Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/10/1981 R ,;.I .. Naples, Flori~a, February 10, 1981 . LET IT BE REm:r.1BERED. that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Governing Boardls) of such special districts as have been created according to law ~nd having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9100 ~.M. in Regular Session in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the followin~ members present: CHAIRMAN: John A. pistor VICE-CHAIRMAN: Clifford Wenzel c.n. "nU5S" Wlm~r Mary-Frances Kruse Dav id C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: ~illi~m J. Reagan, Clerk; Harold Hall, Fiscal Officer/Ch~ef Deputy Clerk; Elinor M. Skinner and 'Edna Brenneman (1: 30 P.M.) Deputy Clerb;; C. \'HllL,m Norman, County Manageq Neil Dordll, ^ ministr.ltive lIGsiGtant to the County Managoq Donald Pick\~orth, County Attorney; Irving Berzon, Utilities Director; Clifford Barksdale, Public ~Iorks AdministrDtor/County Engineer; Lee Layne, Planner; Jeffory Perry, Zoning Director; Terry VirtD, Community Development Administra- trator; Thom.1s lIafner, Public Safety Administratoq Rollie Rice, Parks . and Recreation Director; Richard Henderlong, Planner; 'Guy ;;arlton, Tax Collector; Martha Skinner, Social Services Director; Kerry McQuinn and . Tony Pires, AS5ist~nt County Attorneys; Mary Morgan, Supervisor of Elections; Grace Spaulding, Administrative Aida to the Board, Sheriff Aubrey Hogers; and Deputy Chief Ray Barnett, Shedff's Department. ) .~ /JPf11(' OS1 '.leE 37~ Pall_ 1 .~l ~ ':-'~ .-:'.:ti ,,;~ .4 February 10, 1981 " County Commissioners, Constitutional Officers and ^dministrative Staff. . . Administrative Assistant to the Co~ty Managcr Nail Dorrill ,,> introduced Mr. Roger Mitchell from the Naples Optimist Club and he explained that the Naples Optimist Club in conjunction with the Board , of County Commissioners annually holds the "Youth In Government Day.. He asked Kathy Ilone to come forward to accept the proclamation and he introduced the following students designated to observe the following County Commissioners, Constitutional Officers and Admini~trative Staff officers: State Attorney County Ccm~issionprfi - Chairman - Vice-Chairman - Dist. CJ - Dist. 12 - Dist. '5 Parks & Recreation Clerk of Circuit Court Data Processing Animal Control County ~lanager Zoning Director Fiscal Officer Health Officer Public Safety Administrator Sheriff Property Appraiser Tax Collector County Attorney Director of utilities Public Defender Agriculture Director Building Inspector County Eng ineer Planning Director Personnel Director Social Services Director Community Developmcnt Administrator Supervisor of Elections Art Saliras Kathy Bone ',nn Foppl ewell Jackie Turpening Mary Serna Rachelle Kruse Chris Barrot *David Hlltcher Julie Smith Alice Manuel Robbie Condon **Jeft Bvgan , Kim Chercshkoff Mary. Rutherford ***Chri's Fi-nger Sue Krauth Ted Nelson Sheri Lightner Michele Donavan Mario Toro Vicki Muir Todd.Olsen Mary Pergola Cathy Raper Ruth Mills Sheri Byrd Monda Zimmer Nancy Johnson' J. D. Loden The following substitutions were made: *Tina Winkler; ** Bridgct ~chonsy, *** Traci Burntson " , , 'ill ~ , -. ~_378 ~ ' , ..... .", '---'--"'-"-__~______."____'._."_'~'.'__'_"_'O"'.'".0"._..",'" . . February 10, 1981 , ORDINANCE NO. 81-5 RE PETITION R-BO-32C REQUESTING REZONING FROM "RM-2" AND "RM-2ST: TO VARIOUS ZONINGS FOR NU~EROUS MULTI-FAMILY ^RE~S WITHIN THE CAPO - ADOPTED AS AMENDED AND PUBLIC HEI\RING ON PARCEL "M", CON- TINUED FOR 30 DAYS. BUILDING PERMIT MORATORIUM FOR 30 DAYS IMPOSED ON PARCEL "M" Lcgal notice having bccn published in thc Naplcs Daily Ncws on January 9, 1981 as evidcnced by Affidavit of PublicRtion filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider a proposed ordinance re Petition R-80-32C requcsting rezoning from "RM-2" and "RM-2ST" to various zonings for numerous multifamily areas within the Coastal I\rea Planning District. Community Dcvclopment I\dministrator Terry Virta explained that the Board directed the st3ff last spring to examine all "RM-2" property in Collier County and determine whether thcrc may ~e more approprllte zoning classifications for those lRnds. The Planning Department n~rro\;ed the parcel~ to twenty-two (22) specific sites on which detailed analysiG was done including field inspections and examination of past records resulting in a thorough evaluation, he said. Mr. Virta noted that of th~ twenty-two sites, the staff recommended zoning changes on twenty-one (21), and the CAPC reviewed the twenty-two (22) sites on December 18, 1980; further revised the recommendations and recommended the fifteen (l5) sites for zoning changes which are represented on today's agcnda. Mr. Virta explained that in the process of examining the sites, the staff eliminated parcels of land from consideration by using the following criteria: l. Property which was surrounded by "RM-2" zoned land and developed in that category. 2. Lands which wcre under construction on an "RM-2" basis. 'If . 8~~ 059 rACE 108 . ...~~. .' , " . i .. " ....... .; - rQ~059 PAcrI09" '. . .f'" February 10, 1981 . ... .,. . .. 3. 1~ose lands which wcre platted in such a way that they could not be utilized' under the ~aximum limitations of "RM-2" , i.e. although eligi~le for up to 30 dwelling units pcr acre, practically, beC~U5e of size, shape of parcel, etc. developmment to that amount is not possible. Mr. Virta said that a slide presentation would allow the Commis- sioners to examine the parcels of land individually and review the recommended zoning changes for each piece of property. He suggested that on completion of the presentation the staff taKe eac~'site individually and review the specifics in more detail and open that site up for discussion from the public. At the conclusion of the dis- cussion, he said the staff would like a straw vote from the Board for that site and that this process be repeated for the entire fifteen (15) sites, so that if there are amendments to the ordinance these can be made at the time of final adoption later today. Mr. Virta proceeded with the slide presentation with Planner Lee Layne describing the parcels of land and the recommended zoning change for eac;, site. lit the request of Commissioner Wenzel, Ms. Layne explained the present density zoning and the resultant density after the recommended zoning change for each parcel of land. Ms. Layne noted the density for "RM-2" ranges from 9 to 30 units per acre; "RM-l" density is 6.2 units per acre; and "RM-IB" density is 12 units per acre. At the conclusion of the slide presentation, a short discussion followed regarding the clarification for the method of voting for this ordinance. County Manager Norman suggested a solution would'be to have . a motion to adopt the ordinance on tho floor, 'with individual motions to amend the ordinance to be made sho~ld.the Board desir~ to make . . . . .. . .. February 10, 1981 , changes in the recommended zoning designation as the parcels of land are reviewed. Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner . . . Wimer, to adopt the ordinance on the floor sUbJect to amendments. At . . . . . ,. this time, Commissioner Wenzcl stated he felt the cnanges were very liberal and he would prefer the density be cut much lower for the parcels of land, but he would "go along with a half a loaf". Parcel "8" in Little Hickory Shores - From "RM-2" to "RM-l" Planner Richard Henderlong indicated parcel "B" on an overhead board and said the land is currcntly zoned "RM-2" and that properties to the north, east and south are zoned "RS-4", single family, and exirting developmcnt has occurred in those locations. He stated the proposal is to :hange the density to "~M-l", and maximum building height to be three stories. Planncr Lee Layne said the Planning Department had a request yesterday from the petitioner to amend this zoning to "nM-lB" and in response to Commissioner Kruse, Ms. Layne said that designation was discussed by the CAPe but because of the large amount of existing single family homes in the surrounding areas, the recommendation was lcft for "RM-l". . In response to Chairman Pistor, Ms. Laync said a letter had been received requcsting a stay order for this parcel and parccl "N", as the petitioner has no problem \~ith the "RM-1B" designation. Attorney Toby Carroll, representing the land owner, Mr. Jerry Grunnagle, presented a compromise regarding the zoning designations on parcels "D" and "N" in the form of a letter filed some time ago before the Board and the CAPC, a copy of which was rcferred to the County Attorney by Commissioncr Wimer. Mr. Carroll explained the petitioner would agrce to have both parcels zoncd from 30 units to 12 units per . . aoDx 05~ rACE na ......::. ..'.: . > ", ' . . .t. February 10, 1981 .. .'. '8abK 059 PACEm He asked' for' this compromise and an acrc, which would bp. "RM-l~". indication from the Board rather than havc his petitioner oresist the ; Commissioner Wimer noted he change entirely. After a short discussion understood that Mr. Carroll was asking for this compromise rather than to have the petitioner litigate, and Mr. Carroll affirmed this statement. Comm~ssioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse, based on the request'of the petition~r, to amend the ordinance so that parcel "B" will be rezoned "RM-1B", with Commissioner Wimer noting parcel "N" is already designated "RM-1B". County Manager Norman noted Mr. Grunnagle was present and cegistered to speak but Mr. Carroll was representing him. Upon call for the question, the vote was 3/2 with Commissioners pistc: :.nd Wenzel ooposed. Parcel "D" in Sec. 3, T50S, R26E - From "RM-2" to "RM-1B" Planner Layne explained this proposed change, at the CAPC's reco- mendation, is for a deGignation from "RM-2" to "RM-IB", noting the property to the east is GHC, to the wes~ is agricultural, to the south~ast is "GRr", and to the north is "PUD" zoning. Responding to Commissioner Wenzel, Ms. Layne affirmed that "RM-2" density varies from 9 to 30 units ppr acre depending upon the apartment size and this proposal is to take the zoning to "RM-IB" which is 12 units per acre. Also in response to Commissioner Wenzel, Ms. Layno said Jhe did not think a consideration of the original high density zoning was a factor in this zoning evaluation change. She explaincd that, since this , property was directly next to "GRC" zoned proporty, the staff felt a g~rden type, three story zoning would be better than "RM-l", which was the original recommendation and would allow single family, duplex zoning. . - . . . ".'. '. . February 10, 1981 f Commissioner Kruse asked if the staff had heard from the property . owners and if staff was absolutcly sure they had received notification to which Ms. Layne '1nswert;!d affirmatively regarding notification, but she said the owners were not at the hearing and no letters had been received from them. Parcel "E" in Sec. 3, TSOS, R26E - From "RM-2" to "RM-IB" Planner Layne explained this property is next to a commercial, agricu'tur~l, and industrial area and "RM-lB", multi family, would be morc appropriate, than "HM-l". In rcsponse to Commissioner Wenzel, Ms. Layne stated "HM-IO" allows duplexes and clarified that "RM-l" is 6.2 unit~ per acrc while "RM-IO" is 12 units per acre. In re5pOnE! to Com~issioner Kruse, Ms. Layne stated the parcels "D" through "G" are combined under item (2) because their locations are next to each other and not because of ownership. Commissioner Wenzel commcnted he still felt this zoning change was too liberal, as he would be in favor of 6 units pcr acre. Chairman Pistor noted the zoning shollld be consistcnt to avoid spot zoning. Parcel "F" in scc, 3, TSOS, R7.GE - From "HM-2" to "RM-lB" Planner Layne identified this parcel in the same general location as the two previolls sites, an~ added the zoning to the north is com- mercial, to the south is "RM-l", and to east and west is aqricultural, ,. garden type apartments, thus the "RM-IB" zoning designation. Parcel "G" in Sec. 3, TSOS, R26E - From "RM-2~ to "RM-lB" Planner Layne explained this parcel of land as one in the same general location and with thc same type of adjoining zoning as tho three prcvious sites, commercial to the north and west, "RM-l" to the east and south, and also agricultural to the south. Shc noted the .. .. .. ~ . 059 ;Acr~12 . .. '''~.. "'.:'; -- ' .. . ..' ,... .. - , . eaDK Q5~ fAcE ~3 ...' ." February 10, 1981 owner came into the Planning Department~ and he had no objections to "RM-lB" which was recommended by the CAPC. Chairman Pistq.r (;ommentlOd . that there is no access to any of this property to which Ms. Layne agreed stating there is access only to the commercial areas and access would have to be resolved with owners in the future, or there may be something specified in the deeds of which the Planning Department does not have copies. In response to Com:, issioner Wimer, Ms. Layne said there were no contacts from the property owners except the owner of parcel "G". Parcel "I" in Sec. 17. T48S, R2SE - From "RM-2ST" to "RM-1ST- .. Planner Lee Layne identified this parcel as located in the Wiggins Pass area surroundcJ I J the east hy "RM-l" and "RM-ST-, to the west is the Wiggins Pass and the bay area and to the south is "RT" zoning. She said the recommendation is to take it to "RM-lST". In response to this parcel and responding to Commissi~ner Kruse, Ms. Layne said Chairman Pistor, Mr. Norman said no person was registered to speak on nothing had been heard from the property owner. Parcel "J" in Unit lS Marco Beach Subdivision _ From "RM-2- , "RM-2ST"to "RM-l" and "RM-ST" Planner Lee Layne described this parcel which Planner Richard Hend~rlong indicated on an overhead board as located in the Marco area on the way to Goodland. She explained the zoning to the north is "np-, to the east and west is "RS-3", and to the south and southwest is Barfield Bay area and "A-ST". She noted this si~e was one which was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan but the recommended "RM-l- would . be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted Oeltona representatives were at the hearing with objections but staff pointed ',I, ~ . ,. . \ . .. . February 10, 1981 r out.to them that du~ing the Comprehensive plan hearings in 1979 the Company made a rcquest to "take it down" to the 6.2 units per acre. Mr. James Apth~rp, r~presenting Deltona Corporation, explained the company registered a complaint because it is difficult to determine what the future construction and development in this area will be. He said when the Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan the Board noted that in the Marco Shores areas and the parcel "J" area there would be develo~~ent on a certain portion of it and the gross density would be 6.25, and he said Dcltona did their computations based on this area and the area to the south, which is presently agricultural, to obtain a grOtA J&nsity. Mr. Apthorp Rtated he still registered the objection and informed th~ Board that Deltonu Corporation will be back on the question of zoning and density in this area once the permitting has been determined, and he added it is too early to tell if the "RM-l" is appropriate. After a short discussion, Mr. Apthorp responded to Commi~sioner Brown by saying this parcel is part of the Big Key Barfield Bay area which is the subject of the litigati6n, and he stated he felt a better decision would be not to take a zoning action at this time, but defer it until some of the litigatio~ matters are resolved. CommiSSioner Brown moved, in fairness to the petitioner, that zoning action be deferred until some of the litigation matters are resolved. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Pistor asked if this area is zoned "RM-l" and at the time permits are granted if some other type of zoning is more approprlato, could not Deltona ask for that zoning at that time or would this present a hardship? Mr. Apthorp answered that Some of the area Is ..... ~~C:. 059';ACEl1( -"-"-~"'._"'----< . :.a..:..' .. , , , . . > 1,- ., .. ,'. .;.' ...' .. .: . . - ~ . e~;" O~9 .'.-~'''5 wetland, some .5'~al~ perhaps . .f" February 10, 1981 upl<lnd, some a sol"ution would be to take the upland and put morc density on it, but he added these are unknowns . because the Corporation does not know what they will be allo~ed to use in the environmental permitting process. A short discussion followed with Mr. lIpthorp pointing out that at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted the Board indicated that certain areas at Marco Island were the subject of litigation and the sub~ect of permitting, and they would be dealt with at a later time; he added that even though the Board sets <l density here, that "footnote" was made and consistent with that footnote, he wanted the BO<lrd to know that Deltona Corporation will be back to discuss the zonin~ further regardless of the action on the petition before the 30ird today. In response to Commissioner Brown, Mr. ^pthorp said at present the ~ituation is ~aiting for a decision from the court. Commissioner Brown stated he is opposed to passing judgment upon something that is "hung up in the vagaries of the courts". He sfmpathized with the petitioner for the the recorn. Parcel "K" in Sec. 6, T52S, R26E - From "RM-2" t~ "RM-lB" planner Lee Layne described this property, which Planner Hender- long i~di~<lted on the overhead map, known as Point Capri on the south- western edge of Isles of Capri. She stated the zoning t the north is "RS-4", and to thc cast is "R~-2", which is the Marco Tower site. Attorney John Emerson, representing property owners for parcel "K", explained he did not receive a notice of th[s hearing, and rClucsted that the zoning discussion for parcel "K" be deferred until a future date, when he can participate or at least until the noon recess .. of court tod~y, because,h~ ts unable to remain now. , . 1. , -, ~ .....; February 10, 1981 ! In response to Commissioner Wimer, Ms. Layne explained the hearing . notici was sent from the Clerk's office as required by law thirty (30) days prior to the hearing! to whomever is the property owner of record on the tax rolls. Assistant County Attorney Kerry McQuinn stated by law the owner is rcquired to be notified. . . * RECESS: 10:00 A.M. RECONVENE: lO:30 A.M. . * * Ms. Layne ~tatcd the propcrty owner on thc tax rolls who was notified about today's hearing for parcel ~K" by the Clerk's office is Fir~t Service Corporation, located in Akron, Ohio. The letter was sent and returned tc the Clerk's office on January 15, 1901 for "Not Forwardable - Incorrcct Address". Attorney ~lcQuinn stated that if the Planning Department followed legal requirements to give notice that was sufficient. Commissioner \'ienzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that the Board acccpt the staff's recommcndation for zoning change from "RM-2" to "RM-lB" for parcel "K". Commi~sioner Wimcr noted the Board had decidcd not to take a "straw" vote if the Board accepts the recom- mended Zoning. However, he noted in fairness to Mr. Emerson, Commis- sioner Wimer assumcd this item would still bc deferred until the last item in this ordinance discussion until Mr. Emerson was present. Ms. L,)yne concurred. Parcel "L" in Unit 2, City of Golden Gate - From "RM-2" to -RM-IB- Ms. Layne described this parcel, which Plannar Richard Henderlong indicated on an ovcrhcad boald as located in Colden Gate City, which is located east of thc Community Center with property to the north zoned , , . ~ Osg PAtE US , .-: .1 .~- ~ . .' . f ,. .:~:.' '..::.. > . .~ . , , ' .. ., ~ .. BOQ~, Q59 'PACEll'i f' February 10, 1981 RM-l" Qnd "RS-4"; to the east, "RM-lA" and "RS-4"; to the west, "ruM-2. ..~ and "RS-4"; and to the south, "R~-2" with the recommendati~n to "nM-IB". Commissioner Wenzel ~xpressed his opinion that this area never should have been allowed such high density and asked why the current recommendation is not dropped back to 6 units per acre or to duplexes, since the area is completely surrounded by single family hous~s and duplexes. Zoning Director Jeffory Perry stated that before 1974 this area was zoned a medium den~ity, "MF-3" district; when multi-family districts were converted in 1974, five (5) districts were reduced to (2) districts and this ar€a went to a high density category. He said what the staff is ~:orJsing now i~ to zone down to medium density again. Co~missioner Wenzel expressed his opinion that "ruM-1B" is too liberal, and moved to amend the proposed ordinance so that parcel "L" be zoned "RM-l", 6 units per acre maximum. Commissioner Wenzel's motion died for lack of a second. In re~ponse to Commissioner Kruse's question regarding whether the owner has contacted the Planning Department, Ms. Layne stated Mr. Bishop, a realtor representing the owner, had discussed this zoning with the Planr!ng Department, and he had no problem with "RM-1B", 3nd she added there is one owner for the whole parcel. Ms. Layne indicated the property owner is G. G. Collier, JT Venture, located in Chicago, Illinois. A short discussion followed during which Chairman Pistor asked Ms. McQuinn if Commissioner Wenzel's motion had carried woufd the Board have to notify the owner. Ms. McQuinn stated she felt the Board should consider those actions which have been advertised and not new action.. , .---~--~~._..._...._,,-~------_....- , Februilry 10, 1981 Chairman pistor said in order to take action on this pieco of property today then the zoning would have to be left at "RM-1B". Parcel "M" in Unit 2, City of Golden Gate - From "RM-2" to "RM-lB" - Action deferrcd for 30 days with a moratorium placed on building permits for the entire parccl for 30 days Ms. Layne dcscribed this parcel ilS property in Golden Gilte City running along Green Boulevard and a small portion running south with portions of the propcrties to the eilst zoned "CI"; to the west and south, "RS-3"; and to the north and west are the estates areas. Commissioner Wenzel questioned why this area was not rezoned to "RM-l", 6 units ?er acre instcad of the recommended "RM-lB", l2 units per acre, as this would compnrc to the current duplex and single family resi- dcnces "across the way". He stated for the record that he recommended that this parcel "go back to 6 units per acre". Chairman pistor noted Dr. Neno Spagna, a representative for this area, is registered to speak regarding parcel "M". Community Dcvelopment Director Terry Virta explained that the proposal to zone this parcel to "RM-1B" took into consideration the lot size that cxists in the area and the factor that the single family areas arc separated by the canal that runs east and west along the northern edge of what is known as Golden Gate City. Dr. Neno Spagnil, rcprescnting Avatar 1I0ldings, Inc., which is a recently rcorganized firm of GAC, read into the record his letter dated February 3, 1981 regarding petition R-BO-37.C, parcel "M" zoning. He explained that Avatar has engaged the services of a development design research firm which is in the process of preparing a master plan for the u~e of Avatar's property in parcel "M", and it appears that Avatar . will complcte said master plan in abo~t thirty (30) days. He said it aoor, 059 ;~CEU8' . ......::.' .to .. . .:. .,. MOK. :059'~ACE~9 February 10, 1981 - ... is Avatar's desire to work very closely with County officials to prepare a master plan which meets all local requirements, apd that the . company feels that the rezoning at this time might be premature and require a subsequent rezoning in the near future. He located the proper~y on a map on an overhead board as running from Green Ooulevard, the old landing strip which is a 100' right-of- wPy, south tc the canal, which was shown in blue sha~ing on the map. He explained that Avatar, Inc. is no longer in the business of selling land but is in the process of development of these lands. He said- . there is a moratorium on the sale of all lots still owned by the company in Golden Gate, the Estates and their Arizona lands as well as Cape Coral. He said at the end of the 30 days either Avatar, Inc. wiil return to the staff to discuss the development of these lands or at that time the Board can go ahead and act on this proposed zoning designation. Dr. Spagna said Avatar Holdings, Inc. has authorized him by his appearange, or written agreement, to state that they will not come in for any building plans of any type during this 30 days peri~d. Mr. Virta asked Dr. Spagna if the areas in green on his map are the lands which Avatar Holdings, Inc. controls to which Dr. Spagna answered affirmatively, and he noted this a~ount is approximatel: 60 acres of land, or a little over lIalf of the parcel "M". In response to Mr. Virta, Dr. Spagna said that Avatar Holdings, Inc. agrees that the "HM-2" zoning just is not going to "work at all out there". 1I0wever, he said the company docs not know if "RM-1B" is appropriate or whether . . the company is "putting the County on notice" that t~ey may have to come back at a later date. He added ^vatar Holdings, Inc. has beon working with the County and wants to continue to work with them on s~ch , . . . . , . '. oJ> , . February 10, 1981 . things as the streets and drainage, etc.. to develop a good community, and get away from the old "lot sales image". Mr. virta said the proposed zonin~ for this parcel of land gen~:ated the greatest amount of interest from the surrounding residents because people were upset that this rezoning, if passed, would allow three story apartments to be constructed, since they were under the impression there would be nothing higher than onc story on this land. In response to Commis- sioner Wenzel, Mr. Virta said m ny residents contacted his office when this proposal was initially being considered and expressed their concern. CAPe Chairman william Mc~rath suggested that the Board treat Avatar Holdings, Inc.'s portion of parcel "M~ in the rn~nner as the other owncrs of land in parccl"M" as it would be unfair to do other- wise, since there is no commitmcnt from the other owners that they are not going to sell their property. He suggasted that if Avatar comes forward wit~ a devclopmrnt, this property can be rezonod to a "PUO" a. 101011 from "RM-10" Ilfl from ~nrl-2". 110 r..comm..ndod passino thl. Boning clp..lan..t l"n 1.1 th thp .,,,""rAn,"" ~" Or. ~""'''H' t.h"t th..r.. I. no pr..tudle. about rczoning for a futurc development. Mr. Robcrt J. Crystal, broker at Golden Gate Realty, explained to the Commj~sioners that in the property outside the green area, on the map displayed by Dr. spagna, there are approximately eight (8) to ten (lO) owners affected by this decision. Commissioner \~imer moved that action be deferred for 30 days on the entire parcel "M", irregardless of ownership, and during that 30 day period that a moratorium be placed on any building per~lts in that entire parcel "M". Commissioncr Brown seconded the motion. Chair~an ... . .0 " ~~ 059 ~Atrlio _...............~_..".....,_..-...._.-,.. ,-~._~-_...~ . ....,,;:.. ".~' . ~ > .... ., .. . . . . . 8ODK' '. 059' fA~ W .t. February 10, 1981 Pistor qucstioncd what would happen if a lot is sold during this period while parcel "M" is zoned "Rfol-2" and the general consensus (wal: this 30 ; day delay would be "common knowledge and it would be published" that the Board is going through rezoning proceedings. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 3/2 with Commissioners pistor and Wenzel o'pposed. Commissioner ~1imcr said to Dr. Spagna that he would like to make it very clear that he would rather see parcel "~" develop~d in single family residences. Parcel "N" in Bonita Shores Subdivison - From "RM-2" to "RM-IB" Planner Layne described this parcel which, was discussed jointly with parcel "B" earlier in the session, and explained the zoning to the east, west and south is "R!'\-lA" and to the nvrt" is nIlS-4". She identified this property as that which Mr. Carroll and Mr. Grunnagle discussed with the recommendation to "RM-1B". Parcel "0" in Sec. 16. T49S, R25E - From "RM-2" to "RM-lB" Planner Layne indicated th~s parcel on the map on the overhead board and explained it is known as Naples ~ay area. She said the zoning to the east is "RS-3"; to the south is "PUD", with the Park Shore Unit 5 zoning; and she said the par~el includes the Naples Cay site, a church sit~, the Seagate Beach ,lub site, and the Seahouse Condomiloium site, with the recommendation for zoning to "RM-1B". In response to Commissioner Wimer, Ms. Layne said there are four different parcels with nine different owners. Chairman Pistor noted that Scahouse does exist and has 6 stories and Ms. Layne said that "RM-1B" . docs allow provisional use ..p to 6 stories, so the density would be conforming. Attorney Steve Helgemo, representing the Naples Cay Development /,' t .-----,..~~.._-,.~-~""'_." .. February 10, 1981 , corporation, who are the owners of the development rights for tho major portion of parcel "0., stated he appeared before the Board regarding beach access ordinance question re this property. He identified the property as the logical extension of the Park Shore development along the Gulf of Mexico, and thcre is a pass immediately north of this area so the lands beyond that point would not be Bccessible, he said. Mr. Helgemo explained on the north the property is bounded by the water of Pelican Bay and on the other side of the water is the Pelican Bay Development which will be developed into high-rise, high density condominiums. lie said if any property surrounds the !-:aples Cay site, it is the Seagate SubJivisio~. which is zoned for multi-family designation. Mr. Helgemo said his clients bought the property a number of years ago after the propert! had been zoned for a number of years for its present density, in reliance upon the existing zoning, which he said is an essential fact. 11 short discussion followed during which Chairman pistor asked if the present owners actually purchased the property in question. Mr. Ilelgemo stated his clients "have a long term lease with an option" and have the rights to develop the property consistent with the present zoning and to subsequently .cause the conveyance of individual ap~rtments to purchasers of apartmcnts within the buildings developed". He contended his clients are the owners of development rights and that the sale of the property was set up in this fashion for tax considerations. lIe stated Naples Cay Development Corporation has been dealing with the County for two years and by the County's action of issuing and rejecting permits has recognized the fact that Naples Cay Development Corporation is tho ,owner of the development rights. . . .. . BO:lK,.~ l'At[J22 . ---"--,..- ~ ........."_...~-<_._.<-_... " .' .. . I . r .. .. - , , . . . 0"...: ~. ' , .' . t.' ~onx/. 059 'PACE ~23 . .... - . . . FebruAry 10, 19B1 ****nECESS: l2:05 P;M. to 1:30 P.M. at which time Deputy Clerk..... Skinner was replaced by Deputy Clerk Drenneman. ~ CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC "E~RING RE PETITION R-80-32C i Parcel "0" in SlC" T49S, R25E (Continued) Mr. James ~loore, although registered to speak, was not present when the Session reconvened following the recess. Mr. Tom Gross, resident of the ~eagate area, voiced his approval of the proposed reduction in density, among his reasons being the additional traffic which would be generated by a higher density and, also his feeling that additional .concrete and glass" is undesirable. Mr. Bill Spencer; President of the Seagate Beach Club, expressed SUIJiJO[ t [or till' pro:'u""d ('::Luning because of the fact that tho construction of 22-story highrise buildings will have an adverse effect on solar devices being used in the area, as well as the shading of his particular area in the afternoon. Responding to Chairman Pistor, Mr. Spencer said thcre would be no oppositi~n to three-story buildings. Mr. Glen Thornton, representing the carpenters in the area, recommended that the property remain as presently zoned, stating that 95% of the work done by the carpenters is on highrise buildings. Mr. John Kesch1, representative of the building trades, concurred with the previous speaker and, regarding the lack of wor:' on lowrise buildings, Mr. Kcschl said that this is partially due to the fact that they cannot compete with the "fly-by-night" operators who come into the area and deal on a cash basis, working out of th~ back of their cars. lie said there arc two options open to the Commission - let the development go ahead or let the developers proceed with a legal battle. Commissioner Kruse observed that the parcel under discussion is ~ . . ", . .., \.. ~Februory 10, 1981 . the 12th such parccl to come before the Board - the fifth one where the landowner has raised an objcction. She cited the disposition of the previous matters, among the decisions being ~ compromise and/or a . " postponcment and questioned whether or ndt a compromise could not be one of the options on the subject parcel; or, if not, whcther there is a zoning category mid-way between the two zoning districts in question. M~. Virta responded by stating that the only zoning district that could arrive at a figure betwecn 12 a~1 30 units in density is a PUD of some so'rt. Attorney Helgemo said that he has been authorized by his client to advise the Commission, by way of a compromise, that the developer would be satisfied if he were to be permitted ~onstruction of 475 unics, approximately one-half of the units which the present zoning allows. He commented that suen offer is in the way of a compromise - and not to prejudice vested rights in the evcnt the compromise is not accepted. In ans~~r to Commiosioner Wimer, Mr. virta said that, in round figures, approximately fiOO units could be built under present zoning, adding that the 900 figure mentioned is the theoretic maximum which could not be reached. In rebuttal to commen~~ made by previous speakers, Attorney Helgemo F"id that,'regardless of the number of units to be built, there will be an increase in the traffic on 5cagate Road and that his client is intercsted in working out an arrangement with the County which will protect the concerns of the Seagate Subdivision with regard to the access problem. lIdditional mattcrs addressed by tho speaker covered such issues as access from the Pclican Bay development can be qained across water, which would be ~xpensiva, suggesting that it may be , . .' .' . ioOl 059' PACE 124 ~ ~ ... . ....a .: " t .. . .....: ~ ~ . .t.' '. ,. February 10, 1981 - .. . _"Y',\oQ~'059 r!cf427 density to be permitted under the proposop new zoning classifications for multi-family will be 16 units. Continuing, Mr. VirtD(said that there are a number of varying density aspects in that draft, however, there is an existing zoning ordinance for the Coastal Area of the County upon which the rezoning proposals this date are being presented for consideration and which are based upo~ the criteria in that ordinance. Also, said Mr. Virta, there is an ongoi~g review ~t this point of an ordinance to replace the existing one. Once the new ordinance is adopted, said Mr. virta, all of the lands will have to be rezoned. For the present, Mr. virta said that the "RM-2" properties are being reviewed pursuant to direction of the Board. lIttorney Helgemo commented that, in hi~ o~inion, the law with regard to vested rights would apply to the property in question and that the zoning should not be changed. County Attorney pickworth addressed this issue and said that perhaps there are some elements which have not been diGcussed \n this regard - one being the good faith of the developer. He said vested rights 's a conclusion pursuant to shifting through a lot of facts and that he is not sure what the ultimate decision in the particular case would be. He said further,.a~ had heen suggeGted by the developer's o.ttorney, that the discussion should turn away from the legalistic point of view and be approached from the basic planning theory as to what is best for everyone which, he said, is not a legal decision. When asked to comment on the issue, Commissioner Kruse voiced . concern over the rezoning )f certain parcelS with a new zoning ordinance in tho works which would drop all density from 30 units down to 16 units all at once. ~._---_.,"-,. February 10, 1981 r It was the sug~estion of the Chairman that if the Board does not want to take action on the matter that they proceed to the ncxt parcel. Mr. Jones stated hi~ belief that it takes a 4/5 vote to "down-zone" and requested a vote on the issue. It was pointed out by the Chairman that a decision was made that one votc would be taken unless there is a change from the staff recommendation to be considered which, in this case, said Chairman Pistor, is, apparently, not the desire of the Board. Mr. JonC5 asked that the record reflect that a vote on thc matter was refu~cd. Commissioncr Wimer clarified the issuc by stating that a motion to amend the proposed ordinancc would be in order since pro...islons hflvp. been made for such amendment, commenting that any Commissioner wishing to make a motion co amend the ordinance on the particular subject should feel free to do so. To continue with the subject at hand, Attorney Helgemo inquired ir the suggestion of Commissioner Kruse for 16 units per acre would be acceptable as an amendment. The Commissioner said that tha.t was not her specific suggestion; however, she said she would put it in the form of a motion so that there can be a vOte although she said there is no way it can be done according to the zoning classifications. She said her questlon was whether or no~ there was a zoning classification that would be a compromise between the zoning currently held and the staff recommendation. She said that she was informed that there is no classification between the two - the only alternative being a PUD which has not been requested. She recalled that a compromise was agrced upon with regard to the first parcel involved and on another parcel there was a vote to withhold action until a Mastcr Plan was submitted. She said that if therc was a suggestion similar to those which has not been . .~.~O~ 059'PAccl28 . .. .. ...,. ,}! ._-----------~~.~~~~^.,_."'"~ .., . ..~~.' " . or ~ . .... .~ . - .'. '!~. 059 PACEUS .f' 'February 10, 1981 . covered as yet, she would make a motion to put it on the floor, reiterating that there is no specific zoning classificatio~to be voted i on which would change the density to 16 units. lIttorney lIclgcmo inquired if tho compromisc proposed earlier in the Session could be considcred the same as a pu~ with Mr. Virta noting that, with regard to that particular parcel, it is not known whether it will be a PUD - it may be. The parcel will either be zoned wR..-IB" or there will be a Master Plan submitted showing the appropriate usage within the next thirty days. The Attorney asked for a few minutes in order to consult with his client. In the interim, Commissioner Wimpr explained the reasoning behind his n,otion earlier in the Session with regaro t.. Parcel B in Bonita Shores, statin'l that, in his opinion, "RM-1B" was more compatible with the area th~n the recommended zoning of "RM-l" due to the location of a fire station and, also, a community center on the particular square. Attorney llcl'lcmo returned ':0 the meeting and stated that it is his understanding that the County has on file plan for five buildings containin'l 600 units which has been in their possession for a period of time. lle offered to amend that Master Pl:,n down to 475 units "nd to submit a plan within 30 days causing th.t reduction. Mr. Virta said that one does not answer the zoning, noting that there is " set of plans from Naples Cay; however thcre are two site plans included. Mr. Al McElwain, Naples Cay developer, reminded the Board that there is also a beach access contract offer with includes" detailed site plan. lIfl said 16 unit," to the acre would tot"l 480 'units counting wetlands calculations which he said is amenable to him. Regarding the new heights being" proposed, Mr. McElwain said that as the . '. . . . . . .. " I . '. .f February 10, 1981 f new' laws come in it. is totally appropriate that those laws bo. implemented. Attorney Helgemo suggested that the developp.rs of Naples Cay have gone furth.~r thaI) the previously-mentioned developer in light of the fact that there are two plans on file - the one to be used being the plan showing the five buildings - which would be amended to 475 units. CommiGsioner Wimer pointed out that when the presentation was made by Dr. Spagna, with regard to tha other parcel being discussed, it was clr,'lr in his mind (Comminsioner Wimer) that instead of "RM-1B" zonirJ, he was hopeful that the Master Plan would be for single-family which was the reason that he went along with the deferral. County M~n~gcr Norman pointed out that a Master Plan includes ~ore than just an o~=line of the property and the buildings proposed - that there are other issues which have to be dealt with in terms of how it would be developed. He referred to the various obstacles which were involved in thc plan for group housing which was submitted and he said must be presumed will also be included in any future master plan; i.e. beach access, and the like. Commissioncr Brolm inquired of Commissioner Kruse if, in her opinion, it was equitable to draw a parallel between Dr. Spagna's particular project and that of. Naples Cay with Commissioner Kruse suggesting that there appears to be two different "things" being discuGsed. She asked Dr. Spagna to respond as to whether or not all of the various items will be addressed in the Ma~ter plan to be .ubmitted. Dr. Spagna stated that the reason his client asked for the continuance is because it is not known at this point what the developnent will consist of and they do not want to be looking at a new .et of zoning regulations and thcn come back requesting a different approach. He , . .' : . . ,.~oox. 059 PAcil30 . ,., ..' - . . . '. 4..: ~ . '.' . ... .f- . ".l'~OOl 059" PACE~3I "February 10, 1981 , " s~id that he is aware of the feelings of' the Board and that he will relay those fcelings to Avatar to be considered in their pl~ns. He i added that he is aware of Commissioner Wimer's expressed feelings which he will also convey, commcnting that if the plans are not submitted or ncgotiations started with the staff within 30 days, as far as he, personally, is concerned the property can be rezoned to "RM-1B". Attorncy IIcl'Jemo said that their particular case is diffe ent with a different set of circu<1\stances involved. He pointed out that as each casc came up before the Board which was controversial it was dealt with as the case d~mandcd. He added that in his case the developer is making a sLrong case for vested rights and that if the zoning is changed they \~lll be compelled to assert their; ights in CO'lrt and, if they prevail, they will be entitled to the full count of units. He reiterated 8'Jaln the proposal for a compromise made earlier. Mr. McElwain concluded the presentation by requesting a motion to the effect that the Naples Cay property be removed from consideration for rezoning and offering his pledge to wo-:-k out the beach access and traffic plan recommendations of staff. Parcel nQ" in Section 15, Township ~8 Sou"h, Range 25 East Planner L~e L::l~'ne located the 5ubj( ~t property as lying at the southea~t corner of Wiggins Pass Road and vanderbilt Drive and said that the recommendation is to rezone the parcel from "RM-2- and "RM-2ST" to "RM-lO" and "RM-lBST", and detailed the zoning categories on the adjacent properties. Mr. David Jones, co-o~ er of the subject property, prefaced his comments by requesting th/lt Parcel "Un in Soction l6, Township 48 South, Range ?5 East also be included in the discussion, describing the . . ., - ---_.._._--~-----".--,.." . . February 10, 1981 . property as two small islands north of Vanderbilt Drive which protrude into the bay. There were no objections forthcoming. Mr. Jones provided the Board ,lith information concerning the number of acres , , involved in the original purchase, the acreage which was donated to the Collier County Conservancy because of the mangroves located thereon, the acres of developable land consisting of approximately 80 to 90 out of the original total of 200 acres, an~ said that there are probably 40 acres f "ST" land still in the name of the owners because of the pos- sibl~ transfer of development rights. Continuing, Mr. Joncs Gaid that the problem with down-zoning the prO!.2rty to "RM-lB" and "RM-lBST", noting that the "ST" is compatible with the owners, is that whcn the interim zoning (RM-IB) was adopted, the TOR was outlawed, as well as the water rights. He said that there are only 49 acres of "RM-2" zoning with the rest being "RM-l" and further stated that the developers would like to keep the "RM-2" zoning intact for future convcrsion to the new "PM-l6" which they wo~ld be agreeable to. Mr. Jones said that approximately two years ago a . contract was entered into with the Griffin family, who own property to the west which is zoned "RT", for the purchase of the subject property. He said that the purchaser is in the process of making arrangements to close on the transaction and working to develop a plan for the tract. He requested that the zoning on the property be postponed in order to give the purchaser time to come up with a feasible plan. Mr. Glen Griffin, prospective purchaser of tho subject land, said that there are negotiations ongoing with a local land-planning firm to prepare a site plan for the parcel. He said that in light of the fact that across the street from th~ property there are three individual .... . 80;~ Q59 p~~ 132 ;' . . .",:-. ", ~ . a,' ., . ,f'" . ., r<> ~'~"" -'. ~ "~oO/ 0.59 PAc~~33 tracts zoned "RT" to arbitrarily drop - , . February 10, 1981 th~.height limitation to'six floors will put them in the "shadows". He ~dded that they are more . than willing to live with the proposed new zoning classification of "RM-SlC," and reiterated the request for a 60-day time period in order to tender a final site plan to the County's satisfaction. Commissioner Brown moved to grant the request. Thc motion failed for lack of a second. A discussion followed regarding the transfer of dcvelopment rights, with Zoning Director Perry explaining how the developer could transfer development rights to the upland area. However, said Mr. Perry, the TDR's from the two (;Ilbject islands would have to be transferred somewhere else because the "RM-1B" district will not accept them. In answer to Commissioner Wimer's query, Mr. Perry said that in the futur~ al~ multi-family districts wi!l be eligible to rcccive TOR's. For clarification purposes, Commissioner Wimer explained that, if the new ordinance passes, which is unknown at the present time, the developer can take advantage of the "ST" pcovisior.s, the same as at the present time, as well as to take the TDR's from tho island to the "RM-lO" area. Co~missioner Wenzel recalled that there were complaints in the past due to the fact that on Marco Island TDR's were allowed from iSlands which werc not adjaccnt; however, where the lands are contiguous, the Commissioner said thera should be no complaints. Mr. Griffin said that if he understands correctly what has been said about "ST" and the ability to transfer, he is satisfied if that is the ultimate interpretation. However, ho questioned why the property is being down-zoned at this time, from a possible 30 units to 12 units, . when there is imminent rezoning in ~pproximatcly 6 weeks. . . February 10, 1981 , Commissioner Kruse inquired if the Board is putting any of the properties in "double j~opardy" in that the properties could possibly be down-zoned even further. The response from staff was that there is always that potential and that it must be kept in mind that some properties arc holding at the same density or increasing in density and, therefore, through the range, it is not shrinking all the way but rather a shrinking of the cap. Mr. Griffin renewed his renuest to have the matter deferred until a ~oncept or site plan for the property can be presented, noting that deferrals have been granted to others in the past. Commissioner Brown moved to grant the request. The motion died for lack of a second. Parcels "R" and "S" in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East It was suggested by Planner Lee Layne that, since Parcels "R" and "SO arc both owncd by the same persons and located in the same area, they be discussed together. There were no objections forthcoming. Ms. Layne dcscribed the zoning on the properties in question which she said are located in the Wiggins Pass Landings area, pointing out the physical location 011 the map displayed. Altorney \~illiam Stewart, representing the A. L. Dougherty Co., Inc., explained why there has been no opportunity to study the rezoning matters, and added that the County and Mr. Dougherty have been in litigation over the subject areas, with density included in the suit. Mr. Stewart said that the County Attorney and the special counsel employed by the County have been gracious in permitting them to continue the trial of the case in order to come up with an overall plan for the development of all of the Do~gherty properties. He said that . t. ~.~9~J~ ~ ~ .. .'~ . .. ....; ~. . : . ,,: ' . . '. he would like to is worked out to Commissioner , .' " r . ,.t,; ..,. .,..','. " ' .r' February 10. 1981 ~bo('059 PAtE~35 . . ' se~ the two p~rcels involved deforred until a proposal resolve the entire problem with Collier county. . nrown moved that the request be granted fot sixty days. The motion died for lack of a second. Assistant County Attorney pires advised that he, personally, has not been involved in the subject litigation and was not prepared to ., , comment, suggesting that the topic be deferred until later in the session when, perhaps, Attorney Pickworth would be available for comment. It was the consensuS of the Board that the suggestion was appropria te. Later in the scssioni Attorney pires said that he conferred with Attorney pickworth ~,no s.)id that, without having an opportunity to go through the file in depth regarding the pending litigation, he was of the opinion that it should not have any bearing on the rezoning matter since the litigation concerns "ST" primarily. Parcel "T" in Naples Improvement Company's Little Farms Subdivision v Planner Lee '.ayne described the parcel involved as being land fronting both sides of the entrance to the Royal poinciana Golf Club, off of Goodlette Road, and it is the staff recommendation that the "RM-2" zoned l'nd along the entrance to the Golf Club be rezoned to "~I-lB" to appropriately reflect the surrounding existin. land use. During the Planning Commission's hearings, said Ms. Layne, there were representatives from the Club in attendance and that there werG no objcctions to the proposed rezoning. , ?rrcel "V" in Section l7, Township 40 South, Range 25 East Planncr Lce Layne described the property as being Blocks 19 and 17 in Higgins Pass Landing Unit 4. She said that it is the staff February 10, 1991 r . rccommendation that thc tract be rezoned to "RS-3ST" based upon the compatibility with the ~urrounding zoning, which is so zoned, ond the insufficient acreage size for hi~h residential multi-family use. Responding to Chairman Pistor, Ms. Layne said there were no , objections to the rezoning from the property owners. Parcel "K" in Section fl, Township 5? South, Range 25 East, Continued It was noted by the Chairman that Parcel "K" was deferred from earlier in the Session to be taken up at this point. Mr. Fred Morrison, representing the owners of the previous1y- described property on Isles of Capri, informed the Board that he has attended all of thc C~PC and Planning Aoard workshops and recalled that there was discussion about taking all of the high density zoning to the coastal areas. He suggcsted that the subject property is on the coast, pointing out that the single-family dwelling across the street from the parcel was in existence when the current zoning was put on and that there were no objections voiced. lie agreed that "RI'!-2" zoning is un- reasonable, commenting that l6 or 20 units is not; however the 12 units -. units permitted under "P,M-lB" is unreasonable. Mr. Morrison questioned why such "capricious" action was being taken at this time knowing that further rezoning is contemplated. He asked that the petition either be continued or dropped. . Chairman pistor disagreed that the land is really on the coast and commcnted on the traffic conditions surrounding the Isles of Capri, the water supply and sewage disposal problems, all of which do not lend themselves to high-density zoning. Mr. Morrison responded by noting the sewage disposal plant proposed which will serve more than just the particular property and, with regard'to the number of units to be . ... . ,aoOIC 059 'A~ 13S ~, . . .. " . - .j ,4 , ~ . .....::. , . ., . .' . l~ ' '" February 10, 1981 '. ,D59 'pml37 - . ' . . ~,',. &O,K . ~1 . ",. . .. built, said that this figure is unknown'at prescnt but that a viable plan will be prcsented. Mr. Morrison emphasized that the jroperty is coastal property sincc the inner-coastal \~aterway is directiy in front of the parcel. Mr. Morrison voiced his objections to the statement made previously with rcgard to step-down zoning, and suggested that r what is being cor.templated is "spot-zoning" in reverse. ^ttorney John f.merson, also rep7esenting the owners, asked that the record reflect his objection to proceeding with the hearing due to the lack of notice. lie said that he requested the staff, and they agreed, to notify him and that there is no question that this was not dnne. Therefore, said the Attorney, they are not prepared and would appreciate deferral of the matter until a later time which he suggested would be the fair thing to do. lie, too, questioned why the property is subject to rezoning twice in a short period of time; however, he said that they would be bound by the requirements of the proposed change from the present "RM-2" zoning to whate~er change is made such as the contemplated "RM-16" district. Concluding, Attorney Emerson said that everything that was in the original report of the staff to the CAPe, the objections rnd the objectives that the staff is trying to achieve in terms of a "eduction in density, can be achieved by the proposed change in the overall zoning ordinance. Commissioner Brown moved that action with regard to Parcel "K- be delayed for 120 days. The motion died for lack of a second. There followed a brief discussion with regard to the proposed new zoning ordinance during which Ms. Layne informed the Board that durin9 the CAPC hear ings the staff repeatedly pointed out that the proposed new zoning ordinance was not being discussed - that the existing zonin9 . , . .' ., .... " Februnry lO, 1901 f regulations are the regulations wh~ch must be considered~urin9 the hearings. All proponents and oppone~ts of the zoning changes having been . heard, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and. unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed on all items with the exception of No.7 (Parcel "M") which is to be continued for 30 days. Commissioncr Wcnzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer, that the ordinance, as numbered and entitled below, as amended, be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. l2. The motion carried 4/1 following roll call vote with Commissioncr Kruse voting in opposition. Commissi.ner Kruse askcd that the rccord rcflect that her vote of opposition was based on the fact that it is her belief that isolating 22 parcels of land and considering them s~par~tely is contrary to good comprehensivc land-usc planning. Commissioner Wenzcl commented, as noted throughout the hearing on the petition, that, in his opinion, some uf .the zoning chilnges were still too liberal, notably Items Nos. 2, 6, B, ld, l!, 13, and 14, however, said the Commissioner, he voted for them since "half a loaf is better than none". Commissioner ~imer, referring to comments made during the public hearing, recalled that accusations werc madc to toe effect that he and Commissioncr \'!cnzel were conspiring to act contrary to law and requested that a certified, verbatim transcript of that statcment be preparcd as soon as possible. . ' " ~:'059 ~Ar.ri38.. . . February 10, 1981 . presently addressing is a great improvement over the document reviewed . at the public hearing a week ago. Ms. Westman said that tho position of the League is still to protect and preserve wetlands and, in protection, it means to take great care in the development of any areas that are contiguous to or in the area of a lot of wetlands. But, said Ms. Westman, development can go forward if the wisest means and best scientific information, and the like, are put to work. The one problem with the subject site is the fact that it is an island surrounded by water and wetlands. Continuing \~ith her statement, Ms. Westman said that the subject ame~dment now brings the 320 acres in question back into Unit 30 so that it will be considered as a comple~e entity rather than separate parts which, she said, is a "good thing". Ms. Westman asked for clarification of the Transfer of Development Rights provisions in the new Comprehensive Plan which has not as yet been put into effect with Community Development Ad~inistrator Virta advising that what is being discussed is a specific PUD which is different than the zoning itself. Ms. Westman inquired as to what the density might be from the "ST" trade-offs possible to the PDD with Mr. Virta stating that there cannot be any without a revision to the PUD - it is locked in. Ms. Westman touched briefly on other aspccts of the development such as the fact that it is presumed development will be a continuing process over a period of time and with consideration of the environmcntal effects on the arca immediately surrounding it, the feeling of many peoplo that no further dredging and filling of mangroves should be approved, that Unit 30 is one unit ilnd will in the future be perceived as one. She concluded her comments by proposing th~t, as a consequence of the , .' ... ... ~'iOOK '059 n~~52 .. .... ..... .. t , , . . . ..... . . l:' . ... .'. . .:;/~..:MOX~b59 'rAcE ~53 " February 10, 1981 project undcr discussion, that consideration be given to tho waiver clause thut now exists with regard to disturbcd land bein~ allowed to . proceed for development without required EIS statements. When asked by the Chairmun if there is any objection at the present time to the development, as planned, with the amendment to the PUD being proposed, Ms. Westman said that there are still reservations but that the best possible solution, under the circumstances, has evolved. Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that Ordinance No. 81-6, as entitled below, be adopted, as amended, subject to the stipulations to be included in the PUD Docum~nt concerning traffic agreements and raw water transmission lines; and that the petitioner's ^greemcnt to the stipulations be acc~pteo. Commissioner Wenzel commented that he voted for the Ordinance because he received the interpretation that thc maximum density for the 320 acres will be 1980 units. ORDINANCE 81-6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-30, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COASTAL lIREA PLANNING DISTRICT BY AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS M^P NUMBER 51-26 BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FRO~I, "A" AGRICULTURE TO "PUn- PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPi~ENT ON TilE FOLLOI'iING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: PART OF SECTIONS 26, 27, AND 28, TO~INSHIP 51 SOUTH, !tANGE 26 EASTS AND PHOVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE .. .4,.... . ~ . &'.' ,. . February 10, 1981 , .' -/ '.""" '-f',.~ 059 PAtC ~55 ~ .'. '. PETITION SMP-80-7-C, THE DELTONA CORPORATION,'RioUE~TING SUBDIVISION MASTER PLI\N APPROVI\L FOR MI\RCO SHORES DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED FROM 2/3/8l - lIPPROVED I Legal notice having been published in the Marco Island Eagle on January lS, 1981 as evidenced by Affidavit of publication previously filed with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from February 3, 1981 to consider approval of Petition SMP-~0-7-C, filed by The Doltona Corporation, requesting Master Plan approval for the Marco Sho~es Development. Planner Lee Layne informed the Board that the petition was reviewed by the Subdivision Review Committee and was recommended for approval subject to an exception to allow a cul-de-sac over lOOO'. Comm i ss ione r Wen zel moved, seconded by lom"i ssioner Brown Ilnd unanimously carried, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Kruse inquired if the firm is considering the donation of any of the land still being held for conservation purposes. Mr. James i\ptho rp, r epresen t1 ng The Del tona Corporation, respondeJ in the affirm~tive, stating that the firm has transferred development rights off of several hundred acres, under County ordinance, at Marco Island for which the County has title. Hp added that they are in the process of working with DER on a resolu~ion of the overall problem which w.'uld involve public ownership of a good deal of the wetlands,in the Deltona ownership which amounts to 12,000 or l3,000 acres of land in the vicinity of Marco Island. Commissioner Brown moved that petition SMP-80-7C, filed by The Deltona Corporation, be app~oved, with Commissioner Kruse seconding the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. .' , February 10, 1981 . REPORT AND RECOMME~DATION IN RESPONSE TO 1/~/Bl NOTIFIC~TION OF AMERICAN AM8ULANCE, INC. CONTRACT VIOLATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS - CONTRACT TEnTH NATED ~JITI1 COUNTY TO ASSUME OPERATION 4/6/81; REPORT ON PETAILS OF TllllNSITION TO BE MADE 2/24/81; STM"F AUTHORIZED TO TAKE ANY ACTIONS NECESSARY TO INSURE OPERATIONS DURI~G INTERIM PERIOD IF SERVICE FURTHER DETERIORATES County Manuger Norman rccalled that during a Board meeting around the middle of January, the County Manager was instructed to review the issues involved in the recommendation that American Ambulance be not(fie~ of the County's intention to tcrminatc their contract specifying a series of alleged default. Such meeting was held January 27, 1981, continued Mr. Norman, and a lengthy report and Executive Summary was provided as an outgrowth of such meeting. In essence, said Hr. Normon, it ",';'lS found thi'lt, n"" to apparent improvements which had taken place with regard to equipment, commitments made at the meeting to rectify Some serious communications problems pertaining to some specific items such as inventory, and the like, which needed to be resolved, he was prepured to recommend that the matter be withdrawn from the agenda t.h i s da te. However, as has been the exper ience in the past, said Mr. Norman, the situation seems to change almost hourly; for instance, in a week's time, another vehiclc engine has b16wn, the Operations Manager [or American Ambulancc was arrested for a rather serious matter und his ability to continue to provide direction on a day-to-day basis is in jeopardy, and he has learned that Mr. ~aguire is not able to function on a regular basis. He said that he has received' a letter to the effect Ms. Kathy Maguire will be the official spokesman for the firm, commenting that the staff has been able to talk and work well with her to date. 8Oo~'.059 ;~~~56.' ~ " :- .. r ~ . ',,:. ~ . ~~ ' !~i',:.059 'PACE~5l . .f" . , . February 10, 1981 The most serious matter in terms of actual facts, continued Mr. Norman, is that during the past week an official from the (RRS _ EMS , Program came to the County to re-examine the equipment, based on the less-than-satisfactory examination which took place during December of 1980 and, also, to follow up on the recommendation forwarded to Tallahassee by the local EMS Council to the effect that, as of January lG, 1981, there were inadequate ALS/BLS units meeting the State and, thus, the County requirements to warrant certification. The follow-up meeting on the subject inspection was "pretty discouraging", said Mr. Norman, noting that there were matters that pre-date the inspections that had indicDted the pquipment w~~ ~~tl~f~ctory. Most Qf the inspections pertained to equipment which was not mechanical, such as suction equipment, oxygen equipment, and the like, and, said Mr. Norman, it nppe~r5 that a number of these areas h?ve been deficient for a period of time. As a result of these fact~, Mr. Norman continued, he was not prepared for a recommendation this date b~~ause i~ is a major effort to establish exactly where "things" stand at this point in time. He said that he has received Some commitments that the issues would be dealt' with and added that some very heavy inv~stigation has been ongoing to determLoe why in the period of 3-1/2 months ten engines have blown up with no logical explanation. for that kind of a problem. Mr. Norman said that the staff is looking at both sides of the problem; however, he said that he was not as optimistic at this time as he formerly was. It was his suggestion that Jction be deferred for a period of two weeks with a clear warning to American Ambulance that strong progress, without any regression, needs to b~ mad~ wi~hin. t\1e two-week period and 0., . yebruary 10, 1981 f . that items which have been identified are to be taken care of.withi~ that period. Commissioner Kruse inquired if the propr~ number of ambulances are on the road at the present time with public Safety Administrator Hafner reporting that, as a re5ult of the inspections, Mr. neynoltls (HRS) will recommend that, of the 5 ALS units "on the road", only three are to be licensed. The lmlnokalee unit WllS turned down as far as getting 8 license, said fIr. Ilafner, for it'ms previously mentioned by Mr. Norman. It'was found that the telemetry equip~ent was inoperative, continued Mr. lIa fner, obse rv i ng tha tit was found out dur i ng the past two weeks that thA telemetry has never .eally been operative in Immokalee because it cannot reach Naples Community Ilospita;.. As a result of this, Mr. Hafner said that he has taken action to have an engineering study done in order to d~termine whether a satellite repeater should be used or put in a fixed repeater. He said that the unit with the blown engine has telemetry and noted ~h~t it is his understanding that an ~ttempt is being made to establish a reason as to why this occurred. He mentioned the fact that Mr. McKay from the Hillsborough County EMS has been down to look over the condition of the equipment and said that the only way a determination can be made is to tear the engine completely down and studied \ 'lich 1I1aerican ^:nbulance has stated they are doing. There was a further brief discussion with regard to the type of vehicles involved with Mr. Hafner pointing out that the preponderance of the vehicles are Fords. He said that there will be a written report forthcoming from Mr. McKay, adding the comment that both Mr. Mc~ay and the aforementioned Mr. Reynolds have both observed that it is unusual to have so many engines blow'in such a short period of time. .' . . ,.&OOl 059 ,AilS8 , . .'..... . , ~.' . .'. ,. ":&O6~ 059 PACE ~59 .t, February 10, 1981 Commissioner Wenzel moved that the' contract with American ^mbulance, Inc. be cancelled and that the County take ove~ the operation of ambulance service. Commissioner Wimer inquired if such action would be the proper legal step for the County to take. County Attorney Pickworth explained that the contract contains language with regard to what c~n be done to terminate the contract - notice, period to cure, and the like. He said that it is his understanding that the reason the matter is being discussed is because thirty days ago a notice was sent. Mr. Norman said that it was more like six weeks ago; however, he said ~hat, within the time period provided for in the ., contract, American Ambulance requested an extension to the thirty-day period without bcinJ t?ccific as ~o what period of time the extension was being requested. He recalled that he recommended an extension until this date or until such date as the Board might determine based on the situation. Attorney Pickworth inquired as to why American Ambulance was not represented - di~ they have reason to be present to defend themselves, or any reason to expect a motion would be made to cancel the contract this date. Mr. Norman responded by saying that he does not think the firm had such ~xpectation; however, he said that he informed Ms. Maguire the previous week that he could not still stand ~ehind the recommendations in the report which were that the threat of termination be withdrawn. He said that he told her that he was going to recommend a continuance of probably something like two wee~s Attorney pickworth observed that, if his interpretation is correct, the notice as provided,for in tho contract informing American Ambulance of the Board's intent to possibly cancel tho contract has not . " February 10, 1901 , . . been disposed of as yet. Mr. Norman responded 'that ~~ was disposed of the previous week by virtue of the Board accepting it and putting a date of today on it to continue it further if the Board so chose, commenting that, in other words, there was no final concluding date by the Board's action the previous week. Commissioncr Wenzel noted that the Board has bent over backwards for five ycars to cooperate with the ambulance company and voiced his opposition to continue granting extensio~s. Attorney pickworth said that he has been convinced for a long period of time that when the merits of the allegations which have becn made against the firm are totaled, the contract could be cancelled and that "now we are just down to doing it preccaurally io the right way", He said that he wo~ld like the opportunity to discuss the matter further with Mr. Norman and Mr. lIafner in order to ge~ a better "handle" on the facts. Commissioner Wimer suggested that the subject be deferred until later in the session - or perhaps the following week. It was pointed out that the Board would not be meeting on February l7th, whereupon the Chair called for a recess for thc purposc of granting Attorney pickworth's request. ....RECESS: 4:35 P.M. until 4:42 P.M..... Later in the Session, following completion of the remainder of the agenda, Mr. Norman informed the Board that he, Attorneys pickworth and Pires, and ~'r. lIafner, as well as Fiscal Officer Harold lIall for part of the time, met and reviewed the matter of ambulance service, including the conditions which have existed, and continue to exist, wi th reg8 rd to the m8 i n tenance of the vehicl es,' communications, . ~Jt 059 rACE ~60 . .,. t ..... . " r '.. . ~ . '.' " .. U59 PACf-~61 ,. .February 10, 1981 - . . ]I .80~K " cooperation, and the like. He sa id tha t, it is' tlie consensus, on t'he staff level, that not only have they not been able to situation regarding the maintenance of the equipment, improve the . but that problems have deteriorated. He said that, if the Board agrees that the situation is scrious enough to warrant termination action, it is recommended that the following actions be taken: l. Decision to tcrminate occur this date; assuming that the opcration does not deteriorate further, .from the standpoint of personnel available, equip~ent avail- able, and efforts to get the equipment in shape continue, that the transition be orderly. 2. Staff report back to the Board on February 24, 1981 with details on how the transition should take place. Such rcport to include many factors, such as certifica- tion, billing and collection systems, vehicle mainten- ance sy~tcm~, personnel schedules ~r.d ral~ries, numbers of personncl either pcrmanent or interim operating staff, administrative staff necessary, as well as factors related to the closing out of business issues involved - accounts payable, accounts receivables, and the like. Responding to Commissioner Wenzel's query regarding the County's emergcncy plan being implemented, Mr. Norman said that a third re~om- mendation is proposed, as follows: 3. If at any time during the period conditions develop which do constitute an emergency, that the staff be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to not only cancel the lease and assume possession of the equip~ent, but employ the necessary people and do the necessary administrative steps to begin im- mediate operation. Continuing, Mr. Norman said that it is felt that April 6, 1981 would be ,1n appropriate date to begin the County operation and allow for an orderly transition. To answer Commissioner Wenzel's question, Mr. Hafne~ said that proper steps are being taken to get the vehicles back into service, one of which can be ready in less than a week~ .' February 10, 1981 . Concerning the legality, Attorney Pickworth said that it is assumed there will be an "awful kick" about not giving the firm a chance to come in t~is da~e and talk about it some more but, said Attorney Pickworth, the contract states that they have 30 days to cure and that, after that, the County shall have the immediate right to cancel the Agreement without further notice to the contractor. In point of fact, continued Attorney Pickworth, the firm either knew or should have known that the matter was coming up this date - they requested an extension, said extension request, in itself, was not in accordance with the terms of the contract which directs them to file a req~~st for an extension to a date certain, plus other requirements, none of wllll...:il v.=re [ul10~',i(:d. He p.jinton out tha.t Mr. Norman suppli~n the date of February 10, 1981 and they were informed of that. However, he observed that the firm was not informed that the matter of termina- tion was going to be addressed and, for that reason, there will be a "squabble". Mr. Norman pointed out that the report scheduled on the agenda was discussed with Ms. Maguire and she was advised that he (Mr. Norman) was withdrawing his recommendation that the termination notice be withdrawn and that he was requesting the Board to provide for a continuance. To that degree, Mr. Norman said that she had not been advised that he was going to recommend that the contract be terminated. However, he said that there was no question that the subject was going to be on the agenda for discussion this date. Chairman pistor observed that it was not Mr. Norman who made the recommendation, adding that Attorney Pickworth informed the Board that it has the right to terminate the .. . contract. 8001 059.'~AtE 4.62 ~ . '. ,t. .. .. ~. . I'. .. . . .' N " t . , .. . ~ . ~o~. :.059 .PACE ~9.3 ,. February 10, 1981 Commis:l ione r Wen zel moved to accept .the! 'staff recommendation. as det~iled by Mr. Norman, and to make! such recommendation his motion. . The motion was :leconded by Ch~irman pistor. ; Commissioner Brown indicated his intention to vote against the motion due to the fact that he is concerned about "firing a man without giving him a chance to come here". Mr. Norman condensed the subject recommendations, as follnws: Based upon reports of staff regarding conditions, etc., and the inability to maintain equipment or correct violations - l. Tcrminate contract now, the County taking over April li, 1981. 2. Report to be made February 24, 1981 on details of transition. 3. Staff authorized to take any actions necessary to insure operation during interim period if service deteriorates even more, including immediate assump- tion of EMS rcsponsibilities and possession of equip- mert and acquiring personnel. The motion was carried by roll call vote of 4/l with Commissioner Brown vcting in opposition. SL~ER AREA "A" EXPANSION PROGRAM - UTILITIES DIVISION AUTHORIZED TO SPEND (FROM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CH^RGES) UP TO $3,750 TO CONDUCT STUDY REGARDING EXPANSION OF NORTn NAPLES SEWER FACILITY Utilities Director Irving Berzon explained the reasons why he is requesLing authorization for an expenditure of up to $3,750 for the preparation of a feasibility study for the expansion of the wastewater treatment and transmission facilities in the North Naples Area, utilizing other than Federal Grant (U.S. EPA) funds, as detailed in the Executive Summary dated January 30, 1981. Mr. Berzon commented on the delays which have been encountered with regard to approval of the Step II Grant application under the. "201" program, citing the reasons for , February 10, 1981 , the delays.' lie said that the need for elCpanding the facilities .in the North Naples Area is becoming increasingly urgent and in all probability carynot wait any further for Fed~Lal Grant assistance, noting that delays can only result in increased costs and eventual rejection of future conncctions to the system. Commissioner Brown movcd, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that the Board authorize the expenditure of not more than $3,750 for thc prepartion of a feasibility study for the expansion of the wastewater trcatmcnt and transmission facilities in the North Naples urea, such funds to be paid out of the sewer system development charge revenues. Commissioner Wimer stated that he still has concerns about the expansion progri1m nncl the cost which, he said, is getting .out of sight". Commissioner Kruse inquired if there is any possible way to formally pruccst the unJ11rness of holding up funding for one district because of problems with another, rcferring to the problems cited by Mr. Berzon pertaining to the City of Naples' problems with the DER and the EPA in obtaining approval of the Step I plan modifications. Mr. Berzon said that it does not seem right but said that the inherent problem \ ~th the "201" Program is that whcn a "201" study is taken on for a regional location like the western Collier County area, the various areas do get ticd together, noting that Marco Island is in the same situation. lie agreed that the subject area was taken into con- sideration in the "201" study but the EPA and DER people do not have a consistent policy - there is a 70ntroversy bet~een them as to whether . '.~ 0$9 PAI:F~6f , February 10, 1981 . METHODOLOGY TO ACQUIRE PROFESSIQNAL SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGEMF.NT - APPROVED; COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO SELECT ARCHITECTURALI . _. ENGINEERING FIRM ....~ Administrative AssisLant to the County Manager Neil Dorrill addressed the Board for the purpose of obtaining Board approyal of the process to acquire an ^rchitectural/Engineering firm to supply profcs- sional services related to the County's Construction Program Management Plan. Accompanying the Executive Summb:Y pertaining to the matter, said Mr. Dorrill, is a Schedule of Critical Dates outlining the steps to be tak~n for the selection of a firm. After receiving proposals,Mr. Dorrill said that a committee, consisting of the Board Chairman, the Sheriff, Clerk, County ManiJC]er, and the CourtG i,:Jministrator, will interview prospective firms and develop a "short list" ~rom which the Board will receive oral presentations and then make their selection. Comm,ssioner wimer moved, seconded by CommisSioner Brown and unanimously carried, that the Board approve the process and the S~hedule of Critical Dates, as recommended, relating to the acquisiton of professional services for the Construction Program Management, amended to include that any of the Commissioners who wishes to be part of the Committee he notified in sufficient time to be present when the Committec meets. RESOLUTIONS 8l-36 TIIROIJGlI 81-42 TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPF.NDED BY Tm: COUNTY TO "BATE PUl3LIC NUISANCES ON VJ\RIOUS LOTS - ADOPTED Commissioner I'l'nzel moved, second cd by Commissioner Brown lInd carried 4/1 with Commissioner Kruse voting in opposition, that the following Resolutions Nos. Bl-36 through 81-42, be adopted: . , " . ,": ~Oll 959 PACE 472 . " '.:~ ~ .'t'fi,;"',~'t:~.~r,~: . . :.J..~. ..\ ... ':.' :.;-', . ~::-.. ...::~ :_r.~l..r;,:.~%.,;. , . . . .' . - .. 800K 059 PAcE.491 -. . 4. Applied for and received C.D.B.G. Housing Rehabilitation Grant and developed a unique low and moderate housing P.U.D. to encourage such housing. Establish Collier County Housing Finance Authority to provide low interest loans. , 5(C} - Adopted Comprehensive Plan policies to this effect; 1. Encourage energy-efficient housing designs which re- flect a balance between initial cost, and operating and maintenance costs. '- 2. Encourage the use of indigenous vegetation and other "low-energy" and water-conserving landscaping techniques. 3. Encourage environmentally and energy-efficient resi- dential development. I 4. Encourage more open space and less land cost,per unit, through well-planned; cluster type multiple family hOllsing rather than spral:': typo. development. 5. Promote efficient energy consumption through proper building code regulations and-their enforcement. 6. Require all public buildings to be designed to minimize energy needs and support energy efficient standards. - Adopted Energy Efficiency Code as supplement to Building Code. Established full time Energy Coordinator position. Performed energy audits for public buildings and installed various energy conservation devices. February 10, 1981 CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH U.S.G.S. FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND WATER QUA~ITY MONITORING AT THREE LOCATIONS IN THE COUNTY Pursuant to brief explanation by Public "'orks Administrator BarkSdale, as contained in the Executive Summary dated January 28, 1981, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown that the Chairman be authorized to sign Cooperative Agreements with U.S.G.S. for water resources investigation and water quality monitoring at three locations in the County, as set forth in the agenda material. Mr. Barksdale explained that an appropriation for these purposes was budgeted and called attention to the item listed in the amount of $41,000 - Countywide is an agreement whereby the U.S.G.S. provides matching funds of $41,000. Upon call for the question, the motion was carried unanimously. , ';:.. aoDl 059 PACE494 , . . . BOOK "05,9 . <"Act 495 . . r... ,.1)66 Cacvc:. un)' Department ohhe Inlerior .<Flr-l5) 2/3/8l Ceolocical Sumy Joint Fundinq Aqreement FOR ~ATER RESOURCES INVESTICATION THIS AGREEMENT Is entered Into IS of Ibe lst day of October ~ATES DEPARTMENT OF THE II'/TERJOR. porly of \he fusl parl,and tbt . COLLIER COUNTY 1980 by lhe GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNrrm put)' of tbt ICCOll4 prt. I. n.e parties hmto .gree thai .ubjecllo the a.a.ilability of appropriations and in accordance wI\h Ibelr rcspeclm autborilJea dscre , shall be nWntained in cooperation \lUll An iiivt;iifigAU.bn of \later resources. '. . ,.~~ . \. .""Jo. . hereinafter called lhe prosram. 2. The foDoWlne amounts shall be contributed to cover aU of Ibe cos\ of the necessary field and otrace work cllrecl1y reJaud 10 Ibis procnm. but excludine any eeneraladministlllm or accovntitlc work in the otrlte of dlbtl party and exdudin& the cost ofpubllcalloa 'by dther porty of Ibe results of the progralTL (a) S 41,000.00 by the porty of Ibe fusl part durlne Ibe pe;oocI October 1. 1980 10 September 30, 1981 (b) S 41,000.00 bythepmyofthesecondpartdurlnclbeperiod October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981 (e) Additional .mounts by each party durine Ibe aboYe period Of succeeding periodJ IS may be determlned by mutua1a&>"b~nl ancI set (orth in &.n cxetun&c oi let ten Ixt .....cell thl: pa.rtk::. . 3. Expenses incurred In the perforlNnce of this progrJJ11 llIlY be poid by either party In conformity wllb Ibe laws aDd rqulaliolls respectively governing esch psrty, provided that so far IS may be mutually.S6l.ubl< all txF"= dull be paid In tha Orst insuDcc by tJ-.. party of the nnt part with sppropri.:e rc;mburs<menl therur:cr by the party of the sa:end port. Eadt party shaI1 funWllto tbt other porty such .tatements or reporls of expenditures IS nuy be needed to satisfy flSCalrtquirmlenlS. 4. The field snd omce ...ork p<lhining to this progr.m shall be under the dincrion of or subject to periodic rnlcw by an authoriud rcpr~ntative of the party of Ihe finl pm, S, The nus 10 be included in Ihe program shan be delermined by mutual agreement belWttn the porties hemo or Ibeir aut!lorizcd repr~nlativ... The melhods employed in Ihe neld and omee sh.n be Ibose adopred by the porty of Ibe lirst p'--t to insun: the reqult.~ rt&ndardJ of accuracy subjecllo modinesrion by mutual agrument, 6. Durine the Plogre.. of Ihe work all operations of either porty pert.inlnlto this prosram shan be open to Ibe 1nsp"1l0ll of the other party. and if Ihe work is nOI being carried on in.. mutually Sltisfaclory INnne" either party may lUminate tbia acreement upon 60 days wriuen nolice 10 the other plIly. 7. The original records resulting from ,his procram shall be deposiled ultimately," the offlC' of the prty of the lint port and shaI1 becOIM part of Ihe records of thll olnce. Copies st.aJI be furnished to the party ohhe second part upon requal. a, The m.ps, records or reports resulting from this progr>m shan be made anibble to the public as promptly Ii ~Ie. 'The_pi, records or reports normally will be published by ,he porty of the lint part. Ho_ ,the pllty oftM tcCone! part raena the ri&hllo publish Ihe results of this pro&l,m snd, if s1ready pYblished by the party of the lirst parI shaI1, upoll RqIlCSt. be (umlshed by the patty of the nnt parI, al cosr, impr...ion. suil.ble for purposts of reproduction simibt 10 that for whlch the oripnaJ cop)''''' pn:pucd. 'The apt, records or reports published by either party shall contain a .lalement of the cooperative rdaliolla bc.OWftll tIIc putla. Coury-J FLORIDJ-).:../- '- lX. ..JdM /&t.. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTllENT OF THE II'/TERlOR By By CSleNATUAE" TITLEl By (USE AEVXASE SIDE If ADDmOHAI. ElGMATVaU AU &IQVtaEO) . . . wox, 059 PAt~ 4rJ7 . '~"I~' (a.yc. un) Depoltment of the Inlerior CeolopcaJ Sumy Joint Fundinq Aqreement FOR WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION (FL-15), 1/13/81 . . THIS AGREEl.IENT Is enterod into IS of the 1st day 'of October 1980 11)' lhe CEOLOCICAL SURVEY, UNITED UATES DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR, party of the fi"l part. and the COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA perty of the seconcl put. I. Tbe parties hereto Igree thlt subject to Ihe availlbility of Il'Pfopriations and in accotdance with their mpectlw authorIlles there shall be malnUlned in cooperttion with an investigation of water resources with .pee!.1 emphasis on water quality in the Immoka1ee landfill area ". herdnarc., caUeellhe propam. 2. The foDoWU1& lmounts shall be conlributed to COvel ID of the COSI of lIie necessary r..leI and orr... work directly rdated 10 Ibis pro&Tlm. bUlexcludinc Iny cenertl IdminiSlrttive at accounlinc work In Ihe orra of eithel party and exdudlnalhe cost o(pubUcatlon by dther plrty of Ih. r<Ullu of Ihe proltJ1ll1L (I) SO. 00 by'lhe party of Ihe rltSl part durina the peMd October 1, 198010 September 30, 1981 , (b) S 20,000.00 by Ihe pmy oflhe s<<o:>d part durlnc the period October l, 198010 September 30, 1981 ~ (c) Adclitlonallmounts by each party durinC lI:e above period at su=edinc periods IS may be dctmnined by mutuall&l"I,l(lIt allel ocl forth in an exclun&e of lelters belween the partiel. 3. Expensti incurred in the performance of thiJ program may be paid by dthet party in con/'otmity with the bws and repsblioas I rnpcctively &overnin& each pmy, provided tlut so fir II may be mUlually ICltable all expenses sIuIl be paid In the fint Instance 11)' lhe party of the flnl part with Ippopr;.le reimbursemenl themfttt by th: party of the second part. Each party sIuIl furnish to the other party such ,lIlemenls or repons of etpenditures IS may be n~dcd 10 satisfy fiscal requitements. 4. The field Ind office work pen.inin& :0 INs p'ov>m shaD be under the direction of or wbject 10 periodic l<'riew by III aulhorized rcpi...nu.live of the pany of Ihe fUll pm. S. Tbe neu to be included in Ih. procr>m .tuD be dele,m1ned by mut.w acreemenl be\Wem dse plnits herelO or their authorizccl ~pr.senutivts. The methods employed '" thr field Ind office shaD be .hate adopted by Ihe patty of rile rusl part \0 in....... the requited rtand.ards o( accuracy S'Ubjecl to modific~lion by mutual acreement. 6, DurinC the progress o( the work III operltions of either party pertainin& 10 Ws P'oanm shall be opo<n 10 Ihe Inspection of the odses party. and if the work i. nol bein& clrried on in I mUlually satisfactory manner, either party may t.:minale this acrecmcnl upoa 60 days written notlee 10 the olhe.. puty, 7, The oripnalrccords rc.ulring (rom this progrlm sh.tll be deposited ultimately in Ih. orrICO of the party o( the lint pa" and shall become part of Ihe records of lhlt om... Copies shal1 be furniWd.o the party oflhe second part.pon~. S. Tbe mlps. record. or reporlS ttSulrin& from thiJ program sh.tll be made anibble 10 Ihe public u promptly u poaiblL The maps. ra:ords or repons nomuJly will be published by the pany of lhe first l'Ul, Howtvct, rile pony of the second part mcna the ri&hl to publish the r..ulls of tNs prov"m and, if .budy published by the party of the fi"t part shall. apoll request. be fumIsbecI 11)' Ibe pasty of lhe ru" pilI, II toll, impressions suillble for purposes of ,eproduction similar 10 thaI for which the oricinal copy..... ptepated.lbe , maps. record, or reports published by either party shall conuin I .UlemtDl of the cooperative rdations between the petties.. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR By FLJR.IDA . r:J--L:- tl , lJ::U 1M By By <SIClNATuaE . TITLE! By (\ISE al:VE.Ul: SfllE IF ADDf11ONAJ. S1GICATUaD AU UQlIlaEDt I ~" February 10, 1981 REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RE INTER- SECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND PINE RIDGE ROAD'- APPROVED Pursuant to recommendation set forth by Public Works Administrator BarKsdale in the Executive Summary dated January 26, 1981, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner ~i~er and unanimously carried, that the Utility Relocation Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company to clear utility facilities from the new intersection of Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road be approved. >'~" , " -. '. . ,aoox 1159 'PACE~ " ,'" " -.., -,' ',;,,",, ", " . I I Page 1 of 5 BOOK' 059 PACE 499 . UTILITY RELOCA nON AGREEMENT . RELOCA TION FROM PRNA TE PROPERTY . THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into thh 10th day of Yebruary , hereInafter called the.. 1981 , by and between the COUNTY OF Collier COUNTY, ond FLORIDA POWER 8. LIGHT COMPANY 0 corporation orgonlzed and existing under Ihe lows of Florida with its principal place of business in tho City of MiamI, County of Dode,' State of Florida, hereinaFter called the COMPANY. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the COUNTY is constructing, "reconstructing or otherwise chonging 0 portion of its road system designated by the COUNTY os Project No. 03503-3404, Pine Ridge Rood at C-31 , . which shalf call For the relocation of the COMPANY'S facilities along, over ond/or under said highway, AND WHEREAS, tl,~ pions for said construction, reconstruction or other chang"s to be mode, os above described, hove been reviewed by the COUNTY and the COMPANY, soid above described utility relocation to hereinaFter be designated os "Relocation Work." OJ ~ AND WHEREAS, the term "cost of relocation" sholl include the entire amount .:~~.~ paid by Ihe COMPA NY properly attributable to such relocation after deducting. thereFrom any increase in the value of the Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, in ca~sideration of the mutual undertaking os hereIn set forth, the parties hereto ogree os Follows: I. The COMPANY hi:re,by agrees to ralocate the necessary parts of Its faclllttes along said Road and agrees to do all of such work with Its own forces or by a contractor -'r< <~ ~,; t~ , ., <':~";~~.~. ..'., .~ . - . .-. '. ';!1 :<", ... . Page 2 of 5 !:. paid under 0 contract let by the COMPANY, 011 under th. direction and approval of the COUNTY. 2. The COUNTY hereby agrees to reimburse'the COMPANY for all costs " Incurred by it in each suc-h relocation of said focilities in accordance with the cost allocations described in the cost estimates, and any supplements or revisIons thereto. It is underslood and ogreed by and between the parties thot preliminary engineering cosls not incorporoted in the COMPANY'S plans and estimates, os approved by the COUNTY, shall not be subject to payment by the COUNTY. 3. Altached hereto, and by referenc... made a port hereof, ore plans and specificalions 01 the work 10 be pcrfOt"med by Ihe COMPANY pursuanl to the terms hereof, and on eslimote of the cost thereof in .he amount of $53,121 . All work performed by the COMPA NY pursuant hereto, sholl be performed .occording to these plans and specifications os approved by the COUNTY, amI 011 subsetjuent plan chong", sheP likewise be approved by the COUNTY. 4. AI! labar, servkes, materials and ..quipmenl furnished by the COMPANY in corrying out the work to b.. perfOt"med hereunder sholl be bill..d by the COMPANY direct to the COUNTY. Separate records os to the cost of contract bid itelM and force occount items perfarm..d for the COMPANY sholl also be furnished by the COMPANY to th.. COUNTY. 5. The COMPANY and the COIJNTY hove d..tennined that the method to be used . In developing the relocation or adjustment cost sholl be the actual ond related Indirect . ..J.. costs accumulated in accordance wilh on established occounting procedure developed by the COMPANY ~nd previously approved by the State of FloridO Deportment of TransportatIon. 6. The adjustment of the COMPANY'S facilities os planned will requIre th. . ' ..-. ~~ . . . , .. . .~ " ..:- . ao~~ 05B, PACE 50-1 ' ~ . Page 3 of 5 - . .~'.~ operation of the old facilities until the new facilities ore functioning. -(. '~~ < ~ ,- .'. .. ,'. . . ....;. 7. The proposed new facilities installed in the COMPANY'S system wlll remain in useFul service beyond the tlme when the overall facilities of which they ore 0 part, ore rep,laced. Credit for extended service life applies, and S - 0 - is" the estimated amount to cover this credit. 8. It is specifically agreed by and between the COUNTY and the COMPANY that the COUNTY sholl receive fair ond adequate credit for any salvage which shal/ occrue to the COMPANY os 0 result of the above relocation work. 9. Upon completion of the work the COMPANY-shall, at the earliest dote prClcticoble, and in no event later than one hundred twenty (120) days fol/owing the ooie of \2011"plc~;vfi c.f tha uR~lcccHcn \'1ork" bj" the COMPANY, ftlrnish th", COUNTY with two (2) copies of its final and complete billing of all costs incurred in connection with the work performed hereunder, such statement to follow os closely ,I as possible the order of the items contained in the estimate attached hereto. Upon the COMPANY'S failure to submit proper billing within the :20 day period, the COUNTY may, at its discretion, audit the COMPA NY'S records and thereby determine the reimbursable amount. The COMPANY hereby woives any right of appeal or protest of- such omount as determined by audit. The totals for labor, overhead, trove I expense, transportation, equipment, material and supplies, handling costs, and other services sholl be shown in such a manner os will permit ,eady comporison with the approved pions and estimates. tv.aterials sholl be itemized where they represent mojo.- components Of costs in the relocation, Following the poltern set out in the approved estimate os closely as possible. Salvage credits from recovered and replaced permanent and recovered tempora'y mater!afs sholl be reported in sold bill in relative positton with tho charge for .1,,, r~lacem~t or the ariqlnal charQe for tempo<ary use. Page 4 of 5 The final billing sholl show the description and site of tho proJect; the date on '"t. ; .... which the first work was performed, or, if preliminary engineering or right of way items oro involved, the dote on which the earliest item of billed expense was incurred; : the cIote on which rhe lasl work was performed or the lasl lIem of billed expenso wos. incurred; ond the location where the records and accounts billed con be oudited. Adequote reference sholl be mode in the billing to the COMPANY'S records, ,., ~ .... accounts and other relevant documents. All cost records and accounts sholl be sublect to audit by 0 representotive of the COUNTY. Upon receipt of invoice, the COUNTY agrees to rei~burse rhe COMPANY in Ihe amount of such ocluol .:osts os approved by the COUNTY. 10. The CaMPA NY ('ovenants to indemnify, defend, save harmless and exonerate the COUNTY of and from all liobility, claims, and demands arising out of the work undertaken by the COMPANY pursuont to this agreement, due 10 the negl;gent oct ions, deloys, or omissions done or committed by the COMPANY, ils subcontractors, employees, agents or representatives. It is specifically understood and ogreed thaI this indemnificotion agreement does not cover nor indemnify the COUNTY for its own negligence or breach of this contract. ill BECOJlDEn vvvn,.J~ . . .. ... .. '1').. Jor~ . 1 tW ~~ fa ....Il ."'" -'-- I.a. ......' :..,.~,! , ..-.. '. ,'t, 8Il0l 059 PACE 502 , .' .~ ii .,i ..~ ',;~ /'~ ,. ,. ,- Pogo 5 of 5 DOOK 059 PACE 503 . ~:'... . ". ~; .'- ~>\::.,::.~' i~""':_.~t. . i,r.' ''''.. . ......v....:... " ..... .- N' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused thflse presents to be executed by their duly authorized officers, and their official seals hereto ofnxed, the day and year first above written. . . ',' . . , . ~" :1 ~. ~ .~: : c . .. ..... ,. 'J C"'~~ COUNTY OF COT.I.IER ... BY: . (t, ~-I;t ~n, Board of County Commissioners ATTEST'~~-~EAL) aun y Allorney ~7-4f/Y~), Witness . eJ~ As to the COMPA NY Wilness (COMPANY) BY: tCGng=~(nager .' I . February 10, 1981 .' VARIOUS FACTS A~D FIGURES REGARDING AMERICAN AMBULANCE, WITH PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, PRESENTED BY EGON HILL, Mr. Egon Hill prefaced his comments by suggesting that, since there has been a motion by the Board to cancel the contract with American Ambulance, Inc., his presentation of facts and figures may not be necessary. However, said Mr. Hill, there are questions he would like a response to - i.e. why shouldn't the funds be collected which have been identified by the auditors as covering items which the CPA firm has said should absolutely not have been charged to the County? Mr. Hill also questioned the cifference between the amount collected by the ambulance firm, citing the figure of $198,375 identified by the flllhcommittee of the EMS appointed for the purpose of investigating the exact figures as the amount which should have been collected in a six-month period, and the amount furnished by the firm of only $108,000. ~lr. Hill said there should bf: a question raised as to what happenec to the cifference of $90,000. A further recommendation of the previously-mentioned subcommittee, continued Mr. Hill, was for Fiscal Officer Harold Hall to take over both the billing and collection functions with the costs for this being deducted from the contract with American Ambulance. He added the suggestion that, in his opinion, perhaps the County-owned ambulances should be taken over by the County and a competent man hired to run the service for the County. Chairman Pistor expressed the Board's appreciation to Hr. Bill for his report which Mr. Hill said would be given to the.EMS Council, as well . ~ . .. eaoK, 059 '504' '.' PACE . II, . .' . ., ,.. .."..-- -.. ---- .. -. ..' . . . . . February 10, 1981 eoOK 059, 'ACE 5'05 CHANGES IN MOTOR POOL POSITIONS FROM ONE FULL-TIME MOTOR POOL ATTENDANT TO TWO PART-TIME POSITIONS - AUTHORIZED purchasing Director Frank Wilcox explained that it has been difficult to fill the position of Motor Pool Attendant with an employee who is capable of performing clerical work as well as perform the o , duties of an Attendant. Therefore, said Mr. Wilcox, it is being requested that the position be changed from a full-time position to two part-time positions, adding that there would be less money involved than was originally budgeted. Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried 4/0 with Commissioner Kruse temporarily absent at the time of the vote, that the request be approved changing the full-time position . of Motor Pool Attendant to two part-time positions of Motor Pool Attendant and Cler~ I. Commissioner Wenzel inquired about the qualifica~ions required for driving the County vehicles with Mr. Wilcox stating that the only requirement is a driver's license. . The Commissioher expressed his desire to have all appropriate drivers be required to take the defensive driving course mentioned by Mr. Wilcox and become certified. RECLASSIFIClITION OF LIBRARY CLERK POSITION (LG-3), EXTENSION SERVICES, HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY, TO LIBRARY ASSISTANT (LG-7) - APPROVED As recommended by Library Director Richard Joder in the Executive Summary dated January 26, 1981, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 4/0 with Commissioner Kruse temporarily absent when the vote was taken, that the position of Library Clerk (LG-3), Extension Services, Headquarters Library, be reclassified to Library Assistant (LG-7). . t, ~ , .,;"',.... .'-:.i"". . . '.....' f "':). t '~'t ..,....._-~.....,.~ " ;.~.. r, :'f..: ." February 10, 1981 ,':/; "i BOARD APPROVES EXCH~NGE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CERTAIN NORTH TRAIL PROPERTY FOR DR~IN~GE EASEMENT DOCUMENT RE SAME Pursuant to explanation by County lIttorney Pickworth, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that the Quit Claim Deed, transferring certain property located near Wendy's Restaurant on the North Trail to the County, be exchanged for a - Drainage Easement document with regard to the same property, as recommended, and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the subject Deed. .J Ii " ....1 aoox 059,ACE 506 ,:,"'.:41 .. " '. '-~' ,,~ :' "i /; :.i,i ..,! 'tJ February 10, 1981 , , ROUTINE BILLS - AUTHORIZED FOR PAYMENT EXCLUDING AMERICAN AMBULANCE, INC. PAYMENT (SEE ACTION TAKEN LATER IN SESSION) Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconrted by Commissioner Wimer and carried unanimously, that the bills, having been processed following established procedure wi th funds available, be approved for payment as witnessed by the following checks issued from February 4, 1981 through February 10, 1981: 1\CCOUNT CHECK NOS. County Checks 4766 - 5024 CET1\ Payroll 5614 - 5795 Fiscal Officer Harold Hall noted that, included in the bills for payment, is a payment to ~~erican Ambulance, Inc. He said that such payment is in accortJance wit.h the contract and also in accordance with '. the recomm~ndation made by the County Manager's office with regard to the deductions in the amount of $6,600 for telemetry equipment and $500 on the insurance. Mr. Hall informed the Board that, to his knowledge, American Ambulance was made aware of the subject payment and offered no objection. 1- , Public Safety 1\dministrator Hafner explained that a telephone call was made to the firm, followed up with a letter, inquiring as to how the deductions should be made - by a check or checks from the firm, or deducted from the contract payment. The firm's president, Mr. JDck Maguire, said Mr. Hafner, told him to deduct it every month from the contract payment. Therefore, continued Hr. Hall, in order not to take too much from the working capital, it was decided that one-third of the payment would be deducted every montq for three months. . aoo. fJ59 rACE 508 , , . , ,) .,~,Il j .,~ '---'-- , , . . -.' . MOK 059 PACE 509 February 10, 19B1 It was Commissioner Wimer's suggestion that the payment to American Ambulance, Inc. be excluded from the regular bills approved for payment and that it be handled as a separate item later in the Session. It was the consensus of the Board that the suggestion was appropriate. " Commissioner Wenzel amended his motion to approve payment of the bills presented excluding payment of the American Ambulance, Inc. bill. Commissioner Wimer agreed to the amended motion in his seconding thereof and the amended motion carried by unanimous vote. BUDGET AMENDMENT 81-27 TRANSFERRING FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT RE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - ADOPTED IN TRE AMOUNT OF $6,199 Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and unanimously carried, that Budget Amendment 81-27, to appropriate unanticipated revenue in the amount of $6,199 for the purchase of equipment, be adopted. ;...' (,' ~_.._-' };.:.. ...'-; f'" .. ~.. ':..;.~!.. ...-.. - ._._ _.i _" _~" _... _.. . ~ .Jj"~.. ... .. . .... -.- -. -. -- ~ -".. .. -- - - . -~- --- .._~ . .~. Max 059 PACE511 . February 10, 1981 BUDGET AMENDMENT 81-28 TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM CONTINGENCIES FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT RE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT _ ADOPTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $228 .. " ~ ~ " Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and unanimously carried, that Budget Amendment 81-28, to transfer funds . ~ ~. . " r from Contingencies to purchase a generator slightly larger than anticipated in the budget, plus price increase on other equipment, with regard to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District, be adopted in the amount of $228. :.. )' j. .--:- - .....-.. . !OOK '059,ACE513- February 10, 1981 PROPOSED BUDGET ~MENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR TELEPHONE CALLS FROM THE IMMOK~LEE STOCKADE RE PUBLIC DEFENDER - DEFERRED PENDING P.RESE~TATION OF ALTERNATIVES BY FISCAL OFFICER Fiscal Officer Harold Hall explained that the Public Defender's Office has found that the communications costs from the Stockade in Immokalee to the subject office have risen considerably f~llowing the transfer of the Stockade to the Sheriff's Department. He said that he has been working with the Public Defender's Office and has traced the , matter for the last four months. It appears. ~e continued, that $1500 is needed in order to take them through the balance of the year. It was suggested that a telephone line be put in with Mr. Hall advising that there is an existing line but that there is a matter of I privacy involved and the volume is such that the Public Defender feels that it is a justified increase in expenses. Mention was made of the fact that the existing line is frequently busy and that, perhaps, a second line would be sufficient. Following additional brief discussion, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel, that the matter be "sent back to the drawing board". It was the consensus of the Board that the subject be tabled with Mr. Hall being requested to present possible alternatives to the problem and, therefore, no action was taken on the motion. CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN GRANT APPLICATION FORMS TO FUND HOMEMARERS SERVICE OF COLLIER COUNTY THROUGH DECE~BER 31, 1981 Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Grant Application forms to fund the Homemakers Service of Collier County through December 31, 1981. ....,.. VI, ?ERSO~NH F. A!=?!R.\(ATIVE ACTION PLAN 1. Policy . Board of County Com~issioners of Collier County - "" .". . . -.. -.- It is the policy of the (agency name) to provide equal employment opportunity to all people without regard to race, color, crced, scx, age or national origin, and to promote the full realization ~. of that policy'through-i positive, continuing program to be lcnOhll as the. (agency name) Collier co~ntv Commissioners Affircative Action Plan. The (agency name '" of c~ 1 fer County is fully comm~ tted ~o assurlng equa oppor~unlty and equal conslderatlonto all applicants and e~ployees in personnel mattersr_including recruitment an! hiring, training, promotion, salaries and other compensation, transfer and layoff or termi- nation. In the implementation of this policy-, it will aggressively seek personnel for all job levels within the organization .through upgrading and recruitment from minority group members and women. . . , , Doard of County Commisnion~rs The (agency na::le) of C<;>ll icr COIUltY. shall likewise ;;.s:;u-re equ?l OppOTt.un1ty to any handlcapped pe~son who is an applicant or ~mployee, with respect tp the emplo~2e~t ?ractice specified above, unless the dis- ability involved prevents satisfacto.y performance of the work involved. . , 2. Disse::lin2.ti'J!l of Policy , .' ;;>;':-' =- This polir:y -,.;U!-be iirrQ,lemcnted t'hr:ough- th~~'::(age~c'i": name) Board of County' Commissioners o'f COllle"-Co"n.ty.. .-'--..:.:. ~, .--.... .~r.. The'Equal E~ployment Opportunity Policy is, and will conti~ue to be, communicated to all relevant audiences. a. The policy is specifica~ly included and will a con~inuing and essential component of the perso=eLpolicieS.3.I1d procedures.- '_" be . -' . .- . .~ '-. ." "... . ::-.. .."'..... ~_.-..~ b. It will be publicized in appropriate communication of the organization. .. \ c. A copy of: tliis- document will be given' to: everr employee ana be issued to all persons engaged in the recruitment., hiring, placement. training and' education of employees. ' ~oox 059 PACE 518 . d. The policy will be thoroughly discussed, in employee orienta~ion and all training programs, and in ~ppropriate m;mage:ncnt and supervisory meetings, . ; so that the organization's policy ~s made clear. 'e. Notices required by the Equal Employment Opportunity . Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor, and any state or city 059 519 hUJ:Ian rights agencies will be displayed in worlcil1g rAf.r areas and in employment offices. . The (Gesig~ated official in agency) ~,Hora. Peraonnel oirector ~ill be ,respol'_sible .,fo.r;, .. ' a. Developing additional or amended policy statements as needed, additional Affirmative Action Plans, and internal and external communication techn~ques. '.~ r.oox :5. . ~..-.' . '." - - _._~--- _.-.~~. Assisti~g in the identification of problems in administering this policy and helping to resolve them. . j , Desigrring and i~ple~entin~ record keeping and audit systens that will measure the effectiveness of the progra~, indicate the need for reoedial actions and dete~ine the degree to which the goals and objectives. have been a~tained, keep the Board of Directors of County the (ager.cy na::te) Commissioner's of Col:der countji.nfon:ted of prog;:-ess in. at_ta~n~ng..t.ne obJec1:l.ves at.. t:he. policy. . and Affi=ativ~.Acti:oII Plan, "anct of' me lates-t:" develop ":;=':.'. . ::lents in t;le entire, eq~,aL e::p_loyment:_oE.E..ortun_i:t~. area_, .... Provide ;:-eporting to and liaison with compliance agencies. f. All sources of recruit~ent will be informed orally and in ~7iting of the equal e~ployment policy stipulating that they actively recruit and refer r~~~~/nd minori~x .cand~~~t~s. f.orall. pos.;;.i.9~.S ',:' ,.;:~" Resnonsibilitv for I~nlementation , b. c. d. ~. Grievance P70cedure Any applicant or eDployee who believes that he or she - has been discriminated against:'may' file a cOl!!plaint::::With.:-. ." '.'.nnc Hora. Pc~sonnel Oireclor within 180 days of the aC1:ion'- Co~pl~lnea 0=. All ~omp alnts shall be treated in accord~nce with.the pTocedures set forth in the personnel' . . rules =d regulations of (agency n3.ll:e) The Board of County Commiss~oner. of Collier count- Kal:le:. John Pistor (Print ox Type) ..... .' .,.' . -~- .- -.---.-.---- Title Chairman of the Board ll'n.nt Signature 10. 1981 Date -"-"'--...-- ----.-r~.....--.".- -, ._. ..' '., - ASSUR,;''lC;:: CF COM?LIAlICE :UTll TilE DEPi\RTHENT OF H::,\LTP., ::OUC.:\TION, AND I-IELFARE REGULATION UNDER T!TLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 ..' Board of County Commissioners of Collier County lhereinafter called the "^~plicant") (~a.T,:'! 0:: .;;::pll.cant:) . F.:::<:::3Y AGK::;::S TliAT it. will comply with Title VI of the civil nights Act. a: 19E~ (?L. 88-352) and all requirements imposed by or pur- . S,"~:1t. to t...l;e ?eguli:,-tion of the Oepart;;;enl: of Hcalth, Education a~c ~el:a=e (~5 cr~ ~art 80) issued pursuant to that. title, to the e~:::. t...~a t., i:l accorcance. with. Title. VI of. t.hat. Act. and the, .Regulation., '::~ ::e=s::::l i.... t.lc.:'!' Unit.ed States shall, on the ground of race, color, C~ ~a~icr.~~ origin, be excluded rro~ partici?~tion in, be denied ':::e =e~e::i':s of, or be other',.;ise subjected to discrimination \u)der a~:' r=oc;=~-:l or activity fo:: which the iI.pplicilnt ::ece'ives Feder.al :i...,a~cial assis':ance f::Oli1 the Depart..-:lent; and H::REBY GIVES . ;'SS:';R.~2ICE TH.AT it will. L';Qec.~tely. take .an~ Inea sures. necessary .'1:0:. e:=ec~uat~ this agreement. I: any real )?::o)?crty 0= st.ructure the'reon is provided or improved wit~ the aid of Federal' fina~cial assistilnce extended to the A;::plican'.: ~y. the Oepart,'i\ent, this assurance shall obligate the A;::plicant, or in t~e case of any transfer of such property, any' t.::ans::e::ee, for the peric~ during which the real propcrty or 5'.:r~c:~::::: is ~~se~ for A Dur~6sd for which the Federal financial assista:lce is cxte~cec or ::0: another pur?ose involving the ~=cvis~c~ c: si~ilc= service or benefi~s. If: any personal property is so ?=o'/iced, t~is assurance shall ohligate the Applicant for the r:e=ioc. du::i:1q \....hic:; ~~~.:. :-e:':!'::15 o\.mer-shij1 0::- posse~fiion of the propert.y. In all otne:: ::::.,,'"s, this aSSUTilnce shall obligate the . ?'?plitent to:: t~c per i"-=. cc:ring which the F(,c1erill finilncial assist- .:"i-"'~"'" . ~----cn ; s ex.l..""'c'n" to ;t. \......- f-'l.,.o... Oenar"-ent .. .. .. -. _. ....."1_ .. ~.. - - . ,-~.. -...... .... -.~: .:::::-....""::"... ...'-. ,~~..._ oJ -.. '"_..C.<-... . ~ _ ,-=-_~,_.. ,._._=:- ___'~ . .::.;. ..:~.::: '~.;':~~-:~~~'~'~, .?;~ . ...----.- _........ ...... -, '!~:;:s ;'.SS~,,-~:C;:: is g:.ven ~ consiC:e::at.ion, of and :for t.he ..pu:qlose. of. o~t.a~:ing any enc all :ece::al grants, loans, cont::acts, property, ciscounts or other ?ede=al financial assistance ext.ended after ~""'a Aa"'O '""e-eo~ ':""0 ~L.::. ...--.l'c....-.... \..... ...ho nOl'"'\;:lr~m,e.nr includ1'na \,...._ '- ...._ I' _ ...... ....Jl~ r\:-:-, ..... Qj.j..... 1>.1;1 _.._~ __.__ '-.._.. _: _ ... instal~"en~ ~a~.ents a=~2r such date on account of the applications fa:: :ederal =inancial assistance which were approved before such cat2. The rl~~licar.t ::ecosnizes and agrees that such Federal . financial assistance will be extenc.ed in reliance. on the. represen-, tations a:1d a<:;'=eene:1t.s r.lace- in -this -assurance';~ and: that' the On'ited! States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement. of this ass~::ance, This assurance is'binding on the Applicant, it's s:;c=essors;, tr3.nsferees, and....assignc;es, and the person, or pe!:'sons . 'A'hose signa tures ilp)?ear helo.... aJ:e. au::horizec. to sisn this assw::ance. ' on behal:: of the rl??licant~ ' . , - . Satellite Service D1dq. G Collier County Com~lcx Naples, Florida 33942 BY .....-'ffe 5 de nt., ccmp rablc C';T~ February lO, 1981 ';P?llC3.nC'S M3.l.1l.ng Aodrcss ...: -? 8001 059 rACE 520 . '. HEN "41 &GOI DEPAR.T~l::)lT OF H::::;.LTIi, EDUC.;TION AND liETtFARE :,sSU!'.A..""CS OF CC;.l?LIANCE HITH SECTION 504 OF THE 21REaABILIT~TION ACT OF 1973, AS ~1ENDED 059 tACE 5 . ~e ~r~e=s~~~e~ (~e=ei~a=te= called '~~e "recipient") HE~9~ AGRE~S THAT it will c::e.ply ..'i::;, Sec~cn 50~ o~ t."e Rer~ilitation Act of 1973, as a:nended (29 a.s.c: 7e~). all =~~i=~ents L~posed by t."e applicable HL-W regulation (45 C.r.R. Part. 6~). a~ all ~~~celines ~~d L,te=pretations issued pUrsu~,t thereto. ?~sca~t t~ o~.5(a) 0= t.~e regulation [45 C.F.R. 8~.5(a)]. the recipient gives .. t..'l~s ^ss=...~::e in c~ns!.de="t:icn' 0= l!Ild ~or- t..'l,,' puJ:?Ose of' obtai,linq L"1'/ and. .aU:.",_ !ee.e:a.1 C;=a.-:.~s, lOZ-ras, cont.=ac~s (e..~cept proCU=e=1ent contracts and cont.:'acts of .i~su:a~ce ~r ~~a=a~tyj, ?ro?c=~y, disco~'ts, or c~~c= fed==al financial assistance ex,:er..c!ec :;.r -:':'"e De.?a=~;e...'1t. of Hea.1~~, Education ar.d Welfa=e afte: the date of ~~is ~ssc=~~ce, i~clcd~~g ~a~~'ts ur o~~er assist~'ce ~ce a~ter such date. on a??lic~t:io~5 ~o= !eceral =L,anc~al assistance that were approved before such date. ~e recipie.'t =ec~C;:1!.=es and "-c;rees t."arsuch'redera.l: fi::-..a."lcial assistan~~ll- .l:e ex:e:-.:!ed :..., reli.a.~ce on t.~e :-epresentations and egree=e.,ts cade in this ~s~~~ce ,,~d t.~t t.~e United S:~tes will have the right to enforce this Assurance t.."r~cgh la~=~ =ean5. T~i.s ^ss~ance is binding on t."e recipient, its successors, t:'lmsf~ees, ~~ assic;nees, a,.-.c. e"e person or pe..rso.ns whose signa~es appear below =e au~",or~=ed t~ si"" t.."is Assurance on beha.l.f of the recipient. ' T.-.is ;>'ss=a.~ce obli"..tes t..':e recipient for t."e period during which federal. ti:-~:-~!."l assistar,c~ is e.~endec to it by the Departne.,t of nealt.'l, Zducation a.""^c. ftelte.re or provice<l :oor. ~n 84.5(b) 'of the reguJ...tion (4.5 C.F.R. 84.S(b)). .. "._. ~e recir!.ec.=: (Che~~ (al or (~)] a. ( e=lploys fewe.=' t.:.....a.."l fifteen persons: b. ( x =ploys =::..=,:""" ==re'Eersonsand. pursuant: to' 84.7{a). o~ the. =equlatio~ (45 C.=.R. 8~.~{a)I.,r~s.desiqnat~ the foLl7~L,~ ?erson (5) to. =o::di=.ttLi.ts.. efro=".ta. CO;;\i1l.y, w.(~.the_ R:E"L': re<;uJ.ation: . . ...;..~~::f;: ~ . .---..,. -_T~ .":.. _ ~ . , Martha L, Skinner, Proiect Director N~c 0:: Designee(s) - Type or Print Board of County Commissioners of Collier County ~~e of aeci:ient: - Type 0= ?=!...~t..___.. Collier County Comolex - Bldq. G. ' S_l:r.~et ACdress or ? o. Box. , ' . _ . . -" .' '.. . - ."- .-... .-' ~-. .. _ ':-''';'t. 59-&000-558 .(:"'-5) ~?lo::,C'= :~e.."lt.i.=ic.:ltion ?:o. " I(Aplt>g City. .~. ~ " Florida State 33942 Zip I ce:.-"':'~::' t.~.:.t: ~~e above L,~or.:ution is co:nplete and correct to t.'ICl best of r:rr' . ic-.owle<!ge. {2, ~-t"ur And Title Pebrunry lO. 19B1 =..~e Author:uod. Official. . :~ t.~e:e ~s ~ee.' 3 c~!"'~'Je in n=" or owner:; ip within t.~e last year, 1 -~~ t.."" ~c=er n=c belew. P ,!A..' . February 10, 1981 BOARD AUTHORIZES COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RESPOND TO ATTORNEY BRUNER'S LETTER REGARDING PURCHASE OF MARCO INCINERATOR '. . " . CO.I:lOty Attorney Pickworth commented on the recei pt of II letter ~ '1 dated February 5. 1981 from Attorney David Bruner wherein it is stated that Attorney Bruner has received a proposal from a client for the purchase of the Marco Island Incinerator, It was the consensus of the Board that Attorney Pickworth advise Attorney Bruner to contact the recent purchaser of the facility for further negotifttions on the purchase. LETTER OF OPPOSITION FRO:-1 NIIPLES IIREA 130J'.RD OF REAl.TORS, INC. RE PROPO~ED CHANGI:;S IN CUHHEN'j' ZONING REGULATIONS .. NO ACTION TAKEN PENDING COMPLETION OF DRlIFT ORDINANCE Chairman rIstor noted the receipt of a letter dated February 6, 1981 fr0m John T. Conroy, Jr., President o[ the Naples lIreR Board of Realtors, Inc., setting forth the Board of Directors' opposition to recommended changes in the current Zoning Regulations aimed at reducing density and height of buildings throughout the County, and the r.easons for their opposition. It was Commissioner Wimer's suggestion that no action be taken with regard to the changes pending a review of the proposed ordInance when it is presented to the Board. The matter of workshop sessions on the ordinance was mentioned with Community Development Administrator Virta pointing out that the Planning Agency is holding weekly workshops with members of the realty community, as well as the development community, in attendance. He agreed to contact Mr. Conroy wIth regard to the workshop sessions. It was the consensus of the Board that'no. action is required until the proposed ordinance is completed. .-; , ..f" :~ ~:. MOl. 059 PAC[ 522 '0 _'.' ..,.,.., ,;. '." .. ',." ~.'""'i''t:.. ,~-: ~ Jtl 1f'r"I. . "l:. . February lO, 1981 WOK .: 059 PAGE 523, AMERICAN AMBULANCE, INC. BILL IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,909.96 - APPROVED FOR PAYMENT, PURSUANT TO RECOMMENDATION OF ST^FF Fiscal Officer 'Harold Hall brought back to the Board a recommendation that the American Ambulance, Inc. bill in the amount of '. $45,909.96 be approved for payment, action having been deferred earlier in the Session. He explained that, following the subject payment, the balance to be collected would total less than $5,000 on the two items in question. Since payments are always a month behind, there will be no problem in deducting the balance, said Mr. Hall. As much operating capital as possible should be provided, particularly during the current situation, in looking at the matter from the side of American Ambulance, concluded Mr. Hall. Commissioner Kruse moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and un~nimously carried, that the subject payment be made to American Ambulance, Inc., pursuant to the staff recommendations. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS HE STAFF REPORT OF 1/12/8l ON PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL AND COMPANY COMPLIANCE AUDIT OF PRIOR CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN AMBULANCE, INC. - RECOMMENDATIONS DETAILED IN 2/3/8l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ^PPROVED; STAFF DIRECTED TO OBTAIN PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL AUDIT : County Manager C. William Norman said that it is appropriate for the Board to make some disposition of the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Compliance Audit of the prior Contract with American Ambulance, Inc. dated July 24, 1980. He recalled that two weeks previously the Board received the staff recommendation to the effect that the County receive immediate deduction of what was termed Category IV expenses, amounting to approximately $7,700, and that the firm be given thirty February 10, 1981 days to document justification for Category' III items. These have been covered in the Executive Summary provided this date, said Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman said that there are items in Category I which would be "triggered" if they couldn't be inventoried, following which they would fall into Category IV. He said that, without going into detail, a staff position was reached at the January 27, 1981 meeting, commenting that there was pleasure expressed at the effort Ms. Maguire was giving in trying to develop documentation by going to vendors, and the like, in this regard. He said that she has brought In some material which has been reviewed by the Clerk's office and which accounts for ~pproKimately SSn,nnn of the $77.000+ fiqure. He said it is premature to make a report but he wanted to acknowledge that it is a major effort and that there is agreement to Ms. Maguire's request that she would need more t:me to complete the documentation. Also recognized, continued Mr. Norman, Is that it is ncccssary to consummate the old .. contract prior to the deadline in the termination agreement under the old contract which is March 3l, 1981, and an agreement was reached to \ extend the deadline until March l5, 1981 for the Category III items. The fact was accepted, Mr. Norman said, that if it could be shown that the Category IV items were legitimate business expenses, these could be added to Category III. Continuing with his report, Mr. Norman said that, with regard to Category IV, the County is hold.ing an amount which is more than . sufficient to cover that from the prior year's final payment. It was agreed that these could be offset which would insure that the County would be "whole" in terms of the initial amount at least and the interest that might be involved could very well be offsetting between &OOK 059 rACE 524 . ~::."F: ~---4 :;~ ... ,,;;:)i;,: ~. t -~ , if::" '. ......:........-:.-...-_~.__h.._..~_ _ ... _ . BOOK 059 PACE 525 February 10, 1981 what American Ambulance had earned during that period of time and what the County had earned on the amount withheld. He said that the recommendation that those funds be immediately withheld from payment is :~ 't being withdrawn and it is recommended that the matter become part of the final termination agreement and be offset by what the County is holding. Responding to Commissioner Wenzel's suggestion that perhaps the EMS Council could provide input on a number of the issues under discussion, Mr. Norman said that it really is up to the County professionals to proceed at this point, in his opinion, noting that a ',. "top-flight" accounting firm was engaged to review the expenses and documentation and advise whether or not they were really legitimate w expenses. Mr. Hall concurred with Mr. Norman, adding the comment that he did not wish to discredit the work of the Council. However, he said that the staff is now at the place where they are looking for "beady-eyed" professionals to point out the fine points to determine if public funds have been properly expended or not, which, he added, seriously involves the Board of County Commissioners. He said that it is necessary to have the kind of documentation presentation that will stand up in court and that the Clerk, County Manager, the County Attorney, and he look at it from the viewpoint that they will be defending the Board in court. To be specific, said Mr. Hall, referring to the various categories mentioned by Mr. Norman, it was felt that the Category II expenses were not reasonable business expenses but that the legal expense to defend it would not be worthwhile. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and unanimously carried, that the staff recommendation, the four items set - --- _. --.,...- '-- .....-. . . .. -. ..... _.. . , .. ,. '. .,.....' ,.'. ..' -.- ..-. -..... "--.. ,.-.----.- ..~ "---'~",~-:,~' ;, ..,,'. . '''j \ ~ February lO, 1981 forth in the Executive Summary dated February 3, 1981, prepared by Mr. Norman, with"respect to the aforementioned Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Compliance Audit of the prior contract with ~erican Ambulance, Inc., be adopted. Chairman pistor inquired as to whether or not the named auditing \ firm could be of further assistance to the County with regard to the matter at hand with Mr. Hall responding that the firm has completed their task under the current engagement. However, said Mr. Hall, the annual audit for American Ambulance, for the first year under the new Agreement, is coming up, noting that the Board selects the aUditing firm, and that it might be well for the Board to direct the staff to obtain a proposal from a firm of the Board'i choosing for such purpose. De Bugge3tcd that the 80ard may wish to consider the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, with Mr. Norman commenting that this would be his Lecommendation also. Chairman Plstor directed, without any objection forthcoming, that . the subject proposal be obtained as quickly as possible. In conclusion, Mr. Hall added that the Termination Agreement will be forthcoming which involves accounts receivable, and the like, and which, it is expected, will te controversial. CHAIRMAN DIRECTED TO SIGN CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLL There being no objection from the Commission members, the Chairman signed the following Certificates of Correction to the Tax Roll: NOS. DATE Tangible Personal Property 1980-54 to 2/3/81 1980-63 2/6/81 MO~. 059 PACE 526 '~f:(.;".:'}'." '.~ 1 . _.... ~-" . 1I00X 059 PACE 5Z7 February 10, 1981 LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DEEDS NOS. 249, 250, 251, 252 AND 253 - FILED FOR THE RECORD FOLLOWING RECORDATION Pursuant to action of the Board January lO, 1978 wherein the Chairman wu~ authorized to sign various deeds to Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens cemetery lots as the need arises, the following Deeds Nos. 249, 250, 25l. 252, and 253 were recorded and filed for the record. ., . \ .~' ".1_0(- "I" . fl , '. SO~K 059 PACE 533 February 10, 1981 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED ANDIOR REFERRED There being no objection, the Chair directed that the following correspondence be f~led andlor referred to the various departments as, indicated: 1. Copy of letter dated l/27/81 from Zoning Director Perry, to Mrs. Harriet S. Slade, in response to a letter to the editor printed l/l5/8l in which Mrs Slade expressed concern due to a proliferation of billboards along the East Trail, S8me letter indicated that the existing billboards are legal. Filed. 2. project Status Report re Collier County Government Center Expansion Comm. No. 8066 from the firm of Polizzi/Heery for the PredesignlProgramming Phase, reriod ending l/30/Bl. Filed. 3. Inspection Report from the Department Of Corrections re Collier County Jail inspection of January 5, 19B1 Filed. 4. Letter dated 1/29/81 from Bea Ballen of Collier County Council on Aging, Inc., commending the BCC for their decision to try the Public Transporation Plan for two years. Filed. 5. Letter dated 1/30/81 from Calvin T. Hoskinson, President of th8 Country Club of Naples, Inc., suggesting that plans for four laning Frank Road include a yellow warning flasher at the intersection of Solano Road and Frank Road. xc C. Barkdsale; Filed. G. Letter dated 1/29/81 from Robert S. Wilkerson, Bureau Chief, Department of Community lIffairs, notifying the County that he has received notification that Collier County has been declared eligible for an Emergency Loan due to the severe freeze during the period January l2, l3, 14, and 19, 1981. xc Agriculture Department; Filed. I 7. Letter dated 1/26/8l from Richard S. Kraska supporting the dredging program currently proposed for Wiggins Pass and Turkey Bay at Vanderbilt Beach in North Naples. Filed. " ,,' 8. Letter dated 1/29/81 from L. Edward Stone, Executive Vice-President of the Marco Island Chamber of Commerce, indicating that the Chamber's position regarding the beautification of thd median on Collier Blvd remains favorable, and requesting that the question of calling for a 1/10 mill to cover said costs be put on a referendum ballot. xc C. Barksdale; Filed. 9. Ci rcular Letter No .8l-06 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development indicating that the deadline of July 1, 1981 has been designated for consideration of AHOP applications for CDBG competition. xc H. Hall, Planning Department, Filed. 10. Dep8rtmental Reports as follows. a) Library Consolidated, (December 1980)/ b) purchasing Department (December 1980), c) " " 1,. . February 10, 1981 Recap of Zoning Department Investigations (December 1980). Filed. 11. Inspection Rep~rt re Department of Corrections Inspection of January 5, 1981 of the Stockadl:>, Filed. l2. Copy of letter dated 2/2/8l from Ceta Fiscal Supervisor Beverly Kueter, tendering her re~ignation effective 2/13/81; Copy of response; letter dated 2/5181 from County Manager Norman accepting same resignation with regret. Filed. l3. Memorandum dated l2/80 from Donald Lawrence, 478 vlil10tt Avenue, in support of dredging project for Wiggins Pass; filed. l4. Memorandum dated 1/19/81 from Department of IIdministration, Division of Retirement regarding new laws af:f.ecting retiremont and termination at retirement requirementD. xc Fiscal Officer, p,'yroll; Filed. l5. Letter dated 1/28/81 from Mrs. ~. Fouts, property owner in Golden Gate, indicating her disB?proval of the County rezoning property without the consent of the affected l~nJQwners. xc Planning Department; Filed. ' '~' ,fft ...~ ~ , i.-k _t:~,~ .~. l6. Copy of letter dated 2/5/81 to County Manager Norman from Jack M. Maguire, President of American IImbulance verifying that in hi c absence, the official spo!<.e:;pcrson for ",merican I\mbulllnce Inc., is Kathleen Maguire, Secretary/Treasurer. xc T. Hafner, l D. Pickworth, H. Hall; Filed. 17. Memor~ndum ~80-37 dated 1/19/81 from Division of Retirement re 1 "Termlnat!on at Retirement". - xc H. Hall; Payroll, filed. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 5:40 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER_)ITS CON'rR~L ~fl,^, (\ . t-Z L91 JOHN A. PISTOR, CHIIIR.",AN , . ~ . ~D~K 059 rACE 534 .' c...: ...... .........1'" ,- . '.. I, A-.'I _....'J.:~\.~ \ -.) . ~. .. '. "...~. ,..:..~;t': '.~-'" . . :~ "";," JlIOOIt>>.... IIIIICNr.,.~ ., ..d ..... -...:..\~ I ... d" '11f.'~"""'11-' '. 'J> ...... ............ . '.\ 't;'lOiillJ