BCC Minutes 11/19/1991 Rl,[~j~. '.:V Naples, Florida, November 19, 199!
i.[~,,~:-.. ,-.,,, ,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,.,: ,,,. ,,o.,.,, o,, ~ou~,, ~o,.,,..,,,,,.,,. ,,.,
I~ mAppeall and as the governing board(s) of such special districtl as
I.'~'.i~herein, met on this date at g:00 A.M. in R~R SKSS~ON in Building
'[~J./.~/ii~." of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
· ,,~?~:.i-.:
d~"i:?'-'ii?:("' CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight
· :{,,, VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahan
i~'i:?. ,,,,,.,, A. N...., .,r.
!~:~::,'.-" '~,0',,~,,,,,.,, ,..,.. o. ,,,,.., ,,:,.,.,,, .,o,,,, ,,o,,,,:o.,,,,. ,.,n.,.,~.
.~:;...
i.~-~'Clerks~ Nell Dorrlll, County Manager~ Jennifer Pike, Assistant to the
m:.~;>.,...~Cou~y Manager~ Ken Cu¥1er, ~ount¥ Attorne¥~ Oeorge Archibald,
~i:i?:::-Transportation Services Administrator~ Frank Brutt, Community
I'~.J4;Development Services Admtntstrator~ and Deputy Byron Tomlinson
$her~ff's Office.
000,.,~,.. Ot
Page
Novelbet I9, 1991
~1~ ~t~ly, that the a~n~ ~ appr~ed with the
~tem ~8~1 - To ~nform the Board of the stud~ and ana~s~o ~o
determine t~. bes~ COUr.. Of action to prov~d.
Ex~ne= services for Collie= County - Added. (ae~este~
Item *~OA - Resolution of the Board of County Co~ss~oners
the Rookery Bay C~L project - Added. (Redested
Item ~10B - Discussion regarding acceptance of water faci-
lities for Coral Isle project - Added. (Requested by
Item *SA~ - Reco~endation that the Collier County Board of
County Coatestoners uphold the interpretation of the Growth
M~a~ement Plan regarding the minimum acreage of a Planned
Unit Development within an Activity Center - Continued to
tO APAC-Florida, Inc., for Santa Barbara Boulevard Roadside
Ditch and Bikepath Improvements, pursuant to Oounty Bid No.
91-1~84 - "ov,d tO '8B6. (R,qu,,t,d by Staff.)
Item ,8A3 - Appeal of the deterstnatton of a ~bltc Nuisance
No. 91-07-09372 and 91-07-09373. 0~ers of record - Vincent
P. and Carol Ocuto - Continued to 12/3/91. {Redested by
Petitioner. )
Itel ~SA4 - Appeal of the determination of a ~bltc Nuisance
- o.
~i~ ro~ a~rov~l o~ tho Cogent Agen~ L. no~ ~e= /ten
November 19, 1991
Commissioner Saunders congratulated the following Collter County
and presented their service awards:
Robert L. McKellar, St., Traffic Operations - 15 years
Anthony E. Gerbec, Facilities Management - 10 years
Antonio Almodovar, Road and Bridge - 10 years
Linda T. Swtsher, Ochopee - 5 years
Bryan P. Milk, Project Planning - 5 years
$ohn F. MadaJewskt, Project Review - 5 years
lta tl'~ri
~*,,)~ 3. JO~:v!~ NCM&C'~ZN P~G&RDING THg P~GZSTRY Rg~ORT/CLAN PJ~$ PJLR~ -
paopos coxczar r0 mti a aic
Joseph [icMacktn, representing the owners of the Registry Resort in
Pelican Bay. stated the Board~s action of extending utilities from
Seagate to Clam Pass Park has necessitated certain agreements be
?~lmplemented between the County and the owners of the hotel. He said
;~:;'f!among the agreements is the completion of the Clam Pass Park facility.
~He reported the petitioner is requesting the County entertain three
~i irelated but Independent Items, the first of which concerns the con-
.()Cession agreement. He recalled approximately seven years ago, the
'!~iCounty and the Registry Resort entered Into a concession agreement
~.~htch allowed the Registry to manage the Clam Pass Park factltty by
providing food and beverage service, maintaining the buildings and
~rovtdtng beach equipment rentals. If all options are exercised, he
said, the concession agreement is due to expire on March 31, 1995, and
petitioner Is requesting that it be extended for 10 years to
,;April. 1, 2005. ~e stated In exchange, the hotel will offer the County
IIO0,000 contribution towards the extensfon of the utilities from
Seagate to Clam Pass Park.
In answer ~o Commissioner Rases, Mr. McMacktn replied the Registry
approximately 996,000 in escrow with the County and is offering an
[ddlttonal $100,000 towards the total estimated cost of $2?0,000 for
[;,~he utilities.
Mr. McMacktn continued, stating the second request is for approval
:.the. concept for completion of the beach facility. He indicated the
Resort is proposing an approximate $,000 square foot open deck with a
Page 3
Ll~ltorage shed and the conversion of the existing storage shed to
i a sial1 kitchen. He said the third request ks for approval by the
!;~:~ 'Board to allow the Resort to sponsor banquets on the expanded deck,
after hours on an event-by-event basis. Tncluded, he said, would be
~alcoholic beverage and food service to patrons of the hotel or local
:'residents who would wish to arrange a banquet on the deck.
~:~ ' Charles Popper, Registry Resort Manager, lndlcated his strong
belief that the petition is one that can be of material bensfAt to
~/"CollAer County, Its residents and visitors to Clam Pass Park, as well
!],:i'as the Registry and Ate 600 employees and theAr famA1Aes. He men-
rioned In an effort to solAcAt comments and crAtAcism about the propo-
[:i!:'i,al, he has contacted the Seagate Property Owners AssociatAon, the
'11'/~Pellcan Bay Property Owners Association Board, the Second DistrAct
.'AesociatAon of Collier County, the Taxpayers ActAon Group, the
tlzans Productivity CommAtree, the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce,
EconomAc Development CouncA1, the Conservancy of CollAst County
i('~'and the Parks and Recreation AdvAsory Board. He advised havAng
received letters of support from the Seagate Property Owners
'Assocl&tAon and the Second District Association of CollAst County,
,!~'aaing that other groups cannot endorse . private venture because of
:;;ith~lr charter, however, they have expressed no outright objection.
In response to Co~lsstoner Saunders, Nr. Popper stated the Co~ty
will receive 20~ of the gross revenues received from the lunch service
/,'~'well as any f~cttons held in the evening, whether they be local or
~:resort ~=ctions,
Coatsstoner Saunders indicated his presumption that Co~ty
11 have the ulttaate say as to ~hen an event may be scheduled and
hours of the event. as ~ell as enaurtng that it ts controlled pro-
~d the area Is cleaned and restored to ira noreel conlitton.
N~..Popper stated the Co~ty will be in 100~ control of all ache-
let events.
~:.~ln ~s~e~ to Co~tastoner Volpa. Nr. Popper stated the Intent ~111
',:'~":to have barbecue type functions on the deck ~htch may last until
...... Pa~e 4.
November 19, 1991
-~';pectfled that no up l~ftar. wtll be allo.ed. ~e added that he fore-
~:~.lees very little use off the facility at night during the
~.because the Registry mainly caters to Florida groups during those
I-~:::~'Wlnter, groups from the north .ould want an outdoor beach barbecue.
t:~'[He mentioned all their competitors from the R~tz Carlton to the Marco
..::~Hllton are ~rrently holding those ~es of events.
Co~ssloner Volpe uesttoned how residents of Co
q 11~er County, who
not registered ~ests at the Registry Resort, would be able to
l..~a.cce~a ~he e~e~ ~ac~e, a~ o~e= ~a, pa=~ hou=, ,~ou~ ~he~
· .
Mr. Popper replied the general public w~l~ be able to schedule
.,v,n~. ,~ a, ~ ,,~ng ~,c.p~on. ~h~o~g~ ~, ~.g~,<~ ~, ~, con-
I~f~.Reg~s~s w~n~ess ~o subsidize ~he cos~ of a Pa~k R~ge~ employed
~he Co~,/, She sa~d ~he g~ea~es~ numbe~ of complaints she has
~ece~ved have been f~om Coun~y residents ~ho do no~ fee~ ~he~
:comp~a~n~s wou~d be ade~a~e~y addressed by a Reg~s~y Resor~
Commissioner Shanahah inquired to what extent have the environmen-
!.tel Impacts of the expansion to the sensitive dune areas been
explored?
Mr. Popper advised the deck area was previously totally cleared
'and now has purely secondary growth. He said there should be no
ienvtronmental impact, adding that DER and DNR approval will be
and all permits applied for before the expansion will take
~lace.
Commissioner Shanahen asked if stipulat~d time periods for after-
functions and prohibiting dancing are restrictions the
will agree to, to which Mr. Popper responded in the
,affirmative,
Page 5
November IO, 2091
~'Coulssloner Saunders remarked the most Important commitment la
that If at any point, tt is determined by the County that these func-
.one are Inappropriate, Collier County has the exclusive, arbitrary
'.to stop any future events.
Hr. Popper agreed, reiterating that the events will be scheduled
~.!'on'a case-by-case basis and tf the Registry does not live up to the
.rules and regulations, they accept the County~e right to end the
~ The following people spoke in favor of the petition, stating the
)sacs and quiet of the neighbors will be protected; expansion of the
:deck will be of economic benefit to the Registry, its employees and
i~.Collter County; the hotel is cavalry minded and user frlendly~ the
~iRegtst~ is a good neighbor; the deck will be a positive feature tn
attracting tourism and will provide additional space for beachgoats to
their lunch; the proposed facility will generate additional Jobs
Collier County; functions would be approved on an event-by-event
[baste; the County will be receiving additional revenue from this facl-
and outdoor functions will be monitored by security provided by
Victor Browning, Director of Catering, Registry Resort
Art Jacob, Chetr~an, Second District ~ssoclatton of Collier County
John Eohan, Board of Directors, Registry Resort
Bill Bowden, Tennis Director, Registry Resort
Theresa Bayer, Credit Manager, Registry Resor~
Rtccardo Aversano, Manager of Laftte Restaurant Registry Resort
Ed Longo, Supertntenden~ of Landscaping, Registry Resort
Oscar Velez, Front Office Manager, Registry Resort
N/no Allegretta, Sen/or Bell Captain, Registry Resort
Elizabeth Carroll, Pelican Bay resident
Suzanne Doff, Pelican Bay resident
Paul Jantechek, Clam Pass Beach ~anager
Wesley Ashby, Registry Resort employee
J~m McMurphy, Pelican Bay resident
J~ee Gelf~d, Assistant Cate=lng Manage=, Registry Resort
La~ence Leventhel, North Naples resident
Tom Gatlick, Pelican Ba~ =e~dent
Jo~ Courtney, Director of Security, Re~lstry
Jo~ Catchen-Dunne, Registry Resort employee
~e following people spoke against the petit ton for the following
~a~?i.:.;~'reasons: the adverse effects on wildlife; the increased noise level
.:.~y, . November 19, 1991
~'tO all adjacent property owners; adverse effects on property values;
~?~op~eltlon to selling alcoholic beverages at a Co~y park, which will
:~[~:::~'set a precedent and make it difficult to refuse others from doing the
~.~',¥?~',.e~e~ the ~rrent concession operation Is discriminatory and approval
of this petition will give the Registry Resort a monopoly; public pro-
should ~ maged in keeping with the character of the neighborhood;
]~:j~i??:;i!::l the Registry has been a bad neighbor from day one; the unique preser-
/iff il.i::yation o, nature will be sacrificed; there are not sufficient uttlt-
? '?,i:: ttes to accededate the dinin9 room; the residents of Collier
I ;~,!:.' ".' '
t.~?~':~' do not wish to enter into a partnership with anyone on the b~ach~
~:9'!~::~:. ,wildlife will be endangeredl the Registry Unit O~era are askln~ the
f;S"-:,
i:~)~,~ounty to ball then out of a bad business situation and return not,in9
I~.;~.: lon~ term; th~ County would be liable for law autos and therefore
/ ~?/:' there would be hidden costs since Insurance premiums would Increase;
]~:~:~';,: tr~. would be ru.bltng over the bridge late at night and it will
?[~,.~,-lmpoaatble to con~rol the noise of the party-goers; utility lines
'?~?[J/[~;':,'~er the beach ~tll cost more than estimated; surroundin9 property
[.i~i~ .~ra hav~ not suf~i~i~n~ ti~ to r~vt~ th~ proposal and ~onsult
~'::,'. ,.approv~d, this ~o~ld b~ on~ o~ th~ strangest conc~sslons ~v~r ~.~ ~ there ah~uld be no music
Ro~ey Craighead (Tap~ ~)
~tl ~eller (Tape ~)
,;;.:. ~t~ve ~rtght (Tape ~)
orte ~ard, President, 0tttzons Association of Bonita Beach
Scot~ (Tape ~2)
/Jack HarAed (Tape ~2)
~George Ry~ (Tape ~2)
(Tape ~2)
(Tape ~2)
Bova (Tape ~2)
,e~ (Tape e2)
(Tape ~2]
:':;~a~[e~; Co~selman (Tape ~3)
;Wendy Rtgg (Tape #3)
:Fred Tarrant, (Tape #3)
!Chariotte/Westman (Tape #3)
'(Tape #3)
Andrews (Tape #3)
Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Ouevtn at this tinssee
~!. Assistant County Attorney Weigel advised that the Commission may
Page ?
November 19, 1991
to direct staff to provide any Information with respect to any
.-..particular elements that were discussed today or those that may not
have been discussed. He noted that the legal requirements have been
reviewed by the County Attorney's Office with respect to previous com-
and agreements that are in place.
Commissioner Hesse remarked that he believes the Registry is a
fine organization and does a fine Job with the number of people it
but noted that he has an overwhelming concern with regard to
a precedent by allowing alcohol on the beach.
moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe to deny
.the !regiStry ResortIs proposal.
Commissioner Saunders explained that he feels that the com-
~!f~?'pettttveness of the hotel and the Issue of employment are irrelevant
the subject proposal. He indicated that the real issue Is the
fo~s on the t~es of facilities and the potential benefit to the com-
o
~ [~.':[[~?.?.the fr~chlse fees; and Increased economic actlvlt~ In the co~unlt~.
~u~es~ed that the Co~ss~on cone~der an alternative ~ot~on.
Coatsstoner Volpe co,ended Hr. Popper and the Registry
] i?/~,.ho~ever cttlng that he does not believe that the Issue as presented
] ~:i~.;:..de.ls with tourism, Jobs, or unemployment. He related that this t. a
"!'.'public facility, noting that he has been trying to focus on the public
'benefit to be derived from same. He voiced concerns with regard to
~!~'~:..:.the event-by-event arr~ement that would take place at a public fac~-
]~$~].11ty at other than re~lar park hours since this relates to an ordt-
].. :~:~.n~ce of. general Co~ty wide application that prohibits those t~es of
]..~./::'activtttes, i.e. alcoholic beverages. He stated that increased rave-
hues, as the result of the concession agreement, is the only benefit
~:!Commisstoner Shanahan Inquired as to the legal issues regarding
nits, liability, Indemnification and the costs to the taxpayers.
Page 8
November 19, 1991
~/[::{;' With regard to lnde~lficatton ~d insurance aspects, Assistant
~]~,~Co~ty Attorney WeAgel advised that the proposal addresses suggested
obligations that the Regt.try would take on for the expansion of the
',~f"faclltties. He a~ated that the document that would be drafted could
provide for an iron clad tnde~tftcatton for the County, however
notln~ that this does not mean that the Co~ty would not be subjected
.to a law ~tt. He reported that as an underlyin~ o~er, the Co~ty is
~j~j[~/~:al~y~ subjected to being named in a law suit. He Indicated If the
Co~ty ~s ~ongly named in the lawsuit, the ~nde~ftcat~on provU-
elone, ~f drafted in such a ma~er, would provide for the Registry to
provide for all l~t~at~on costs and for counsel on behalf of Col
Co~ty, or the County would be subject to total reimbursement of the
la~ ~tt ~d costs it may occur ~hether rightly or wrongly sued.
.. Asstet~t County Attorney Heidel announced that the 1988 con-
behalf of Collier County with re~ard to insurance and tnde~tflcatton
!~X~'~,:~He advised that potent/a/ additional Insurance costs that the Count
~?;[,/Wou~d incur ~der it. o~ general tn.urance provision. for a change of
use 1.. Issue that would be appropriate for Risk Management to
~,/~:';:~[~'~: In response to Co~*ss*oner Shanahan, County Manager Dorr*ll
~d this has been a break even proposition. ~e noted that this ser-
,v,ce ,. prov,ded by a County employee and the costs associated with
~;~4,jt::-the $1 parking fee is collected and controlled by the County. He
November :10, 1991
~i~:indtcated that ~he beach is o~ed b~ ~he Coun~ bu~ ~he County bears
~1::no costs associated w~th the beach side ~avllion and pods.
'remsrEed ~ha~ ~he u~ili~ costa are and ~lZZ be ~he hegel's reapon-
~--mAbiZi~M; coa~. as, socAa~ed ~i~h beach maAn~enance~ ~raah and
removaZ are ~he RegAa~r~'s responsAbAlA~; beachsAde aecurA~,
beachsAde concessions, ~d opera~ion o~ ~he grill are ~he respon-
',e~bl~lt~ of the concessionaire.
the proposed third structure ~ould be the Oount~'. responsibility,
: which Co~t~ Nanager DorriZ~ replied that the Count~ would be respon-
'~:.:~':~:. slble flor repair and palnt~ng of the faclllt~ In addition to the ma~n-
.'~-~..,~en~ce off the water lines and the electrical service.
"~;:~?:~ :::~":' In ~e, to Coatestoner Volpe, ts.tstant County tttorne~
~:?~ff~:i-;: ldvtsed that the ~rrent agreement does not provide for ~y extension
beyond the two yea~ extension. He remarked that the apresmerit is sub-
-;~:~:-.~ect to the Co~ty's ~rchastng Policy relative to competitive bidding
':~;~}i,;,-/~less the Coatssion .aires that particular provision.
0o~tsstoner Saunders asked ~hather Nr. Popper ~ouZd be amenabZe
,,~i,Y,' to assuming the refiponstbtltty for the maintenance and replacement
;
..the pc8 and deck facilities. ~r. Popper replied In the affirmative.
~0o~laatoner ~aunders ~esttoned ~hether Nr. Popper ~ould conalder a
L??~.;,f::flve year extension beyond the renewal period ~hlch expires in 1995~
':?~?:'~tn lieu of a 10 yemr extension. ~r. Popper affirmed that he concurs
;~j;;;~J ~tth a fftve year extension.
~/~:~::;~.., Coatseisner Volpe remarked that the third aspect of the proposal
~J~.~.:ta the AU0 s obligation to build the addlttonaZ third pod, regardZess
t ~:;/.:o~ what happens today. ~r. Popper explained that ContsstoneF Volpe
::~;'??~1' correct, bu~ the third pod has never been truly identified.
,pointed out thnt the dra~tnga cal1 flor a bar, noting thnt is no~
;.¢:a.":~:}S, N~'.Popper stated that subject to the 0ommisston~s approval, the
?"j~iat~ is plying to build, ,~ its enttre expense, the third pod.
He indicated that originally the Registry was to put up 875,000 for
Page 10
not only will the County have a wonderful facility, at no cost to the
"~/?~[~][' - g t t plus the $ 5,000. He advised that
this w~11 be a $500,000 Investment on the part of the Registry for the
good of the community who will have significant benefits.
:f~/~.~j% . Commissioner Volpe asked if tourism could be promoted without an
?j~'.event-by-event, after hours sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Popper
~rolated that the ~1tGhteot bit of new advantage will ~et the
ud It Is very Important tha~ the Re9ta~ry a proposal be approved.
~ call for t~ ~stton, t~ ~tton failed 2/3. (C~tsstoners
.~h~n~u, Seeders ~nd Goodnight opposed).
Cosmdssloner Saunders norad, seconded by Co.mlsetonsr Shanahen to
the Regtetry'e proposal in concept, with the following con-
That the concession agreement he extended for a period of 5
T~at: appropriate reserves be set aside for replacement and
re~eal of all the facilities seaward of the boardwalk,
the pods, deck, and the macant of that renewal and replace-
mwnt reserve fund would have to be determined using reaso-
nable accounting methods for these types of facilities.
The,.e would be an additional $100,000 contribution for the
utilities and the Registry would pay all the costs for
construction of the pod and the deck.
Approval for an event-by-event basis for the use and sale of
alcoholic beverages. The arrangenent will be at the sole
discretion of Collier County and if it is determined that the
e~ent-by-event approval is causing problens, I.e. excessive
nots,e, etc., Mr. Popper will be notified of the cessation of
the arrangement and any future bookings that he has that are
reliant on the use of those facilities would be at his risk.
The CounWwould receive 20~ of gross revenues, al~ of the
revenues from the sale of food and alcoholic beverages at the
pod and the deck area derived by the Registry.
The Re~letry will Indemnify the County fully for any poten-
tial liability in reference to the use of those factltttes~
the County will be named me an additional Insurer on all
polices relative to potential liability from the use of those
facilities; those policies will not be cancelled without at
leut 30 days notice to the County Attorney's Office of the
desired cancellation of any of those lnm~rance policies. The
policies c~nnot be terminated without notice, and it will he
I violation of the agreement if the County is not fully
lr~eantfted.
~ov~r lg~ lggx
Th~J hotel will provide the full cost for a p~rk ran~er. That
p~'k r~r will b~ an e~l~ee of Collier C~ ~d the
~k r~r ~tll ~ ~bJect only to the direction of the
C~ ~ger, ~d not ~bJect to the direction of the
!~tmt~ Betel. ~e reason for this ~mttlon Is to pr~ldm m
~k r~Qer at that facility ~t tf Nr. ~rrtll deterlass
t~t ~ had to use t~t ~rmon at ~y other location at ~y
o~r tie, it ~tll ~ at Mr. ~rrtll's mole discretion,
All costs, such as the tra~, In reference to the operation of
th~e facilities will !~e borne by the Registry Betel for
thc~m special events and the County will not participate in
anyMy In the cost of providing transportation at those
ct&l events.
The ~lstry Betel will i~re that no one .possessing alcoho-
lic b~v~ra~es will be able to leave the deck area with those
alcoholic b~verages; this Is for sale and consumption on the
d~ck of thm facilities.
There ie ~reat concern for noise, safety, uintenance of the
fmciltttmm of the p~rk and all of these types of factors will
ho involved In approval of the events: specifically, there
will ho no d~nctn~I no ~mpltftcation of music; no more than a
trio in terms of enterSalient at any m~ent; compliance with
all State, Federal and Count~ la~ concernin~ alcoholic
b~vwr~ and environentel protection, including protection
of the turtles. If there ts an ordinance or state 1~ that
prohibits lights at certain ties of the year, the Ra9tst~y
will be in compliance with those, and in partlouie, the
County Soles Ordinance.
Coeu~lestoner Volpe stated that the County has budgeted $175,000
,,~hls year and presumably, what is being discussed t8 to take place in
the current fiscal year. Be noted that he personally would prefer to
,'see the $175,000 spent elsewhere in the Parks and Recreation budget.
Be questioned the petitioner's position with respect to underwriting
.'..the entire cost of whatever to being proposed 8o that there would be
.$175,000 available and budgeted this year to be used for soccer
fields, little league fields, etc., rather than what is being
discussed.
~j~ . Attorney McMacktn replied that he would not foreclose that, but is
?lmaware of what that cost is. He stated that he received a fax from
Nilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. providing an estimate of what the
bids would be and that number is $266,000 and of that, the Registry
'already has an escrow with the County of $100,000 which reduces the
~ost to $166,000. He remarked that he has offered, under Commissioner
L~Saunders! motion to contribute an additional $100,000 which would
Page 12
November 19, 1991
leave the balance at approximately $66,000.
:' Commissioner Volpe suggested that whatever the costs may be, that
they be entirely underwritten by the petitioner.
Commissioner Volpe explained that the estimated cost presented for
twater, electric, telephone construction and mitigation shows that the
total cost to the County is $295,132.50. He noted that he Is looking
l~.iat the $175,000 budgeted amount and Mr. McMackln is offering another
$100,000 to~rard the construction of the electric for the ten year
extension, presumably the five year extension would not change that.
He related that he does not want to see in this fiscal year or the
next fiscal year, these monies that have been budgeted for the expan-
~alon of the third pod at Clam Pass. He stated that he would like to
!?]]'see that money spent someplace else. He reported that there are more
· immediate needs for those monies, than what is being discussed.
Attorney McMacktn advised that he does not have the authority to
. agree to Commissioner Volpe's suggestion, but if It Is the desire of
'..the Commission that approval of the petition be based on that as a
condition precedent that those costs are paid, he will recommend same
' to his c/tent.
Saunders a~ended his motion to reflect the above.,
¢os~lssto~er Shanahen concurred with the a~end~ent.
Commissioner Shanahen reminded the Commission that all of the per-
tinant documents would have to come back in the form of an amended
agreement and an amended ordinance as it relates to the alcohol provt-
sion on the beach.
'~. Upon c~/1 for the qvestlon the ~otion carried 3/2 (Co~llSiOners
Volpe Hesse sed).
~eo, ~ff8= 1:45 P.M. - Reconvene: 2:45 P.M. at ~lch tim N~W
~ :~.C1~ ~io r~lac~ ~ Clerk Hoff~ os.
Zt~
property.
Planner ~teeks distributed a handout identifying the sub~ect
Page 13
November 19, 1991
Richard Grant, Attorney for Dennis Lynch, explained the basic
;sue to be addressed today concerns Section 2.4.2 of the Zoning
Resvaluation Ordinance, as it applies and as tt has been interpreted
by the Growth Planning Department, for a piece of property owned by
Mr. Lynch. He displayed a site plan and distributed copies of same.
'He referred to a letter forwarded to him from Mr. Weeks of the Growth
'~Planntng Department dated August 19, 1991. He related the two basic
~."tssues he will address are: (1) whether Section 2.4.2 of the ZRO
i::requtree that, in order to avail oneself of it, It is necessary to
Install on the affected property Infrastructure or whether it is also
necessary to construct buildings, and (2~ how and to what extent an
outparcel, shown on the site plan, can be utilized. He related that
Section 2.4.2 basically protects final site development plans and
final subdivision master plans which were approved between the dates
of January 1, 1988, and the effective date of the ZRO (Zoning
'~.,Reevaluation Ordinance], adding that this property was approved tn
~.,.December of 1988 and, therefore, falls within this window.
.D~strtbuttng a xerox copy of Section 2.4.2 of the ZRO (Zoning
Resvaluation Ordinance) displaying yellow highlighting, he Interpreted
'same to mean that all which is required to be built on the subject
-property is the Infrastructure. Referring to Section 2.4.2.1. of the
ZRO (Zoning Resvaluation Ordinance), he reflected there is no Issue in
instance regarding this section as construction did commence by
'i,11 the desioT~ated dates. He stated that reading the literal wording of
.:the Ordinance and knowing what those terms mean and how they are
;'lapp/led leads him to the very clear conclusion that all which is
:authorized by the site development plan Is what has to be constructed,
namely, the Infrastructure and not buildings. Referring to Section
2.4.2.2 of the ZRO (Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance), he related that
'The construction" means that which was authorized by the final site
development plan. Referring again to the letter dated August 19, 1991
from Planner Weeks, he pointed out the underlined sentence on page
three of same.
He stated the Board of County Commissioners should
Page 14
· ': November 19, 1991
have received a memo from the Growth Planning Department dated
~iNovember 14th analyzing the positions taken by both Itself and the
· : petitioner. He stated that page two of said memo (copy not provided
;for the record), verifies staff agrees that a final site development
'plan authorizes the construction of infrastructure, and not buildings.
71! He stated that, although the memo dated November 24th uses the word
.".#project#, the relevant sections of the ZRO (Zoning Resvaluation
Ordinance) use no such word. He expounded that "Intent" only becomes
.? meaningful if there Is something about the language which is ambi-
guous, uncertain or unclear. He made additional points reflecting why
(.he believes the Ordinance only requires the construction of
~ 'infrastructure.
Mr. Grant related that another issue he wishes to have reviewed
~=oncerns the treatment of the outparcel
::..~.,~,~. · He concluded that the owner
Intended the outparcel to be available for development in the future.
:? Referring again to Mr. Week's August 29th letter as well as the
ji:.November 14th memo (copy not provided for the record) Mr Grant
?'etated that development of the outparcel will require some tFpe of a
':-::..,~ development plan, which is a substantial change and triggers the
4G~ intensity reductions called for. He argued the site development
plan anticipated something being done on the outparcel. He related
~i~etaff seems to be agreeing that the parcel can be developed with wha-
tever C-3 zoning will permit without any intensity reduction once the
four buildings are built. He remarked this seems like an unne-
~ Cessary constraint that does not seem to be supported by the Future
!..-;Land Use Element policy or by Section 2.4.2 of the ZRO (Zoning
letion Ordinance).
David Weeks of the Growth Planning Department commented that the
:..~ ~1omt critical issue is that pertaining to Section 2.4.2 of the ZRO
:~(Zoning Resvaluation Ordinance), i.e. whether this project has
f~lfil~ed the requirements of same or whether additional construction
is · ~e concurred that a literal reading of that section
... for construction of infrastructure alone to occur and then for
Page 25
. November 19, 1991
site to be abandoned, although that definitely was not the intent
when same was drafted. Be concluded the language of this Section
does say "the construction authorized by the site development plan",
~nd the only construction literally authorized with that piece of
paper, stamped and signed, is Infrastructure. He stated it does not
allow for vertical construction to occur, yet same cannot occur
?without the approval. Secondly, regarding the Intent of the
[[Ordinance, he stated that the subject property, with its infrastruc-
ture installed, by definition In the Zoning Resvaluation Ordinance Is
~stlll unimproved property. He concluded it is not logical to have
(i~this amount of construction occur, the property remain deemed
.unimproved, and yet be safe or free from potential rezontng under the
f' Zoning Resvaluation Program. He stated no other property has that
status.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler pointed
[;' out the wording of Section 2.4.2.2 of the ZRO (Zoning Resvaluation
.: Ordinance), stating that Mr. Grant contends his construction is
complete because he has done the infrastructure, It can sit there
"'forever, and he does not have to proceed any further, while staff~s
:['(~posttton is that the Intent of the Board of County Commissioners
the ZRO (Zoning Reevaluatton Ordinance) hearings was that this
tYpe exemption will be granted but, if petitioner has met the time
['.['line for the site development plans, they are expected to continue ~n
good faith to build their project.
.) Co~tss~oner Sanders stated he is more persuaded to use the
~:l~t~ral reading of the ZRO (Zoning Resvaluation Ordinance).
Dts~ss~on ensued regarding the number of properties which have
exertions based on some type of Development Order.
. fl Comfy Attorney Cuyler stated that, under the definition of
i~r~ed property", the subject property would no~ be ~mproved. He
he ~d staff have had a problea ~derstandtng how ~ exemp-
could be read to allow the developer to move forward and, even at
~the present state of construction, if looked at originally under the
· i PAG£
Page 16
.... ~'' Hovember 19, 1991
Zoning Resvaluation Ordinance (ZRO), it would be considered unimproved
~and rezoned. He etated petitioner has gone to a point in his
construction claiming an exemption which would not even exempt him
~/ from zoning resvaluation under the original program. He concluded the
/'way to read this is to say that the construction authorized by the
';~. final site d~velopment plan is Infrastructure, that is true, but, in
fact, you cannot get your building permit without that site develop-
~[~ment plan and, therefore, in a real sense it also authorizes construc-
t!on Just as a PUD (Planned Unit Development) may authorize a density
of 200 units.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks stated the Board of
~'~ ~ount¥ Commissioners, if it so chooses, can give one more time period
.of' about ~2 weeks to commence vertical construction.
County Attorney Cuyler Interjected he has no disagreement from a
legal perspective. He pointed out construction of all four of the
buildings is not required, only that construction is begun and com-
mencad in good faith.
~%;~: In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Grant stated the real
reason for the delay is because they did not believe it to be
required.
"Cc~/ee~on~r S~undare ~oved, that the Board of C~unt~
C~l~ fl~ the pro~r~ ~er h~ continued c~t~cti~
[')f'(;" ~~ th~ c~t~n~t~on of conet~ction in good fa~th~
/??~? ~r~cal c~t~ctton nee~ to co--rice relatively loon ~n or~r
~~ ~ ~tton. He redested a f~ndlng that the continuity of
): construction has not ceased in l~ght of the difficulties ~n obtaining
'~clng ~d all the things ~h~ch have disrupted the construction
over the last six or eight months.
D~ecuseton ensued regarding the time required for commencement of
:lcal construction.
~~e~ ~undere &~endedhie ~otion, and
~de~ ~e, to reflect that the ti~e period for vertical
Pep 17
Noveml:~er 19, 1991
~ton im twelve months from today's date.
Mr. Weeks voiced concern regarding the twenty-three other property
OWT~ers finding themselves in a similar circumstance as they have not
been addressed at this point. He questioned whether staff should con-
tlnue to take the position they have been taking.
Commissioner Saunders referred to Section 2.4.2.2 of the ZRO
(Zoning Resvaluation Ordinance) wherein it talks about continuance of
construction in good faith. He suggested consideration must be given
to existing market conditions when considering "good faith" He pro-
posed staff must look at remaining projects on a case-by-case basts
and determine whether they are proceeding in good faith.
Upo~ call for the question, the motion carried unanimou~ly.
Mr. Weeks stated it is required in the Zoning Ordinance pre-
sently existing as part of the Unified Land Development Code that
wanting to make a change such as development of an outparcel constitu-
tes a substantial change to the site development plan and triggers an
amendment to that SDP (site development plan) for purposes cf showing
the proposed development. He comme~nted that Policy 5.1 of the Future
Land Use Element triggers the requ:[rement for a certain percentage
reductlon of intensity, i.e. in this case a 40% reduction ~n the
intensity of development on the site.
(kM~md~oner Shanahan ~ed, seconded ~ Conditioner Hasse ~d
c~ ~l~ly, to appr~e the Interpretation of staff relative
tO t~ 4~ ~le m~lylng in this case.
lt~
~~~ ~ SKLK~ON OF PRO~SSION~ KNG~KR~NG Fl~ TO PROVIDE
~SX~ ~GI~ING SERVICES FDR DESIGN ~ CONS~ucrIO]q SERVICES
~R ~ ~ C~ ~GION~ WASTEWATER ~EA~ PL~ ~SION -
~ ~1-~53 - CO~I~ED
It m the consensus of the Board of County Commiss~oner,~ to con-
tim this Item.
WORKSHOP/HOMELESS PLAN - CONTINUED
It ~ the con~ensus of the Board of County Commisstoner~J to con-
ttnu~ this item.
Item d~&l
JOINT VENTURE TO CONSIDER AN EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
~ZON OF AN ENDANGERED S~ECLE~ (THE BALD EAGLE, NEST TEBRITORY
Page 18
November 19, 1991
G~O--I~) ~ Rg~LRD TO TH~ CONSTRUCTION OF AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB, PHASE
X! - ~ A~RKEM~NT APPROVED; TO BE PLACED IN CHAIN OF TITLE FOR
PUBLZ¢ !1OT~CE RE RESTRICTION APPLICABLE TO SECONDARY ZONE
Community Development Services Administrator Brutt distributed a
revised Executive Summary.
Environmental Specialist Prynoski related this item had previously
been continued based on a concern that the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission letter did not address single family construc-
tion in the secondary protection zone, and Petitioner was re, solicit
that information and return. She confirmed a copy of the letter from
the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission as well as from
William R. Cox are included in the revised packet. She reminded the
Board of County Commissioners that other concerns included monitoring
during the nesting season and safeguards within Deeds to notify
affected units that they are in the eagle's secondary protection zone
and that construction will be at their own risk.
William R. Cox related events and results of the last two weeks'
of negotiations with Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. He
reported the contents of the letter from Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission.
Ms. Prynoski reported Mr. Lusk has some proposed changes to the
language of stipulation #3 which would allow deletion of #7 and #8.
Ms. Prynoski remarked that the lack of a definition between light
and heavy construction has caused problems in the past. Referring to
the third paragraph of ":he letter from Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, she read that portion highlighted in yellow.
Co~issioner Saunders announced it has been clarified to his
satisfaction by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commi~sion that
single family homes can be constructed in the secondary zone during
the nesting season as long as the complex monitoring program developed
by staff is adhered to. He reiterated that should there be any nega-
tive impact to the eagles during the nesting season in the secondary
zone by virtue of construction of a single family home, then that
construction will cease. He reminded everyone that there must be
Page 19
November lg, 1991
notification to the County two weeks prior to the beginning of any
construction of single family homes to permit establishment of the
monitoring process.
C4~eeht~ioner Saunders moved, ~econded by Commissioner Shanahah, to
~ th~ &udubon Country Club, Phase II, Eagle Management Plan with
t!~ ~ldittonal stipulation that the Agreement be recorded, thus
pl~cill~ tJ~ public on actual notice that these restrictions apply to
con~tt-~ction in the secondary zone.
Don Lusk reiterated he recommends revision to Recommendation #3 on
page 2 of the revised Executive Summary so that it reads, "the Florida
Galae and Fresh Water Fish Commission local wildlife biologist shall
determine the official ending and beginninq of the bald eagle nesting
season. Collier County Project Review Services - Environmental Staff,
shall be officially notified in writinq of this determination. No
construction activities, including clearing, may be commenced with the
exception as determined in Stipulation #5. The Petitioner further
a~rees that any construction occurring in the month of September can
only be done if the'site is monitored on a daily basis by an ecoloqist
approved by Florida Game and Fresh ~ater Fish Commission. The moni-
tortn~ will be done for the express purpose of determtntnq 'the commen-
cement of the nestinq season, at which time construction activity
shall cease."
Mr. Lusk suggested that Reconmendation #7 be deleted and that
Reco~endation #8 be replaced with "The Petitioner agrees that
these stipulations will be recorded."
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Ms. Prynoski confirmed that
staff is in agreement to the language proposed by Mr. Lusk :for
Recommendation #3, the deletion of #7, and the language proposed for
$8.
Commissioner Volpe suggested the stipulations will be recorded
along with the Plan which shows the seventeen sites that are within
the secondary protection zone, to which Mr. Lusk voiced agrt~ement.
Referring to page 3 of the Executive Summary, Mr. Lusk ]requested
Page 20
November ~9, 199~
that 5b be changed to read, "An ecologist from Kevin L. Erwin
Consulting Ecologist, Inc. or a successor ecologist approved by
Florid& Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and Collier Ccunty shall
begin monitoring the bald eagle nest the first year of any single
family construction. Monitoring ~hall be at least two times per week,
for a minimum of two (2) consecutive hours beginning at or about
s%L~rtse or ending at or about sunnier. Weekly reports of the moni-
toring shall be forwarded to Project Review Services, Environmental
Staff and the local office of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Gommtsston to confirm either that the eagle has or has not been
disturbed. Both aforementioned agencies shall be notif]ed immediately
of the eagle's disturbance. No single family construction shall
proceed without obtaining permission in writing from Projec'~ Review
Services, Collier County."
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Ms. Prynoski indicated
staff has no objection to the changes proposed.
Color.toner Saunders m~ended his motion to include the language
ch~x~g~ proposed by Mr. Lusk ~n the Agreement, and Commissioner
$h~t~mh~n ,a~ended h~s second accordingly.
Upon ¢mll for the question, the motion carried unanimou~,ly.
***NOTE: AGREEMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF 6/15/92'****
Fage 2]
November lg, 1991
OF []I~IRONM~NTAL LANDS PROTECTION PROGRAM REFEREFDUM ON THE
1992 BALLOT - STAFF TO CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF ORDINANCE AND
~At~K ASAP FOR POSSIBLE SErf'EMBER REFERENDUM OR MAIL BALLOT
Environmental Services Administrator Lorenz introduced this item.
Commissioner Saunders interjected that he has received a request
from the Children's Services Council to continue this item for two
weeks.
Mr. Lorenz responded that the Environmental Protection Technical
Advisory Board voted to present this item today to allow placement on
the referendum.
Mr. Lorenz provided an overview of the program, includ.ing some of
the issues raised in the previous discussion of this item. He
explained that the map contained in the agenda packet was developed
based upon a number of natural resource protection concerm~. He
related that EPTAB (Environmental Policy Technical Advisor%, Board)
has reviewed the acquisitions with regard to two types of purchase,
I.e. purchase of property itself or of property use rights, to meet
the environmental objectives at the least cost. He concluded this is
a program without condemnation authority and is simply a willing
seller premise. He stated the draft Ordinance included in the agenda
packet addresses policy procedures of the acquisition program.
In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Lorenz stated a fifty
million dollar bond issue is beinil recommended.
Mr. Lorenz relayed EPTAB's (Environmental Policy Technical
Advisory Board's) desire to continue to workshop with the public the
maps and proposed Ordinance.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lorenz confirmed there are
sites appearing on the proposed acquisition list which are also con-
tained on some of the existing lists. He concurred there is a need to
avoid competing with state agencies in terms of duplication of effort
in trying to acquire these sites. He added that the advantage to
having these particular sites on those lists is for matching funds, as
Page 22
November 19, 1991
state programs are looking for local matches.
In r~sponse to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Lorenz confirmed that the
possibtll[t¥ exists for development of wetlands in Collier County and,
therefor~, there is a need to identify which of the wezland systems
provide for such a high degree of environmental value that purchase of
the property or purchase of certain property use rights is the best
means to protect them.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Commissioner Saunders stated
that the urban line is not fixed in perpetuity and, thus, is subject
to being moved. He concluded it is necessary to either acquire said
lands now or face the spector of development.
Regarding program costs, Mr. Lorenz confirmed an attempt was made
to identify a number of fiscal impacts for the program other than
~Ust the bond issue to be retired by ad valorem taxes. He relayed
staff's recommendation that the millage rate not exceed 1/4 mill in
any given year. He stated there is a fiscal impact to tak.[ng these
properties off the tax rolls. He reported the affect would be an
increase in the aggregate millage rate of .03 mills, or an increase of
0.?~. Me confirmed that administrative costs of the prograf~ have been
considered. He pointed out the addition of a potential fiscal impact
of either a part time or contracted coordinator, concluding that the
costs of services and annual administrative costs can range anywhere
between $20,000-$40,000, and would be funded through the program
itself. ~e proceeded to discuss other potential costs to the program.
He etated the intent is for the County not to be involved in land
management costs.
Glenn Simpson, Chairman of Environmental Policy Technical Advisory
Board (EPTAB), related his organization has been careful to address
the issue of land management over the long term. He remarked there is
~o shortage of entities interested in land management, the .~uestion
being which is the correct one for each parcel. He confirmed his
organization has been very careful to insure they have the ability to
select the correct entities for land management and securit!f on each
}~age 23
November 19, 1991
of these parcels.
Commissioner Shanahan pointed out there might be fees associated
with a L~d Management Agreement preventing total eltminat:[on of land
management expense.
In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Lorenz stated that the land
m~nagement entitles would be managing the land at their expense as it
ftt8 their objectives.
In re.ply to Commissioner Saunders' inquiry regarding tke bottom
paragrap[. on page 3 of the proposed Ordinance, second sentence from
the bottom, Mr. Lorenz stated tha~ removal of exotic vegetation is an
example cf initial restoration costs.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Simpson explained that a
fee simple purchase is the first mechanism for protection of the
areas. Re proposed that one possibility is utilization of the areas
for mitigation banking.
Discussion ensued regarding establishment of a transfer of deve-
lopment rights program.
Mr. L~renz explained that staff's recommendation is for the Board
of Cotmty Commissioners to approve the placement of a ballot question
on the March 10, 1992 referendum along the lines of the Resolution
included in the Agenda packet. He recommended modification of the
Resolution to include a ceiling on the ad valorem taxes, i.~. not to
exceed 1/4 mill of ad valorem taxes. He related that it is also
recommend,~d that the Board of County Commissioners adopt, by
mid-$an~am¥, an enabling Ordinance establishing the procedures for
thls particular program.
Mr. Simpson proceeded to discuss the maps and identify what the
actual nacural resource protection objectives are, as contained in the
agenda package.
'$ D~a~! Clerk Guevtn replaced D,~put¥ Clerk Farrts at this time ''
Mr. Simpson indicated the intention of EPTAB to have the
gnvirornme]ltal Lands Protection Program placed on the March, 1992,
referendue while in the meantime, continue having public workshops.
Page 24
November 19, 1991
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Simpson indicated it is not
the intent for the County to exercise its powers of condemnation
because to get to that point, the actual value for every dollar spent
is tremendously diminished by attorney fees and the time expended. He
said if the County can maintain a willing buyer-willing seller sce-
nario, the environment will benefit from those dollars rather than
other interests.
Co~missioner Volpe communicated his concern with fast-tracking
th~s program. He said the EPTAB will need to convince the Board of
County Commissioners that the program is well thought out and all
alternatives have been investigated. He said the Board has learned
through past experience that if there is not a program of education
that ~s meaningful, the public will not be receptive.
Eric Draper, with the Nature Conservancy, reported his organiza-
tion has protected approximately 450,000 acres of land in Florida. He
explained the reason for making a decision this date is to proceed
with the acquisition of lands that have been identified through the
EPTAB process. He said by moving toward a ballot on this issue does
not mean the lands are protected, rather that the County is setting a
method for protection.
Commissioner Volpe stated if property is on a list for future
acq%l~eition, the ability to sell that piece of land will be limited.
He said in fairness to the property owner, once the program is begun,
the process for acquisition should begin as soon as possible.
Mr. Draper agreed, adding there is much more competition this year
for State funds to acquire lands on the CARL list. He indicated a
question that will be asked is whether a local acquisition program is
planned or in place.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Draper stated his belief
that a meaningful education campaign can be accomplished with $25,000.
Mr. Draper stated the analysis done by the Nature Conservancy
leads him to believe that 57% of the voters of Collier County would
support an Environmental Lands Protection Program at this point in
Page 25
November 19, 1991
tine. He said if the Information Is fully explained to the public
prior to a vote, that number could be considerably higher.
Commissioner Saunders remarked that asking voters to approve 1/4
mill to pay for this program will result in an approximate 8% increase
in property taxes.
Mr. Draper disagreed, adding the County may have enough income
stream from the growth rate to implement the program without
increasing taxes. He predicted considerable support for paying a
small increase in taxes for a discreet program.
Commissioner Shanahan asked if including both the Children's
Services Council and the Environmental Lands Protection Program on the
same ballot will result in the defeat of both?
Mr. Draper indicated in the negative, adding much research has
been done on that question.
The following people spoke in support of the proposal, stating
many land management programs are eager to get involved in the manage-
ment of lands once acquisition has taken place; development pressures
are increasinG significantly, which will result in a decrea:~e of
environmentally sensitive lands to be protected; Collier County has
received over $6-mlllion in the belief that the County will match
those funds; and the program involves not only envlronmenta3 protec-
tion, but water recharge and stormwater management, which w:[11 be lost
if lands are allowed to be developed:
Gary Lytton, Administrator of Rookery Bay
Joel Kuperberg, Executive Director, CREW Trust
Mike Slayton, South Florida Water Management District
Terry TraGesser, Southwest Florida Land Preservation 7rust
The following people spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
the citizens of Collier County are opposed to any increase in taxes;
the definition of wetlands differs between the federal government, the
State and Collier County; many State agencies are involved in a dupli-
city of ob~ectives; and the program should be thoroughly studied
before being sent to the electorat,z:
Fred Tarrant, Taxpayers Action Group
Paul O'Neil
Page 26
November 19, 1991
Co~mtssioner Goodnight indicated havinG received a letter from
Bettie Gulacsik stating the support of the League of Women Voters for
the proposal. (On file with the Clerk to the Board.)
Commissioner Saunders suggested Staff be directed to review the
proposed ordinance and clarify for the Board certain issues, i.e.,
costs associated with initial ecological restoration, flood control
and fire protection concerns and possible acquisition of passive
recreational lands as opposed to the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive properties. He said the ordinance must be reviewed by the
Gounty Attorney's Office and put in the appropriate form. He added
the County Attorney's Office should also explore the transfer of deve-
lopment rights.
Commissioner Volpe agreed, adding that he would like tc see some
indication f~om the citizens of the County, perhaps in the form of a
petition, statinG they want this .issue on a referendum.
Commissioner Hasse concurred that the issues as suggested by
Commissioner Saunders need clarification before any decision by the
Board is made.
Co~misstoner Shanahan commented the Board asked Staff to fast
track and bring back this program for the Board's consideration, which
has been done. However, he said, he is not comfortable with whether
an adequate amount of research has been done on how well this program
would be received by the public.
Commissioner Volpe suggested County Staff be directed to formulate
a meaningful land acquisition and management program whether or not a
referendum is successful.
Coauaissioner Goodnight communicated the Board of County
Commissioners has gone on record several times in support of the CREW
project. She said to date, the Board has not honored its commitment
of $10-million made three years a~lo to Lee County and the South
Florida Water Management District for that project.
Commissioner Saunders interjected that the Board made a commitment
to put the issue on the ballot with the one cent local option sales
Page 27
November 19, 1991
tax, which failed. He said all that can be done this date is for the
Board to decide whether or not to give direction to Staff to include
this s%lb~ect on the March referendum.
Valerie Boyd, Chairman of the CREW Trust, recalled their original
intent was for the Board to raise the monies to pay for the CREW pro-
Ject in a similar manner as was done in Lee County. She said it has
been realized that there is a latimer need in Collier County than just
the CREW Trust, and they want to work to the overall benefit of the
County. She stated they would like to see the CREW project funded in
March, but not to the detriment of other lands.
Col~aissioner Shanahan suggested that a program be brought back to
the Board with two separate issues, the Environmental Lands Protection
Progra~ and the CREW Trust project. He said if the Board is not in a
position in March to include the entire program, the CREW Trust por-
tion should be placed on the ballot.
(~i~ner Saunders ~ved, seconded by Co~mtssioner Shanahan, to
dt~-e~-~ Staff to continue working towards the March referen~/m date and
to m~'~le · public hearing on the ordinance at which time a decision
will ~ ~e for the entire program, the CREW Trust properties alone
oF ~oth~z~ mt mll, to be put on the ballot in March, 1992.
County Manager Dotrill advised the cut-off date for the March
Presidential primary is January 2, 1992. He said because of the
Christmas and New Year holidays, the Board's last meeting will be on
December 17th and in order for the ordinance to be advertis~d pro-
perly, it will need to be in the newspaper within the next three days.
He advised the Board not to approve the ballot question prior to
havfng an actual ordinance adopted on the subject.
~4~dsei~er $mnnders withdrew the motion.
In answer to Commissioner Saunders, County Manager Dotrill gave
his professional opinion that the subject should be explored[ more
thoroughly and all questions answered in order to have a fair chance
of being successful on a referendum.
C~mmt~to~r Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan to
Page 28
November 19, 1991
dirm~t Staff to continue development of the program, the Co'anty
Att~a Office be involved in development of the ordinance, that
thil ~m be brought back to the Board as soon as it has been put
t~tlmew ~riately for either the September ballot or the ~ossibi-
ltt~ o~ a mtl ballot prior to that.
Commissioner Volpe suggested as part of the direction to Staff,
that the Board be provided with all the lists that various properties
appear on for acquisition, how the program will work with regard to
properties both within and outside the City of Naples and more infor-
mation on the 3,000 acres of Vanderbilt scrub being proposed for
acquisition.
13p~n call for the question, the motion carried unantmoul~ly.
CAR~II~AL PERMIT 91-§ RE PETITION C-91-§, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CHURCH
RE(~~ A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THEIR ANNUAL CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 27
TO DE~31BER 1~ 1991~ AT 219 SOUTH 9TH STREET~ IMMOKALEE - APPROVED
Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator, recom-
mended that the Board approve Petition C-91-5, including wa~[ver of the
Surety Bond.
~~t~ner $hanahmn moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and
~'mxTl~ ~i~ly, to approve Carnival Permit 91-§ for Petition
~-9~--~, ~ ~ of (hzadmlupe Church requestln~ a permit to conduct
thet~ Al~lal Carnival from November 27 to December 1, 1991, at 21g
atll 9t~ $t~t, Im~okalee.
Page 29
November 19, 1991
z~
I~[~I(I~]~11~TION TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR COUNTY-WIDE PUBLIC BIKEWAY
PltO,I~C'I~ TO ~ LO~ BIDDER IN ACCORDANCE WITIt BID MO. 91-1785 -
~ TO 11/2S/91
P,,~CO~&TZON FOR APPROVAL OF GAC ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE
~ BID 91-1759 AND REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FOR CONTINUATION OF GAC ROAD
l~P~O%~[~[[T~ - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
Xtm d~SB3
Iq~C(]SB~B3Jl)ATION TO ACCEPT THE LO~ST AND MOST RESPONSIVE BID FOR
~OLLZER Oo~!rTY BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE BATHHOUSE IMPROVEMENTS, AND TO
AU~ZI AB~LRD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO VANDERBILT BAY
C~ON, INC., PURSUANT TO BID NO. 91-1780 - CONTINUED TO
~TION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT AMeNDMeNT WITH SMALLY, W~LLFORD
~ ~ l~)R MINOR DESIGN REVISIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY SUPPORT
· ~]~r~c~ To le~NALIZE REQUIREMENTS TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF $FESTCLOX AND
CAIt~O~ ROAD~t CIE PROJECT NOS. 026 AND 035 - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
P~TR~JkNT TO BOARD ACTION ON JANUARY 22, 1991, FOLLOW-UP
I~TIONS ON CONTRACT DESIGN SERVICES FOR VANDERBILT DRIVE BY
JOH][~O~ K~GI'I[KERING - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
~C~I~DATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO APAC-FLORIDA, INC.,
FOR ~ANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD ROADSIDE DITCH AND BIKEPATH IMPROVEMENTS,
PURSUANT TO COUNTY BID NO. 91-1784 - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
Item ~8D2
AMJL~D OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAIN AND EFFLUENT MAINS ON
~00~ ROAD E]U~ENSION - BID #91-1789 - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
Item ~D3
~ OF COlTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAIN ON GULFSHORE DRIVe,
V~ILT ~EA~H ROAD AND SIXTH STREET IN NAPLES PARK AREA - BID
· 91-17~ - CONTINUED TO ~/26/9~
]~~MkT/ON THAT THH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTRORIZE THE
OHA]~N TO mc1~l~ A ~ O~ER ~ER ~E ~ CO~ ~E
~~ s~IcEs ~ B~, s~z~, ~A~R a P~RS, ZNC.,
~ ~ ~I~ OP ~ ~IRD ~0OR OF BUILDING H FOR $33,000 -
~ ~ ~/26/9~
CON~![T B~THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR NABORS, GIBLIN &
NI~, P.A., TO PROVIDE TO COAST COMMUNITIES CORPORATION, LEGAL
AND FI~CIAL CONSULTING SERVICES TO REVIEW AND ANALYZE, AND UPON
~UBS~.IFT BOARD APPROVAL, IMPLEMENT AND ASSIST IN FINANCING THE
PROVISION OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH
0OOP"ERATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
November 19, 1991
TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE A FRANCHISE FEE SETTLEMENT
PALMER COMMUNICATIONSr INC. - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
Ite~
R~CO~NDATION TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF PALMER COMMUNICATIONS
INC(Y~PORATED CABLE TELEVISION FRANGHISES TO PALMER CABLE ASSOCIATES, A
FLORIDa GEN~I~3kL PARTNERSHIP - CONTINUED TO 11/26/91
Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Suevin at this time
APPHAL ~Y ROBERTO AND TRACY CALDERON RE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE,
~ ~Z~OR LilieS, BLOCK 11, LOT 35 - ADMINISTRATIVE FEE WAIVED;
OMWKR TO PAY $365
Community Development Services Administrator Brutt advised that
this item is an appeal by Roberto and Tracy Calderon relative to a
property that had violations of accumulated garbage and trash, noting
that there was also a boat located on the property.
Mr. Brutt stated that Mr. Calderon was notified of the violation
in May, 1991 and the contractor was brought on site to remove the
trash In Auglist, 1991. He indicated that an invoice in the amount of
$465 ($365 for removal of the trash and $100 in administrative fees)
were forwarded to the property owner and he is appealing same.
Mr. Roberto Calderon explained that after he received notification
of the violation, he contacted the owner of the boat and was told that
he would remove the boat from his property.
Co~missloner Volpe questioned whether Mr. Calderon allowed the
owrter of the boat to store it on his property. Mr. Calderon stated
that the boat was already on the property when he purchased same.
Mr. Brutt advised that County Investigator Bolgar determined that
the boat is owned by the nephew of the person whose lot is adjacent to
Mr. Calderon's property. He noted that the person that owns the boat
notified. Mr. Bolgar that he would remove it, however during the months
of May through August the boat had not been removed and a contractor
was hired to remove same.
Commissioner Saunders asked why staff does not file a suit against
the person who created the nuisance.
Page 31
November 19, 1991
O~luton~r Saunders moved, to direct staff to file a claim
~il~t the owner of the boat. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Brutt announced that in addition to the violation of the boat,
a considerable amount of trash needed to be removed from the property
and the contractor has been paid $365.
Oo~iuloner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co~tsstoner Vol~ ~d
~l~ 4/1 (C~tsstoner Sanders optsad), to waive the a~intstra-
ti~ ~ of $1~ ~t the pro~rty ~er t~ rea~naible for the
~~e ~t of $365 for re~ving the trash.
~T ~ ~IC~ ~~ NOT TO ~C~ED $326,115 ~R ~ 1991-92 -
Emergency Services Administrative Manager Griffin reported that
staff conducted a study and analysis to determine the best course of
action relative to providing medical examiner services for Collier
County.
Mr. Griffin explained that historically, Medical Examiner Services
for Collier County have been provided through an annual contract with
the Chief Medical Examiner for District Twenty. He noted that staff
collected various data to determine the best long term course of
action to provide the most efficient and cost effective means for
medical examiner services in Collier County. He offered four options
for the Commisston's consideration.
1. Remain as a contract agency as has been done historically,
2. Merge the Medical Examfner's agency Into a full County
department.
3. Variations of Options 1 and 2 above.
Mr. Griffin indicated that Emergency Services and Human Resources
staff met with the Medical Examiner's staff to discuss the above
identified options. He related that the Medical Examiner and staff of
that office desire to remain as a total contract agency.
He requested direction from the Commission for staff to negotiate
a service contract with the interim Chief Medical Examiner in an
amount not to exceed $326,115 (Option A in the Executive Summary) for
Page 32
November 19, 1991
the c~rrent fiscal year.
Commissioner Shanahan announced that he is in favor of Option A.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dotrill
explained that Florida Statutes requires that the County pay for costs
associated with the District Medical Examiner. He noted that the
Medical Examiner is patd by the County Commission, however, they are
an arm of state government and fall under the Department of Law
Enforcement in terms of their Jurisdiction and responslbi]ities. He
remarked that the Office of Medical Examiner is a political appoint-
ment of the Governor's Office.
~4~mtsstorAer Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse to
~ staff's Option A that the Medical Examiner's agency remain as
a c~t~act ai~enc~ as has been done historically, and that staff nego-
tia%~ a ,~mtract in an a~:mnt not to exceed $326,115.
Finance Director Yonkosky advised the Commission that the Medical
Examiner's Office is requesting a payment In advance. He explained
that he wants to insure that authorization is being given to disburse
those funds in advance of the services being provided as opposed to
the way its been done in the past. He remarked that the Medical
Exsminer's Office needs the funds in order to operate.
County Manager Dotrill related that the agreement would be
approved for one year, noting that he sees no problem with a one month
advancement as long as the contract allows for a post audit evaluation
of actual invoices and costs.
The Commission concurred with the request for payment in advance.
UpCm call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
Page 33
November 19, 1991
~~I~ gl-78S, SUPPORTING & PRIORITY RANKING FOR ~ ROOKERY BAY
County Manager Dotrill reported that the proposed resolution rela-
tes to a meeting that was held this week with respect to local
expression in support of Rookery Bay's position #19 on the CARL list.
Mr. Gary Lytton requested adoption of the Resolution, voicinG
local support from the Commission, He remarked if adopted, the
Resolution will go before the Land Acquisition Advisory Council.
~mimiox~r $1~mnahmn ~oved, seconded by Co~misstonsr Saunders and
~t~d ml~ousl¥, to adopt Resolution 91-788.
Page 34
November 19, 1991
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR CORAL ISLES
County Manager Dorrill announced that this item relates to the
water acceptance agreement for the Manatee Shopping Center. He indi-
cated that the executive summary (copy not provided to the Clerk's
Office) meets with all the requirements, has been reviewed by the
County Attorney's Office and staff is recommending approval.
Co~a~llicrner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and
cm_-T~ed unant~usly, to approve the acceptance of the water facilities
for tl~ Coral Illel project.
OR Book 1691 Pages 4 - 15
Page 35
November ]9, 199]
ee. Commiaaloner Shanaban moved, seconded by 0outsstoner Hasse
~ c~u~l'ted nnant~ously, that the following items under the con-
~t ~4m ~ approved ~d/or adopted: '''
8~ A~D ~R ~CAVATION PETIT NO. 59.317 "BRI~E L~E',
~~ IN SE~ION 2, ~SHIP 49 SO~H~ ~GE 25 EAST
See Pages
~t~'J.~'B1 ~ to ~8B6
~D~T ~]I~M~]IT INCREASING ~ ~ ~CE FOR ~ 123 IN ~OR
~ ~~ ~~ - IN ~ ~ OF $3~500
It~~$
~ ~ IN~ING ~ ~ B~CE ~1~ ~ 123 - IN ~
~~ ~4,237
Ztem#16D2
&~9~'E OF A PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE EAST AND SOUTH
NAPL~ SANITAR~ SEWER PROJECT
Item #16D2
ACC~fAN~ OF A TERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT 9.J~D RECORDATION
~ OF ~H ~DIFICATION OF LEGAL DESCRI~IONS FOR EXISTING
~, D~ ~ BILLS OF SALE RE PROVIDING S~R ~EA~ TO
~~ ~O~ CONdiTION D/B/A LA~ ,'.STATES
lt~ ~16D3
~~ OF ~ N~ICK OF ~OMISE TO PAY ~ AGRK~ TO ~K~
PA~ ~ ~ I~ACT ~KS ~R RONALD P. ~~ ~ PA~ICIA M.
See Pages ~-- ~
~~ 91-786 A~ORIZING ~E ACQUISITION OP ~S~S REQUIRED
~ ~ I~~TION OF ~ILI~ IMPROVES ALONG THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
~I~ ~~ PI~ RI~E ROAD A~ THE ~~RE SUBDIVISION ~
A~IZI~ ~ TO ~OCEED WITH ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO EXPEDITE SAID
~ ACQUISITION
SeePages
It~ ~16D5
~X~FT~ON OF TH~ NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY ~D AGRE~ TO
PA~ OF S~ I~ACT ~ES FOR ASPEN-L~E ASSOCIATES LIMITED
P~IP
See Pages
Item ~16D6 continued Indefinitely
Page 36
November 19, 1991
AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE WORK ORDER JEI-4 UNDER THE ANNUAL
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ~IITH JOHNSON
ENGI]I]EI~RING RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SI[ERIFF'S FIRING RANGE
SeePages
EIg~JJUTIO~[ OF & NEW SUBLEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, A
PO~I~ZCJk~ ~IIBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. J~t~D THE JAYCEES
FiN~IIMkT/O~I OF )LJkPLES, INC., FOR TH~ SOLE PURPOSE OF A DROP-OFF
~OCAT~O[[~ RECYCLING TRAILERS AT NAPLES AIRPO[~
Its e164J2
See Pages
· ][]L'UI~O][ OF A NEW LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER C0URTY, A POLITICAL
~~ON OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE ClT~' OF NAPLES, AIRPORT
A~, POE TNH CONTINUED USE OF PROPERTY NEEDED FOR A SOLID WASTE
TRJk]I~F~ NTATION AT NAPLES AIRPORT
See Pages Io'7-
EXECUTION OF TWO ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER
~ &lid THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE
ASSI~ID~NT OF DRAINAGE RIGHTS AND ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE
~IBILITIES FOR PORTIONS OF THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL IN FURTHERANCE
OF THE TERM~ AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BK~E~N TH~ PARTIES DATED FEBRUARY 19~ 1991
See Pages
Ite~ 91~R1
R~OLUT/ON 91-787 REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE
TR~ ~ STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF THE
· HOR~ OF NJkPLK$ AND ADJACENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND PREPARE A
RA~'O~I~I&ISANCH REPORT IN THE INTEREST OF HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE
~I0~ A~D BEACH EROSION CONTROL
Ttem ~16~2
See Pages
AID IMI~O~ AGRKKMKNT mR NAPLES PRO~ION
See Page:~
~ iOll~)itlZl?IOl ~34 REFLECTING ILEVISED HOURLY RATE CODES FOR
II17.J~W, I(II.I. llt, Blltlq)N AND PEER, INC.; WORK AUTHORIZATIONS FOR
~]I~I~I~RING ~EHVICE~ FOR PROJECTS UNIT 17, CONNE(.'TOR ROAD B, AND
November 19, 1991
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WELLFIELD NATER USE
1984 TAX ROLL
Date
270/271 11/13/91
285 11/14/9!
272/274
258/260
417/419
308/310
279/281
295/299
43/47
51/66
1991-20/1991-27
1985 TAX ROLL
1986 TAX ROLL
1987 TAX ROLL
1988 TAX ROLL
1989 TAX ROLL
1990 TAX ROLL
1991 TAX ROLL
11/13/91-11/14/91
ll/13191-11/14/91
]1/13/91-11/14/91
/13/91-11/14/91
11/13/91--11/14/91
11/13/91-11/14/91
11/6/91-11/8/91
11/13/91-11/14/91
1991 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPE~:TY
11/6/91-11/13/91
~][T~A ~A/N TIM~ FOR INMATE NOS. 64516, 63551, 71311 AND 50369
ltea#1623
SAT~'F&CTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages /37
MZ~J~N~S CORRESPONDENCE - F/LED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or
referred to the various departments as indicated below:
B ~00~'.: ~5 Page 38
November 19, 1991
3o
Copy to BCC of letter dated November 1, 1991, to Mrs. Carol
McGallum, Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
Administrative Services Bureau, from Susan M. Usher, CPA,
Senior Accountant, Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court,
re: submittal of quarterly report of activity within the
Confiscated Property Trust Fund. Copy to John Yonkosky, and
filed.
Copy to BCC of letter dated November 6, 1991, to Mrs. Phyllis
M. Jones, CPA, Coopers & Lybrand, from John A. Yonkosky, CPA,
Collier County Finance Director, re: Solid Waste Franchise
Audit. Filed.
Memo dated October 29, 1991, to Potential Applicants--Elderly
Nomeow~ner Rehabilitation Program, from Ronald Davis, Chief,
Bureau of Housing, Department of Community Affairs, re:
Questions asked at the Elderly Homeowner Rehabilitation
Program Workshop. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Martha Skinner,
Russell Shreeve, and filed.
Letter dated November 4, 1991, to Chairman, BCC, from Jon M.
Iglehart, Environmental Specialist, Department of
Environmental Regulation, re: Collier County - WRR, File No.
112042365, application for dredge and fill permit by Bayview
Estates Club, Inc. Copies to Netl Dot;rill, Harry Huber, and
filed.
Minutes Received and Filed:
ao
Black Affairs Advisory Board Agenda for November 13,
1991, and Minutes of October 16, ~[991.
Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advisory Committee
Minutes of September 10, 1991.
Co
Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board 5leering
Minutes of October 7, 1991.
Big Cypress Basin Board of the So~th Florida Water
Management District Agenda for November 15, 1991.
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Minutes of
October 7, 1991.
Notice to Owner dated October 27, 1991, to BCC from Duralast
Enterprises, Inc., under an order given by M. D. Hatwell Co.,
for lay-out and paint parking lines, deliver and install
carstops (bumpers) at the East Naples Community Park. Copies
to Steve Carnell, John Yonkosky, and filed.
Notice to Owner dated October 27, 1991, to BCC from Duralast
Enterprises, Inc., under an order given by M. D. Hatwell Co.,
for lay-out and paint parking lines, deliuer and install
carstops (bumpers) and Signs (h/c) at the North Naples
Co~uauntty Park. Copies to Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, and
flied.
Notice to Owner dated October 30, 1991, to Barry, Bette & Led
Duke and BCC from Florida Irrigation Supply, under an order
given by Xeriscape Water Systems, Inc., for pipe valves, fit-
tings and controllers, for Collier County Library, Bid No.
90-1556. Copies to Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, and filed.
Prelimina]?y Notice to Contractor dated November 1, 1991, to
BCC from APAC-Florida, Inc., under an o~der given by M. D.
Marwell, to prime, sand and pave with 1]{" S-3 Asphalt, at the
Immokalee Community Center. Copies to Steve Camell, John
Yonkosky, and filed.
~ 0~0~',~ ~ Page 39
November 19, 1991
AP~~T~ OF FUNDING FRO~ THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUND FOR COLLIER
COq3Jrr~~'S OFFICE CRIM~ ~ION (IUIDE - IN THE AMOUNT OF
A~P~P~t~ATX~ OF F~DING FRO~ TH~ CONFISCATED TRUST FUND FOR THE
~ (FF T~CHI[ICAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
~J~ - 1'~ ~ ~ OF $26,200
EX"A"~X~ ~ JA~IIARY 1, 1992, TO MARCH 1, 1992, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
TI~ T~ ADOPT & R~SOLUTION OF INTENT TO USE THE NON-AD VALOREM METHOD
OF (i~J~ ~I~E~IAL ASSESSMKNTS TO FUND THE COUNTY'S STORMWATER
See Pages /~ ~/
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:10 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
Page 40