Secretary and Administrative Assistant. He said that the inequity should be corrected without additional delay. The subject was further discussed and was concluded with the ~Mr nfl~ PArr 1; 1 f Page 45 BOOK 059 PACE 612 February 2~, 1~8l Chairman again stating that he would prefer that all similar proposals be considered at one time, adding that, hopefully, the matter can be scheduled for March 17, 1981. Attorney pickworth asked, in the event his recommendation is approved, that the acjustment in pay be mede retroactive to March 1, 1981, commenting that he was hopeful to have the increase half-way through the current budget year. AGREE,q:NT I'iITH SOUTHEASTERN MUlnCIPAL CO:-\DS, H'e. PROVIDPJG I\DDITIO~I'.L PERMANENT FINANCING FOR THE ~ARCO ISLAND ~ATER AND SEWER DISTRICT _ APPROVED FOR CHAIR~^N'S SIGNATURE County Attorney Pick~orth explained that there are some costs pertaining to the ~arco Island Water and Sewer District which are not covered by r~H^ and, therefore, must he covered through private financing outside of the ~ond Issue, the difference estimated to be $325,000. He said that he has been in contact with Southeastern ~\unicipal ~onds, Inc. and they have agreed to buy the subject " additional oDount of bonds necessary to provide the needed funding. Attorney Pickworth revie\;ed briefly the pertinent facts concerning the purchase, as contained in the proposed Agreement. At the conclusion of Attorney Pickworth's response to questions conc"rning the subject fir~, Commissioner ~imer ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 4/1 with Commissioner Wenzel voting in op~osition, that the Agreement with Southeastern Municipal Bonds, Inc., regarding the financing for the Marco Island Water and Sewer District, be approved for the chairnan's signature. PlIge 46 February 24, 1981 COUNTY ATTORNEY PROVIDES INFORMATION RE POSSIBILITY OF ^CQUIRING FINA~CIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FARM AREA HOUSING Commissioner Brown inquired about the status of the $21,000,000 Bond Issue for the purpose of financing housing in the County. County Attorney Pic~worth informed the Bo?rd that it is his understanding that the bonds have been sold and that most of the mortgage pool is already cor.lmi tted. Commissioner Brown reported that he has heard a rumor to the effect that monies for farm housing could be acquire~ in the same manner. Attorney pickworth said that he has heard nothing more than rumors but said that the matter is being investigated and some requested materials should be received within the next two or three weeks. Commissioner Grahn said that his chief concern is the plight of , the farmers in the winter-growing area of the country which, he said, is Florida. and that he woulr' like to see monies made available to the farlncrs whose fin~nci21 status is precarious. ROUTINE BILLS - AP?ROVED FOR PAY~ENT CO!Tlmissioner l'ienzel moved, seconded by Conmissioner Brown and unanimously carried, that the bills, having been processed following established procedure with funds available, be approved for payment as witnessed by the follo~ing checks issued fron February 10, 19R1 through Februery 2~, 1981: Accou:n CHECK NOS. County Checks 5025 - 5488 BCC Payroll 20236 - 21167 CETA 5796 - 597S &OOX 059 PACE 617 Pllge 47 February 24, 1981 ~~M~ BUDGET AMENDMENT 81-29 TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO PURCHASE FLOOR MAINTENANCE MACHINE (GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER) - ADOPTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $950. Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and unanimously carried, that Budget Amendment 81-29 to transfer funds to purchase floor maintenance machine for the Golden Gate Community Center be adopted in the amount of $950. " P8ge 48 BOOK 059 PACE 620 February 24, 1981 FISCAL OFFICER PROVIDES STATUS REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ENTERPRISE FUND FOR AMBULANCE SERVICE OPERATIONS Fiscal Officer Harold flall reported that a proper fund has been established for ambulance service and that he will be coming back to the Board with a budget amendment to move funds from the current account into an enterprise fund. Mr. Hall said that the billing system is proceeding satisfactorily and that there will be so~e menagement- type information forthcoming which will be very helpful to the Board and the Sld[[ in revie~ing the arnbul~nce ~prvices. Co~~issioner Brown inquired if an accurate account is being kept of the billing operation so that it can be charged to a~bulance service with Hr. IJ"ll responding in the affirl:lative with the comment that that is the reason why an enterprise fund has been established which requires full costing, including depreciation and all other costs attributable to an enterprise operation. " ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION RE COUNTY A~BULANCE SERVICE - SHERIFF'S DEPART~ENT CC~MUNIC^TIONS PERSONNEL TO BE INSTRUCTED TO DIRECT ~LL 911 CALLS TO COUNTY ^MGUL^NCE SERVICE AFTER ~pnIL ~, 1921 Commissioner Wimer suggested that it might be wise to let the staff know the Board's feelings as to whether or not the Board is going to cancel tc,e Me:ric2n Ambulance's County Certificate. C:o,.:~",i.<;sioner Brown noted that he is not in favor of such acti6n. County Attorney Pickworth explained that it may be null and void anyway and it mey not be a matter of c2ncolling it. Commissioner Wenzel said that it is his position, if it can legally be cancelled, to proceed with the cancel- ation; if not, to let it run out. Commissioner Y.ruse questioned whether or not it would be appro- priate to cancel their license since the firm is under a .show-cause. Page 49 February 24, 1981 order by the State for retention of the license. Chairman Pistor explained that the Board is the entity which issues the license and, also the entity which takes it away. It was pointed out by County Manager Norman that the licenses go with the vehicles and the only way American could remain in business would be to acquire additional vehicles and certification since the existing vahicles are owned by the County. Continuing, Mr. Norman said that it is the staff recom~endDtion, and presumably the recommendation of others, that the County shoulr. have exclusive operation, particularly with regard to the emergency phase, because, for the same ar1u!Tlents whL.:!J l,,,jiere USCG .....hen .::n exclusive contrAct Has given to American A:"buL,nc9, the revenue produc!>d by non-e:nergency services help pay the cost ~or the entire service. He further stated that he anticipated ptcceeding to come back with a recommendation that such action be taken and, if such is not the Board's desire, it should be made kno'lin. Attorney Pickworth said that, pursuant to the action taken to cancel the contrzct, he re~u~st~~ his staff to review the matter from a legal standpoint as to whether or not the existing certificate can be cancelled. ^ subsidiary issue, continued the Attorney, is whether or not there is a certificate to cancel because the permit now held was granted to run an energency and non-emergency service of a certain size and character, and the like, and, with the cancellation of the contract, the service is no longer being run. During the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out by Attorney Pickworth that the permitting process was established after 1975, and that before that time there was no such requirement. It was the Chairman's suggestion that the matter not be discussed further until a legal determinatipn BOOK 059 PAGE 621 Page 50 'MO~ 059 PAGE 822 February 24, 1981 has been submitted. Commissioner Wimer said that, philosophically, he does not "go for government forcing people out of business". Attorney Pickworth commented on the original contract, notin0 that American ~~bulance recognized the Golden Gate operator with the provision that if he ever went out of business, the Golden Gate area would become part of his service area, and the only other recognized firm was in Immokalee until that operator h'ent out of business i\nd American took over. Therefore, there was no comp2tition, per se, said Attorney Pickworth, pointing that "if you are going to cut yourselves to pieces with small operations, it will be very expensive". Commissioner ~ruse observed th&t the time to discuss the matter would be if and ,;hen American l'.mbulance requests the retention of their County certificate or \-/hen the staff comes up \'lith a recommendation to remove it. , It was Mr. Norman's suggestion that there should be consideration of the emergency service, pointing out that there could be complications with the "911" people making a determination of who should receive the calls. Commissioner ~imer moved that the Sheriff's Department personnel who handle the "911" system he instructed that all calls coming into the system for ambulance service, whether emergency or non-emergency, be directed to the COllnty's ambulance service after April f', 1981. Commissioner ~enzel seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown indicated that he will not vote in favor of the motion since, in his opinion, it is monopolistic. The motion carried 4/1 with Commissioner Brown voting in opposition. Page Sl " ." 'k February 24, 1981 PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES FOR PELIC~N BAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REVIEWED BY BO~RD As contained in the Executive Summary dated February 13, 1981, County Attorney Pickworth explained that Section ~4(6) of the Special Act creatin0 the Pelican Bay Improvcment District providos that "the District shall review witt, the Collicr County Comm!5tii0n its proposed rates, fees, rentals anc other charges 30 days prior to the holding of the public hearing as provide~ in Paragr~ph (2) above". Attorney pickworth noted that the District has tentatively planned to hold a public hearing on the subject on March 18, 1?81, which may be rescheduled for a later date to comply with the 30-day requirement. In any event, he'continued, it is n~ccssary for the Board to consider the subject, observing that a copy of the proposed charges is attached to the above-referenced Su~mary. PursuCl"t to a bricf (Jiscussion regardin'] wh"t action, if any, is required, the Chair directed that the minutes reflect that the subject statutory step has been 2ccomplished. PLANNING DEPART~ENT STAFF TO BE DIREC~ED TO EXPEDITE APPLICATIO~ FOR AMEN~~ENT TO ZONI~G ORD!NANCE TC PERMIT PAR~ING OF TRASH COLLECTION VEHICLES ON cERT~IN PROFERTY IN GOODLAND Chairrn~n pistor made the statement that Goodland has for years been tryinq to improve that area and improvements have been made; however, he said that one problem has been the parkin0 of rubbish trucks in the center of the village for quite a few years. He said that he has been asked to see if he could expedite getting the trucks moved. To effect this, Chairman pistor said that the franchise-holder 800K 059 PACE 623 page 52 BOOK 059 PACE 6Z4 February 24, 1981 has contacted him and told him that he has received approval from the DER to use a certain piece of land for parking them which is away from the middle of the town; however, he must have approval of the Collier County Planning Agency who normally only review land-use amendments every six nonths - the next review being May, 1981. Therefore, said Chairman Pistor, he has been asked to have a directive from the Board to have a hearing on the matter as quickly as possible. At Chairman Pistor's request, Con~issioner ~enzel moved, seconded by Co~missioner Wimer an~ unanimously csrried, that the above-referenced information be passed along to the CCPA as rapidly as possible. ClIAIRr~IIN A1JTlIORIZE:D TO SIC:>: CERTIFICATES FOR CORREC';'ION TO TAX ,{OLLS Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse end carried unal1iclOusly, that t:,C Chairnan be authorized to sign the following Certificates for Correction to the Tax Rolls: TAX ROLL 'lOS. '5"El " 1978 Tax Roll DATE 2/~/81 1979 Tax Roll (,17 2/2/81 2/9/81 2/13/81 G19 1980 Tangibl~ Personal Property l'Hl(1-(i~-'i5 l"SO-!;1i 1"8(1-(,7 19Ea-G~ 2/9 /S 1 2/12/81 2/13/Pl 2/10/81 PlIge S3 February 24, 1981 1980 Tax Roll 302-304 31r)-323 325-326 30G-309 327-328 331 333-334 3:'2 335-33~ 329-330 33'--343 3~5 324 34~-3<P 349-3~3 354-357 358-:'5~ 351 362 363-365 1/27/01 1/27/111 1/27/Al 1/29/91 1/29/81 2/2/81 2/2/01 2/3/81 2/3/81 2/5/31 2/5/fll 2/5/81 2/5/01 2/6/81 2/9/81 2/10/81 2/11/81 2/11 j[' 1 2/12/81 2/13/81 TAX COLLECTOR AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DUPLICATE TAX SALES CERTIFICAT: RE CERTIFICATE ,~'U:'18SH 83::>, SALS OF 1975 Commissioner Wim~r moved, secon~ed by Commissioner Wenzel and carried unanimously, that the Tax Collector be authorized to issue a duplicac' Tax Sales Certificate to replace Certificate Number 832 from the Sole of 1970. eoo~ 059 PAGE 625 Pllge 54 ,~ <, February 24, 1981 EXTRA GAIN TI~E APPROVED FOR INMATES NOS. 36307 AND A3l595 Commissioner ~imer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried by unanimous vote, that extra gain time be awarded Collier County Jail Inmates Nos. 36307 and A31969 establishing release datos as February 28, 1981 and April 5, 1981, respectively, pursuant to recom- rnendations of the Shcriff's Department. GUIDELINE PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING APPLICATIONS THROUGH ~DVISORY BOARDS TO BE DRAFTE~ BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOn PRESE~TATION TO BOARD Commissioner Kruse referred to her memorandum to the Board dated February 11, 1981 w~erein it is requested that the Planning Department establish a definitive guideline procedure for applications through the EAC and/or ans otber ad'Jisory bo,nc thilt does not have such guidelin"s. She said that she has been informed by an advisory board member that there hilS been a problem in that thcre have been instances where a petition b.s had to be brought back twice upon the request of one member without any specific guidelines as to what had to be done to bring it before the advisory board a second time. Chairman pistor note(~ that he has requested Community Development Administrator Terry Virta to prepare a draft of such guideline for presentation to the Doara for consideration. RECO~MENDATIQNS FOR SAFETY I~PROVE~ENTS TO JANE'S SCENIC DRIVE _ APPROVED Commissioner Erown said he has been requested to convey to the Board the desire by area resi~ents and users of Jane's Scenic Drive to have the road improved, commenting that it was his impression that the use of the road has been discouraged in the past. Public Works eOOK 059 PACE 627 Page 55 MOl 059 PACE628 February 24, 1981 Administrator/Engineer Barksdale noted that a petition has been received in this regard and the roadway was inspected on January 30, 1981. Referring to his memorendum dated February 10, 1981, Mr. Barksdale said that there are some improvements which can be made to help insure roadway safety, as outlined i~ the subject memorandum. He said that resurfacing and removal of the trees, as requested, are not warranted at this ti~e. ~'hen asked for an estimated cost for the recommended improvements, Mr. Barksdale said that they can be made within the existing budget. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and unanimously carried, that the improvements to Jane's Scenic Drive be approved for implementation. RECO:1~lEND!ITION RE DREDGIiJG OF IHGGINS PASS TO BE PRESEllTED TO THE BeARD !'IARCl-l 3, 1981 Chairman Pistor acknowle~ged that, in addition to the letter dated " February 13, 1981 from L. W. Umstadter, he has received other expressions of su~r~rt for the dredging of Wiggins Pass, and requested a status report on the project. Public Works Administrator/Engineer 8arl:sdale informed t~)e Board that a report on the subject wes recently received, which he said he has not had the opportunity to review in detail, and suggested that he bring back to the Board a recommendation for further action on March 3, 1981. County Mrnager C. William Norman reported that the recommendation will be to forward the proposal for official approval by the Corps so that they c~n ~roceed. He said that, in all candor, he has had con- versations with Corps representatives and that most of the State and local environnental people are against the project. It is the feelin9 P1Ige S6 , ~ "j'" " February 24, 1931 of the Corps, continued Mr. Norman, that, unless there is a united, strong position from the Board and the people who will benefit from it, the project does not stand much of a chnnce. He said that this is something the Board should be thinking about, remembering that a plan was developed where the cost could be special-~ssessed and where the cost of the improvements for the County would not be "that great" in terms of the burden on the individual pro~crty owners, from which group a "sort of" preliminary approval WnS received. Commissioner ~i~er suggested that part of the problem was that most of the people requeste~ a small project which has turned into a full-blown interc02stJl ~~tcr~ay. , PUBLIC ~ORKS ACMINISTRATCR/ENGINEER PROVID~S STATUS REPORT RE REOPENING OF CLI\i<i PASS Public ',.:or:c5 7',d"inistrator/EnC)ineer Barksdale informed the Board that, purs~, nt to Board aut~orization, attempts were made to try to reopen Clam Pass; however, on two different occasions, storms came up and re-closed it. It has been decided to leave it alone, said Mr. Barkscale, until the current weather pattern is over. He said he has met with the consultant who made a study of the entire bay system during which a previous report of the bay system, in conjunction with the permitting of Park Shore Unit 5, was reviewed wherein the decision was made to install pipes underneath Seagat2 Drive. He said part of the problem seems to be that the drainage area into that basin during the dry season is not sufficient to build the waters high enou3h to keep the pass blown open, especially with the culverts. He said that an attempt will be meoe to install a tempornry plug in the pipes at high tide to trap as much water in the upper bay system as possible and aoOK 059 PACE 629 Page 57 !OQX 059 PACE 630 February 24, 1981 then, at low tide, make the cut and see if it won't flush and stay ope n. LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DEED NO. 254 - ~ILED FOR THE RECORD Pursuant to action of the Eeard January 10, 1978 wheroin the Chairman was ?uthorized to sign various deeds to Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery lots as the need arises, the following Deed No. 254 was recorded and filed for the record. " Page 58 MOK 059 fACE 632 February 24, 1981 ~IScELLANEOUS cORRESPONDENcf. - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection, the Chairman directed that the following correspondence be filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: 1. Letter dated February 14, 19~1 from Edwin A. Lane, Secretary, Royal Palm Apartments, Inc., relating various problems re Y~hl Bros. - xc Zoning, Planning Departments; and filed. 2. Reports from Lee County Electric Cooperative Inc. for January, 1931 for Marco Lighting District and Immokalee Lighting District - Filed. 3. Letter elated February 3, 1981 from Kristine M. Bareis, ohjecting to vehicles on the beaches - xc County Manager, Community Development Administrator, and Zoning Depart- ment; and filed. 4. Letter received February 25, 19R1 from Vivian Scarsilloni, President, Golden Gate Estates Civic Assoc. supporting equal and fair :alary schedules for firemen and other public servants - xc Public Safety Administrator; and f Den. 5. Letter d2ted Fehruary 11, 19R1 from Dr. James \.'. Gover, First Vice President, Golden Gate Fire Association, Inc., in support of Chief Peeve's salary ultimatum - xc County ~1anaser, Public Safety l\c1ministrator; and filed. 6. Letters (2) dated February 17, 19~1 from J. Theodore Kennedy, Real Estate Broker, opposing certain proposed zoning changes on various properties in Golden Gate - xc Planning Department; ~nd filed. 7. Letter rJater] February 17, 1981 from Dilvid R. !(ersey, Real Estate Broker, re rezoning of certain property in Golden Gate - xc Planning; and filed. 8. Copy of letter dated February 12, 19R1 from Dr. Neno J. Spagna, Agent for petitioners Angelo and Grace Montemurro, to C^PC Chairman withdrawing petition R-80-37C from consideration at present time - xc Planning Department; and filed. Page 59 , i,' February 24, 1981 9. Memorandum daten February 3, 19131 from Donna Spooner, Special Pr00rams Administrator, Florida Department of Administration, re Invitati~n to Apply for Grant Assistance Under the Intergovernmental Personnel ^ct - xc Fiscal Officer, and Personnel Department; and filed 10. Circular Letter 81-08 dated February ~, 19131 from Everett H. Rothschiln, Jacksonville Area Office, BUD, re Co~munity Development Block Grant Program Grantee Adherence to Li'lbor Stanc'arr:1s Requirements - xc Community Development Administrator, and Fiscal Officer; and filed. 11. Circular Lett~r Rl-14 ~ated February 5, 1981 from Ever~tt ~. Rothschild, Jacksonville Area Office, HUe, re FY 19~1 Section 312 Allocation - xc Planning Department, and Fiscal Officer; and filed. 12. Letter elatec' Februc,ry F, 1981 from Everett H. Rothschilc', Area Manager, HUD, re Community Develap- f;",ent i010CK Gr2nt prograCl (Gr ant No. 8-79-r."'1-12-0424) - xc Planning Department; and filerl. 12. Letter dat.<>d February S, 1981 from Everett H. . Rothschi1rl, Area Manager, HUD, re Comnunity Develop- ment. Block Grant (Small Cities Program, Application No. B-fJl-!:'~-12-0021) - xc Plannina Director, and Fiscal Officer; and filec'. - 13. CO?y o'f letter datecl February 12, 1981 from "Iuseum Director Manion to University of South Florida, Florida Endo','T:1ent for the Humanities, transnitting copy of original Aplication for the Southwest Florida Archaeological Conference - Filed. 14. Letter dates February 4, 1981 from E. Douglas Locke, xommenting on delav in cBn~truction aflNaples Cay . :-'3rtT'"'Cnt - xc Flannl.ng epartm~nt; 1'"1 ea. 15. Copy of minutes of February 4, 1981 meeting of the Advisory Committee, Ochopee Fire Control District - F i 1 ul. JS. CO?] of ninutQs of the January 21, 1981 and of the February 4, 1931 meetin3s of the Naples City Council _ F i 1 eel. &OOK 059 PACE 833 Page /;0 February 24, 1981 MDX 059 PASE 634 17. Letter dated February 11, 1981 from Jimmy D. Allison, Deputy District Engineer, FDOT, re Section 030~O, State Road 92, from CR 95l/Collier Boulevard to SR 90 - Filed. 18. Letter daten February 10, 1981 from TheoGol'~ J. Ericson, Marco Island property owner, requesting that appropriate steps be taken to prevent parking on their lot close to Tiger Tail Beach - xc County Manager, Parks & P.ecreation Director, and County Engineer; end filed. 19. Copy of Resolution Pl-5 adopted by the BCC of Gulf County, florida, urging imposition of additional one- cent sales tax for ad valorem tax relief - Filed. 20. Lctt~r ,:~~t~0 JMnll.~ry 11 t 19P1 Erom "~rs. Carland Tait urging adoption of ordinance prohibiting throw-away cans and bottles - filed. 21. Mess~~e dated February 10, 1981 from Bel Air Motel opposing additional rate hike by Yahl Eros. - xc Solid Kaste Manager; and filed. 22. Letter dated February 11, 1981 from ~arie A. Welker, and ~',r. and I',rs. Lyn Poyer opposing proposed rate hike being resuested by Yahl Pros. - xc Solid Waste Manager; and filed. 23. Project Status Report for period ending February 6, 1981 from Polizzi/Heery team re Collier County Govern- ment Center Expansion (predesign/Program~ingt - Filed. 2~. ~'onthly Building Maintenence Report for January, 19R1 - Filed. 25. Letter ~ated February 2, 19R1 from John H. ~cGuire, Presidpnt of Vanderbilt Beach rroperty Owners Associ- ation, oprosing construction of large docks and multi- docking facilities in Vanderbilt Lagoon - specifically petition BD-80-15C - xc Planning Department; and filed. 26. Letter diOted February h, 1981 from John F. Jackson, Chief, Marco Island fire D~partment, opposing County t;:;keover of Plan Review anJ Inspection - xc Public Safety Administrator; and filed. 27. Copy of letter Gated F'ebruilry 12, 1981 from Building ~ircctor to ~illiam Shearston re County application for Special Act providing authority to issue citations for violations of Ordinance re licensing - Filed. Page 51 " February 24, 1981 28. COPY of Rule No. 9B-2, Department of Veteran & Commun- ity Affairs, entitled Housing Land Acquisition and Site Dcvelop:nent Loan Program - xc Veteran's Service Director, and Planning Department; an~ filed. 29. Copy of Pcrmit Number 79-P-127 (Modification) approved February 13, 1981, issued by DNH to LaPlaya Hotel - xc Plannin0 Dep~rtmcnt; and filed. 30. Copy of letter datGCl February 9, 1381 fro:n Lan'Jley Adair, Cnfor8e~cnt Officer, DER, to Utl'ities Director rc i11spection of District I'A" Sewage Treatment Plant _ Pi 1 cd. 31. Letter dated February ~, 1'181 fron Joan Hamilton, Pr2si~ent, East N?,plcs Civic Il.ssociiJtion, Inc. re proposed bill for State Lo.gislature re East Naples Fire Control District - xc Public Safety Administrator; and filed. 32. Letter clatcd February 7, 1931 from Mrs. Richard P. Gillette, expressing desirp. to have the Marco Island Incinerator relocated - xc Solid Waste Director; and filed. / 33. Letter dated february 11, 1981 from Dr. Neno J. Spagna, Agent, withdrawing petition CP-80-19C filed by Angelo & Grace Montemurro from March 3, 1931 agenda - xc County ManaJer, and Plonnin0 Department; anc filed. 34. Notice receiv'2'; February 10, 1931 frol:1 South Central Florida Health Systems Council, Inc. listing Current Projects Under neview - Filed. 35. Copy of D:.IH Permit No. CQ-P17-80 (Corrected Placard) issued to Gee & Jenson, rp. Coral Ridge - Collier Properties, Inc. - Filed. 36. Copy of lctt8r dated FebruClry 17, 1981 from Jacl~ R. Thompson, Fire Marshal, North Naples Fire Department to David P. ~loyer, reo Collier ~lorth Branch Library _ Filed. eoOK 059 PACE 635 Page 62 I MO~ 059 PAGE 636 February 24, 1981 37. Letter dated January 30, 1981 from JoyceD. peterside, Rureau Chief, Florida Department of Community Affairs, re Criminal Diversion Project CF-80-09-520l - xc Fiscal Officer, and Project Director; and filed. 38. Copy of letter dated February 10, 1~3l from Jack M. t~aguire, President, I'.merlcan ',:nbulance Inc.. to County Manager, stating that 100% of the stock ownership in l~erican l~bulance Inc. is owned by the President of the firm - Filed. 39. Copy of letter dated February 17., 19P1 to 1':s. Kathy Vaguire, American .",lObulance Inc., from County 1':anager, responding to her letter of February 9, 1981 re Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Compliance Audit of firm _ F i 1 ed . 40. Copy of lEtter dated January 30, 1981 from .John \o,'alker to County ~anager announcing his intention to resign his position of Assistant County Manager _ Filed. 41. Copy of letter dated Februilry II;, 1081 fron County ~~n~ger to Assistant C~unty Manager ~ccepting his resign~tion - Filed. 42. Letter d&ted February Ie, lS81 from Lawson Bing re lack of a siln at Greyhound Bus Depot - xc Planning DepartMent; and filed. 43. Letter daten Februilry 9, 1981 from Lieutenan1: Governor \'!ilyne "iy.son announcin'J creation of Local Government Liaison office - Filed. 44. ,"2,.,orandu,n <'lilted February 10, 1981 from Edl"ard L. 8roaks, Director, Division of Ad Valorem Tax, Depart- ment of Revenue, re Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption - xc Fiscal Officer; and filed. 45. Letter dated February 12, 1981 from Representative Eafa1is acknowledging receipt of resolution in support of continued construction of Interstate 75 _ Filed. 46. Letter dated Janui3ry 31, 1981 from Al Spangenberg re concern over intersection at SR 951 with regard to M2rco Shores development - xc County Engineer. Pago 63 February 24, 1981 47. Letter dated February 3, 1991 from Fire Commissioners Hamilton, Gibbons, and Farrell, East NAples Fire Control District, expressing concern over the Board eBtablishin~ its own Fire Inspection Dapt. - xc County Manager, Public Safety Ac~inistrator; and filed. RESOLUTION 81-50 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVANCY FOR ASSISTANCE IN FUNDI~G I~PROVEME~TS TO TIGER TAIL BEACH - ADOPTED It was the consensus of the Board that Resolution SO-50, expres- sing appreciation to the Collier County Conservancy for their finan- cial assistance toward the deve10p~ent of Tiger Tail Beach, be adopted. , &QQX 059 PACE 637 page 64 " -k February 2~, 19P.l There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the C~air - Time: 3:35 P.M. BOAR~ OF COU~TY COMMISSIONERS/~X OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CO:~'l;,RO,r' r ,) i~ .! ,~~ 'it't" l(, .....-'J,'tJIF{ JO~~ A. PISTOn, CHAIn~AN ATTEST: ' ffw:,~~I,:~~:,~~~;GA~;;~E~I~_ _ . J ".~).., U}/,p-~,0/ '). -,,'.',-- ::... G/ ~., . ~: - - ' ... ,;<'" '~ ....</ , .,/ ; I I ~ r. (- :::- i. " .' , - ':"1"":\\" aOOK 059 PACE 639