Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/13/1980 R Naples, Florida, May 13, 1900 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that thp Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, 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 "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Clifford Wenzel VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thomas P. Archer (9:10 A.M.) John A. Pistor C. R. "Russ" Wimer David C. Browl1 ALSO PRESENT: William J. Reagan, Clerk; Harold L. Hall, Chief ~ "'4 Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Darlene Davidson and Edna Brenneman (4:00 P.N.', Deputy Clerks; C. William Norman, County Man~ger; Donald Pickworth, County Attorney; Ant.hony Pires, Assistart County Attorney; Terry Virta, Conmunity Development Administrator; Danny Crew, Planning Director; Richard Henderlong. Planner; Thomas Hilfner, Publ ic Safety Director; Gene Willett, Administrativ~ Aide to the County r~anager, Jeffory Perry, Zoning Director; Irving Benon. Utility Director; and Deputy Chief Raymond Barnett. Sheriff's Department, and Mary Mor~an, Administrative Aide to the Board. eo~ 53 '4[215 May 13, 1980 AGENOA..:... APPROVED WITH ADDITIO.NS AND CHANGES Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Archer not present, that the agenda be approved with the following additions and changes: 1. Discussion regarding the Food Stamp Program - added (6A). 2. Dates for publ ic hearings re items 9A, and 98 to be changed. 3. Consideration re recommendation for engagement of a consultant re double taxation matters - added (10A2) 4. Consideration of request from Attorney Toby Carroll re Bayberry Patio Homes, Inc. - added as per BCC action of 5/6/80 (8A) MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1980 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Archer not present, that the minutes of the BCC mecting of April 22, 1980 be approved as presented. CHAIRM.^.N AUTHORIZED TO SEND LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION RE APPROPR lATIONS TO CONT! NUE THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM Pursuant to County r~anager Norman explaining that it has been brought to his attention that the Food Stamp Program is in jeopardy because the Congress has not made additional appropriations to continue the proHl'am, and that a letter urging Congress to do so has been drafted at the request of Social Service Director r~artha Skinner and several of the Commissioners, there was some discussion regarding the subsequent problems in Collier County that would occur if this program is discontinued. A copy of the draft was provided to the Commissioners and a discussion regarding the contents of same took place. Chairman Wenzel suggested, along with the letter urging Congress to appropriate funds for the program, an addi- tion of another paragraph alluding to the fact that it would be more benp~;cial and appropriate if the discretion regarding eligibility for such a program and the monitoring of same be put undel' the purview of the County, rather than at the Federal level. He agreed to write a personal letter, if the Board desires, and Commissioner Wimer moved that Chairman Wenzel be authorized to do so. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried 4/0, with Commissioncr ^rcher not present. BOO); . 053. ~A&€ 219 . ,-, BOO~ 053 fACE 220 May 13, 1980 PETITION NZ-80-2-C, COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 76-80 BY AMENDING SECTIONS RE LIVE ABOARD VESSELS- WITHDRAWN A'3 PER PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST Pursuant to Mr. Norman explaining that the Coastal Area Planning Commission hilS not completed their study on Petition NZ-BO-2-C, and are requesting that !t be continued, Community Development Admini~trator Terry Virta stated that staff has studied the various aspects of the subject petition and because of defects in the present proposal, they request that Pctition NZ-80-2-C be withdrawn. Commissioner Pistor moved, secondecl 'lj Commissioner Brown and carried 4/0, with Commissioner I\rcher not present, that Petition NZ-BO-2-C. as filed by the County Planning Department be withdrawn as per the Planning Department'3 request. Mr. Vir~a stated that the Planning Department will be returning to the BCC with another proposed amendment at some future date. PETITION NZ-80-3-C, COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 80-30 8Y AI.IENDING SECTION 37, THE "A" AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING MOBILE HOMES IN THIS DISTRICT AS A PRO- VISIOt~AL USE - DENIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News-on April 24, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clel'k, public hearing was opened to consider Petition NZ-80-3-C, as filed by the County Planning Department, requesting an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 80-30 by amending Section 37, the "A" Agriculture Zoning uistrict. by allcwing mobile homes in this district as a provisional use. Planner Richard Henderlong stated that Petition NZ-80-3-C is J result of a Board directive that instructed the Planning staff to draft an ordinance, providing for mobile homes to be allowed within the "A" Agriculture Oistrict. He said that the staff has presented the subject amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to the CAPC, and that the CAPC's recomnendation is for approval of the proposed amendment. He explained that, as it Is proposed, mobile homes will be allowed within the "A" Agriculture District as provisional uses, on tracts of land that hilve a minimum of five acres; however, Item C, under the l-lay 13, 1980 provisional use 10 would require that any existing mobile home that is on the property, as a residence, prior to the adoption of this ordinance w1ll not be grandfathered in, and would require the property owner to petition for approval before the BCC in order to receive the provisional use. Also, that in the case of temporary permitted mobile homes that are permitted through relationships with farm labor camps or onsite work areas, there wil I be no change in the status of these mobile homes if the proposed ordinance is adopted, rather, any change in such status to that of a permanent residence will have to be petitioned for and the petitioner will have to appear before the CAPC as well as the Board, just as all other petitions for' provisional uses have to do. In answer to Chairman Wenzel, Mr. Henderlong said that the proposed ordina'lce will allow for the "mixing" of mobile homes, in the same areas as conventionally built homes. Chairman Wenzel said that he was not in favor of allowing mobile homes to be mixed in the same area as conventional housing; he prefers to allow mobile homes in specific areas. Commissioner Brown said that he agrees with Chairman Wenzel, and is oppused to having mobile homes "mixed" with conventional homes. * * * Commissioner Archer joined the meeting in progress at this time - (0:10 A.M.) * * * Chairman Wenzel asked if there were any regi~tered people to address the matter, and Mr. Norman answered negatively. Commissioner Wimer asked Commissioner Pistor to offer his feelings on the matter, as this was his proposal. Commissioner Pistor said that he feels the provisional use. along with the Board control that goes with it, is a good idea; however, he would like to add to the Ordinance that no such provisional use could be allOl~ed in any area that is already begun to he developed. He said he prefers BCC control over the "intermingling" as alluded to previously by COlrmissioners Brown and Wenzel. and that as he sees it, what will be accomplished in adopting the proposed ordinance will be the switching of that control from the BOo)( 053 tACE22f e()~ .053 ~ACE '222 May 13, l~I$U Zoning Department to the Board; necessitating frequent action on the part of the Board every time such a provisional use is requested. He suggcsted that rather than this becoming necessary, that the staff in- corporate his sugges~ion regarding the prohibition of any such provisional use for mobile homes in any area that has already begun to be developed with conventionally constructed homes, and under these circumstances, the only applications will be for a provisional use in rural and undeveloped areas, whereby, the Zoning Department could make the decision. Mr. Virta, Community Development Administrator, stated that although he is not fully aware of what the legal aspects of such a provision would be. the only provision in the present zoning Ordinance, whereby the Zoning Department may issue permits, is as a temporary use. He said that these temporary uses, for 'up to three years, are to be allowed on ten acres or more; and would not be altered by this proposed amendment. Chairman ~Ienzel asked if this proposal is being considered primarily for th2 Golden Gate Estates area? Mr. Virta answered negativ~ly. explaining that thc Golden Gate Estates area is presently zoned liE'" Estates, for the most part and the proposed Ordinance is for placement of mobile homes as permanent residences on "A" Agricultur~l land. Cnmmissioner Wimer said that he agrees with most of what has been said by the other Commissioners, and that he favors the earlier proposal, whereby there was a minimum of 40 acres required. He said that the earlier proposal allowed for a trailer on five acres, but there had to be a 40 acre tract of land in order to request a mobile home permit; one for every five acres would have been permitted. He said that he favored this proposal because the "mixing" would have been eliminated because ~uch a large tract of land was needed to make a request. He said he favors setting up '"Mobile Home" districtsi that same proposal failed; that staff came back with what was asked of them; and that he is against the new proposal as presented today. Connlissioner Pistor said that there would be a problem with large tracts of land in that someone would have to secure signed petitions of all the owners of these various tracts, Offering no objections to having trailers in that tract, if only one home were built conventionally I May 13, 1980 on any of the property within the subject tract of land. He said that under these circumstances, there would be an almost insurmountable hurdle in the path of anyone who would want to make a mobile home their permanent home. Commissioner Wimer said that he is still in favor of the need for large tracts of land; they would be like large, spreadout trailer parks, with large lots made up of five acres, instead of small lots as in presently zoned trailer parks. Commissioner Pistor stated that what is being suggested by the Board is that the Planning department design some relative amendment that would result in the creation of a new "Mobile Home Zoning" that would require 40 to 100 acres, and whereby the owners of such tr~cts would have to come before the Board to have the subject land rez~ned in that manner. Commissioner Wimer moved to close the public hearing, and Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Commissioner Wimer motioned to deny Petition NZ -80-3-C and Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried unanimously. WORKSHOP TO BE SCHEDULED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE RE f10BILE HOMES IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS AND/OR THE_.DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME DISTRICTS Pursuant to the discu~sion regarding the prior matter that covered the possibility of developing a new form or Zoning District for mobile homes, and the circumstances in which mobile homes should be allowed as pennanent residences within certain Districts, and upon denial of Petition NZ-80-3-C, Commissioner Wim,~r stated that he would like to workshop these matters more fully at the earliest possible date. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Bro.ln and carried unanimously, that a workshop be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss the matter of mobile homes /:1eing allowed as ~ermanent residences within certain districts and/or the possible development of a new Mobile Home Zuning Diytrict. Chairman Wenzel directed County Manager Norman to schedule the workshop according to Commissioner Wim~r's motion. I MO~; 0.53 fAtE 223 Bo~t 053 r.lt(224 May 13, 1980 ORDINANCE NO. 80-44 AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-30, SECTION 48, RE PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FOR CAPC HEARINGS WHEN OVER 5% OF COUNTY LAND IS INVOLVED AND BY CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTING OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES - ADOPTED AS AMENDED Legal Notice ha,ing been published in the Naples Daily News on April 24, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication, filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition NZ-80-4C as filed by the Planning Department, requesting an amendment to Zoning'Ordinance 76-30 by amending Section 48 by Changing procedures for property owner notification for CAPC meetings when over 5% of county land is involved and by changing notice of CAPC meetings posting requirements. Planning Director Danny Crew explained Petition NZ-80-4-C as a petition to amend the present regulations for property owner notification regJrdlng rezJning petitions that are to be presented before the ~APC. He said that the proposed Ordinance will allow for the paralleling of the CAPC and the BCC requirements for notification, and will affect only the CAPC regulations. He said the two entities have different procedures for the notification of property owners and that under state law, when over 5% of the land in the County is being considered for rezoning, the BCC procedure involves notification to property owners through use of newspaper advertisements rather than individual notification to property owners by mail. He said that the CAPC is required by the present Zoning Ordinance, irregardless of the amount of land or size of the tracts of land, to notify each individual property owner in the case of rezoning. Mr. Crew said that upon adoption of the proposed Ordinance, the CAPC will only have to notify land owners via newspaper advertisements when the rezoning comprises over 5% of County lands; and they will be further required to hold rtt least two public r.earings in the evening, after 5:00 P.M., so as to allo'N attendance by the working public. In answer to Chairman Wenzel, County Attorney Pickworth stated that as long as there is a "notice by mail" provision within the Zoning Ordinance, then everyone within the subject area, 'whether or not they are a resident of the County, must be notified; that if the proposed Ordinance is adopted, then, there will be no "notice by mail" provison and the CAPC will not be required to notify the individual property owner~, and whether they reside May 13, 1980 in town or out of town will be of no consequence. He stated that all property owners. whether or not they live in Collier County, is on notice that the County Government has the power to make rules and regulations regarding his land. Mr. Crew stressed the fact that the proposed Ordinance will not affect the Board's presp.nt procedure of notification for these large amounts of rezoning; only the C^PC's procedures will be changed. Mr. Crew also explained that portion of the proposed Ordinance that alludes to the posting of signs of notification of public hearings for lands that are to be rezoned. He said that the proposed Ordinance includes a provision that makes the absence of the sign, whether from inadvertent non-placement or from vandalism or the result of bad weather, as not being d valid reason for delaying the subject hearings. Commissioner Wimer asked for clarification regarding the fact that if the proposed Ordinance is adopted, that the CAPe will no longer notify individual property owners by mail. Mr. Crew said that the only rezones that this non-notification will affect will be those which comprise a rezoning of over 100 square miles of County land; that all other rezoning petitions will be handled in the same manner as ~lways, and will include the mailed notices to the individual property owners, and those property owners within 300 f~et of the subject property. He said that it is a very rilre occasion, when the County is involved in the rezoning of an area of this size, and that there are plans being formulated at this time that will concern such a large amount of land, ;pecifically, the proposed rezoning of the Golden Gate Estatp.s area. He said that if this Ordinance is not adopted, there will be a need for approximately 30,000 letters to be sent out which will require special appropriations of funds. He said that this is the reason that the proposed Ordinance is being recommended, and that the procedure will be similar to that used during the course of the developme~t of the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use rlan. Commissioner Wimer said that the land use adoption was entirely different, in that it went on for several years, and the public had adequate opportunities to become informed of the various heJrings, and were involved in many committees, as well as the fact that there were hearings held throughout the County, etc. BOQX 053 fAllE '225 l\O~ 053. 'f~GE'226 . May 13, 1980 He said that he cannot vote for this proposal, because he knows what the County has planned for rezoning and, that not only is all of the land out in the Golden Gate Estates area planned for rezoning, all of the lands throughout the County that do not presently correspond in zoning to the Comprehensive land Use Plan are going to be brought in for ~he respective rt?zoli i lig . r.~r. Crew concurred tha t the ma i n rea 50n th i 5 pr.opos~ 1 is be i ng developed is to facilitate the Planning Department's proposal regarding the rezoning of the Golden Gate Estate~ properties, however, the other rezoning petitions that Commissioner Wimer mentioned will be brought forth on an individual basis under the normal procedures and will be accompanied by 1 etter's of not i f"j ca t ion to the subject property owner and the adjacent property owners as well. Mr. Crew said that the actual properties to be involved in the mass rezoning petition that Commissioner Wimer referred to is to be the land that was transferred in 1979, from the Immokalee Area Planning Commission and Is now within the \:oastal Area Planning Commission's jurisdi~tion; same land~ are comprised of the Eastern part of Golden Gate Estates, anG a one section buffer all around it. When asked if this proposed type of procedure call ing for no individual notification will be used in the future for anything other than the County's proposed rezoning of the Goldc~ Gate Estates, Mr. Crew answered that although it is possible, it probably will nev~r be used again. Commissioner Pistcr asked if the proposed Ordinance will put the C'\PS regulations in 1 ine with the State mandated regulations and Mr. Crew answered affirmatively. Assistant County Attorney Pires stated that the proposed Ordinance will hring the CAPC regulations in line with Chapters 125 & 163 of the Florida Statutes. with regards to notification, however, prior to adoption, he suggested the removal of the wording "The inadvertent failure to post a sign as required herein"; which is the first line in the third paragraph under Sub-paragraph B, Posting of Sign on Premises to be Rezoned. He suggested that in its stead, a sentence be added that would require the Director of the CAPC to certify that a sign has been posted. t~r. Pires said that the remaining reasons for "no cause" for delay in hearings that are Included in the subject paragraph are to remain as they are. May 13, 1980 Commissioner Pistor move~, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously 5/0, that the phrase "inadvertant failure to post a sign as required herein" be stricken as outlined above; and, that a sentence that will require the Director of the CAPe to certify that said premise that is to be rezoned was posted, be insprted in its stead. Conlniss iOller Willie!' il~ked fur clarification on the effect that the adoption of the amended proposed Or~inance will have on a property owner in Golden Gate Estates, when the County proposes to rezone a major portion of the Estates area as Mr. Crew alluded to earlier. Mr. Crew ilnswered that if the property that Commissioner Wimel' is speaking about is part of the major rezoning that he has discussed earlier, then, there would not be any notification by mail to the property owner of th~ proposed rezoning plans by the County. He added that three different bodies will hold nearings as this "major rezoning" comes through, including the Golden Gates Estates Study Conmittee; the CAPC, who will hold their public hearings as explained eftrlier; and then the BCe will consider the matter during their public hearing. Commissioner Wimer stated that he is not in filvor of this "liberal" attitude; he prefers the "conservative" attitude, regarding the right of the property owner's knowing what is being planned for his property. He said that the only reason he even goes along with the BCC not sending out notices by mail is because the CAPC was required to do so. He said undnr that basis the property owner was put on notice, had the opportunity to come in and find out what was being planned regarding his land. There was some discussion on the amount of postage that might be required to notify all owners in such a case and, without the new Ordinance being adopted, including registered mailing costs, and regular mailing costs, during which it was stated by Mr. Crew that there could be as much as $45,000 involved. Another point that was covered is the possibility of people thc.t own property in Collier County that would be affected by the subject rezoning, and those that do not live in the County, and whether or not they \~ould attend a publ ic hearing if notified by mail that their property was being considered for rezoning. Mr. Crew said that he doubts if most of these people would ilttend a meeting in Naples, if they lived out of town. Another topic of discussion w~s the need for mailing via registered, Mn1( 05~ 'P^~f '227 . p,ooy.. 05~l rAC~ '228 certified, or regular and Mr. Pires stated that according to Statute I~ay 13, 1980 125.66 this is addressed as "can mail" notices, and Mr. Pires said that he does not think there is a need to "mail" by other than regular mail processes. lie said that the option of what type of mail ing Is available to the Board. Chairman Wenzel noted that there were no further questions from the 3udrd at this time and the registered speakers were given the floor. Mr. Gary lIancottc, 1901 12th ^ve., N.E., stated that he opposed adoption of the subjcct Ordinance because he believes it is unconstitutional for the Board to proceed with rezoning property without notification to the individual property owner. He stated that what is at stake is a "down-grading" of property by the County, rlhich will result in loss of value of that property re[;ilrding resale value. He said that if the County collects taxes from the property owner by mall, then they should be required to notify property owners of possible rezoning of that property by mail. He said that if the question regarded an "up-grading" of a person's property, then he would not object to not sending notification and using newspaper ad'.'ertisements would be sufficient. lie also stated that in the event that tllC [ll"oposed rezoning for the propertieS in Golden Gate Estates is approved, there would be a need for additionJ.l expenditures on the part of the prope:'ty owners just to be able to build on their lands, referring to the "ST" designiltiol1 that is proposed for soma of the lands in question. lie said that some of the property will not be able to be built upon at all if the zoniny were to change. Mr. Hancotte referred to the proposed Ordinance as a "discriminatory" ordinance, aimed at the people in the Estates area. Mr. Pires stated that he sees no problem with the C,onstitutional ity of the proposed Ordinance. COllrnissioner Wenzel asked Mr. Crew if the proposed rezoning for the Estates area that Mr. Hancotte is objecting to would be considej'ed "down- grading" and Mr, Crew said that that is a matter of individual consideration. Commissioner Pistor suggested the possibil ity of the proposed rezoning notifications could be included in all the tax notices that the Tax Collector mails out. in the fall and several people pointed out that this would not be a good idea, because some 40% of tax bills are returned, and because the rlanning Department hopes to begin their processes towards the rezoning of the subject area before the notices are to be sent out for tax bills. He said that the County is met with a lot of problems regarding th~ inconsistency of the zoning on a lot of the property in the Estates area. because it still has the Immokalee Area Planning Commission zoning on it. Conmissioner Pistor said that if the County is legally prepared to handle the proposed rezoning of the vast area in the Estates area of the County in the manner suggested within the proposed Ordinance, then, it is in the best interest of the County, due to the large amount of monies needed for individual mailings, to consi~er the adoption of said proposed Ordinance. Mr. Hancotte objected to the Commission concluding that certain percentages of people will have their individual notifications returned as undeliverable, and to staff stating that people from out of town will not appear at a hearing, because he said that nobody knows this for a fact, and that nobody knows how another person will react to such a notice. He said that he would be satisfied if the mailings were to take place, because he would know that the County has exhausted all the means of notification that are available to them If they were to do so. He said that his concern lies mostly with the "out-of-town" owners, and that approximately 75% of all property owners in the Golden Gate Estates are from "out-of-town". He agreed that most people who live in town will see the newspaper accounts and notices. but that the owners from other than Collier County will not know what the County is doing reg~rding their property. Mr. Crew agreed that the "out-of-towr" owner's notification or lack of same is a valid point, however, he said that it is just not economically f~asible to require individual notification to so many people. and he said that the St'te Legislature must agree, as they do not require thilt it be done in a rezoning of such a size. Mrs. Joyce Hancotte asked if the proposed Ordinance will apply to those properties thilt are presently within the Immokalee Area Planning Commission, and Mr, Crew said that it would not. She stated that she wished to inform the Boat"d that there was no one from District five, to represent the people in the Golden Gate Estates un the CAPC. She said that if it does not apply to all of the County including the IAPC, then it is not a fair Ordinance. Mrs. Hilncotte also said that regarding the cost of postage that has been Ji,cu""J, ,11" wi,II", LII" GOdt'u Lo consider the possible costs to the pl"Opel"ty owner, and said that th~se costs would balance out, and she thinks the County can afford to pay a dollar or two in order to let a person ~:now that they may be losing several thousand dollars. BOO}; , . U h.l.t I>A~r: ~:JU oJV I "" May 13, 1980 . , Commissioner Wimer said that he is not addl'essing only the Golden Gate Estates area, but is considering the entire County regardJng the proposed Ordinance. He said t.hat he is addressing the principle that ff a man owns property that is going to be considered for rezoning, then, he should receive notification, somewhere along the process. Commissioner Archer asked Mr. Crew to clarify whether the action that the County has coming up will actually be a "rezoning" or will it just be the placing of CAPC zoning on the corresponding IACP zoned lands? Mr. Crew said that it will actually be d "rezone process". When asked to give an example of "from what zoning to what zoning", by Commissioner Archer, Mr. Crew said that presently a lot of the property involved is IC-2, IC-3, I-Industrial, I-:.;F-2, and I-MF-3, and that these will be proposed to go to various zoning districts, including Coastal Area "A" Agriculture, or "A-ST" which is Agriculture Special Treatment. He said that presently, this is what is planned for most of the lands involved in the proposed reznnlng proposal by the County. following County Attornpy Pickworth's answer to Commissioner Brown regarding what other County's procedures are in this type of a vast rezoning, including that he assumes that some follow the letter of the law, which does not require individual notification, and others handle it in the milnner as Collier County has in the past, which includes individual notification, Com~issioner Wimer mov,d to close the public hearing. Com- missioner Pistor seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Commissioner Drown moved that the Ordinance as numbered and entitled below, as amended by unanimous vote during this session, be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 11. Commissioner Pistor seconded the motion and Commissioner Archer asked for a roll call vote. Commissioner Brown Aye Commissioner Pistor Aye Commissioner Wenzel Aye Commission~r Archer Aye Conunissioner Ioiimer No ORDINANCE NO. 80 - _~ AND ORDINANCE Al'1J::NUING SI::CTION 48, AMENDMENTS, ~ARAGRAPII 2, PARAGRAPH 3, AND PARAGRAPH 4, AND ,^RAGRAl'lI 8 OF ORDl NANCI, 76-30 TO READ AS FOLLOWS AND PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hay 13, 1980 RESOLUTION NO. GW-BO-3 CONFIRMING CONSTRUCTION OF WATER I11PROVEMENTS IN GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT AND USE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FINANCING SAI~E - ADOPTED Lp.gal noticc having been published in the Naples Daily Ncws on April 25, 1980, as evidcnced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hraring was opened to consider the adoption of a Resolution re Goodland Watpr ni~trirt wat~r distribution Ey~tcm con~truction .........~ ....\.."" ....,'.... "'I.'" use of assessments for the financing of same improvements. Utility Dire~tor Irving Berzon explained that this public hearing is being held on behalf of the Goodland Water District; that in the Board's capacity as the Board of Govcrnors, consideration shall be given regarding the tentative apportionment of cost roll and the confirming of Resolution GW-80-1. He asked the Hoard to consider the use of an assessment program as a method for financ ing the distribution system o~ the Goodland Water System. Mr. Benon stated that when the proposed project was first developed, the Fmr1A required that the enUre amount of the subject funding be done through revenues; however, in the latter part of 1979, the Board was requested by the citizens of Goodland to reconsider this and that the FmHA be requested to reconsider their methodology of financing the subject project, and allow the combinc:tion of an assessments program along with revenue. He said that this was done and, at the authorization of the Board, an assessment roll was prepared. He explained that the cost of the dis- tribution system is $259,217.00 and this figure represents an estimated cost per square foot of $0.077048. f:e said that the total assessable square footage for the water distribution system in Goodland is 3,364,376.81. Mr. Berzon stated tGat the Consulting Engineer for the subject project, Mr. Ted Smallwood, of CH2M Hill, is present today to answer any questions that the Board may have. Mr. Smallwood stated t~at at the present time, the total ~stimated cost of the total project is $1,122,225.00, of which the apportionment is $259,217.00; this figure represents only the distribution system part of the total rroject. He said that the total project consists of a transmission facility that will tie the ground storage facility on Goodland into the Marco Island system; a ground storage facility located on Goodland of ~ mgd storage capacity; and repumping facilities. He said there is also a distribution system that consists of 8, 6, and 4 inch mains and fire hydrants. He said that the distribution facilities on Goodland are the assessable portion th:"lt ",,,!~'{1 h.... "''''''''''''''''''''''rf f.... fl'r> 1.-,.~",t"';~...A ....__~'.....~..: BOC;( 053 fAGf232 May 13, 19aO Commissioner Pistor asked if the $259,217 includes the cost of the fire hydrants that are being installed? Mr. Smallwood answered affirmatively. Hearing that there were no registered speakers to address the matter, Comnissior.er Archer moved to close the public hearing. :ommissioner Wimer seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Berzon stated that he wished to cover the following problems that have been publicized recently in the newspapers: 1. Questions regarding the size of the transmission line. 2. Questions regarding the size of the tank. 3. Questions regarding the proposed rates that will be charged. Chairman Wenzel directed Mr. Berzon to clarify these matters and Mr. Berzon stated that the size of the transmission lines are sized specifically for the Goodland ilrf'a only, ad are capable cf allowing for adequate pressure to get into the tank and adequate for normal flow and there should be no concern that there might not be an adequate supply of W1ter to the ar~a. r-egarding the size of the tank, Mr. Berzon stated that this is also s!zed only for th2 Goodland area; that it is sized to provide adequate fire protection, and in the case of niltural disasters that might destroy portions of the Deltona system for a day or two, there will be adequate water' for emergency powered distribution of potable water and for fire protection within the Goodland area. Regarding rates, Mr. Berzon stated that the rates are in fact no higher today in total then they were back when they were projected in 1975. He said that any difference in cost of the project between what was projected in 1975 and toddY'S actual cost, due to inflation, has been absorbed through the grant from the FmHA. He said that it is unfortunate that so much time has been taken in getting this proje~t completed, however, he reminded the Board that several problems have come up including problems with the clearing up of the franchise that existed in the area; the DER and Corps pennitting processes; and most recently there are the problems that have evolved dealing with the condemnation process regarding the acquisition of the property for the tank. COI1\'l1issioner Pistor received concurrence from Mr. Berzon regarding the fact that the 10 inch line for the project is designed to take care of the requirements of Goodland, and if for any reason, it is decided that there is May 13, 1980 enough capacity to allow someone to hook into that line to withdraw a certain amount of water, then that person ~~uld have to pay a hOOk-up charge comparable to th~t. cost that he would have incurred if he had installed the line himself. Commissioner Archer moved that ,{esolution GW-80-3, re construction of a potable water distribution system in the Goodland Water D.strict, and confirming the District's Resolution GW-80-1. ordering the construction of water improvements in such Oistrict to be partially financed with assessments against the parcels of property to be specially benefitted by such imrrovements, be adopted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously. .. .. .. * .. * .. MO~ 053 mF 239 .,. I \ ~ ~ '.i I , ~; May 13, 1900 BOOK. 053 fA.cEtJ6 OROINAIKE NO. 80-45 CREATING THE RETREAT UNIT 1 STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT - ADOPTED Legal Notice having been pubrlshed in the Naples Da1ly Newson April 24, 1980 as e~Jdenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider the creation or the Retreat Unit Street Lighting Municipal Service Taxing District. County Engineer Barksdale stated that the Retreat Unit 1, is a sub- division which is located about two miles north of Wiggins Pass Road, on Vanderbilt !leach Drive; the developer of said subdivision is required under the Subdivision Regulations to provide street lighting; and, the developer has exercised his option to retition for the creation of a street lighting district. Mr. !larksdale silid that it is his recommendation that the subject Street Lighting District be created and that the respective Ordinance be adopted. Hearing that there was no one registered to speak on the matter, Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Arch<!r and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Conmissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and cart'ied unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and entitled below be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 11. OIWINANCE IlO. --80-45 AN OROINAtlCE CREATING THE HETREAT UIHT ONE STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT; PROVIDING TIlE BOUNDARIES or- TilE DISTRICT; DES'IGNATING TIlE GOVERNING 1l0DY OF TIlE DISTRICT; AUTHORIZIrlG A TAX LEVY AS PROVIDED BY LAH; PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCT!ON Arm AN EfFECTIVE OA7E RESOLUTION NO. 80-104 VACATING A DEEP LAKE EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN TRACT J, LELY GOLF ESTATES, ST. ANDREWS WEST - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 27, and May 8, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public heilring was opened to consider the request filed by Craven Tho:np~on & As~ociatcs, Inc., representing Lely Estates, Inc., requesting a vaction of a 3 ft. deep lake easement, located within Tract J, Lely Golf Estates, St. Andrews West Subdivision. May 13, 1980 County Engineer Barksdale st~ted that originally, the subject lake was not platted as a drainage requirement; and that at a later date and during the process of replattin9 the drainage requirements, an additional portion was included as a lake, same being the subject lake that is being requested for vacation. Mr. Barksdale explained that the purpose of the lake was to be for fill; that during the ~rocess of digging, rock was encountered about three feet down and then they were unable to obtain more fill; and, he added, that since that time hnm~s have been built, just across the canal that are almost contiguous to the lake area. Mr. Barksdale said that if further excavation of the lake were to be undertaken, then, there would be a need for blasting, and due to the location of the completed homes and the possibl1 ity of damage to them from the blasting, they will not be ablp to continue to dig. Therefore, said Mr. Barksdale, the petitioner is requesting that thac portion shown in yellow on the overhead map be vacated. Mr. Barksdale Jaid that this vacation will not affect the overall drainage of the development; it was not included as part of the drainage facility within the Master Drainage Plan for Lely Estates. In answer to Chairman Wenzel, Mr. Barksdale stated that he believes that the subject lake has been filled in at this time and that the canal does exist and is functioning. Edward Kant, of Crave~ Thompson & Assoc. Inc., representing Lely Esi. 'tes Inc., stated that there will be no effect on the overall Master Plan for Drainage, by the vacation of this easement. Mr. D.E. Van Koughnet, Attorney representing four of the eight owners who are directly affected, and who own the property that Mr. Barksdale has alluded to, located across the canal from the subject lake, stated that he is also the attorney for the Lely Ci~ic Assoc. and he lives in the Lely Estates. He explained that although the eight property owners are concerned because they did expect a lake to be constructed, as part of the original plJns for Lely Estates, he has discussed this matter wi~h the Engineers, and he finds no valid reason for opposing this petition. Mr. Van Koughnet stated that he has explained this to his clients, as well as the problems that might occur if the blasting were to occur that is necessary to continue the excavation for the subject lake. BOOK 053 PACE 237 ,,. \' < , <.'1 I , I .-' BOOK 053 rACE~8 liay 13, 1980 Hearing tllere was no one further ~/ho wished to ilddress the matter, Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that th~ public hearing be closed. Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously that Resolution 80-104, vacating the aforementioned deep lake easement. located in Lely Golf Estates, St. Andrews West, ~e adopted. * * * * * * * May 13, 1980 RESOLUTION NO. 80-105 GRANTING A FRONT AND REAR YARD VARIANCE ON LOTS 11 & 13, WOODLAND PARK, RE PETITION V-80-8-C, VIRGIL MARCUM - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 27, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-80-8-C filed by Virgil Marcum, requesting a front and rear yard variance on Lots 11 nnd 13, Woodlnnd Park. Zoning Director Jeffory Perry said that the petitioner is requesting a 25 ft. front and rear yard variance. He said that the Board heard an 1dentlcal request on March 4, 1980, same being approved; and that in both cases, the problem stems from the lots being of non-conforming size. He said that the lots in question are 135 ft. deep; zoned Agricultural; and that prior to the 1974 change in the Ordinance, the subject land was usable for a residence. fk. Perry said that in 1974, the setback requirements were changed to require a 75 ft. setback both for the front and for the rear yards; therefore, the subject property is not buildable. Mr. Perry recorrrnended the approval of the variance. Hearing that there ~Iere no registered speakers to address this matter, Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, th~t the public hearing be closed. Commiss~oner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously that Resolutiol1 No. 80-105 granting a rear and front yard variance for lots 11 and 13, Woodland Park, be adopted. * * * RECESS - Time - 10:05 A.M. * * * * * * * * MQK 053 PAGE Z41 ,"" :lOQK Ub:J PAtE G44 May 13, 1980 REQUEST UY C.E. CARROLL RE ASSISTANCE IN SECURING C.O. FOR BAYBERRY PATIO HOMES INC., - FAILED TO APPEAR (ITEr~ HEARD IN AFTERNOON) The petitioner, C. E. Carroll, failed to appear and no action was taken at this time, pending a later appearance. * *Action tilken later during afternoon session. PETITION CCCL-80-1-C. WfI,FAA ASSAAD FOR ,JOHN PUI.l.TNr" DAVTO ,JONES llNO ROBERT BENSON, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE VARIANC( ON PROPERTY IN SECTION 16, T49S, R25E, (NAPLES CAY) - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 6/17/80 Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously that Petition CCCL-80-1-C filed by Wafaa Assaad, of Wilson, Miller. Barton, Soll & Peek, representing David Jones, John Pulling and Robert Benson, requEjting a Coastal Construction Control Line variance on property located in Section 16, T49S, R25E, known as Naples Cay, (a companion petition to R-80-9-C) ue authorized for advertising for public hearing on 6/17/80. PETITION R-80-9-C, WAFAA ASSAAD FOR JOHN PULLING, DAVID JONES, AND ROBERT BENSON, REQUESTING A REZONING FROM "R/-1-2" TO "RM-2GH" FOR ?ROPERTY IN SECTION 16, T19S, R25E (NAPLES CAY) - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING Ol:!..MlliflO COlllnissiuner Archer moved, seconded by COll111issioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that Petition R-80-9-C filed by Wafaa Assaad of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll and Peek, for John Pulling, David Jones, and Robert Benson, requesting a rezoning from "RM_21O to "RM-2GH" for property located in Section 16, T49S, R25E, known as Naples Cay, (this is a companion petition to CCCL-80-1-C) be authorized for advertising for public hearing on 6/17/80. CREATION OF KINGS LAKE UNIT 2 STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT - ADVERTISING AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 6/10/BO Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Cornnissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the creation of Kings Lake Unit 2 Street Lighting Municipal Service Taxing District be authorized for advertising for public hearing on 6/10/80. PETITION V-80-9-C, NAPLES MOBILE ESTATES, INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PERHIT THE REDUCTION IN LOT ~REA OF LOT 59, BLOCK B, NAPLES MOBILE ESTATES - ADVER- TISING AUTHORIZE~ FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON 6/3/80 r.nmmissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that Petition V-80-9-C filed by Naples Mobile Estates, Inc., requesting a variance to permit the reduction in lot 59, Block B, Naples May 13, 1980 Mobile Estates, below the minimum requirement to correct an encroachment, be authorized for advertising for public hearing on 6/3/80. Bee MEETINGS OF 6/24/80 & 7/1/80 CANCELLED - ACTION RESCINDED DURING AFTERNOON SESSION Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the Board of County Commissioners meetings of 6/24/80 and 7/1/80 be cancelled.* *Acti0n rescinded later in the afternoon ses~ion. APPLICATION TO DIVIS:ON OF NATURAL RESOURCES RE "NO WAKE-IDLE SPEED" SIGNS - AUTHORIZED Administrative Assistant to the County Manager Gene Willett stated that as part of the implementation of the County's Vessel Control Ordinance and the p1acement of the "No Wake-Idle Only" signs in the County, the Board adopted eight sites, by Resolution, for posting same signs on 10/9/79; the Board forwarded the Resolu~ion to the Department of Natural Resources for approval as required by Statute; and that on 1/16/80, staff was advised by the Division of Natural Resources that additiona1 information and justification was required before a permit could be granted. I~r. Willett said that in addition to this information, the staff was told that. two sites, Site A (Caxambas Waterway) and Site H (Gulf Harbor), were denierl permits; the former because, officially, the Pass is closed to navigation; and, the latter because the location of Gulf Harbor "is out of the heavy usage area and is not general1y used by boaters other than Gulf Ha rbm" res i dents. " Mr. Willett said that since that time. the staff has been working to compile and forward the requested information. plans, specifications, etc. to the ONR, and also prepare the necessary work to put the project out for bid; that work has been completed; and, the staff expects that, by the end of the month, permits should be in hand. Mr. Wi11ett reported that he has requested the DNR to reconsider the two sites that they previously denied; that the ONR has advised the County that the appropriate agencies base their decisions for denials on the premise that only considerations for the safety in large collective water- ways offers validity to permit app1icationsi h6wever, the DNR will re-evaluate the two denied sites. 80CK 053 PACE 245 BOOK 053'PACf: 246 May 13, 1980 Mr. Willett concluded by stating that b'ld opening is scheduled for late May; bid awarding will probably take place in early June; and, that he 1s requesting the Board's authorization to sacure the funding for the project through the Boating I~provement Funds, offered by the DNR. Mr. Willett said that the cost of the project will be $15,000 and in order to insure irrmediate commencement pursuant to awarding bids, he recotmlends that the appl ications for this amount be filed as soon as possibie. Corrmi~sioner Pistor said tr;t he thinks that the DNR misunderstands the reasoning behind the County's wish to have the subject signs posted in the two sites that were denied. He so id that the reason for the request for site "A" and site "H" is the safety of the boating public that are in danger of having an accident on the water because of excessive speed in a somcwhat narrow waterway; and, that the County's rJncern for protecting the privatc seawalls is not the reasoning behind the requests for the signs being posted on these waterways. Mr. Willett said that he has spoken to Major Thompson of thc DNR, and that he has conveyed these same thoughts to llim. Mr. Willett said that Major Thompson will see that these facts are considered prior to the DNR making a final decision. Commissioner Pistor moved. seconded by COtmlissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the staff be authorized to prepare and forward to the Division of Natural Resources, an appl ication for funds through the Boating Improvement Funds. for the construction and posting of "No wake- idle speed" signs in the estioJated amount of $15,000. FRANK SPENCE AND ASSOC., INC., ENGAGED AS COUNTY CONSULTANT RE DOUBLE TAXATION ISSUE County Manager Normiln explained that, pursuant to last week's meeting wherein the Board met with representatives of the City of Naples and heard their presentation regrlrding the City's stand on the issue of "',.luble taxation". and the subsequent directive of the Board to conduct further negotiations regarding the same subject, the implication being that the appropriate time to address this issue is during the time that the budget preparations are being undertaken and, in light of the fact that the staff is in the midst of budget preparation at this time, he and ~kssrs. Hall and Pickworth have met, along with other members of the staff and the City's consultant. The meeting was very productive regarding the May 13, 1980 details of the report prepared by the City consultant, he said. Following that discussion, said Mr. Norman and, after reaffirmation of Board direction regarding the need to work with the City towards an answer to the so-called "double taxation" issue, it was determined that it is best to undertake appropriate investigations on the County's'behalf; and that ~lessrs. Pickworth and lIall concur with his feeling that in order to best accomplish the County' s nt:!eu~ i,l lh i~ "t:!\Jilt'lh, lilt: ust: of outside LlssistJrocc from .::n independant consultant is recommended. He further referred to the budget preparation that the staff is undertaking and stated that the staff's time that would he needed to work on the "double taxation" issue is presently committed to the budget preparation I and therefore he has located an individual who he is recommending be engaged for providing consulting services to the County regarding the subject issue of dual taxation and duplicated ~ervices. lie said that by using the services of this expert in this particular problem, the staff would be free to undertake the job of budget preparation, and the County's interest and the interests of the services for the unincor- porated areas in Collier County can best be served. Mr. Norman introduced Mr. Frank R. Spence, of Frank Spence and Associates, Inc., who, until recently, was the Administrator of Alachua County, and gave a brief description of Mr. Spence's background ln Cvunty governmel1t and administrative duties. Mr. Spence addressed the Board, and oFfered a brief summary of the past experier:e he has encountered regarding the problems relative to double taxation and dual services. He said that he is well acquainted with the problem from both "sides of the fence" and he covered his education, qualifications, and his interest in the related problems of "double taxation". Regarding the work that he will undertake if tile Board ch01ses to engage his services, Mr. Spence explained that his proposal is two-fold; first, he will conduct a sort of "reconnaissance study" including a study of the City Consultant's report, and additional information that is necessary to assist the Board in understanding the basis and validity of its conclusions and recommendations; and secondly, upon completion of the aforementioned study, he will assist the County staff in developing accounting and administrative prL~edures for the implementation of the "dual taxation" program. '. ~~OK 053 PACt 247 May 13, 19110 BOOK 053 fACE 248 Mr. Spence said that he will be available to begin work next week, if the lloard should engage his services; and, the fOllowing is the fee schedule for his set'vices as he presented them: $300 per day for the pricipla (First ten days) for Phase One $275 per day for the remaining time needed to complete Phase One. Total (Phase I) not to exceed cap of $5,900. (plus expenses, according to State Law). Mr. Spence's fees for Phase II will be the same as for Phase however the scope of work for Phase II will be negotiated. He said that he understands that time is of the essence and that he realizes this is a critical time; and offers advice, counsel and assistance regarding the "double taxation" matter. Chairman Wenzel stated that the City has hired a professional consult. to prepare thei~~tudY' on which they have based their position and that he does not thin~that they will change their mind. If the County hires anoUler professicirial, who will surely come up with other points in the County's favor, ~:thinkS it is necessary to see some indications of the willingness of t~ City to compromise, before he sees a need to hire a N consultant. Chairman Wenzel said that he thought that was the purpose of the three County representatives sitting down with three City representati\ and discussing the matter. He said that if there was to be a "hard nosed' attitude on both sides, he does not see how we are going to get anywhere, regardless of what Mr. Spence will tell us. County r.1anager Norman responded that the City representatives who were present at the meeting with him and Messrs. Hall and Pickworth, have indicated to him that there is a willingness to come to some sort of a compromise, and that he considers it to have been a productive meeting. Mr Norman said that the County raised certain issues at tile subject meet in. that have indicated to the City that they may not have considered certain regarding how assigned costs are appropriated. He said these issues will need to be documented and are part of the proposed study that Mr. Spence will complete for the County. Mr. Norman stated that he wants to emphasize the fact that he feels t: at this point in time, based on the platform that was generated at the workshop last week, that the County and the City do have a "healthy" relationship which call lead to an acceptable soluti'Jn, within the require- ments of the law. He stressed that this is not to say that the County I'>dj' ~.), ~,_. will be "happy" with whatever comes out of the negotiations; however, the legal standards hJve been pretty well established. County Attorney Pickworth concurred with Mr. Norman and added that he feels that in respect to the amounts of monies that the matter involves, the cost of paying the c~nsultant is the only sensible way to go; and that it is not feasible to try to "stretch" a few dollars when so much is at ~take. In answer to Chairman Wenzel, Mr. Pickworth stated that he feels there has heen an attitude, on the part of both the County and the City, that displays a willingness to mediate this matter. Mr. Norman stated that although he and Mr. Pickworth cannot speak for the City Council, any more than they can speak for what the Board's reaction is going to be regarding the results of whatever emerges through the negotiations, one meaningful thing that will be beneficial for the r.ounty is that the City used a man with a background similar to that of Mr. Spence in developing its report; Mr. Sp~nce has a great deal of respect among his peers; can be talked to as an "equal" to the City's consultant.; and, by us i ng 11r. Spence as the County's consultant, it demonstrates to the City that the County is equally conscientious in ilttempting to do the best job possible in presenting its side of the mat.ter. Commi ss 'j oner Wimer moved tha: the County hi re r1r. Spence as the County's consultant regarding the "Double taxation" issue, as per the County Manager's reconmendations. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Chairman Wenzel said that it appears that the biggest stumbling block concerns the Sheriff's Department and Oeputy Chief Barnett stated that the Sheriff's Department will be glad to take an active part in the negotiation process and will be willing to work along with Mr. Spence in this endeavor. as Chairman Wenzel has requested. Chairman Wenzel stated that he prefers the Sheriff to "sit in", personally, at the meetings between the City and the County, and Mr. Norman said that he feels surQ that Mr. Spence will be able to create such an opportunity. Commissioner Pistor asked Mr. Pickworth that if this matter should end up in court, would a study of this sort be helpful? Mr. Pickworth answered affirmatively, adding that if Mr. Norman had not requested the County hire a consultant, and the matter was headed towards litigation, then, he, himself, would be before the BCC asking for the same thing. He said that if there is litigation, the Coanty will require an "expert" during the 1'1 t.ri a 1. I '. BOOK 053 PAGE 250 May 13, 1980 Upon call for a vote, the motion on the floor carried unanimously 5/0. DEvr:Lopr,\ENT ORDER 80-1 RE "THE COr.".,ONS" AMENDED TO INCLUDE NEW PARAGRAPH B, TO SECTION IV & BY DELETING LANGUAGE I~ SECTION IV Planner Richard Henderlong explained that what is being proposed today is the amending of Development Order 80-1, adopted April 22, 1980, for the "Col1lnons", located in Section 34, Township 49S, R25E. He said that what is being proposed is the insertion of a new paragraph B, Wastewater Treatment to Section IV, Public Facilities. He said that the original Development Order had "wastewater treatment" addressed under Section C, Water Supply, and it was entitled 4.12 Wastewater Treatment. He explained that what is being done Is placing a consistent format to the Development Order as recorTVnended by the SFRPC. Further, sa i d r1r. Henderl ong, certa in 1 anglJa~e is being deleted under Section IV, Pub,ic Facilities in order to accolTTl1Odate a consistent plilcement of the relative descriptions therein. He said that the! reason for the change Is that there is a difference between "public faci 1 ities for wa:;tewilter" ilnd publ ic facil Hies for "water supply" and that t~e proposed amendment will better define this. Mr. Henderlong stated that it is the staff's reconmendation that the Board approve the proposed amendment to Development Order 80-1, for "The Commons", as described above. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, I~r. Henderlong said that this ma tter is on the agenda for the nex t SFRPC. and tha t same meet i ng ha s been postponed; however, the SFRPC is aware that the matter is coming to the attention of the BeC, and that an administrative action on the part of the BCC is required as per their request. He said that the problem resulted through an oversight on the part of the planning staff, and it is not necessary to wait for the SFRPC to act on the matter prior to taking the recommended action. Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Conmissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the Development Order 80-1 be amended as reconmended by Mr. Henderlong and outlined above. May 13, 1980 42 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AT GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER APPROVED Pursuant to County Manager Norman's explanation regarding the need for 42 additional parking spaces at the Golden Gate Community Center In order to meet the Zoning Ordinance regulations and that the funds for these additional spaces will total approximately $7,000, same funds being available within the Center'~ budget, Commissioner Archer moved that the Board approve the construction of the 42 parking spaces. Com- missioner Pistor seconded the motion, which carried unanimously 5/0. BIDS TO BE LET RE [lIKEPATH CONSTRUCTION FOR PROJECT PRIORITY NOS. 7A, Z!!J BA, 8[J, 8C & 9, WITHIN FY 79-80 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM County Engineer Barksdale explained that he is recommending the balance of the FY 79-80 Capital Improvew.ent Program which is $82,000.00 be appropriated for the construction of bikepaths in priority areas No. BW-8A/8C. He said that the BCC has approved project priorities Nos. 1 through 5C and these have been completed; that the next priorities 7A and 7B, are located in the Naples Park Elementary School area; and, that at this time, the Engineering Department feels that the prior construction of the bikepath/sidewalk systems that run along Vanderbilt Drive and along !lIth Avenue and 7th Avenue are sufficient for thi s school area. Therefore, said Mr. Barksdale, the staff is recommending that priorities No. 7A and 7B, in this same area he postponed, and that a bikepath/sidowalk system in the Lely High School and Avalon Elementary school be constructed in which area priorities BA, 8B, BC ~nd 9 are lo~ated. Commissioner Bro~n asked if Immokalee is being considered with regard to the construction of bikepaths, and Mr. Barksdale pointed out that Immokalee was among the first project areas to be completed. Commissioner Wimer stated that while he knows the recommended project priority areas are needed, he still feels that the two priorities located near the Lake Park School are needed. He said that he has not discussed this with the County Engineer, but he would like to entertain the idea of increasing the funds for bicycle paths by $100,000 in order to build the much needed paths, all across the County, citing the shift towards this mode of transportation recently, and the safety aspects as well. He said BrioK 053 PACE 25f I BOQK 053 PAGE 252 Muy 13, 1980 that he would favor keeping the priority list as it is, and in this way, with the additional appropriation, those paths ir the lake Park area, can be bui 1 t as well as those Mr. Ba,'ksdale recommends. Mr. Norman stated that staff is presently in the midst of re-evaluating the Capital Improvement Funds Program and is close to the point at which they may be able to make a reconvnendation similar to what is be1ng recol1111ended by Commissioner Wimer; however, he prefers to treat the bikepath needs along with all the other needs within the program development efforts. He said the question is whether to act now and determine how to fund the projects later, or, if all Commissioner Wimer wilnts to do is add two Naples Park Projects. the staff could probably acconmodate that in an adjustment to the Capital Program, since they are r:onsecutive, on the priority list. lie said that to add several hundred thousand dollars to the program could be much more of d problem, Commissioner Wimer said that his first concern is with the construction of the priorities as they were listed, and that re cannot argue that the others Mr. Garksdale is reco~nending are not needed, because they are. He said that he wants to do both, and whatever other additional projects can be constructed also. There was some discussion regarding the bikepaths near Avalon School, and Commissioner Pistor asked Mr. Barksdale if the problem involving two people who did not want to transfer the rights-of-way has been cleared up. Mr. Barksdale said that it has not been cleared up; however, alternate paths have been designed to accommodate tl,,~ area along the south side of the road, from the school over to Kelly Road. He said that what has happened is that the children now have to cross the street at crossings at Kelly Rd. and Thomasson Dr. and one in front of the scr.~ol. Commissioner Wimer asked if the problem that he faces, including the construction of both sets of priorities, both at Lake Park and those recomnended by Mr. Garksdale, can be solved by the Board approving all Mr. Barksdale's recollvnendation, with the clear understanding that the staff will come back with adjustments within the budget to allow for the construc- tion of the two Lake Park priorities (7A and 7B)7 r , '" \ May 13, 1980 ~lr. Norman suggested that perhaps it would be better to bid out all six projects, and then, if the staff cannot solve the financial aspects of funding all six, those in Lake Park can be dropped. Mr. Barksdale stated that it would be better to let the bids for all six projects, and then come back to the Board and address the funding for the projects. whpn all thp hirls arp in. Hp '~irl that, hasprl on his projections, it will require an additional $62.000 to construct the two priorities in Lake Park. He said that he has no objections to handling the matter in this manner. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously 5/0, that the bids be let re priorities 7A through 9, for bikepath/sidewalk projects in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 79-80 and that the staff report back with recommendations for funding at a later date when all the bids are in. COUNTY WATER SEWER ALTERNATE PLAN NO. II ADOPTED; REL.ATIVE RESOLUTION FORTHCOMING Utility Director Berzon stated that during last week's Workshop, the County Consultant. Ted Smallwood, of CH2M Hill, presented two alternative, for the County Water/Sewer Plan. He said that the reason he is present today, is to get the Board's direction as to which of the alternatives are the Board's choice for Collier County. He said that he wished the Board to understand that the adoption of system development charges. near the $700 range, and the implementation of a program of raising the existing user rates. beginning sometime this summer, that will reflect an incr"ease of approximately 15%, and this will continue for each successive year until the year 1982 is to be inclusive of today's choice. He said that also included with these other items, is 'the adoption of an assessment pro~ram for approximately $1,300,000, along the way of the route of the transmission line. Mr. Berzon stated that the aforementioned items are what make up the proposed formula for development of the County water/sewer program. Mr. Berzon stated that the two alternatives, numbers II and III, are synopsized as follows: Alternative II........tap into the City's existing 36 in. water main, at th~ entrance of Golden Gate City. Alternative III.......develop a County wellfield, and treatment facilities for the County. ~ ! "!- VVI"j!\ '--' v V I It"""" "-~.... .... In answer to Chairman Wenzel, Mr. Serzon said that Alternative II includes th~ acquisition of the Isle of Capri System, and the construc- tion of a distribution system to the East Naples Area, and the construction of a water treatment plant and a connection of the Ci~V'S water line. He said that it does Include one element of construction in the North Naples Area. Chairman Wenzel asked if the County will be undertaking the subject project for the purpose of meeting the 1982 commitment to those ~eople in East Naples under the County/City water agreement, or are we planning this for the future? Mr. Berzon answered that his intentions are to cover both. lie said that the plant is going to serve the East Naples area up through 1989, and after that time, there will have to be additional expansions provided for. iCommissioner Pistor referred to a pt'oposal plan, distributed to the CommTssloners, and stated that it reads under Economic, that the total . savin s per connection using Alternate II over Alternate III, during the 7 years. is estimated to be $72.60. He asked Consultant Smallwoood, is the lotal figure for 7 years? Mr. Smallwood said yes, or approxi- $10. per year, per connection. Commissioner Pistor asked Mr. Smallwood to V~ifY his figures. in that under Alternative III, there will be approxi- mately $23.60 per year silvlngs ad infinitum. Mr. Smallwood concurred. Mr. Smallwood said thilt the difference between the two systems is how the source of the raw water supply affects the concept of development. He said treatment facilities, transmission faciiities, etc. are the same. He said the difference in the tllO systems is, basically, where the Board chooses to get the raw water from; whether they prefer to tap the City's raIJ \~ater main, as in Alternative II; or, whether they prefer to develop a wellfield as in Alternative III. He said the cost difference is about $13 a year between Alternative II and III, the former being the less I:xpensive initially. He said that in the future years, there is about a $23 projected difference after year 1990, same being based on 10% annual inflation rate, com- pounded in developing the cost numbers. The initial benefit of development of Alternative II, said Mr. Smallwood, is that it is simpler, less costly initially, and its disadvantage is that in the future it will incur major expenditures for expansion in lCJCJO. Mr. Smallwood asked the Board to consider the short term economics of the two systems against the long term economics of each, and base their final decision on that. 1-1;}y 13, 1980 ^ddressing the size of the system proposed, compared to what will be needed in the future, as brought forth by Chairman Wenzel, Mr. Smallwood said that the plans for the immediate future ~nclude a system that is adequate for the needs of the East Naples area; specifically, a 4 mgd plant which will have approximately 1~ mgd surplus by the year 1990. He said that if the County were to build a plant that is only the size that is needed to supply the 1982-83 demand, then, the County would not be in a position of providing water for any growth after 1990. He said that if water would not be provided for growth in the area, then, the County would have no basis for justification of the system development charges, which is going to be one of the major elements of payment for the system. He said that if the system development charges are not to be considered in the financial analysis, then, the rate per users will have to go up. He said that both Alternative II and III, are the minimal systems that can provide both adequate water for present users and for future users as well. COIII11issioner Pistor a~ked for confirmation regarding the need for future expansion needs with either system at a latter date, by 1982 or 1982, in order rot to have to impose any moratoriums on building and growth in the areas to be served. fk. Smallwood said that five years anticipated growth has been figured in with both alternatives, and that both offer the minimum sized systems for handling that amount of growth. He said the alternatives would be the use of multiple small water treatment plants, allover the County. Following a discussion regarding the proposed $700 system development chargE: and its justification based upon the two alternatives, Mr. SmalhlOocJ said that he feels up to $1,000 could be justified with the adoption of either of these progr'arns. Cha i rman Wenzel asked if the system development charge wOL.ld be used to offset the an,ount of futuro, capital improvements needed in the program, and Mr. Smallwood said that this is not the purpose. He said that the fee is to be used to offset the amount of debt service on the amount of capital that the County will have to borrow rather than have that debt service cffset by revenue collected by present users. rk. Smallwood said that these fees will help reduce, but will never be adequate to offset the total capital investme:.t for expansion, because they are not collected until the connection is made to the system, and the funds needed to allow for that connection have already been expended. He clarified this by saying that any program must be built some two to three years ahead of the need of that eoOK 053 PACE 256 May 13, 1980 There was some discussion as to why the proposed well fields, for Alternative IrI are located so far from the coastal area; how the proposed areas that will be supplied compare to work study areas 1n the Comprehensive Plan; and the need for assessments and what should con~titute the assess- ability of pro~erty, and who will be assessed. Mr. Smallwood explained that only those property owners that will be benefited by the transmission lines will ho a....o~~od for thorn and that quostion of Assossments for trans- mission lines will not need to be addressed until 1988. Mr. Berzon pointed out that these assessments will not be "cast in" if Alternative II is chosen, and that he is in favor of Alternative Plan II. There was a brief discus5ion regarding the land use, and density of the Golden Gilte Estates are~, that will be the site of the proposed transmission lines, and C0mmissioner Wimer said that he is concerned because this area is planned as a low density area because no services were planned for it, and that. in the event the lines are installed, and the property owners are assessed for them, these owners may feel justified in coming to the County and requesting a higher density for those properties that have been assessed. Hr. Serzon restated that the County will not be committed to install these lines in the Estates area, if Alternativa II is approved, and that it may be that by 1988, the County may have decided that it would be better to build a plant in th~ North Naples area. ^fter discussion of the various types of potable water supplies that are available in Collier County and the various costs that each would incur, and ~he fact that the wellfields in Eastern Collier County are t.he most cost efficient source of supply, as pointed out by Mr. Smallwood, and a brief discussion regardin9 the potable water supply system in Golden Gate. and how long this system can be considered adequate and what may have to be con- sidered at the time that it is not, Mr. Berzon stated that he is in favor of A lterna t i ve No. I!. f! Mr. Serzon asked the Soard for a decision, and Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by COlllldssloncr Archer, to adopt Alternative Plan II. 1,1 Mr. Berzon said that he would like the approval of the impact fee, the assess- -~, of the motion, and recognition of.the need to ~ ,.", that a relat1~~~ "',',"," i.i ~' . raise user rates, to be part ment plan, and the be adopted. May 13, 1980 Mr. Pickworth said that he prefers the Board to approve the Alternative Plan only, and that he will incorporate the fees, assessments plans, and increase in fees, within a Resolution for presentation to the Boarrl at a later date. Commissioner Wimer clarified his motion as an adoption of only Alternative Plan II. Upon call for the vote, Commissioner Wimer's motion carried unanimously. JOINT PROPOSAL FORTHCOMING FRor1 FISCHER, JOHNSON, ALLEN & BURKE, & SOUTHEASTERN MUNICIPAL nONDS, INC. RE CONSULTAnTS FOR ROAD CONSTRUC- TION BOND ISSUE FUNDE~,nY THE ONE CENT TAX ON GASOLINE Fiscal Officer Hall reported that he has contacted the finns of Fischer, Johnson, Allen & Burke, and Southeastern Municipal Bonds, Inc., as directed by Commissioner Wimer, and they have indicated that they are interested in submi tUng a proposal regarding the con!.ulting services for the road construction bond issue to be funded through the one-cent per gallon gasoline tax. He stated that this proposal will be submitted along with the other two that have been received next Tuesday, 5/20/80. Commissioner Archer asked if, by putting off a decision until next week, there will be any delays in the expediency of the Bond issue and staff concurred thnt one week's delay will make no difference. Mr. Fischer, of Fischer, Johnsen, Allen & Burke stated that a bond issue, that is not too complicated, can be completed in 90 days, thus, it would be possible to complete one by the end of the fiscal year if it were to begin after next wekk. ROUTINE BIL_LS - APPROVED fOR PAYt.IEnT C0111nissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Comnissioner Archer and carried unanimo'lsly, that the routine bills I having been processed under establ ished policies with funds available, be approved for payment, as witnessed by the follo~ing checks issued from May 7, 1980 through May 13, 1980: FUND CHECK NOS. County Checks 7676 - 7951 Genera 1 Fund 7 ECC Payroll 11468 - 11926 aOOK 053 PACE 257 r \ , '~ i } /: .1 , ~ ' M~ 053 PAct 258 May 13, 1980 BUDGET AMENDNENT NO. 80-104 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITEMS FOR GIFT SHOP IN THE MUSEUM - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $600 Conrnissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Plstor and carried unanimously 5/0, that BUdget Amendment No. 80-104, for the purchase of items tor the qift shop at the Museum, be approved in the amount of $600. DOARD OF COUNTY' CONHISSrONEIlS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA B lJ D GET A MEN D N E N. T . il Requires Board Approval . D Do"e's' No~ Requ~re Doard lIpproval . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. " . . . . . . C.t.r.a.n.sf;.e.r ~i.t.h.~.n ~bject code range) FUND GENErV\~,. . , DEP.T.: . : . J:lU~~l!~ . DESCRIP'l'ION: ~rDnsfer of funds from Contingencies to purchase additional items to be offered for saId in the Museum Gift Shop. TO (Increase): Small Stores Inventory Purchases 001-573-1-15-69-020-512 $ 600 FROM (Source of Funds) : Contingencies 00~-519-l-00-05-oio-990 $ 600 CO\.lnty MCjr/Diiif Dir. ~PiJ.7JJ~~ I~~=-Z~ n:U;TfnLlUTlON: Fi5cnl ~7fc7r1 l\ppro , 'f;!r- Oil tc .... ~rl) '----)-L- 'D no;,r.1 necorc1" (Original) C7 l"iu"<l1 Officer D nepi,rl:tnent(!,} lIffcctcd nonrcl of County Comm. BUDGET J\~Jr.jm. J\pproval: Delta: May 13" 1980. No. SO-lOtI '0 lIccollnting Oepllrtrap.:tl: D I'urchnoing (Eqllip;nenl: Only) D nudge\: J\l1nlYGI: nMf. 1'-/\', 17 'lH J.II Hay 13. 1980 STAFF DIRECTED NOT TO ISSUE FURTHER BUILDING PERMITS RE TRAFFORD PINE ESTATES FOR ONE WEEK; COUNTY ATTORNEY TO STUDY PROBLEM RE PACKAGE TREAn1EtH PLANT County Attorney Pickworth referred to a recent newspaper article in thl! t11ami Heral that refers to the recurring problems that have been associated with the operiltion of the package treatment plant in Trafford Pine Estates. Mr. Pickworth stated that the County has been involved in the SUbject problem for some time and that the developer of said project, Mr. Dick, has been most uncooperative. Mr. Pickworth said that according to the news article. Mr. Dick has not paid his taxes, and this is just another problem to be considered. He said that he wishes t~e Board to authorize, if necessary, that the Building Department be instructed that no more building permits ue issued in Trafford Pine Estates, until such time as he can investigate the appropriate avenues by which Mr. Dick can be made to recogllize his responsibilities ~egarding the operation of his package treatment plant within the subject development. Mr. Pickworth said tnat it is his opinion that if I-If. Dick continues to shirk his reponsibilities to thp home owners in his development, then, he shuuld not be allowed to build more units, and according to the subject article, Mr. Dick has applied to the FmHA, in order to build four more units. Mr. Pickworth said that Mr. Dick continually refers to the County's responsibility regarding the operations and financial backing, etc. for the plant, and he refuses to cooperate in such operations, maintenance, etc. himself. Commissioner Wimer said that he does not wish to be guilty of responding to a newspaper article, and Mr. Pickworth said that is not his intent; he intends to do everything possible to get Mr. Dick to assume his respor.sibil ity, and to carryon propel' operations of his package treatment plant, however, he would like the authorization to refuse any more permits if that is deemed necessary. He said that he wants the authority to tel1 Mr. Dick that he cannot build more units, until he takes on the responsibility of treating the sewage for the units that he has at this time. Chairman Wenzel, stated that if the authority was given as an "if needed" authority, then, the developer could possible apply for and receive the permits prior to the time that it would be deemed appropriate to restrict the issuing of permits, and Mr. Pickworth agre?d. M~'( n!)~f rlrr ?!iQ eoox 053 PAGE 260 May 13, 1980 Chairman Wenzel said that he is in favor of a moratorium on the building permits in Trafford Lake Estates as of tomorrow, 5/14/80, until the Attorney has a chance to look into this, and come back with a report next week. Mr. Pickworth concurred that this is possible, as Mr. Dick has no permit applications filed at this time. County Engineer Barksdale stated that as he understands it, the Inl110kalee Util itles Is obligated to take over the subject plant and operate it, after Mr. Dick has devploped 100 units; presently he has constructed 94 units; and, per~_r. if the County "cuts him short" of the needed 100 units. we (County) may be defeating our purpose. Mr. Pickworth said that he understands this, however, the problem is that, for nine years, Immokalee Utilities has failed to live up to its obligations 'n this matt0.r; there is not much reason to believe that they are going to do so when the 100 units are built. Mr. Pickworth said that this is one of the determining factors that led to the problem in the first place. He said that the Board is also faced with the problem regarding the FmHA's stand; that since the I3CC passed a resolution nine years ago which supposedly guarantees the operation of the subject plant, and he feels. that everyone thinks it is up to the County to solve this problem. ~lr. Pickworth said ~hat he has discussed this with the Attorney for the Water Sewer District in'/olved, and they are not inclined to do anything. Chairman Wenzel clarified his recommendation in that he is only recommending the halting of issuance of building permits for the subject development for a period of one week, until Mr. Pickworth can report the results of his efforts to the Board next Tuesday, at which time further action can be taken if necessary. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner BrONn and carried unanimously 5/0, that the staff be directed to not issue any further building permits for the Trafford Pine Estates development; that this is to be a morator;um for one week only; and, that Mr. Pickworth see that all related parties be notified of this, as well as the fact that the matter is scheduled for next week's agenda. ~lay 13, 1980 :T TAX COLLECTOR AUTHOR I ZED TO ISSUE DUPLICATE TAX SALE CERTIFICATES rIDs. 506, 508 & 2818 \ , , Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carri~d unanimously, that the Tax Collector be authorized to issue duplicate Tax Sale Certificates Nos. 506, 508, and 2818, due to the fact that the originals have been lost. * .<.'.~ .~ :( ::t' r;1 ':; * * * :~ , * * * , ,> "'~ * , '1 . ~,! eOOK '053 PAGE 261 " r.; May 13, 1980 CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE 1979 TAX ROLL Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by r.ommissloner Pistor and r.arried unanimou~ly, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Cer- tificate of Correction to the 1979 Tax Roll as follows: TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX NUMBER 1979-191 DATE 5/6/80 GAIN TIME OF 30 DAYS PREVIOUSLY ACCUMULATED FOR INr1ATE R.S. #8-2-4 "B.EVO~__ In accordance with 3-11.06 of Specific Authority Florida $tatutes 20.315, Florida Statute 944.27 or Florida Statute History New 10-8-76, and upon recomn:endation of Publ ic Safety Administrator Thomas Hafner, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that 30 days of the accumulated gain time for Inmate R.S. #8-2-4, be revoked. LETT~R OF RESIGNATION ACCEPTED ANO CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION APPROVED f9~SERV~~__QN CAPC (A1TERNATE) RE MR. EARLE V. JOHNSON Pursuant to Administrative Aide to the Board Mary ~1organ stating that she has received a letter of resiAnation dated 5/8/80, from Mr. Earle V. Johnson, who has served as an alternate member of the CAPC, COfllllissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that Mr. Johnson's resignation be accepted and that an appropriate letter be forwarded to him along with a certificate of appreciation for his service to the County. Ms. Morgan stated that Mr. Johnson has pointed out some problems regarding ~lternates on the CAPC, and is hoping that the Board reconsider their position on same. Chairman Wenzel directed that Mr. Johnson be invited to attend the workshop regarding this matter next Tuesday. M.G. ILES AND CAMILLE BAUr~GARTNER APPOINTED AS MEMBERS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSIUN Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that ~1.G. Iles and Camille Baumgartner be appointed as members of the Coll ier County Historical Commission, as per recommendation of William Reagan, Secretary to Historical Commission. T ., , " ., ~ .,~ } "j ~:t .,Ii: ";j; j;: , ~ <:~ .":;~ ,;~ :-;'J. :,.~ ,"~'.: \. ;1 ;';'{ '. " ". tlDDX053 PAtE 266 May 13. 1900 STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE NECESSMY WORK RE PETITION FROH RESIDENTS OF FLAMINGO ESTATES RE STREET NM~E CHANGE FROM ESTEY AVENUE TO FLAMINGO DRIVE AND REPORT BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuani: to Ms. f~organ stating that a petition has been received signed by 13 residents of Flamingo Estates, regarding their request to change the street name of Estey Avenue to Flamingo Drive, within the subdivision of Flamingo Estates, Commissioner Archer moved to..accept the petition ilnd ttlat the staff be dirccted to prepare the necessary work l"egarding tile street name proposal, and report back with recommendations. Commissioner Pistor seconded the motion which carried 5/0. STAFF DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL POSITlON IN HEALTH DEPARTMENT RE MONITORING PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS WHILE FORMULATING FY 80-81 BUDGET Pursuant to Ms. Morgan stating that the EAC has forwarded a letter, dated 5/7/80, in which tlley are recommending the Board consider the creation of an additional position within the Health Department, same position to be responsible for monitoring packagc treatment plants, Commissi0ner Arcller moved. seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried, that staff be directed to consider such an additional position during the preparation of the FY 80-81 budget. llCC ACCEPTS CHALLENGE FROM LEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ATTEND THE MEMORIAL OM BIKE RACE SPONSORED BY TIlE BONITA BEACH HIKE AND BIKEPATH CLUB Ms. Morgiln reported that the Bonita Beach Hike and Bikepath Club has invited tile Co11 ier County Board of Commissir>ners to enter three members in their Memorial Day Bike Race. She said that three of Lee Coullty COllvnfss!olll1r's liavlJ challangcd tho BCe to the rllea llnd thllt Comnissioner Pistor has volunteered. Ms. Morgan asked for two volunteers to attend. After a brief discussion regarding rules, types of allowable vehicles IIl1d the lly.f!, COIlYllt~~ I (lIllll' WlrnQI' movod to Qccopt tho chllllongo And Commissioner Archer' seconded the motion which carried unanimously. LETTER OF SUPPORT TO llE SUBMITTED TO LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION RE HOUSE BILL #31 (AMENDING THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY STATUTE) County Attorney Pickworth stated that he received a memorandum, dated 5/8/80 from Risk Manager Robinson, in which he points out that the House is about to consider an amendment to the Sovereign Immunity Statute. He said that House Bill #31 would ameliorate the bad effects of thr> T,llmiHl'1r> <1r>r:i~ion hv mnkino !mhlic emnloyees inrnune from suit, absent bad faith, malicious purpose, wanton negligence, etc. Mr. Pickworth referred to the Talmadge decision from the Supreme Court and stated that the results of this decision are so, that at this time, a County employee would be liable for damage due to negligence for any amount over the first $50,000, which is the responsibility of the County. Mter a brief discussion regarding the cffccts of the Talmadge decision of the Supreme Court, during which Mr. Pickworth pointed out that in the private sector, an employer is responsible for damages that occur through negligence, and that he recommends the 8CC offer support of House Bill #31, to eliminate the financial liability from the County employee. COlTVllissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that an ~ppropriate letter of support re House Bill #31, be forwarded to the Legislative Delegation. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONOENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection. the Chair directed that the following correspondence he filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: 1. Letter elated 5/7/80 from State Department of Administration, Division of Retirement regarding need to translate certain forms and brochures into Spanish. Must respond by 5/30/80, referred to County Manager and Personnel Director, filed. 2. Copy of letter dated 5/6/80 from Women's Republican Club of Greater Napl es to Corp!. of Engineers supporting the 8CC' s interim action plan. xc Mr. Barksdale, filed. 3. Letter dated 5/9/80 from Golden Gate Civic Assn., Inc. indicating approval of G.A.C. 's proposal to rezone various parcels of land from G.R.C. to RM 2, xc Planning, filed. 4. Letter dated 5/9/80 from Ruby Barginer indicating her fears that Naples may be downgraded if an undue n~mber of Cubans are allowed to move here. xc Planning, filed. 5. Letter dated 5/8/80 from Mary Ellen Hawkins regarding acknowledge- ment of receipt of a copy of the resolution adopted by Commission opposing any expansion funding for Medicaid program, filed. 6. Copy of letter dated 4/29/80 from William Jackson, Jr. Univ. of Central Florida, regarding a request for information of Com- prphensive Planning Act, xc Planning for response, filed. 7. Letter dated 5/9/80 from C. Keith Thrasher of Southern Steel Co., asking for name of the architect for Jail when decided, xc County Manager and Sheriff, filed. 8. Letter dated 5/5/80 from State Representative Bobby Brantley requesting county auditing firm, time period of contract and cost of first yeat' ft:t: rur duditing firm, xc Bill Reagan, Harold lIall for response, filed. 9. Letter dated 4/29/80 from Joan M. Heggen, 'Dept. of Community Affairs regarding extension of HUD's 701 Certification period. xc Planning, filed. ~MV fi~~ ~IN' ?'i7 BOOK 053 PACE 268 10. May 13, 1980 Letter dated 5/1/80 from e.E. Bryan, Naples Area Board of Realtors. requesting Commission take no further action to implement interim action plan with regard to Golden Gate Estates until studies and proper permitting from Army Corps of Engineer5 can be obtilined, xc Mr. Barksdale, filed. 11. Letter dated 5/8/80 from Albert M. Frierson, Henderson, Franklin, Starnes, & Holt re~Jrding claim of Opal Redding and accident of 2/26/80 and firm retained for representation of workmen's compensation claim, xc County Attorney, filed. ,~ I \ \ 12. Copy of memo dated 5/7/00 and copy or general policies and procedures '. concerning fees of the Collier County Health Dept., xc County Manager for agenda 5/20/80, filed. ~ 13. Letter dated 5/7/80 from Irvin L. Mortenson, Park Manager, conveying U.S. Dept. of Interior's approved land acquisition plan, xc letter and cover of plan to Planning, filed. 14. Copy of letter from Jack Maguire, dated 5/8/80 asking for Mr. Hall to get signature cards to him as soon as possible, xc Mr. Ha 11, f 11 ed. 15. Copy of letter to Mary Ellen Hawkins for Commission Information from Cheryl D. CronMell, Dept. of Community AFfairs, xc Jim Meerpohl, County Manager, and Planning, filed. 16. Copy of memo dated 5/5/80 from William Mcqueen, Asst. Director, Oiv. of Employment and Training regarding Summer Youth Employment Program Grant Modification, xc Mr. Meeipohl, filed. 17. Letter dated 5/7/80 from A.J. Wilkinson writing in behalf of Citizens of Naples Land Yacht Harber deploring conditions between Pine and Palm on Jackson Street, xc Zoning, filed. 18. Public Service Commission, (Filed) a. Docket 800286CCT for WalpOle, Inc. for emergency temporary authority to extend certificate 1348 into other counties during citrus season. b. Notices of new procedure for Issuing notices of filing of applications for new or extended certificates of public convenience and necessi . to operate as a motor carrier and for joint appllCiltiol,' to transfer certificates, to be effective Tue~day, May 13, 1980. 19. Letter dated 5/5/80 from HRS regarding the semiannual financial report. 20. Departmental Notices: a. Zoning Dept. report for April, 1980 b. Bui lding Department report for April, 1980 c. Ochopee Fire Dept. minutes of special meeting 4/30/80 21. Copies of Journals of the House of Representatives and the Senate 22. Copy of Ordinarlce 80-3 forwarded to Commission by Pdlm Beach County Comnissioner regardin9 standards for allowing mobile home parking as a temporary residence on a minimum of 5 acres of agricultural lands; xc Planning. filed. ACTION WITH REGARD TO Bce VACATION SCHEDULE TAKEN DURING A.M. SESSION _ RESCrNDED; BOARD ~'EETlNGS DELETED FROM JUNE 24 TIiROUGH JULY 22, 1980 Con~issioner Wimer recalled that the Bee had previously discussed and approved recess diltes for Board meetings, said action having been take~ during the morning Regular Session this date. He said that he , ' ~ '; ~ ':... \I.; ',~ ~J ':1 ;\~ , -;<:; I.." ___J May 13, 1980 request~d the Commissioners' Administrative Aide to check with the staff to determine whether or not there would be a problem in recessing the entire month of July. It was pointed out by the Chainman that the Board would have to reconvene during that period in order to act on the Sheriff's Budget for the next Fiscal Year with Fiscal Officer Harold Hall concurring that the subject budget ha5 to be approved by August 1st. However, he said, if the Sheriff "takes over" the Stockade, as has been suggested, there will be u need to revise his budget, and stated that he believed if the Sheriff's budget is considered and continued, that could "get across the August 1st" requirement, and that he would get back to the Board with further advice on this. He further stated that the Sheriff will understand that it is being continued only because of the further consideration of other budgets. The budget can then be taken up, said Mr. Hall, when the 80ard returns in August. Commissioner Wimer commented that he would ike to give the staff the balance of July for planning days and to finalize the new budgets, pointing out that, there will be three Commissioners available throughout the period to convene in Special Session, if necessary. Further, said the Commissioner, the staff has advised there will be no problems involved, from their standpoint, and that he has been informed that there are no public hearings sch!duled for that period. Commi ss iQ~er Archer moved. seconded by Commi ss ioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that the action taken previously with regard to deleting the meetings of June 24 and July 1, 1980, be rescinded. Commissioner Wimer moved to delete the meeting from June 24 through July 22, 1980, reconvening 011 July 29, 1980. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 4/1 with Commissioner Pistor voting in opposition, having stated previously that, in his opinion, the period in recess was too long. FURTHER ACTION TAKEN WITH REGARO TO BAYBERRY PATIO HOMES, INC. - BOARD ACCEPTS DEDICATION OF EASEMENT FOR ROAn RIGHT-OF-WAY INTO THE PROJECT, DEEO FOR THE SEWER AND WATER LINES, AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, ALL SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL County Manager C. William Norman explained that, during the Workshop Session just concluded, Attorney Allan t. McPeak, of the law firm of Carroll, McPeak, Bolesky & Schryver, representing the developers of Bayberry Patio Homes, Inc., provided some additional materials with regard to the development, pursuant to action by the Board taken May 6, 1980. .,. BOa.< 053 fACE 270 May 13, 1980 He said that th€re are deeds and agreements which the Board can accept, subject to the staff's approval of the final wording, following which lhe requested Certificates of Occupancy can be issued. Public Works Administrator/County Engineer Barksdale explained that if the Board approves the Dedication of Easem~nt for the right-of-way for the road into the project, and the Deeds for the sewer and water lines, the water meters can be installed which would permit completion of the plumbing by the developers so that the Certificates can be issued. Utilities Division Director Irving Serzon said that his staff is ready to accept the documents, aii of their requirements having been met. , ., Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the documents, with regard to the Bayberry Patio Homes, Inc. development, be accepted, subject to staff approval. Having ascertained that all of the appropriate depart.rent heads are in ~greement, Chairnlan Wenzel called for the question which carried unan :mously. Water Facil i ties Deed O.R. 868 Pg. 1795-1796 Wat0r FilCil ities Deed O.R. 868 Pg. 1797-1798 Sewer Fac-: 1 it ies Deed O.R. 868 Pg. 1799-1800 Sewer Fac il it ies Deed O.R. 868 Pg. 1801-1802 Bi 11 of Sale O.R. 868 Pg. 1803-1804-1805 Bill of Sale O.R. 868 Pg. 1806-1807-1808 Owner's and Contractor's Affidavit O.R. 868 Pg. 1809-1810-1811-1812 , Owner's ami Contra::tor's Affidavit O.R. 868 Pg. 1813-1814-1815-1816. Easement O.R. 868 Pg. 1817-1818 Deed O.R. 868 Pg. 1319-1820 Easenlent of Deed O.R. 868 Pg. 1821-1822-1823 fhere being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair: Time: 4:05 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARO(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS LiNDER ITS CONTROL ",': .,-....' .' J \,~ 1\ 11 I.J "; 1.'// , (' , ..- 7" < I . '" ~ ... ;) ".' "~ ~, :' !l ~J . I j I. /' t"./,