Loading...
DSAC Minutes 05/03/2000 RMay 3, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 3, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION at Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Dalas D. Disney R. Bruce Anderson Robert L. Duane Marco A. Espinar Sally Lam Dino J. Longo Thomas Masters Thomas R. Peek C. Perry Peeples David C. Correa STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent A. Cautero Robert J. Mulhere Ronald F. Nino Michelle Arnold Tom Kuck Page I May 3, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We'll call the meeting to order. And ask first, any revisions to the agenda? Vince? Anyone? MR. CAUTERO: No, sir, I don't have any amendments to the agenda. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No one? Is there a motion for approval of the agenda? MR. PEEK: I move for approval. MR. MASTERS: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And a second, Mr. Masters. All those in favor, say aye, please. Those opposed? (No response.} None. Next would be approval of the minutes for the April 5, 2000 meeting. Are there -- I guess first, there would be any revisions. Any comments? No. MR. DUANE: So move. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We've got a motion from Mr. Duane. And a second? MR. PEEK: I'll second for approval, but I have a comment. Again, I'm not sure if there's somebody that's blind in our organization, but I'd sure like to see these printed in regular type instead of bold because you need to sit across the room to read them. MR. PEEPLES: And I have a comment as well. I thought we were going to get a summary. Didn't we decide -- MR. CAUTERO: Weren't able to do it this month. I apologize for that. We did agree to that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. We've got a motion and second. All those in favor of approval, say aye, please. Any opposed? (No response.) None. Let's see. To protect his eyes, next month maybe our esteemed court reporting firm can get us back to a normal type. Next item is staff announcements. Mr. Cautero. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, under the summary of ordinance amendments after the minutes of the last meeting, we have an amendment sheet -- or excuse me, a summary sheet for Page 2 May 3, 2000 the LDC amendments, cycle one, which we can go through now at your pleasure or during the land development code subcommittee report. We didn't submit the form that we normally submit on all of the ordinance amendments because there were no changes to it, and today we had three of those amendments under old business, so we figured we would forego that for this month. There were no changes. The hot item on the table is the LDC amendments, but after the LDC amendments are heard by the appropriate bodies and after you make your recommendations on the ordinances today that are back on the table, we would then update that chart. There were no amendments, so we just didn't include it in your packet. It was absolutely the same from last month. That was the only comment there, although I would defer to Ron. I noticed after the chart, there were some pages dealing with the C-4 district. And I didn't know if you wanted to make specific comment about those that were included with the chart. MR. NINO: We want to talk about -- MR. CAUTERO: Well, I didn't know if you wanted to talk about that now or if you want to talk about it under the LDC subcommittee report. This particular page was isolated for some reason, floor area ratio, I believe. MR. NINO: Yeah, it should have been. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. Well, we can talk about it under the subcommittee report then. You can disregard that remark. Those are the only comments I had under A, under the summary of ordinance amendments. We're in the process right now. As I said, they're working their way through the system. Okay. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question. When you say they're working their way through the system, I know we had a timetable set forth. What's the current timetable for approval this cycle by the BCC? MR. CAUTERO: I'll leave that to either Bob or Ron to answer. MR. NINO: Tonight is the hearing of the planning commission, the 17th is the second one, the BCC will view it on May the 30th, and June 15th. MR. PEEPLES: Okay. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. That was summary of the Page 3 May 3, 2000 ordinances. MR. LONGO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, Dino. MR. LONGO: Page five of the summary sheet, under the last item, vegetation removal protection and preservation standards. There was no recommendation noted for that from DSAC. MR. NINO: The reason for that is because I was unclear after your last meeting whether or not you had dealt with it. And I determined that, indeed, you did and that it was part of that amendment and we should have filled that space in. We should have filled that space in that you agreed and concurred with staff. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So it was just a clerical error, Ron, that that was not in there? MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And along the same line, Dino, on the first page, the third item from the top, that one also is blank. That on is the FAR, floor area ratio, that is part of the package here today. That's why that one is not filled in. MR. NINO: And we're going to talk about that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Any other comments on the summary of ordinance amendments? Nope. Okay. We'll move on. Hurricane risk map. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman and committee members, this was an information item only in your packet. We can certainly answer questions if you have them. This map was given to our building department director by staff at the Florida Building Commission, and I thought it would be important for you to have. It shows the average miles per hour that have been -- wind miles per hour, gauges that have been calculated by staff working for the Florida Building Commission, and is being used in the development of the, specifically hurricane standards for the uniform building code. And a point of debate is -- and I may have to defer that to David, if he doesn't mind, to help me with this a little bit. David Ellis from the CBIA. A point of debate among some of the coastal counties is the amount of land that is being covered in the 120 to 130 mile an hour band rather than at 110 and 120. And I just included it for your information here. I don't know if revisions to this map were made. This map is Page 4 May 3, 2000 at least two months old. MR. ELLIS: Right. I'm David Ellis with the CBIA. What's happened is, of course, this has all become a political process in Tallahassee, and it's been the football going back and forth about what wind standards are going to be developed as probably the most complicated part of that negotiation. I got an Email today at 12:15 that the House and the Senate had both passed the building code with no reference to the map, and I made an immediate phone call and have yet to be told what exactly that they were actually experimenting with, instead of using this map for a standard, but going in at the 1,500 feet. And there were all kinds of things going back and forth. But the essence of it was whether or not shutters would be required or they would allow homes to be designed for internal pressures, different things, but it all related back to basically window protection. At your next meeting, I'll happily bring all the information. You know, and, Vince, you know, just for your information, if you'd like, they told us they were going to prepare a summary report. Basically here's what happened. The one thing I do know is the new statewide unified building code takes effect July 1st of next year. So it's a year and several months away. But that's real soon in terms of planning and adjusting for what we're doing. So there's a lot of things on the table. That was one thing that had been agreed upon. I'll keep you posted. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino. MR. LONGO: That was one of the provisos in the bill that passed the other day. Part of that bill also, they're going to be looking at changing those standards to a certain degree and basically designing internal pressures, so forth and so on. So even though it's set to go into effect July 1st, next week, 2001, it may or may not. But plan on it just in case. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, there's been a lot of discussion, certainly in the architectural community, about what this does. And I think that the primary impetus behind increasing the wind pressure zones on the coast is driven by the insurance companies to try to lower their exposure and their cost. And you're right, David, it has real political in football. Page 5 May 3, 2000 MR. ELLIS: The true issue became that they were going to develop higher standards, through the window protection or internal pressures, all these things. But what -- frankly it became a fight over, well, if we're going to design these standards and make them much safer, there ought to be some type of rebate back to the consumer in the form of lower payments on the insurance. The insurance industry wasn't wild about that part of it, but apparently that was part of the agreement. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good. So this map is general information. MR. CAUTERO: General information. And if you have no objection, I would like to put the uniform building code on the agenda next month, and I'll coordinate with David on the backup information. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Excellent idea. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question. What's the impact going to be on Collier County, particularly development services, with the passage of this bill? MR. CAUTERO: The only impact that we've been able to substantiate at this point is the fact that we will be responsible to put -- additional impact, I shouldn't say -- MR. PEEPLES: Right. MR. CAUTERO: -- other than additional training costs that we're going to have to bear for the code books themselves, and training and so forth, the only significant impact that I'm able to ascertain at this point is the fact that we're going to be inspecting all education facilities. And we have asked for new inspectors, and that's coming up later in the agenda. MR. PEEPLES: When you say inspecting, retroactively everything that's in existence now? MR. CAUTERO: No. MR. PEEPLES: Just going forward, all new construction? MR. CAUTERO: Going forward from that point on, any new construction. Now, if there's something under construction, I don't know how the legislation will read. But anything prospective, new construction, from a date forward, we would be responsible for. For example, if a school is built today, the inspectors from the Board of Education and the state regions department, whatever it's called, will handle that. We don't. We don't have anything to do with the inspection of school facilities. Page 6 May 3, 2000 We will under the uniform building code. We will be inspecting the school board's product. MR. PEEPLES: Facilities? MR. CAUTERO: Facilities. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino. MR. LONGO: One of the significant impacts that we will have on community development services is that we will no longer be able to change our local ordinances unless they go through the state. MR. CAUTERO: I don't think -- I don't know if that's an impact on the community development department. It's a community-wide impact. MR. LONGO: That's what I mean. But like our subcommittee for codes and construction will virtually be nil, except if we have something that we want to go to the state with. We just can't change it locally. So we'll have to go through the state. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That would mean then that the local ordinance modifications we've made to, like, the '97 standard building code simply will not exist. We'd comply with the new state uniform (sic) building code and its statewide amendments. MR. LONGO: No. I have to correct you. It's unified building code. We've been corrected a number of times. Yes, and that -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Excellent. MR. PEEK: A follow-up question about Vince's comment concerning the inspection of the education facility. Will that mean the inspection of the entire facility for all aspects or just for this wind criteria? You started doing plumbing, electrical, structural, the whole, the entire -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes. The entire package, yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: The State of Florida Department of Education uniform building code inspection program is simply going to cease to exist. I happen to be licensed as a DOE, UBCI, and that simply is -- that program is going to go away. The thought behind it is it's just a -- it's just another section in the building code, and DOE has inserted its sections into the unified building code so that all of that will be under the auspices of the county then. No other issues there. We have an item, miscellaneous. MR. CAUTERO.' Just a couple of things real quick. Blair and Page 7 May 3, 2000 Charlie Abbott have asked for excused absences today. And also in the event that some members may be unaware, the county manager yesterday had a reorganization plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners. He recommended to the board that a new transportation division be created, and the board approved that unanimously. Most of the departments in the existing public works divisions will remain intact, and that division will be called public utilities, which is the old terminology going back to 1995. My understanding is the storm water management department will go into the new transportation division, and the transportation operations function will be split out, as well as the public works engineering function will be split out. There will, in essence, be two engineering departments with different titles, one in public utilities and one in transportation. The metropolitan planning organization, which is the transportation planning unit in this county, will shift to the transportation division, and a new transportation planning department will be formed, and the NPO will become a unit of that department. So this division would not be responsible for transportation planning any longer. We will have a link, of course, between comprehensive planning and transportation planning departments, but that's a major component of the reorganization. A piece of the organization that affects us as well that I will talk about in the budget later is the cashiering function. The department of revenue will not function the way it does today. Most of their staff members will become the finance department of public utilities. A piece of their department that does EMS billing will go to EMS, and a very small number of employees that handle the cashiering function will come and work in community development, so it will be seamless for the user of the system, but the majority of that department will be vacating the building and they'll be part of another division, public utilities. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good. Thank you. Old business. Item A is weed, litter, and exotics ordinance. Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. The ordinances have been before you several times, and the Page 8 May 3, 2000 last subcommittee meeting, they approved it as submitted, and the change that's being presented is to remove the requirement for containment areas on larger parcels. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: In summary-- oh, I'm sorry. You weren't done yet. MS. ARNOLD: There is also a scrivener's error on there that we're correcting now that we caught it. I just recently talked to the county attorney's office, and they're in the process of modifying this ordinance for another reason requested by the board. So we're going to combine those amendments, and it's going to go through at the same time, which we're expecting about the first meeting in June. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: What are those modifications that the board is asking for? MS. ARNOLD: With respect to enforcement of the weeds, weed section. They've asked for more of an expedited process than is currently being done. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And that's their only revision, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. MR. CORREA: What's presently (sic) mean? MS. ARNOLD: Currently what we do to notify the property owners when there's a violation of excessive weeds is we send out a certified notice of violation, and that typically takes about -- we give them 20 days, but it's -- it takes, you know, roughly 40 days for the whole process, you know, receipt of notification that they've gotten our letter, and then if they haven't done anything in the appropriate time frame, we have to give the contractor that we've hired so many days to do it, so it takes quite a long time. And there are other communities in the state that are doing things a little bit different. Marco is an example of one where they put in a public notice in the general publication annually to notify the public of the requirement to maintain your weeds lower than 18 inches, and then after that, then they post the property for 10 days, or seven days in their case. So we're looking into possibly doing the same thing. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. ELLIS: Is this on building lots? How big a lot is that? Page 9 May 3~ 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Mostly unimproved lots. MR. CORREA: Which would be for what type of size? MS. ARNOLD: It's subdivisions that are already developed. It wouldn't apply to agricultural or unzoned lots. MR. CORREA: That would apply to subdivisions? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. In subdivisions, single-family unimproved lots. MR. PEEK: Doesn't this ordinance pertain only to those lots one acre or larger? MS. ARNOLD: No. This ordinance pertains to -- the ordinance -- the section under the waste management material that's pertaining to containment areas and that type of thing only refers to acre lots and larger. MR. PEEPLES: But the weed control that you're talking about -- MS. ARNOLD: The weed and litter ordinance, yes. The entire ordinance deals with more than what you're seeing today. It also addresses weed control. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question, and maybe it would kind of be proactive instead of reacting this late when it comes in. You're talking about the notice provision and doing an annual posting in the newspaper and then posting on the property, on vacant lots, essentially, for 10 days. The odds of the owners ever getting actual notice under those circumstances are just about zero. Has it been a real problem getting notice to the owners through certified mail? I mean, how -- what's the percentage of returns that you're getting? MS. ARNOLD: There is no problem -- well, there is a problem with them getting notice. Certified mail process takes a lot longer than the regular mail, obviously. And the bigger problem of notification is out-of-town property owners, not out of the county as much as out of the country. And I think what the county commission is asking them to do is, why are we having to notify people over and over and over again of an ordinance that we've already given them notice once before. Many of these are repeat occurrences, and we -- the way the process is now, we give them notice every single time. Even though we -- Marco is shaking his head. He knows. We spend a lot of time telling these people the same thing over and over. Page 10 May 3, 2000 MR. PEEPLES: How much is the fine or the charge for the county coming in and clearing the lot? MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's $145. MR. PEEPLES: Per time? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PEEPLES: It seems like that kind of covers the cost of postage. My concern, Michelle, in all honesty, is I'm afraid that people will never get notice. MS. ARNOLD: The $45 is what -- MR. PEEPLES: The actual cost -- MS. ARNOLD: -- we pay for the contractor, and $100 administrative. MR. PEEPLES: Penalty. I'm afraid that so many people who have lots might do something about it, and I don't know if-- you're really talking about repeat offenders are the problems. But I'm afraid people won't ever get notice and they'll be hit with a $145 bill, or it might happen on a continuing basis and they're hit with thousands of dollars' worth of mowing charges. MS. ARNOLD: They are right now. MR. PEEPLES: Is the county taking any effort to come in and foreclose on the liens that they get against these parties? MS. ARNOLD: The effort that we're trying to work on right now is not foreclosure, but turning them over to a collection CORREA: ARNOLD: CORREA: agency. MR. MS. MR. there? MS. ARNOLD: MR. CORREA: improved it? MS. ARNOLD: Is this on individual home lots? Single-family lots. And this would be a person who's living No, on vacant lots. Just if the one who owns the lot, he hasn't We don't have a lot of problem with improved property with the weed control. And if we do, we contact the property owner. They generally take care of it if they're there. MR. CORREA: How about the exotic trees? Are you also going for that? In my community some people have pepper trees, some people bamboo trees. MS. ARNOLD: For improved property, no. MR. CORREA: You don't go into that? MS. ARNOLD: No. Page 11 May 3, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo, you had a question? MR. LONGO: I had a question on the weed and litter ordinance on page two where we have the underline. In the first paragraph right underneath including private wells, in bold, it says, all downed trees and vegetative growth contained in such excavated earthen depression shall be so contained to prevent the protrusion of any such growth more than twenty-four inches above the surrounding natural elevation including earthen cover. The way I read that is, they can berm up two feet above surrounding natural elevation and cover the trees and stuff. MS. ARNOLD: It's supposed to be that they can have the containment area 24 inches above the natural grade. MR. LONGO: Natural grade. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. LONGO: And maybe somebody might be able to help me out. Maybe it should read, of any such growth no more than 24 inches. If you want to limit it to 24 inches. MS. ARNOLD: What was requested was that it be put in, the language be put in like that. MR. LONGO: Exactly like that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LONGO: That's fine. MR. MASTERS: It sounds like you can have a branch sticking 24 inches out of the pile. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, you can. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: I want to be sure that I'm understanding what this is proposing is that you can put it in a pit but you don't have to cover it up; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. MS. ARNOLD: And the pit -- the material in the pit can stick up 24 inches above natural grade. MR. KUCK: The natural grade. The thought being, as it decays, that 24 inches will battle south, because you lose, over a five-year period, about 50 percent because of the water. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. We need to -- MR. PEEK: Thank you, Michelle. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We need to vote on this. So we'd entertain a motion and a second. Mr. Longo? Page 12 May 3, 2000 MR. LONGO.' She says it's being amended. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It's been amended -- MR. LONGO: For language. MR. PEEPLES: I guess the question is, Michelle, are you asking us to approve it this -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PEEPLES: -- notwithstanding the fact that the county attorney's office is going through their own -- MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. They're doing something else. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. So I'd entertain a motion if there is one. MS. LAM: Motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sally. Sally has a motion. MR. CORREA: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Correa has a second. Further discussion? No. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? (No response.) Hearing none, it passes unanimous. Next is your citation ordinance. Michelle, is that you as well? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. This you've also seen the graphing for. It allows us to open up the ability to cite to all their codes and ordinances. This went before your subcommittee. And they -- I don't remember. Did you guys deny it or approve it? MR. PEEK: We denied it, I think. MS. ARNOLD: I think you denied it. I can't recall now. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek has a comment. MR. PEEK: I'd speak to the proposal. I'm one that's opposed this expansion of the police powers of the development services unit. I think that's, in fact, what we're trying to create. I think there were some specific areas that it has proven to be satisfactory, but I think to move beyond that it is, in fact, creating a new police force for development services, and I don't believe that's what development services is about. I think there are other means and remedies to those particular problems that have been used in the past and should be followed in the future. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. And who's on the Page 13 May 3, 2000 subcommittee that was -- was in review of this ordinance? Which subcommittee was it? MS. ARNOLD: It was the land use subcommittee. MR. PEEK: I was on it. Bob Lange. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Bob. And the recommendation from the subcommittee was for a denial? MR. PEEK: I think it was denial. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think it was denial. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question for Michelle. And I think we did this once before in the full committee, but -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PEEPLES: Why do you want the code development to have police powers over all ordinances? MS. ARNOLD: We have currently police power over all ordinances. We are asking for the ability to -- we enforce all the codes and all the ordinances of the county. We already have that ability. We're not asking for that with this ordinance. What the citation ordinance gives us the ability to do is, rather than just issuing a notice and asking for time to correct when they repeatedly do the same violation, it gives us the ability to cite or write a ticket, in other words, for repeat violators. MR. PEEPLES: You currently have the authority to do that for the LDC and these listed, the ones that have been stricken? MS. ARNOLD: Right. And what asking for is to have the ability for all ordinances. MR. PEEPLES: Is there anything in here that says that it's only in the situation of repeat offenders? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it says that. And it has a schedule that says, in the event of a first offense -- it's on page four. MR. PEEPLES: Yeah, I see that. MS. ARNOLD: It's a hundred, the second offense is 250, and the third offense -- MR. PEEPLES: That's what raised the question in my mind. If you have the ability to cite or fine on a first offense, that sounds likes it's not what you're saying, of multiple repeat offenders. In other words, I can understand if you have the same property and you cite that property weekly or monthly, feeling the need to go in and do something more to actually find them. Page 14 May 3, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PEEPLES: But this says on the first offense. MS. ARNOLD: That's the first offense after-- all our violations have to be -- you've got to give appropriate notice and time to correct. Every violation. MR. CORREA: What's the time period involved? MS. ARNOLD: Depends on the violation. MR. CAUTERO: If I may -- correct me if I'm wrong, Michelle -- technically the language in here that says first offense on page four isn't the first -- MS. ARNOLD: No, it's not. MR. CAUTERO: -- notice of violation. MR. PEEPLES: It's not the first notice? MR. CAUTERO: Right. It's after the first notice of violation that's been returned and -- MR. PEEPLES: And the failure to correct? MR. CAUTERO: -- the failure to correct, and then you have to go through the legal remedy of being able to cite them consecutively, first, second, and third offense, and then thereafter. So the first offense here isn't the first time you've parked a truck illegally in your driveway. Theo -- not theoretically. We should have cited you for that. It should have gone through a process, and you would have abated that violation, then we'd come back and you'd have the same vehicle in the same spot in the same driveway. That's where this is headed. MS. ARNOLD: If you read through the ordinance, under citations and notice to appear procedures, it kind of goes through the process that we have to go through, and, you know, that we have to give everyone appropriate notice, and that's notice of violation, and tells you you have to give them first. In here it says a minimum of five days to correct, and it could be 30 days, it could be more than that, and we have the ability to extend it if somebody is working in good faith to correct the violation. These -- this ordinance gives us the ability to cite someone where, you know, they have already been notified, they've already corrected the violation, they're doing it again, and they're continuing to do it over and over again. MR. CAUTERO: We want you to focus on repeat offenders Page 15 May 3, 2000 because that's one of the major problems we have in dealing with this ordinance -- with all ordinances. MR. PEEPLES: I understand that. I'm a little concerned about it being applied to people who aren't repeat offenders. And currently-- MS. ARNOLD: We cannot do that. MR. CAUTERO: We can't do that. MS. ARNOLD: We can't do that. MR. CAUTERO: And we apologize if we've created confusion there. This is only for repeat offenders. And the reason -- MR. PEEPLES: Repeat being second-time offender? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. You have to do it at least twice for it to be considered a repeat offender. And technically, Michelle, if I'm correct, on page four where it says schedule of violations and penalties under section 11, number 2, first offense really isn't the first offense. MS. ARNOLD: It's the first repeat offense. MR. CAUTERO: It's the first repeat offense. So the reason for the ordinance amendment proposal simply is, we want to be able to have the ability to abate violations in a more timely fashion. And the reason we're doing that is because the frustration level has risen to the point where, with the board of county commission, is that they're relying on us to come up with any remedy we possibly can. They have repeatedly told the county manager's office, and they have repeatedly told Michelle and myself that they are unsatisfied with the fact that we keep having people abate violations and, quote, play the game with us. So we brainstormed on how we can possibly do that, and this is a remedy available to us in accordance with the Florida statutes, and that's why we recommended it to you for your consideration. I think Mr. Peek's comments are very well-spoken and taken. You know, we want to be very carefully that we do not become a police department. My theory on code enforcement is that we try to have voluntary compliance all the time, and we are not heavy-handed, but the board has shown us over the past few years that they are becoming increasingly frustrated because their constituents -- especially in Golden Gate, when you talk about commercial vehicle parking, that's just one example -- Page 16 May 3, 2000 those constituents have become increasingly frustrated. And this was just one way we felt we might alleviate some of that frustration. MR. PEEPLES: And, of course, under the current system, if -- we'll use the commercial vehicle in Golden Gate as the example. Somebody is cited for that first offense, they're given the notice and whatnot, they correct it, they move the vehicle, three weeks later it shows up every day in the driveway again. At that point under the new system, you could fine them $100 for this. Under the current system, they would be cited again and they would be required to appear before the code enforcement board? How does the system work? MS. ARNOLD: Well, you could take that approach. You could cite them again and bring them before the code enforcement. MR. PEEPLES: At which time code -- and I know it may be very time-consuming and therefore not a real viable alternative, but -- MS. ARNOLD: The thing with the code enforcement board is the violation is abated. They're probably not going to spend the time to consider it, because they're considering cases that, you know, are current. We could bring it to them as a repeat violator, and they could fine them as a repeat violator, and then, thereafter, they can assess a penalty of whatever amount. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek had a question. MR. PEEK: In response to that, am I not correct that under the current ordinance, commercial vehicles, for an example, you already have the right to issue tickets there? MS. ARNOLD: We do. MR. PEEK: We have the right in all these areas that have been identified as repeat problem areas. You have the right to issue tickets right now. My opposition is not to what you're doing now. My opposition is to the expansion of those powers to areas that have not been proven to be repeat, thorny situations. MS. ARNOLD: I believe that -- and I don't have that information right now. I believe that you all requested information from me regarding the usage of it, and I also provided you all information as to some of those violations that we can't currently issue citations for that we would like to issue citations, and -- Page 17 May 3, 2000 MR. CAUTERO: So having said that, are there thorny issues? MS. ARNOLD: There are some. MR. CAUTERO: Maybe we need to specify those in a better way. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I can't think of -- some of the examples that I brought up in that memorandum that I prepared for you, but one that's comes to my mind is not a serious -- I mean, it is a serious violation for someone like the sheriff's office or the emergency services office -- someone with a house number, that they just fail to put their house number up on their home or the appropriate location, and we've asked them repeatedly to do it. And you know, we're working with 911 services, for example, to try to get more compliance in that respect. We have no recourse other than to notify them. And if we want to bring them before the code enforcement board, that would be something that we can do. But this is -- this -- you know, maybe the ability to cite them would encourage them to go get a $20 number at the hardware store rather than waiting and going through this lengthy process that we currently have to do. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ms. Lam, you had a comment? MS. LAM: Michelle, are most of the issues that are brought to you because other people have called in? In other words, do you go out looking for things or, on balance, do people call in and say -- MS. ARNOLD: The majority of our complaints are reactive, you know, we get calls, but we do do proactive patrol as well, and we're asked by the board of county commissioners to do more proactive patrolling right now. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peeples, you had another question? MR. PEEPLES: Yeah. I guess it's just a comment, and that is, notwithstanding your frustration -- because obviously there are problems with the system or else you would not have brought this forward. I like the idea of trying to identify where some of those areas lie and addressing them directly and expanding the ordinance to include specific areas as opposed to very broad issues. The example given of house numbers, you know, my personal feeling is, if there's not a house number and you cite somebody and they don't put it up, you cite them again, if you make them go before the code enforcement board, they're going Page 18 May 3, 2000 to put it up. I mean, otherwise, I assume the code enforcement board will say, you haven't put it up, you need to get it up within a specified period of time or you will be fined. They're not going to go back out and take those numbers back off, I wouldn't think. And some of the things that would occur, and using the commercial vehicles as an example, you already have authority to cite that one. MS. ARNOLD: For commercial vehicles we do. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Go ahead, Vince. MR. CAUTERO: No. You were going to speak. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, I was going to ask a question of our subcommittee members. Is there anything that you've heard here today that is different than you've heard before that changes your mind? MS. LAM: Well, at the time I voted to have this go through. My feeling is, if you have codes and code enforcement can't enforce them in some way that makes people pay attention, then there's hardly any purpose in it. The only reason people react properly to traffic violations is because they have a threat of getting a ticket. That's my feeling. And I realize it makes everyone uncomfortable here, but I think most of the codes here are to protect the people who live here in Collier County. That's my feeling. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I guess the reason I asked the question is for myself in support of the work of the subcommittee, and you've reviewed it, and you've already made a recommendation forward to not -- not move this ordinance forward. I just wanted to understand if there was anything different that you've heard this morning -- or this afternoon that has changed your mind on any of those issues. Tom? MR. PEEK: The things that we've discussed here today that would have some impact on my position would be that if we can identify some specific areas. I mean, the house number issue is one that -- yes, that's a matter that should be followed up. And again, we may be able -- as Perry stated, we may be able to identify some specific areas like that that I could support and would see that should be included in the powers that we currently have in code enforcement. But it's just the entire broad spectrum that we were trying to apply this to today that I have a problem with. Page 19 May 3, 2000 And specifically, one of my problems that I have is that the code enforcement officers that issue these tickets have a set of guidelines they go through, but they're not trained law enforcement officers. They haven't been through all the training that law enforcement officers go through that deal with the issuing tickets and other things all the time. So I just say that I don't think that we have been through -- we have that kind of training that would open this up. Plus, I'm just basically opposed to creating a police force within the department. MS. LAM: I think -- didn't Michelle come forward with the information on the amount of training that the people get within this department? And it seemed to me that they had gotten some pretty good training. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino? MR. LONGO: I just want to make a comment. I've got to kind of agree with Sally. I think if you have codes -- with no disrespect to Tom -- that if you're in violation and you can't get them enforced, then we have to do something to enforce them. I think a ticket does that. I think it also takes a burden off code enforcement review by bringing someone in for a house number when you can just issue the ticket, and for a hundred bucks, they're going to go out and buy the four or five dollars' worth of numbers. And if there's the response on that ticket that says, if you don't pay your ticket, just like for a traffic ticket, then, you know, they take your license away, you get the points. I don't know what our severe penalties are for not a paying ticket. But I briefly read through this, if you don't pay your ticket, you don't show up in court, they get a judgment against your property. For four dollars' worth of house numbers, I think I'd pay the ticket or I'll comply within five days or whatever it said. MS. ARNOLD: And we don't want to become a police force as well. And the way that I look at this is, it's an additional tool for us to -- and we won't -- as you saw in the information that I provided, we don't use citations every day. We don't cite people. We're not just going out and citing people. It's just an additional tool that we'll have to, when we see that it's more appropriate to cite somebody because we think it's going to get results, that's what we'll use. But without that ability right now, you know, we just kind of go through the game with citizens. Page 20 May 3, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Do you have a comment? MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. Obviously given my choice, I would rather have a recommendation of approval than denial. If there's significant interest in visiting it again and giving more information about what ordinances are the thorny ones, if you will, then we'd be glad to do that. If that comfort level isn't there, we can certainly provide more information. I'd rather go in to the board with the recommendation of approval from this committee. MR. PEEPLES: I will agree with what Tom said earlier. If I saw particular ordinances that you are unable to enforce and they've been a problem, I'd be much more inclined to revise the ordinance to include the citation of particular ordinances. And again, this has nothing to do with the way you're running your department. I do recall that you guys are pretty judicious in the way you do citations now on the ordinances that you're allowed to do them. I don't know who is going to follow you in this position some day and, you know, I guess I have a little bit of the fear that Tom does of expanding this to include more than it needs to. And I guess the final statement is in response to Sally and Dino. I was under the impression that there is something in place that would allow you to fine people who don't correct a problem. And unfortunately, it's unwieldy that you have to go through the code enforcement board to do it, but that exists. And I agree if I got a ticket for $100, I'd go put my house numbers on. But I think most of us also, if we got a notice, if we received a notice that if we don't do it we've got to appear before the board and the board is going to fine us or has the ability to fine us, I'd go ahead and get the house numbers. MR. LONGO: That's what they get now. They have to be given a notice -- a 5 to 30-day notice to correct the violation. If they don't correct the violation, then they're given a notice to appear. MR. PEEPLES: Right. MR. LONGO: What she's asking for is -- MR. PEEPLES: I understand that, but are these people being called in before the code enforcement board, and if they are, is the board fining them? And if the board's not fining them, you know, why is that decision being made not to fine these people? Page 21 May 3, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: Typically -- the process to go before the code enforcement board is a very lengthy and costly one. And for simple things like a house number, it's not worth it. It costs the county a lot more money than it's worth, because you've got to send out notices to the property owner in so much time, and we've got to mail out a lot of the documentation that it requires us to mail to the code enforcement board, and then, more than likely, we have cases that are so simple like this, somebody will correct the violation and it will be removed from the agenda, and at least we're getting what we want. MR. PEEPLES: That's my thought. MS. ARNOLD: But the county's expending a lot of money for the value of that compliance. MR. DUANE: I'd like to move that we revisit the ordinance, Mr. Cautero, in further specificity so there will be no other objections. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Bob. I think we were going to move in that direction. Here's a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. LONGO: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo. Any further discussion on the issue to remand this back to staff? Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. Opposed? MS. LAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One opposed. Okay. The next issue on our agenda here is rental registration ordinance. Boy, you just get to stand up there for a long time. MR. CAUTERO: Before Michelle begins to talk about that one. Michelle, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first ordinance amendment you talked about today, the weed, litter and exotic ordinance, and this one, we brought to the board under an executive summary asking them if they wanted us to continue or not with those, and obviously they did on the first one, the weed, litter, exotic ordinance, and their wish was to have the language revert back to the old language, and officially voted to support that recommendation today. And I believe on the rental registration, they did not follow the DSAC's recommendation, and we did carry forward your recommendation that the entire section of the ordinance Page 22 May 3, 2000 requiring rental registration be removed. I don't recall if that was a unanimous vote, but the majority of the committee recommended to the board that the board do that. The board did not follow that recommendation, and they went as far as to ask us to continue with this ordinance amendment, which changes the fee structure for rental registration -- registration of rental units, excuse me, which was against your recommendation, and that's why it's before you again today. Is that correct -- MS. ARNOLD: That is correct. MR. CAUTERO: -- what I just said? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek. MR. PEEK: A question. When it was presented to the board of county commissioners, were they made aware that it costs more to administer the ordinance than your collecting? MR. CAUTERO: I don't remember if we said that verbally. We talked to the board about the fact -- MS. ARNOLD: I think we gave them all the information that this committee got. MR. CAUTERO: Right. I believe we had that in the executive summary. But Mr. Peek, they were in no mood that day to talk about it. They were very adamant in their decision-making at the beginning when they adopted this ordinance amendment. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: In all due respect, there may have been some information in the backup, and I agree that they were not wanting to spend a lot of time on that. But I believe the staff representation was that the committee had always been opposed to the ordinance, and that was kind of the reason why we opposed it this time. And I think Mr. Peek's comment is well taken. We didn't believe it was cost-effective. And I don't think any of us are going to change our recommendations on this particular ordinance, but I would ask you that, verbally, if you can make it clear that we did not see the nexus between the cost and the benefits on this ordinance. And with that, I would like to move that we recommend denial of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's a motion. Got a second? MR. PEEK: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Other comments? Page 23 May 3, 2000 MR. CORREA: How does this relate to the trailers in Immokalee? Can anybody tell me? MR. CAUTERO: The ordinance states that if anyone is registering -- excuse me. If anyone is renting a residential structure they are supposed to have a registration on file for the person who's responsible for the unit. It was a code enforcement mechanism the board adopted in 1996, I believe. MS. ARNOLD: For each unit, if it's a rental park, it would be by the park, not by the unit. MR. CORREA: Okay. So-- MS. ARNOLD: And similarly to multi-family complexes, by the complex, rather than the unit. MR. CORREA: Okay. MR. DUANE: We have a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Motion and a second for denial. All those in favor of the motion say aye? All those opposed? (No response.) Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Subcommittee reports. Land development regulations. Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: We did not meet, but we have a continuation of several items that we did not have a consensus on in our last meeting, so I suggest we turn the floor over to Mr. Nino. He's going to discuss hotels as well as several other ordinances. MR. NINO: I was of the opinion that -- Ron Nino, for the record. I was of the opinion that your concern with our proposal was to eliminate reference to dwelling units per acre in regards to hotels and institute a floor area ratio, and that floor area ratio of .45 did not provide you with adequate assurance that, in fact, it would equate with the 26 units per acre. And, Bob, your committee asked us to make some comparative analysis, and we did that. And that study's before you. And as it works out, I think your concerns were well taken, because three of the last five hotels that were built in the county exhibit floor area ratios higher than 0.45. We went a step further and we asked the city to provide us Page 24 May 3, 2000 with the floor area ratio of the Hilton and Staybridge. And it turns out that the Hilton was at .77; the Staybridge is at 0.71. But appreciate, those floor area ratios in the city produced 47.8 units per acre with respect to the Hilton, and 45.7 units with respect to the Staybridge. Now, that ought to be apparent to all of us that the board might be receptive to a floor area ratio, but if they determine that that floor area ratio is going to end up permitting 30 or 40 rooms, or -- you know, 40 to 50 rooms per acre, we're probably going to have a problem. So I agree that there is some room here between the .45 that we initially recommended. We agree that that, perhaps, will have difficulty producing the 426 units per acre as evidenced by the survey that we gave you. So Bob and I chatted about this over the phone, and, quite frankly, we both -- we both at the same time said, how would you feel about .6. And I asked Bob earlier, and Bob didn't have a problem with it, so we're prepared to suggest to you that more adequate floor area ratio of .6. MR. DUANE: I move .6. MR. MULHERE: Can I just add one thing to that? Part of the discussion that we had related to the type of hotel that generally ends up having a higher floor area ratio, there are -- there are hotels that are strictly room hotels, maybe interchange hotels, convenience hotels. They don't generally have a real high floor area ratio. They're also on smaller parcels. But hotels that we see more of here with some sort of amenities, all the way up from a full-functioning resort down to even an interchange that have some amenities to attract the travelling public, they generally require a higher floor area ratio. I mean, there is a rationale behind it. It wasn't simply a question of doing the formula. We recognize that, you know, if you're going to have a swimming pool, some tennis courts, a few other things, maybe some retail, you're going to have a little higher floor area ratio. Point six seems to work pretty well. MR. NINO: Appreciate that the floor area ratio does include a restaurant, if a hotel has a restaurant. Even if it's in a separate building, we will include that in the floor area ratio. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. NINO: And that, in fact, was the way the floor area ratio was derived for the new Ramada. That included the restaurant Page 25 May 3, 2000 as well. MR. DUANE: And all conference areas. MR. NINO: And all conference areas, meeting rooms, indoor swimming pools. Air-conditioned space. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Perry. MR. PEEPLES: I mean, we're talking about floor area ratios as a better way to do this. Is there some sort of hard cap that you guys don't want to go beyond on permitting rooms per acre? MR. MULHERE: Well, if we get into that discussion, I think that -- our experience in the past is that the board doesn't want to go much above where they're at. I don't think it's going to be a big part of the discussion. MR. NINO: It's 26, by the way. MR. PEEPLES: But is that hard cap going to remain? MR. MULHERE: No. MR. NINO: We hope not. MR. MULHERE: It would go on .6, which may allow -- MR. NINO: We hope not. MR. MULHERE: It would depend on what type of hotel you're building. If you're building a small interchange hotel with fairly small rooms, you may be able to exceed 26 units per acre at .6. If you're building a resort hotel with a significant number of suites, which seems to be the trend, you could have lower. And it has the same floor area ratio, just lower units. MR. PEEPLES: I understand that. My concern is, by changing this, you know, you're -- I don't know how to say this. By trying to be more fair, you end up putting yourself in a position where somebody could take advantage of it and really just max out the number of rooms per acre on the type of project that you're not really planning for at this point. MR. MULHERE: I don't think we really have that concern. We have a minimum size unit established. Minimum is 300 -- MR. NINO: And I'm sure there are hotels with even much higher floor area ratios than that cited. You appreciate the Ritz and the Carlton (sic) are way above those. They're unique -- and they're permitted by PUDs, which are allowed to do that. We're talking about a standard run-of-the-mill hotel basically. MR. MULHERE: But I would state -- MR. NINO: And one of the problems we have is the people Page 26 May 3, 2000 will play games with us. You know, the ordinance now provides for 26 units, and they can be suites. And these suites end up, somehow or other, being rented out as individual rooms, and we don't want to play that game. We just want to say, here's the box you can build. Put as many rooms in there as you think is necessary for your marketing. MR. MULHERE: Not exactly. MR. PEEPLES: Because that creates traffic. MR. MULHERE: Wait, wait, wait, not exactly. Because we do have -- MR. NINO: There's a minimum floor. There is a minimum. MR. MULHERE: We do have a minimum floor area ratio at 300 square feet, and beyond that, the limitations are the normal limitations, which are parking, water management, building height, setbacks. So, you know, we don't have that concern, I don't think. I mean, it's true that you could achieve more under the 300 minimum or less if the size of the units are bigger, but I don't think we're going to get, you know, 70 or 80, so I don't think you can assume -- MR. PEEPLES: With the hotel that comes in with a minimum floor area per room at 300? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can calculate that. MR. PEEPLES: And you're comfortable that the .6 floor area ratio won't allow some monstrosity? MR. NINO: Yes. MR. DUANE: We have a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We do. MR. NINO: Well, the answer to that, is the Hilton or the Staybridge a monstrosity? They're run-of-the-mill hotels. Their floor area ratio is .77, .71. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. And your market is going to drive a certain amount of that in Naples as well. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: First of all, let me disclose that I am going to abstain from voting because of a conflict. Our firm represents La Playa Limited Liability Company, which may be affected by this ordinance change, and I have a conflict form that I'll be filing and filling out presently. However, that does not cause me to waive my first amendment rights to speak. I'm concerned that these examples that we've gotten are all Page 27 May 3, 2000 really largely a businessman's, businesswoman's hotel. And we are going to, perhaps, preclude the ability of a resort hotel like the Ritz -- and we have one being built inland now -- from being able to go forward. Because when you come in with a new PUD, county staff and the planners and the private sector, they all look to, what does the land development code provide for the most similar zoning district. And this .6 is going to become embedded in stone and will preclude in the future a resort hotel from being able to be built, and I'm not sure that we want to do that. I understand the problem you're trying to solve. MR. MULHERE: You said will preclude. Did you mean to say may preclude? MR. ANDERSON: May preclude. MR. MULHERE: Because I think we haven't done that calculation, but we certainly could. MR. DUANE: I would take exception with that also. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Depends upon your land area and what you're trying to do with the project and what the resort consists of. You know, I mean, it could be that it's quite low for that type of resort and the amenities that you want to provide. MR. MULHERE: I think we could do that calculation on the Ritz, the Registry, the Marriott. MR. NINO: I think the .6 already does that. MR. MULHERE: How difficult would it be to do the calculation? MR. NINO: On the Ritz? MR. MULHERE: The Ritz, Registry, The Marriott? MR. NINO: They're unique to PUDs, and a PUD can provide for its own floor area -- I hear what you're saying. MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm saying. For the purpose of addressing the issues, to see if .6 is appropriate for a resort, we can select several resort-type hotels and do that calculation. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, that would be -- I mean, I'm just concerned that we're not making a factually-based -- MR. MULHERE: I can appreciate where we are. MR. ANDERSON: -- number here. MR. MULHERE: It's really a simple exercise. MR. ANDERSON: Or maybe you distinguish between a business traveller hotel and resort. MR. NINO: Both the Ritz and the Carlton (sic) -- both the Ritz Page 28 May 3, 2000 and the Registry are way over 26 units per acre, you know. So either this or you go back to 26 units per acre, and the Ritz and the Carlton are -- they've got to be 50 to 60 units to the acre. Get real. MR. DUANE: In deference to Mr. Anderson, I'm still comfortable with the .6, but I don't have a problem if the ordinance makes a distinction for, you know, larger multi-purpose, you know~ mixed use resort-type facilities, you know, may be reviewed, you know, on a case by case basis. You know, you're correct, because those might be taking 30, 40, 50 acres. Who's to say whether the hotel is 10 acres or 20. And I'm inclined to go with the .6, and if we come up with some language to say that it's recognized through PUD zoning, there may be some exceptions to that. MR. MULHERE: I think that's the way to do it. MR. DUANE: I don't have a problem with that. Would that solve your concern, Mr. Anderson? MR. NINO: We'd be happy to come back at your next meeting. We don't have a timeline. MR. MULHERE: I think that Bob's suggestion is a good one. If we put some language in there that recognizes that the board may approve through PUD format a higher floor area ratio for resort-type, we can define that. We could work on that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So would your motion amend to accept that language? MR. DUANE: Sure. I'll amend my motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Second as well? Who was the second on that? MR. MASTERS: I'll second as amended. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Now we have a motion and second. MR. ANDERSON: That's a good idea. May I suggest another alternative to include with that, and that is the opportunity to get around whatever the floor area ratio is by a conditional use in the RD district? MR. MULHERE: That's another thing to consider, yeah. Bruce, you're full of ideas. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm full of something. MR. MULHERE: Okay. We'll work on that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. NINO: Was there any other aspect of that section that Page 29 May 3, 2000 you had a concern about? That goes to minimum floor area, I believe, and increased setback. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think we were just ready to call the question. MR. NINO: Well, there was some other aspects of it. There was an increased setback requirement for the C-4 in the RD district from 25 plus one for every 50 feet over 50, which produces a 75-foot setback versus what is currently 37 and a half feet. MR. DUANE: But most of those structures are set back much further than that. MR. NINO: And I think we told you at our last meeting, that that comes at the urging of a commissioner who is looking for a greater setback on these 100-foot buildings. MR. PEEK: I think we agreed to that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That was accepted at that point. Okay. So a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye, please. Opposed? (No response.) Hearing none, it passes unanimously. MR. ANDERSON: I abstain. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And one abstention. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. DUANE: I'd like the record to reflect that I represent no hotels. MR. CORREA: But he's available. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Mr. Cautero has advised me that there's a board meeting. MR. CAUTERO: Fringe committee meeting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Committee meeting that we've got a number of people that need to get off to, so with everyone's concurrence, we're going to remand the -- is it remand or-- MR. CAUTERO: Delay. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- delay the new business item, fiscal year 2000/2001 budget to next meeting, because there's no urgency for that at this point. So two items to go here. We'll see if we can get them done quickly. Construction code subcommittee. Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, we did not meet, and we have nothing on the agenda so far. Page 30 May 3~ 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: MR. PEEK: 25th. MR. KUCK: MR. PEEK: MR. KUCK: Thank you. Utility code. Mr. Peek. We did not meet. Our next meeting will be the Right. The afternoon of the 25th. And I might add that I did a central mailing out to, I think, 45 engineering firms and provided them with standard details. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Excellent. Thank you. Some of our architectural firms around would like to have those details as well, Mr. Kuck. That brings us down to committee member comments. Let's see. Mr. Savage isn't here, so maybe this will go promptly. Oh, that's recorded, isn't it? I apologize to Herb when he reads this. MR. PEEK: You can put that in bold, too. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any comments around the table? MR. PEEPLES: I have one comment. Since Mr. Savage is not here, he made me go bring a 1938 University of Florida yearbook. If anybody would like to see what Herb looked like 62 years ago, he's kind of goofy looking. His freshman year of college. I wish he were here to see it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DUANE: So moved. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And a second? All those in favor. MR. MASTERS: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Anyone opposed? (No response.) Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DALAS D. DISNEY, CHAIRPERSON Page 31 May 3, 2000 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 32 Sent b~:S~annep 1/2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR.:: _ COUNTY, MUNICIPAL; AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS,, WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the c~nty, city, cr other local level ~,! government on an appointed or electe:l boarU, courteli, commission, a~horit¥, ot committee, tt applies equally to members of ad¥;.scry and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest u~3de; Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, Your I'esponsibilities us.Jar Ihe law when faced with re. ting on a measdre in whi=h you have a -..earlier of interest will very greatly depending on '.vhe!her you hcld an electi¥'e or sppo!ntive po~ition. For this reason, please pe.y close atlenlio~ 1o the i.-.st~ctions on lhi~ Iorm before sempe-ting the reverse side and !tllr~ 1he IOrlTL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person he!dine elective c; acpointive county, municipal. cr other local public office MUST A85TAIt,I from voti,~j on a measure wnlch i~ut~s to his or her specie! p~ivste gantt or loss. Each elected or appointed IDea| officer alce is proh:'bited from kno~vingly v(Xir, g on a meao SUm w~ich inures to ~t~e special gain o~ loss of a p,'incipal (other than a government ager~-'y) by' whom he or she i~ retained (h~cl~ding the pa~ent o-ganiza[ion o~ subsidiary' of a corporate principal by v~,,i~..h he or sloe is retained); to the spec~a; private gain or Ios,~ ot a relative: or lo the special private 3a~n or loss c~ e business e~socia~e. Commissioners of communl~ mdeveopment a§encies under Sec. 163355 or 163.357, F.S., and cfficer-J of k~dependant sp~ia! tax districts elected o.~ e ons..acre. one-vote basis ~re not pr~hibimd fm~ voting in that ¢~acity. Fo~ purpc4es el this law, a "{elative" mdudes only the officer's father, motha'r. son, daughter. husband. wife. brother. sister. mother-in-!ew. sor~in-lew, and daughter-:.'mlaw. A "business associate' means any person or entity engage~ in or cer~,ir~ o,q a bwslne$$ a~eq3~ise with the officer as a pa~nef, jo'~,~ ve~urer, cOOWhet of prope~', or corporate;S~areholde~ r,~hers the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchsnge). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations desCrlOed above, you must disclose the PF~IOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembty ~e nature or your intere~ ~n the m~nsure on whic~ you ~re sl~t~'fnitlg ~rom voting; and WITEtN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by coml:,lef{ng and filing Ibis form w;-th the parse, respons;b'.e fo~ reco~crmg the utes of t~e meetin[i, who shoul~ incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from ¥o:[ng in ~l~e situations desc~il:ed above, you othecwise may p~rlic~pate i~ these mat:am. ;~towever, you rnu~ dlscto~e the nature of the cor~flicl: be!ore making any aMerfp~ to iqflL:ence the deCiSiof~, whelher orally o~ in writing and whether mede by you or a,' your di~'ection. IF 'YOU Ir,*l'~D TO MAKE ANY ATTEMP¥ TO INFLU£NCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WiLL BE TAKEN: · You mu=t con,plots end file Ih{~; form (b.Ho(e ma~ing any attempt to inl~uen¢~ the decis;on) with the person ra.--:~on.sible for recordin~ the mlnutes el [,he meeting. who will incorporate the IDa's in the minD[es. {Continued on other side) FORM ,"1'3 - F~EV, PAGE 1 ?roe' 941774886~'¥9¢14~32395 P,m~e 2,,'* APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be p~ovlded lmmedialely lo the other members o~ the agency. · The fozm must be read pubF~c~y at the next roesling after the form is !Red. IF YOU I~,KE NO ATTEMPT TO iNFLUENCE THE DECIS[ON EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose ofa.[l? the nature of your conf(ict in the measure before p-~rtlcipating. You must cornpiers lh¢ form and f~e it withiP, 15 days after the vote cccurs with the pe,~on resi:~nsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the Iorm ~ the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediatei7 to the other mer'nt:,er= of the agency, and t~e form mUS: be read publicly at the next meetfng after the Io~m is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFiCER°S iNTEREST (a) A measure came c~ will come before my agency which [check one} ~ inured Io my special private gain or loss; ~ inured to !he specia! gain. or loss o! rny cueincas _.T.~to the special gain or loss of my relative, whom I am ~etaln~; or ~ inured to ~ ~ial gain or ross ot , w~ch h Ihe p~eal organi~ or su~i~a~ of a principal which has retai~d me, r,b) The measure before my agony and the na[ure of my confficling interest in Ihe measure is a3 ~o~1ows: Oa~e F~led Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROV!$1ONS OF FLORIDA STA'rUTE$ §1~2.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLCWING: 6MPEACHMENT: REMOVAL. OR ,SU~PI[N$1ON FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION JN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,OO0. C~. FORM 8B -REV. 1198 PAGE