The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 04/09/1991 R Naples, Florida, April 9, 199! LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahah Max A. Masse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: James C. GAles, Clerk; Annette Guevin, Ellis Hoffman and Wanda Arrtghi, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dotrill, County Managsr~ Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Tom 0111ff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; David WeAgel, Assistant County Attorney; Mark Lawson, Assistant County Attorney; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; John MadaJewsk~, Project Review Services Manager; Ken Baginski, Planning Services Manager; John Boldt, Water Management DArectpr; Martha Skinner, Social Services Director; Rues Muller, Engineering Technician; Bob M~lhere and Phi/ Schell, Planners; Sue Fileon, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Toml~neon, Sheriff~e Office. Page April 9, 1991 AiJEID& -APPROVEDM/TH CKA~GES c~Fl~~l~ly, that the agenda ~ approved with the following c~~ Item #10B - Approval of Satisfaction of Final Judgment in the Case of John Prout, etal., v. Collier County, etal., Case #87-2957-CA-01 - Added. (Requested by County Attorney.) Item #16A1 - Recommendation to grant final acceptance of "The Vlneyards, Unit 3-A" - Deleted. (Requested by Staff.) Item #16F3 - Recommendation to authorize payments for taxi shuttle services for patients of the Immokalee Health Clinic - Moved to #9Fl. (Requested by Board of County Commissioners.) Item #9A3 - Request for Local Matching Funds for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program - To be discussed in conjunction with Item #9F1. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) Item #16H2 - Recommendation that the Board authorize the sole source procurement of Network Services for the 5th and 6th floors of the Courthouse - Moved to #9E2. (Requested by Staff.) 6~ Item #8B - Mr. & Mrs. Charles Allen - Regarding determination ~' of a public nuisance - Continued to 4/16/91. (Requested Petitioner.) Item #13A - Execute work order under the annual contract for architectural services with Victor Latavtsh for renovations to the Immokalee Jail Center - Continued to 4/16/91. (Requested by Sherlff's Office.) Item #13B - Recognize reserves for continuing renovations to the Immokalee Jail Center - continued to 4/16/91. (Requested by Sherlff's Office.) 10. Item #9C1 - Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal for staffing of Barefoot Beach Preserve and accept a one time unrestricted cash dona- tion from Lely Development Corporation as recommended by the Barefoot Beach Preserve Task Force Committee - To be heard at 10:30 A.M. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) Item #BA - Frank Ross regarding Riviera Golf Estates drainage ditch - To be heard as first agenda item. (Requested by Commlss~oner Volpe.) Item #9El - Recommendation to approve a proposal to construct a YMCA facility In Golden Gate Eataras - To be heard at 1:00 P.M. coBBerr & nm& - APPROVED AND/OR A OPTEn The motion £o= approval of the Consent Agenda to noted under Item #16, ~ 0001~;£ 08' Page 2 April 9, 1991 )TA~IUT~S OF ~ REGUT, AR AND SPECIAL I~KT/NGS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1991 AFF!tOV~AePRr~EIITED Shanahen moved, seconded by Cassiasloner Haeee and that the Minutes of the Re~lar and Special NeetAng~ o£ February 19, 1991, be approved as presented. l~J~.~k~A~XO~ Dg~XGRATZRG ~ MONT~ OF APRX~-, 1991, AS C~X~-D A~USE Upon resdAng and presenting the proclamation to HAllsty Mlesa! end Robin Pineon, sixth graders from Pine Ridge Middle School, Coam/ssionar S~ saved, seconded by Conmiesioner Haeee and c~rl~d~n~n/mo~sl¥0 to adopt the proclot/on deelgnat/n~ the Month o£ April u Child Abuse P~vent/on Month. 000,,,, 09 Page 3 April 9, 1991 Xfer PROGLAMATXOI[ DESXGHATXXG THK ~ O~ ~XL 7-~3, ~ggl, AS WCH Or Upon reading and presenting the proclamation to Linda Canaan and Barbara Mayas, Conlssloner Ss~ders loved, seconded Csl~tar Vol~ ~d carried ~l~usly, to adopt the Procitation bl~tlng the bk of April 7-13, 1991, as March of DIH8 ~Fi~~ bk. Page 4 April 9, 1991 Commissioner Volpe congratulated the following Collier County employees and presented their service awards: William E. Pepltnskl Deborah A. Lichltter Ricardo Garcia William T. Griffin David H. Kitchen George D. Cameron Paul W. Nileon Jeffrey P. Page Thomas J. Maguire Theresa M. Ortengren Paul D. Joseph Walter J. Kopka II John Arden Oss Peter G. Bolton Dennis R. Barnard Shirley A. Nix EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 10 years EMS 5 years Com. Dev/Cust.Serv. 10 years Hello. Operations 5 years Utlltttes/Wastewtr. 5 years Project Rev. Serv. 5 years ROSS R~(L~LRDING RIVIERA GOLF ESTATES DRAINAGE DITCH - STAFF DIR~'~ED TO PI]tFORM F~ASIBILITY STUDY, R~TURN WITHIN 60 DAYS AND INV~TIGAT~ SHORT-TERM SOLUTION IN THE INTERIM Mr. Frank Ross Indicated he has been appointed spokesperson for the homeowners noted in the petition. He explained the canal constructed in the rear portions of their lots is 20 feet wide at minimum and widens up to 26 feet due to cave-the. He stated there are several encroachments on their properties of fence post footings and a large concrete abutment of approximately 16 feet in length by 9 feet wide, which was constructed in the easement abutting property to the east of Lot 704. He noted the homeowner of said lot has replaced his sod twice stnce January, 1991, and his property continues to cave in to the canal, leaving the bank precariously close to his lanai. He cited Lots 700-707 are getting very heavy run-off from abutting pro- parties on Cynthia Way, although none of the drainage was delineated tn the dedication of the plat. He stated heavy drainage is also being experienced from County Barn Road to the start of the drainage ease- ment at Lot 707. He alleged that many cave-ins are being experienced due to the poor design of the canal and the heavy drainage from pro- parties to the east and north of the easement. He reported the plat Page April 9 199! firmly states that all rear lot lines are to have an adjoining lO foot drainage easement and a five foot adjoining utility easement, yet less than two years later the County caused the developerrs agent to enter on their properties, with no discussion or consent on the part of the owners, and remove thousands of cubic yards from their rear yards and construct the poorly designed canal. He asserted this is no longer a drainage easement In accordance with the plat, rather, it is a reten- tion canal. He requested the Board of County Commissioners direct those responsible for the design and construction of the canal to redesign and construct the drainage easement in accordance with the plat. He stated that before the final design is approved, all abutting. drainage should be reconsidered so the new design will pro- vide for the drainage of those properties only, with none from abutting properties. He noted that not one lot in this subdivision has been sold since the canal was put in place, nor would any of the petitioners have purchased lots had they known the canal would be built through their rear yards. Commissioner Hasse communicated he has visited the site and cannot understand how County Staff could have permitted the concrete abutment to encroach into the middle of a drainage canal. He urged the Board to direct Staff to rectify the problems. John Boldt, Water Management Director, provided the Board with Informat~on which he stated summarized the situation. (Copy not pro- vided to the Clerk to the Board.) He noted a large portion of the problem relates to the way buildings were allowed to be set on the properties. He indicated from his perspective, the zoning require- ments are flawed, because the setback from the home is from the pro- perty line, irrsgardless of the drainage easement. He said in this case, a 25 foot drainage easement exists, resulting in buildings situated within three feet of the drainage easement, which is within three feet of the drainage canal. He remarked a person can literally step off a back patio into the canal. He referred to Mr. Ross' com- ments regarding misinformation having been presented to prospective Page 6 April 9, 1991 home buyers by sales staff, who allegedly said there would only be a grassy swale in the area of the drainage ditch. He Informed the ditch has existed for years, there have been plans to Improve it for years, and there has never been any ~ntent on the County's part to fill in the ditch to create a grassy swale. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the drainage ditch ts currently functioning as It was designed, to which Mr. Boldt Indicated in the affirmative. Con~ssionsr Saunders asked what area is the drainage ditch des~ned to drain? Transportation Services Administrator Archibald responded it is designed to handle three conditions: 1) it provides an outfall for part of the Riviera development, i.e., water drains from part of Riviera and flows into the ditch; 2) it also provides for a certain amount of water retention to meet the South Florida Water Management District criteria; and 3) it can function as a conveyor of water bet- ween the two drainage systems on County Barn Road and the Lely canal. He ~ndicated a probable solution to the problem would be to replace some of the ditch with the installation of a stormwater drainage pipe. He said In order to accomplish that, a short feasibility study would need to be undertaken to determine the cost and determine how the cost wo~ld be assessed to either the property owners or between benefiting owners. Commissioner Saunders commented if an assessment district is established, he presumes it would encompass the entire Riviera deve- lopment plus surrounding properties because of the benefits to be g&lnsd. Mr. Ross rebutted several comments made by Mr. Boldt. He etated ~f the information euppl~ed by Mr. Boldt was in existence before the plat was created, it should have been entailed in the plat so that prospective property owners could have been fully knowledgeable about the requirements of the area. He asserted he studied all the cove- nanta, easements and restrictions from 1974 and found no discussion of :].5 Page 7 ,, , this sub~sct. Mr. Archibald said the most important issue from the County's perspective is to ensure there is a drainage system In the area. He noted the ditch was in existence in accordance with the plans and the plat prior to any purchases occurring. He suggested constructing a storm drainage system will create a fairly large assessment district, · bscause there are benefits to residents to the north and east in addi- tion to those within the platted area itself. He also suggested there are indirect benefits that accrue to others. Commissioner Volpe questioned how long would the feasibility study take and who would be responsible for conducting It? Mr. Archibald stated his Department can very briefly develop a rough coot for an assessment district and meet with the homeowners' association to determine how the costs may be s/located. He said that undertaking should be possible within 30-60 days. ¢osealemioner Volpe moved, seconded by Conmisstoner Saunders, to direct Staff to prepare a feasibility study for a drainage assessment district within Riviera Golf Estates, return within 60-90 days, and Staff directed to inspect the area and develop a short-term solution to the unmightlineas of the canal. Mr. Ross pointed out that many of the part-time residents will be leaving the area within the next few weeks, therefore, any agreement must allow enough time for everyone to be involved in the outcome. The following people spoke regarding the situation, stating the health and safety hazards of the road abutting the canal, the ..congestion of weeds, mosquitoes, etc., the aesthetic concerns within a beautiful neighborhood, the standing water In the ditch, and opposi- tion to the hameaters paying an assessment for a drainage system which is the responsibility of the County: ~...[i Donald Bremner HWP Thompson RoT Carlson George Keller ~l~0~Ctll for the question, the motion carried unanimouml¥. Xte~d~B2 O~DINANC~ 91-31 ~ PETITION R-90-27, BEAU KEENE OF EVERS, NKAL & PUR~, ~NC., FJ~R~$~NTING DAN PEPPERS AND DUGAN PORTER, REQU~STXNG A FROM A-2 TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS "WATERFORD ESTATES" PUD, COB~Z~T~B~ OF TS RESIDENTIAL Dt~ELLING UNITS LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF MliITAEER, ROAD - ADOPTED AS AMENDED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on March 21, 1991, am evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-90-27, filed by Beau Keens of Evers, Neal & Purse, Inc., representing Dan Peppers and Dugan Porter, requesting a fezone from A-2 to PUD to be known as "Waterford Estatest' PUD, consisting of 78 residential dwelling units on property located north and south of Whitaker Road, approximately one mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) and approximately two miles west of CR 951, in Sections 9 and 16, T§0S, R26B~ conelat~ng of 19.4± acres. Planner Schell requested that discuss~on of Companion Item #6C20 SMP-90-31, be heard in conjunction with this item. He noted these petit~one consist of the fezone and SubdlvAston Master Plan for Waterford Estates PUD, proposed to consist of 78 residential units. He explained the property le presently zoned A-2, with surrounding properties to the north zoned A-2 and Estates and significantly unde- vs~oped~ properties to the east are zoned A-2 with a mixture oF single-family homes and mobile homes; to the south, the zoning is A-2 with undeveloped woodlands and scattered single-family homes; and to the west, the zoning is A-2 with undeveloped woodlands, Youth Haven and the PUD for Royal Woods Golf and Country Club which 1s approved for single and multi-family residences. Commissioner Hesse questioned what ~he access is to the subject property? Transportat/on Services Administrator Archibald replied that current access is either through the Whitaker Road or Polly Road aligmaent. He agreed w/th Co~uaissloner Hesse that Whitaker Road is not developed up to this property, however, one of the stipulations requires the developer to extend Whitaker Road to Sunset Boulevard. Planner Schell continued, advising that Staff has found the peti- tion in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. He noted ~hat, although the proposed project is eligible for 78 residential u~its or :].? Page 9 flour units per acre, the developer's SMP asks only for 63 units which will result in approximately 3.2 units per acre. He remarked that, if approved, Staff is recommending approval of 78 units, since it is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, however, the Board has the right to limit the number of units to that which is shown on the SMP. Commiss~oner Volpe stated for clarification, that the developer is requesting 78 residential units in the PUD document and the Board needs to decide whether to limit development at this fezone stage to ~:, 63 unite or approve the request for 78 units, to which Planner Schell · /:: concurred. Planner Schell communicated that all agencies have reviewed the petitions and found them to be in compliance subject to the recom- mended st~pulations. He noted the CCPC on 3/7/91 recommended den/a/ of both petitions by a vote of 4/3, because they felt the proposed project ie incompatible with neighboring rural residential properties. He commented, however, the CCPC members who voted in favor recognized the compatibil~t¥ of the petitions with Collier Count¥'s Growth ... Management Plan, and added that the urbanization line designates areas for more intensive land uses as being west of CR 9§1. He noted three people spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing their desire to maintain the rural residential character of the area, compatibility with neighboring rural residential properties, concern with the possibility of increased property taxes ~nd concerns with the affects upon groundwater levels on potable wells and ponds. He commented three communications ~n favor of the petition have been received, indicating the desire to have increased urban services be provided to the area. He advised a petition has recently been received containing '5? nloaee ~n favor of the proposal, and a separate petition with 34 names in opposition has also been received. He concluded that Staff recommends denial of Petitions R-90-27 and SMP 90-31, subject to the CCPCtI recommendations. He added, however, if the Board chooses to approve the petitions, Staff is requesting approval be subject to all $taff~a stipulations, including an additional stipulation to the aMP April 9, 1991 that, "the minimum lot sizes shall be as shown on the typical lot details of the Subdivision Master Plan". Jeff Purse, with Evers, Neal & Purse, Inc., representing the peti- tioner, stated that the petitions are in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, which has designated that the area west of CR 951 is destined to be urban. He Indicated this area, being surrounded by a major roadway system, will become urban. He said the development will connect to the Countyts sewer system, therefore, septic tanks are not contemplated. He added they will also connect to the County water system, so will not be utilizing groundwater. He noted the developer ~ plans to pave Whitaker Road past Sunset Boulevard, pave Sunset Boulevard for the full extent of the proJect's boundaries and pave Polly Avenue to connect it to where It is presently paved. He indi- cated that, In Itself, will help alleviate a major problem In the area. In summary, he said although the petitions were denied by the CCPC, he feels this particular area ta presently urban. He asserted by looking beyond the boundaries of this project, it is noticeable that development is surrounding the area. He requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider the area urban, as deemed in ~he Growth Management Plan, and approve the project. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Purse indicated that the .petitioner would agree to modify the rezontng application to limit the project to 3.2 units per acre. Dan Peppers, petitioner, asserted that the proposal will improve the appearance of the area. He reported money has been put aside for landscaping which will Improve the entire neighborhood. He noted the front entrance will bs landscaped with large trees and shrubbery, the streets will contain canopy trees similar to the Vineyards and the :;:: lake sides will be landscaped as well as the boundary areas around the isntirs property. ~K'' The following people spoke in favor of the project, stating the !:.~: upgrades of the roads In the area and the water and sewer tie-ins will ooo ,, 19 Page 11 April 9, 1991 be of great value to the neighborhood, the proposal will help eltmt- nate the use of land In the area as dumps for garbage and the ellmina- tlon of the dust when the roads are paved: Joseph Markovic Maria Blanco Paula Barnes The following people spoke against the project, stating the detri- mental effect it will have on their wells, the probable increase of property taxes, current residents cannot afford County water and sewer systems, the environment of the area is being destroyed by develop- merits already approved and the proposal is not compatible with /Osurrounding properties: .':/ Batty Chapman Jan Margrave ,'' Richard Gray {!;' ..... George Keller suggested If the Board approves these petitions, -:~ that a five-year time limit for construction be Imposed. Co~,aimai~ner Shanahen ~cxved, seconded by Co--~tsstoner Hesse and ~tedunani~usly, to close the public hearing. Comet#loner Rases ~oved, seconded by Co-~tsstoner Sh~l~han, to e~preee l~ettt/on R-90-27, subject to Staff's stipulations and that 'L)i,:,devel~t b~ limited to Co~lsstoner Shanahen Indicated that a decision is difficult In this situation, however, tn his opinion, the benefits offset the ~ssible problems. Commissioner Saunders mentioned that a key Issue Is the approval of projects that are well designed for the future and the reduction of densities to a point where nice neighborhoods are maintained. Commissioner Volpe commented that, unfortunately, residents In this area seem to be in the path of progress. He said the forthcoming :':report from the MPO on the build-out study for Collier County may be the most important issue this community will have to address over the next three or four years. He remarked that he will support this pro- Ject with the condition that the County address the concerns raised regarding densities In certain rural areas which are In the path of progress. ooo. 2o Page 12 April 9, 199! l~goncall £or the question, the ~otton carried unanimously, _.t__~_robye~rlrting the ordinance as nuabered &nd titled below and entorod into Ordinance Book No. 43: 0RDINAIICE 91-31 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 82-2 THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERS 50-26-2 AND 50-26-5; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A-2 TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS WATERFORD ESTATES PUD CONSISTING OF 78 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF WHITAKER ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (CR-884) AND APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES WEST OF CR-951, IN SECTIONS 9 AND 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 19.4~ ACRES~ AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~O~UTZ~ 91-290 R~ FETZTZON~MP-90-31,' B~AU ~W~., ~~I~ D~ ~S ~ DUG~ ~RT~, ~Q~STING ~~SI~ ~ ~ ~~ FOR 'WATK~O~ ESTA~S' P~ - ~D Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on March 24, 199~, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-90-31, flied by Beau Keens of Evers, Meal a ~rse, Inc., representing Dan Peppers and ~gan Porter, retesting Subdivision Master Plan approval fo~ "Waterford Estates" PUD, for property located north and south of ~lt~er Road, approximately one mile north of Rattlesnake Ha~ock Road [CR-864} and approximately two miles west of CR-951, in Sections 9 ~d 16, T50S, R26E, consisting of 19.4 + acres, Collier County, Florida. Discussion of this item was heard with the previous petition. Plier Schell reiterated Staff~s recommendation that the stipula- tions include reference to the size of the lots being sho~ on the ~l~ ~ ~, ~co~ ~ Co~lssl~er S~ ~d C~ ~ly, to cl~ the ~bllc hearing. ~t~ ~se ~, seconded ~ Co. tsstonsr ~~ ~iT, to a~r~ Petition S~-90-31 ~bJec~ to ~ stihlatica. Page 13 April 9, 1991 **eDe~a~FOXerk ~offman replaced Deputy Clerk Guevin at this ~ B~AC~ PRE$~I~ TO BE COUNTY CONTROLLED FACILITY WITH RULES PO~T~D ~UDIN~ AVAILABILITY OF PARK TO THE PUBLIC~ GUARD RAIL BUT NO ~ATE NO~ TO B~ LOCATED AT FK~SENVE= DONATION FROM LHLY NOT ACCEPTED; NO PA!~IN~ FEES AT THIS TIMe= AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL $TAFFXNG: AND ~,~E~ & I~C~EATION TO ~NCOURAGE UTILIZATION OF VOLUNTEERS Commissioner Volpe explained that the issue regarding beach access ta of prime Importance and identified as the number one priority during the strategic planning sessions. He Indicated that this is really a County-wide issue and noted that as an outgrowth of the work on the Task Force Committee. he is proposing that the Commission con- sider the creation of a County-wide Beach Task Force to address many of the issues resulting from the discussions of the Barefoot Beach Task Force. He thanked Murdo Smith and staff for their assistance. Commissioner Volpe reported that more and more people are moving ~. into the community and are becoming aware of the Lely Barefoot Beach reso~lrce. Commissioner Volpe advised that the local newspaper raised an · ?'' issue relating to a potential conflict of Interest on his part and he has discussed same with County Attorney Cuyler who has determined that there is no conflict of interest. He reported that the recommen- dations to come forth are a result of Input from the public, staff, the Barefoot Beach community, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Commissioner Volpe expressed that in his opinion, the critical issue is the lack of on-site supervision. He suggested that on-site supervision be provided in order to solve this situation. He indi- cated that the Parks and Recreation Department is currently understar fed. .'(~. WIth respect to the collection of a fee at the Barefoo~ Beach Preside, Co~leeioner Volpe cited that ~he recommendation at kh~s t~me ~e to defer sa~d fee unt~l such ~me that a dete=m~nat~on Is made ~aS tO what the County-w~de pol~c~ w~ll be regarding the collection of fees. He related that the County Attorney's office Is look~n~ ~nto Page 14 April 9, 199! the issue of whether there is the possibility of using some of the bed tax dollars for that purpose and if there is the ability to differen- t!ate between out-of-county res!dents and out-of-state residents. He cited that approximately 70~-80~ of the folks using Lely, Clam Pass and Tigertail are out of County residents. Commissioner Volpe announced the Task Force's recommendation of the utilization of a gate at the entrance to the Preserve. He noted that the gate has been Invoiced and is soon to be installed at that location. Commissioner Volpe addressed the issue with regard to par- ticipatton from the Lely Development Corporation. He reported that the Task Force Identified that there is a budget shortfall situation and questioned whether the developer would be willing to donate monies to underwrite the costs in the Initial years until such time that a determination is reached as to whether fees would be charged. He indicated that the Task Force voted on that issue and recommends that a one time donation be accepted from the developer to help defray the costs. He noted that concerns have been voiced from the public that accepting the donation may have some stigma attached. He advised that based upon what he has heard from the public, he urges the Commission not to accept the donation from the developer. Commissioner Saunders stated that there are three Issues and he sees no compromise. He expressed that parking needs to be maximized for the public with environmental Impacts kept in mind; access maximi- zed to ease entry to the park; and'total control by the County of the facility. With reference to the donation, he indicated that he believes it was very generous for Mr. Agnelll to offer same and maybe sometime in the future the County may be in a position to accept it, but at this point in time until all other issues are resolved, he feels this should be deferred. He expressed that the collection of fees has n6thing to do with the three major issues. Commissioner Saunders remarked that the Executive Summery reflects 67 existing paid parking spaces and an additional 44 spaces with the ooo ,, 27 Page 15 ~!, j~ approximate number of vehicles to use the unpaved area is 42. lie ~. ~ voiced concerns that if the plan as presented is approved, the County will be indicating that these are the parking spaces that will be ~.p,,~' available on that site, but noted this is not sufficient Acting Public Services Administrator Skinner reported that the · Task Force Com~ittee has held three meetings and their reconunendattons " 1. Provide park staffing and equipment for supervision at the Preserve. 2. Accept a one time unrestricted cash donation from Lely Development Corporation in the amount of $40,000. 3. Do not charge a fee at the Preserve until other related issues have been resolved. 4. Do not construct a gate house at the entrance to the Preserve. Nrs. Skinner requested that the Commission approve the reco~men- datione as submitted by the Barefoot Beach Task Force Committee. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Acting Parks and Recreation Director Smith advised that currently there are four park rangers for the beaches and one additional ranger will be requested in the [~;~.:~.:.:upcoalng budget. County Manager Derrill explained that the activities of the park rangers include five community parks and four related beach parks with adjacent beach parking. He noted that two boat ramp ~actltttes are presently secured and by the end of the year, a third boat ramp fact- ' . 1tt¥ will be on line in addition to a boat ramp facility In Immokalee that Is patrolled and locked In the evening. The following speakers voiced their concerns relating to Lely ~Barefoot Beach Preserve: Jack Pointer Paul Lapha~ Donald Dawson Nard . l~i~ Kobza ~'~? ' Ja~ee Kessler ~ose ~e~ers cited the following: opposed to char~tn~ a fee at the beach~ a gate or chain should be installed in lieu of a gate house at the entr~ce~ additional parking could be accommodated in place of Emily Maggie (w/petition) Robert Nason Marjorie Ward ~eorge Xeller Charlotte Westman /OOOPIG[ '28 Page 16 April 9, 1991 a gate house; d~nation from Lely Development should not be accepted; eveTone should be able to use the road leading to the beach at Lely Preserve; County should have complete control of the facility; Collier County taxpayers' tax dollars support all the parks; no reason to accept the donation from Lely Development since they have to live up to the PUD document; lease agreement with the State Indicates that this area is leased to the County and to be operated as a park, there- fore, "Preserve" gives the illusion that this is an area that is not to be used; the County already has legal rights of access as given by the State in 1978; desire for full time County supervision of the park; Lely Development has destroyed the mangroves due to construc- tion; suggest utilizing senior volunteers for the supervision of the 'beach; there are serious problems with the legal aspects of the 1987 agreement with Lely and staff should make an effort to provide the missing legal /ink between the State Authority's Trustees for the Internal Improvement Fund who are the owners of the easement granted in 1978 since there is no documentation that that ownership has ever been given away. Mr. Paul Smith, Lely Barefoot Beach resident, stated that upon completion of this development, there will be 720 taxpaying people. He indicated that the public should have a right to the beach, but the folks who purchased their homes in this area knew there was 24 hour security and this is still in tact. He reported that Lely Beach Boulevard is owned and maintained by the residents of Lely Beach at the cost of $23.33 per month to provide maintenance, lights, clean up and guard service. He noted that the residents do not want to restrict anyone from the beach but they do not want to give up their security. He explained that when the park was proposed, he was ~nformed that there would be 74 parking spaces since this is an extre- mely sensitive area and the mangroves and wildlife would be preserved. He expressed that he ~s displeased when he hears that the bulldozers will be coming in to make this one huge parking lot. He suggested that the County residents d~splay a decal and when they approach the Page Z7 April 9, 1991 gate, they would be admitted to the park. He indicated that there is no reason why the park rangers and Lely Barefoot Beach security guard cannot work hand in hand. Oo~ed~el~ Saunders ~oved, seconded by Connieeisner Yelps and that the access and park facilities be controlled trF the Cou~tT'; that rules of operations be standard and adequately · po~ed~ that there be posting of availability of the park and hours of operation; that a guard rail or gate be located at the Preserve and ~l~erated by the County~ that voluntary contribution not be accepted until e~dun/eea all other leeuse are reeolved~ that no fees for parking be chaz~ed at this fine; that staff explore additional pax*king; end that authorization for additional staffing be approved and Recreation encourage the utilization of volunteers wha= 1:40 P.M. - Reconvwned: 1:50 P.M, at which ~-~t~a~l)~t~ Clerk I~"t't~hi replaced Deputy Clerk HoffBmn ,I~I]I~TRI~-~ &~lCJt FACILITY IN OOLD~II (CItT~ ISTATIS - Real Property Director Taylor recommended a proposal to construct a ~CA facility in Golden Gate Estates She advised that this propo- sal Is supported by the members of the Golden Gate Estates Citizens Advisory Cavities. She related that the Committee is recommending the donation of funds from the GAC Land Trust for the construction of the facility as well as the purchase of the necessary acreage needed to accededate such a facility. She added that Avatar Properties, Inc. has also e~ressed their support in utilizing funds from the 6AC .' Land Trust. She specified that the Y~CA Development Committee /~., . requested the Board of County Commissioners offer its direction on the ~',~',*' ~oint proposal, and subject to the Boards direction, staff will ' proceed with the following: 1. Comprehensive research of available sites that may accommodate a YMCA facility; 2. Preparation of the ,.",,-' ~and Lease Agreement with the YMCA for the property acquired by the m ooo.. 30 Page '~" ~ April 9, 1991 GAC Land Trust; 3. Marketing and sale of properties In the GAC Land Trust in order to generate revenues necessary to ftnance the construc- t/on of the YMCA facility; 4. Preparation of an Agreement with the YMCA for the utilization of funds for the purpose of constructing a YMCA facility; and 5. the Preparation of any and all applications necessary to amend the current Golden Gate Area Master Plan to allow for the YMCA facility. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Taylor explained that there As currently $325,000 of unrestricted funds In the GAC Land Trust. She added that they have approximately 800 acres which wall be released for sale by the Golden Gate Estates Citizens Advisory ColAtree, confirming that GAC is the sole source for funding the YMCA County Attorney Cu¥1er affirmed that Avatar Properties, Inc. has provided a letter of no objection. He commented that the YMCA has agreed to work with the County to provide legal continuity to the Avatar Properties, Inc. agreement. Me. Taylor answered Commissioner Hasse's question by explaining that the sale of these lands in the past have been used to pay for fare trucks, the construction of a garage bay for the Golden Gate Fire DistrAct, etc. County Attorney Cuyler clarified that the proceeds ~rom the sale of the subject property can be used, according to the agreement, for fire protect/on facilities, police facilities, public schools, libraries, and recreational facilities. Me. Taylor explained that the property and YMCA facility will be owned by the County, and then leased back to the YMCA. She con- farmed the statement made by Commissioner Saunders that this is a request to proceed with the required arrangements necessary. Mr. Thomas A. Brtngardner, Chairman of the Golden Gate Development Committee, emphasized that this is a project that will utilize money not derived from the taxpayers and will benefit the Golden Gate com- Mr. Hank Caballero, resident of Collier County, pointed out that Page 19 the YMCA Is a much needed facility In Golden Gate and requested that the Commissioners support the proposal. Mr. Gila E. Slavers, General Director of the YMCA, noted that he has received a great deal of support from the cttizer~s of the Golden Gate community. He added that the YMCA is open to serve everyone. Commissioner Hasse expressed his complete support for the YMCA and Its eel-vices. cAteted ~n~nJ~cmsl¥, to mupport the construction of a YMCA facility in Golden Ate ~tmte~; to authorize staff to proceed to research avail~ble slte~ for said facility in the Estates, utilizing funds pre- ~t~F J~ the ~AC Land Trv~t; and to authorize staff to proceed to ~--the ~ldea ~te ~ter Pl~ allying for the ~CA~s ~ciftc '.c'~P~'~~ ~:10 P,M. - Reco~~ 2:40 P.M. ~X~ 91-299, DECKING 5.R. 951 P~CEL 125.R R~I~KR (7-11 P~) ~U~, ~XNG ~ ~TISING OF ~ P~CKL ~R ~CKX~ OF ~ B~, ~~ TO SE~ION 125.35, ~ORIDA STA~S Transportation Services Admlntstrator Archibald stated that this 1tam 10 a follow-up to the Board*s direction on February 19, 1991, proceed with a settlement. He advised tha~ the proposed resolution wtll dec/are a portion of the remainder of the 7-11 ~arce1 which referred to as Parce~ 125.R Remainder a8 surplus for a sealed bid. He e~1alned the reason for declarln~ this ~arcel surplus Is to allow Mrs. Fayard, the o~er of Del~s Convenient Store, the og~or~unlt purchase the sub~ect proper~y and relocate her business on the corner of M~atee Road and S.R. 95~. Also as part of this 1tam, Mr. Archibald tnfo~d, is the Stipulated Final Jud~ent which staff has agreed upon, but the defendants have not. Xn response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald commented that Mrs. Fa~ard has been paid $290,000 for the building in which her busi- ness was located. He advised that the proposed resolution Is offering Page 20 the possible opportunity to relocate their business to the south of its original location. He added that the subject resolution and Stipulated Final Judgment set forth the conditions for consideration by the Board when the sealed bids are received and brought back to the Board. He specified that some of the conditions include a minimum bid amount of $§0,000, the relocatton of the building on-site, and other stipulations addressing the properties. Coullty Attorney Cuyler answered Commissioner Volpe's question by lnforaing that the subject land Is Improved property which allows its owner to build any use under Its specified zoning. Gary lluckhuhn, representing Mr. Ackerman, one of the defendants, pointed out that originally the agreement did not Include the con- dition of moving the building; however, the proposed agreement does include this additional cost of $50,000 to move the building, incurring other expenses, which does not leave a fair and equitable settlement for the defendants. He agreed that the public sale Is a ~saeonable solution, but the minimum bid would need to be conditioned upon'moving or not moving the building and the expenses adjusted accordingly in order for the defendants to be compensated Justly. He suggested that the County proceed with a process to put the subject property in Mr. Ackerman~s name and let him bare the cost of moving the building and doing the site work. County Attorney Cuyler Informed that the property cannot be given to the defendant because the County has taken title to the land the defendant is moving from as well as the land to be moved to, but rather it must go through the declaration of surplus property with a public bidding process. He added that it is staff's opinion that the subject site Is a valuable piece of property and the County should ~ecslve at least $50,000 from Its sale, and then it would be at the discretion of the property owner whether they would want to develop the property in accordance to the stipulations listed. He recommended ' that the Board accept staff's proposed Stipulated Final Judgment. i: Mr. Archibald clarified that the proposed resolution requests that Page 21 April 9, 1991 and location. the initial responsibility is to clear the right-of-way which will require some remodeling of the existing ?-1! store, and also requests that within a five year period further removal or relocatton will be necessar~ to abide by the setback requirements. Hr. Archibald explained that the County could proceed with the resolution; and at the time the sealed bids are brought before the Board, a revised Stipulated Final Judgment could also be discussed. He pointed out that the bare land is valued at $65,000; but the included conditions set forth in the proposed resolution will require the purchaser to burden other costs; therefore, the minimum bid price · of $50,000 is felt Justifiable. Hr. Kluckhuhn pointed out that Nrs. Fayard was paid $185,000 less than the o~nera of the neighboring property which was comprised of less square footage; and even though the neighboring property had more valuable fixtures included, they are Insignificant to the value of the He noted that the location of the land for Nrs. Fayard's parcel provides greater benefit to the County because it a11o~ the Manares Road extension. County Attorney Cuyler cited that the matter regarding the appraisal of the two properties was before the courts. In answer to ~] CouAsatonsr Volpe, Mr. Cuyler noted that the fixtures will be ' included as part of the structure. Mr. Archibald clarified that the question before the Board is whether the defendant can submit a bid below the required low bid of · $50,000. He noted that this decision may need to be made at the time the sealed bids are opened. He explained that if the Fayard's or the Acker~an's are not the successful bidders of the surplus property, the $ttptllatsd Final Judgment will need to be revised. He recommended that the Board approve the proposed resolution and recognize that there ~ay be sealed bids below $50,000. Oe~eeaA~Aon~ ~e ~, ~ec~d~ ~ C~t~etoner S~r~, ~o ~ ~ ~ ~1u~t~, w/th the c~ge ~o reco~tze Page 22 April 9, 1991 Coeualsslonsr Saunders noted that It is the Commtsston's Intention to resolve the final agreement between the County and Mr. Ackerman in order for Mr. Ackerman to continue to operate a store at the subject location, and added that it appears to be in the best interest of the public to support Mr. Ackerman's bid for the surplus property. County Attorney Cuyler responded to Mr. Kluckhuhn's questions by stating that the Board of County Commissioners in its declaration of surplus reserves the right to reject all bids and reserves the right to choose the bid it ftnds to be tn the best Interest of the County. Commissioner Volpe expressed that he does not support removing the $50,000 minimum bid requirement from the resolution. He commented that the value of the fixture and the land should require a minimum bid of at least $50,000. ~~t~ S~ ~, seconded ~ Co~tsstoner Sa~ers, ~t~ ~lntt~ ~ ~pt~, with the chugs that t~ ~d of ~ ~ ~ch bttts ~st accotable ~d ~neflctal to the C~ ~ In response to County Attorney ~uyler~s comment regarding tying the Stt~lated Final Judgment with the proposed resolution, Coutsston~r Sanders pointed out that the defendant would be asked enter into ~ agreement with no ~arantees for him except $50,000 which does not appear to be Just. He noted that any property o~er subjected ~o eminent domain has the constitutional right to object to It. '~", ~o~tssloner Shanahah noted that the County has been as fair as ~sslble during ~hts whole case. ~o~ Attorney Cuyler affirmed that legally ~he County is In no ~rse ~sitton if the resolution is adopted without the Stipulated Final Judgment. 35 Page 23 Apr~! 9, 1991 OJNNt Cl33 t~ the question, the m:~t.ton c~rried 3/2 (Co~lill~onerl Volpe end ~ oppoeed), thereby &dopting Reeolution 91-299, with the 000 ~,,~ 06 Page 24 ~OLUT3:OM 01-300, APPltOVINO THE RKVISKD PLANS, SFKCIFICATIONS, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~A~D ~ ~[SKD ~ATI~ ~SKS~ ROLL Legal notice hav~ng been published in the Naples Daily Ne~s on March 24, 1991, as evidenced by Afffidavit off Publica~ion filed the Clerk, public hearing was opened ~o consider a resolution approving the revised p~ann, speci~ica~ions, and estimated approving ~he updated and revised ~en~a~lve assessmen~ ~oll ~or Pine R~dge Industrial Park M~nic~pal Services Tax and Beneffi~ Uni~ Assessmen~ D~s~r~c~; confirm~ng the ~n~al resolution, ResoZu~ion No. 85-182; ordering ~he construction o~ the assessable ~mprovemen~s wlthtn the beneflt unit to be financed with special assessments agalnst the beneflted parcels of property for such lmprovements. Offlce of Cap~tal Projects Management Director Conrecode ~nformed that the objective is to adopt a resolution whereby ~he Board de~er- mlnes and resolves to proceed with the proJec~ and effects adoption of ~ updated ~d revlsed tentative assessment roll which reflects ~rren~ estimated costs to construct the proposed improvements. He c~ted that Resolution No. 85-18~ created the Pine Ridge Industrial Park Area Improvement Assessment D~str~c~ for the construction of watermalne, sanitary sewer facilities, road and drainage Improvements ~d adopted a tentative assessment roll for the cost of said ~mprove- ments to be paid by a special assessment against the benefited proper- tles. He reported that the total assessable cost for this project ~rrently estimated at $10,630,000 which ls significantly more than reflected ~n the orl~tnal tentatlve assessment ro11; ~herefore, re~lrtn~ ~ updated and revised tentative assessment roll reflecttn~ the ~rren~ condltlons adopted. He stated that staff reco~ends adop- tion of the ~b~ect resolutlon. He pointed out that Exhlblt "C" which ~lzee the costs tha~ make-up the $10,630,0OO ls a worst case sce- narlo, ~d added that there ls the potential that the amount wlll come in lo~r th~ thls. He noted that there will be a contrtbutlon from Page 25 April 9, 1991 Utilities which will aid in the reduction of costs. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Conrecode informed that at the completion of construction a reassessment wil! be made on the costs to date on the pro~ect which will include financing costs, construction costs, design costs, and costs incurred to secure final land acquisition; therefore, this is a preliminary assessment cost. County Manager Dotrill commented that there is an MSTU currently in place for this District which has borne all the costs to date for the pro~ect. Pam McKte, representing Bob Taylor° Trustee and Sam V Investments, ~parce~s 3.1~ 365, and 3?8 on the tentative assessment roll, stated there is no problem w~th parcel 3.~; however, she requested that staff investigate parcels 365 and 3?8 because they are assessed separately for $50,000 and $36,000 respectively, but are one parcel which is the existing Bob Taylor chevrolet dealership. She also questioned why when this item was on the agenda on ~arch ~2, ]991, the total assessable cost was approximately $?.~5 million and within the last three weeks it has gone up 47~ to $~0.5 million? Mr. Conrecode replied that the reason for the increase is because of the increased contingencies and the included finance charges for the ~ife of the pro~ect which had originally been left out of the coe~. He pointed out that the finance charge could be e~iminated if the property owners were to finance this and pay the assessment in one Me. McKte questioned why there are three interdepartmental ch&rgea, one for $~65,000 for the Real Property Department, $100,000 for ~egal fees, and $100,000 for the Capital ~mprovement Management? Mr. Conrecode explained that these charges are to cover staff time spent on this pro~ect which is conslatent with current County Policy. Assistant County Attorney Neigel noted that the legal fees would be to pay for outside counse! for condemnation costs. Ms. McKte stated that she understands that an MSTU is designed to Page 26 April 9, 1991 charge the people who directly benefit from the service It will provi- de; therefore, the Bob Taylor Chevrolet property, which is parcels 378 and 365, should not be assessed for the sewer system because the property has already paid to connect to the City sewer system and is receiving Its service. Mr. Conrecode affirmed that this will be investigated. Oary Butler stated that he owns Lot 30 on Trade Center Lane at the north end of the MSTU. He advised that he too has already paid for and is receiving sewer services approved by the County and does not feel that Trade Center Lane should be charged again for sewers. Mr. Conrecode responded that the entire Trade Center area is being assessed at a lower rate because they are currently being serviced by '' their own package plant which will be tied Into the County service at the completion of the project. Mr. Butler commented that the lots along Trade Center Lane should not be made to pay the assessment until the sewer line is within 200 feet of the properties. Mr. Conrecode pointed out that the final determination of charges will take into account who has already paid impact fees and who will be charged Impact fees as a result of tying Into the County's system which will offset the cost of the assessment to all the property owners Involved. He added that this will also have a direct rela- tionshlp on the contribution from the Utilities for the projects. John Burr informed that he is the owner of parcel 25 on Pine Ridge Road which has a total of a 245 foot frontage but 30 feet of this frontage Is part of a drainage easement. He questioned why he would be assessed for this 30 foot frontage which is under water, and he cannot use. Mr. Conrecode affirmed that he will review this. Bruce Weber noted that he owns two pieces of property on Leanne Lane and has received a letter informing him that he will be assessed $31,000. He argued whether it was worth spending $10 million for two or three weeks out of the year to remove standing water. He pointed out that originally there were swales on this street which took care Page 27 of the standing water; however, they are no IonHer there. As far as the roads are concerned for this area, he noted, they only need to be :. resurfaced but not rebuilt. He added that the area of his property is an industrlal area and the septic systems do not pose any environmen- tal hazard, and the water is acceptable for industrial use. He cited that as to the concern for water for fires, there are several fire wells in th~s area. He su~marized that the need does not Justify the : cost.of the project. :~" Na~a McCollum commented that he owns three parcels of property in the ~11bJect area and feels that the assessment should be based on the square footage of each parcel not the lineal front footage of each. Assistant County Manager McLemore explained that the front footage method was chosen because it directly relates the cost of installing 'the system in front of the individual properties. He noted that this ts the preferred method of charging for this type of project. Mr. Conracode advised that he will provide an explanation as to how Mr. McCollum~s properties are being assessed once he receives the . ·'.~:: parcel numbers. Mr. K.O. Vaughn stated that he does not see the need for a central sewer system for this D/strict. He pointed out that by tying an industrial park area and a residential area together there ts the ~.:.potentlal to pollute an entire system such as this with a hazardous waste rather than being able to isolate it and determine where it came from as would be the case with individual systems. He questioned the charglng methodology used for this system because it seems unfair and noted that there is a considerable amount of undeveloped property wlthln the aub~ect MSTU? He also questioned when the property owners would kl~ow exactly how much this project will cost them and if at the oom~letlon of the project they will have the option as to whether they want the system or not? Mr. Conracode advlsed that the vacant land owners will be assessed at the s~me rate as everyone else, and added that the Utillties Dtvlalon wlll pay for a portton of the Improvements whlch will be used '46 Page 28 April 9, by other people. He commented that the exact amount of the individual assessments will be final at the completion of the project, and at that time the individual property owners will have to connect to the In ~nswer to further comments by Mr, Vaughn, Assistant Utilities .~:'AghaSnistrator Bloetscher clarified that the Impact fees pay for transmission and treatment to the regional system, and everyone is charged an Impact fee when they connect to the system. He continued that the monthly charge pays for the treatment operating costs of the ~etem and the assessment addresses the piping Installed adjacent to ..:..~:. the property. In direct response to Commissioner Volpe's follow-up question as to the assessment of undeveloped land, an unidentified staff member (i:.:-/ stated that these property owners are being assessed on an Increasable '~:'[;- benefit method which takes into account the potential for development of the presently undeveloped land, and when connection is made to the ~stem to develop, an impact fee will be charged. Commissioner Volpe asked for clarification as to whether the indi- viduals within the subject MSTU are paying for a system that will benefit others outside the MSTU. Mr. Huber replied that the Utilities 'Division Is paying for the force main from the pump station on Edgewood Drive to the MSTU, and property owners outside the MSTU will be charged an impact fee to connect to it. Commissioner Volpe pointed out that under the Growth Management ' Plan which is mandated by the State, the County is required to remove and deny additional septic systems. County Manager Derrill added that /.[.~i ~f property is located within the Count¥'s Water/Sewer District, the owner would be denied the right to install their own water/sewer treatment plant and would be required to connect to the County system. Real Property Director Taylor responded to Mr. Vaughn's comment regarding the easements by stating that of the 374 easements on the pro~ect, 254 have been donated, 48 have been purchased, and 72 remain to be closed or acquired by order of taking. Page g9 April 9, 1991 Xn conclusion Mr. Vaughn stated that he does not understand why the Coun~ is spending this excess amount of money for a sewer and drainage system and resurfaclng of the roads in this District which is not needed. He added that the need for fire lines is questionable since four fires in this area burned themselves out because no one called the fire department; therefore, fire wells are Just as effec- tive and less costly. Attorney Richard Vogel, representing the Trade Center of Naples, Lots 1-81, stated his clients do not believe they are benefiting tax- payers to the proposed assessment district and should not be included. He referred to a letter he filed stating the concerns of his clients. (Copy posted with the Clerk to the Board.) Attorney Bruce Anderson, representing the owners of Parcels 2 and 12, indicated he previously filed a letter with the Board outlining his one objection, however, requested that he receive a response on record to his assertion that the transmission main beginning midway on Edgewood Drive, which runs down Pine Ridge Road and continues down Goodletta Road to the North Naples Sewage Treatment Plant is not pro- perly Included as an assessable improvement. He cited that is what Impact fees are for. Fred Bloatschar, testatant Utilities Administrator, advised that the Utilities Department is paying for the force main from the pump station on Edgewood Drive to Orange Blossom Drive. Nr. Anderson formally withdrew his objection. William Truptano objected to the way fees will be charged, suggesting that a fair formula would be to charge on a square foot b~sls of the parcels, not on the amount of road frontage. ~&rr~ Bill questioned how the assessment was originally appor- tioned on the properties? Bill Barton, substituting for Tom Peek of Wilson, ~tller, Barton & Peek, Inc., responded ~hat the types of improvements within the assessment district, i.e., sanitary sewer, potable water, drainage and Page 30 April 9, 1991 road construction, are for the most part improvements that go along road corridors. He reported the cost of putting those improvements in is a direct function of the length of the road. Consequent/y, he said, front footage is the assessment basis and unless there are a large number of very deep parcels, that is typically the most fair assessment. Commissioner Volpe commented that may be true when speaking of single-family residential lots, however, this situation concerns com- mercial and tn~ustrial properties whose value are normally based on square footage. Mr. Barton agreed that commercial and industrial land often lends Itself to an appraisal on a per square foot basis, however, those values are not always equal. He explained when dealing with a smaller parcel compared to a larger parcel in the same area, it is not uncom- mon for the prices per square foot to vary. Commissioner Saunders Indicated his understanding of the assessment for the road frontage, however when dealing with drainage, water and sewer, the square footage approach would make sense. He questioned if there was any particular reason why a mixture of metho- dologies was not used since there is a mixture of d~sttnct types of services? He also asked if the resolution is approved with the assessment methodology as outlined in Section 4, can it be changed to include a square foot assessment methodolo~ at a later time? Mr. Barton replied that the real cost of providing water and sewer are the pipelines which are a direct function of the lineal feet of roads. He indicated of the four types of improvements, the one that ~ay appropriately be looked at in a different fashion would be drainage. Assistant County Attorney Wetgel communicated he would be uncom- fortable adopting a resolution, then making a subsequent material change for one of the elements. He suggested the Board of County Commissioners has the option to continue this item and consider the alternative. ~ 000PAq~ ~9 Page 31 April 9, 1991 Mr. Barton pointed out should the drainage element be converted to a square footage assessment, it will be meaningless In the overall picture. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Messrs. Conrecode and Huber 'with the Office of Capital Projects Management, concurred with Mr. Barton's conclusion. Lyrm Htxon-Holley stated property owners should have the oppor- tunity to review with Staff what it is they are being asked to pay for. She asserted an unfair and unjust burden has been placed upon her because she is being assessed for 100% of her property, yet County easements have diminished her acreage by 20~. She also questioned why she Is not being given the increasable benefit formula as others with undeveloped land have. Mr. Conracode Indicated he will look Into the above situation. Albert Dorta remarked that the project should be developed by square footage. He stated In three weeks' time, his assessment went from $6,000 to almost $10,000 per lot, adding someone should look more closely Into this project. Bob Moates stated when the project was first considered in 1981, the assessment was estimated at $43 per foot. He said that figure has Increased several times to the present $194 per foot. He Indicated the project will not get any cheaper by waiting yet another period of time and urged property owners to accept the present proposal. On the other hand, he indicated his hope that the Board will consider spreading the assessment over 20 years and the Impact fees over a five year period of time. Commissioner Hasse questioned what length of time will be given property owners to pay the assessments and impact fees? Assistant County Attorney Lawson responded when the Board adopted the impact fee ordinance, Staff was asked to examine expanding as far as possible the period to extend payments. He noted In the past, impact fees were payable over a three year period of time, the ordl- ml 50 Page 32 April 9, 1991 nance passed in November, 1990, extended that period to five years and the Finance Committee will be bringing in the near future a recommen- dation to expand that period further to seven years. He noted an additional forthcoming recommendation of the Finance Committee will be to internally finance Impact fees, allowing anyone with an existing building to finance water and sewer impact fees over a maximum of seven years at an interest rate of S~ on their water bills. Edward McOarthey agreed with Mr. Moates and urged the Board to approve the project as soon as possible. Mike Cart Indicated he is speaking for a Mr. Fitzgerald who had to leave the meeting. He questioned if property owners within this MSTBU will be assessed again for a County road assessment district? County Manager Dotrill explained a County-wide road assessment wall be for secondar~ and arterial roadways and this MSTBU is for what is con- sidered local roads, therefore, there would be an additional assessment · Mr. Cart Inquired when the County stormwater management drainage district to established, will this MSTBU be assessed again for that? County Manager Dotrill answered only to the extent that the owners will be contributing to primary or secondary drainage systems that are Identified in drainage basin master plans that have yet to be completed. He said they will not be re-assessed for those projects being paid for that are subdivision-type drainage improvements. Thomas Grosso, owner of Parcel 75, questioned if he will be cre- dited for the potable water system for which he was assessed last year? Mr. Conrecode stated that Mr. Grosso's property is not being charged for potable water on the assessment role. ~eorge Hermanson with Hole, Montes & Associates explained that his firm along with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. are the project engineers for this pro~ect. He clarified that the vast majority of roadways within the MSTBU will not be rebuilt, they will be resur- faced. He also remarked that the bids received for the project were, in his opinion, very competitive. He noted the lowest bid received Page 33 ~'~: Aprt~ 9, :1991 ~-'.. ~ ~pproxt~tel¥ $1-~illton lee~ than the estimate. ~~ ~~y, to c~o~e t~ ~bllc he~r~ng. ~tg ~ly, to a~ t~ rwtsg ply, ~ctflcattou ~ ~t ~t District, there~ ad~ting Resolutt~ 91-300. 000 ~,~ 52 Page 34 .... /' April 9, 1991 91-301 &DT'HORZZZNG THE ACQUZSZTZON OF P~'RPKTUAL R0~D RZGRT-OF-.4~Y~, I~IkZN'I"~N,I~CI ~tS]EN~IITS, DR&ZNAGI F.&S~N~RTS AND U'I'ZLZT~'~.Jk,~I~]IT~ ~ GZFT, FURCN&SZ OR CORD~¥1NATZON~'ZTHZR 'INK PZR~ i[III~:[~I~Z&L P&~K NU~ZCZP&L ~ZtRVZC~S T&XZNG &ND BKN~FZT UNZT - (NIm~tS~l~ ~aund®rs moved, seconded by Comaissloner Shanahah and .. ~i~~m~l¥, to ~topt Resolution 91-301 re~dt~ th~ Pine 92 Page 35 1991 ~touer Saunders moved, oeconded by Centsstoner Shanahen end .ce~toduenJ~mely, to adopt Reeolutton 91-302 ~egardtng the PAne Page 36 April 9, 1991 AUTHORZZINGTH~ ACQUISITION OF A T~MPORARY FOR A ~ZOD NOT TO ~ED O~OB~ 1, 1992 ~ ~~ATZON~ZN ~ PZ~ RZDGE I~US~Z~ P~ S~~ ~d, eecond~ ~ Co~tss~oner Ha~.. ~d Page 37 April 9, 1991 ~ FOR BID We. 90-1553, CONSTRUCTION OF WATERMAINS, SANITARY ROAD AND DRAINA(~E IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PINE PA~EA~A 1~ ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - AWARDED TO MIT~L · TA~E ~0N CO., IN~., IN ~ ~0~ OF ~5,653,956.~0, USIN~ ~~~ A , Commissioner Shanahandy.m d, seconded by toutsstoner Huse and clrrleduniniBously, t]~it Bid No. 90-1553 for c~nstructton of water- road and drainage improvements in the Pine Rt~ I~du~t~tml P~k A~sa I~rprov~s~t Assessment District be awarded ,- toNt~tehell & Stark Construction Co., Inc., In the aBount of .'.. SSSDlpllty. Cl~k ~ffaan r~lec~ I)epuW Clerk Ou~tn at this time*e* ~ 1~ DMSION, ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ~ ~(~I~ION (COP~) REQUESTING DIRECTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE 85-81, ~HI~ E~BLISHED TH~ COP~, HY AMENDING TERMS OF OFFICE - ~ D~NXRD= CO~t~INXTY D~LOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVID~ ANCE or or Planner Arnold advised that the Collier County Planning Commission (~PC} is recluesttn~ that their enabltng ordinance be amended to '.~, chungo-the terms of office which restricts the members to one suc- cesstve term which may be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. He noted that the Planning Commission is requesting that the terms of office not be limited to one successive term and wo~lld like same to remain open. He indicated that the ordinance as written, allows a member to serve on the CCPC for a maximum of etDht Commissioner Shanahan Indicated that he feels that eight years is a major co.mmttment for anyone to serve and all the advisory boards need ~turnover and new ideas. He reported that he believes the Commission would he dotn~ a disservice to extend the amount of time ;~thmt~'themembers serve. ~'---,,~'O~sd~le~e,~' Shimmhmn~, seconded by Commissioner Saunders, to ~.%~ ~ to RimmS tbe ordinance to extend the terms of office Commissioner Hawse advised that Mr. Charles Andrews conveyed his Page 38 April 9, 199! concerns to him regarding attendance of the various board members and a~lggested that if they miss three consecutive meetings in a row, that they be asked to resign from serving on that board. Commissioner Goodnight read into the record, a letter from Mrs. Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Women Voters of Collier County, which questions why the Planning Commission should be dif- ferent than the other advisory boards and suggested that there be no amendment to Ordinance 85-§! since the CCPC should be consistent and remain as As. 'Commissioner Hasse indicated that some of the members of CCPC are absent time and time again, noting that there should be some rationale for their absences. Co~unity Development Services Administrator Brutt advised that he will provide the Commission with information relating to the atten- dance records of the members of the CCPC. '~ ~11 fgrr the que~tion, Plier Arnold stated that this item is a revest by staff to ~aft a resolution for a street name change for the platted and recorded street n~es of Imperial Court and Imperial Drive to Aristocrat Court for a road located with the Iapertal West PUD. He noted that when staff was workin9 with the 911 Coordinator, it was deterztned that confusion may arise with the subject street names. He advised that the developer of the project was notified and has no objection to the street name change. ~~l~r Vol~ ~ed, second~ ~ Co~tsstoner ~se ~d ~ ~ ~t a r~oluti~ to c~e the strut ~ for I~rial Page 39 April 9, 1991 Coordinator Perry explained that In 1990, the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Commission adopted Rule 41-2 of the Florida '. Administration Code which established the framework for the planning and Implementation of transportation for the disadvantaged. He advised that Florida Statutes defines Transportation Disadvantaged as 'those persons who because of physical or mental disability, Income statute, age, or for other reasons are unable to transport themselves or lrurchase transportation, are therefore dependent upon others to obtain health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities or other life sustaining activities or children who are handicapped or at high risk.' Mr. Perr~ Indicated that the TD estimates that there are 4.5 m~lllon citizen residents of the State of Florida that are transpor- tation disadvantaged. He remarked that approximately 50,000 people in Collier County could be considered transportation disadvantaged. Mr. Perr~ reported that in 1980, there were 2,500 families in Collier County who had no vehicles; and in 1990 in excess of 4,400 families living in the County had no vehicles available. Mr. Perry advised that the TD program is divided Into facets: those programs that are for sponsored clients that are provided transportation by many of the federal or state social services program and those for the non-sponsored person who has no one to provide them with transportation and they cannot provide this for themselves. He ~nd~oated that the new funding of the TD program is for the non- · ponsored client. He expressed that a trust fund has been created through a surcharge on license fees and is allocated down to the local level. He noted that the State's current program for funding is to provide a 75~ ~Tant with local governments con~rtbuting 25~. He related that presently, fare box fees can be used as part of the local ' Co~m~aetonar Volpe remarked that he requested that Item 16F3 be heard ~n conjunction with this Item. Mr. Perry reported that $200,000 is being provided by The federal ooo ,, 17i Page 40 Apri! 9, 199! and state agencies for the sponsored clients and the non-sponsored grant is $172,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year which the TD .,.~ .i' trust fund will provide $129,000 of same, if the County can match this ~: · with $43,000. · .' Mr. Perr~ explained that the TD Commission ~as appointed the Training and Educational Center for the Handicapped (TECH) as the Local Coordinator, and they have gone through the RFP process and are negotiating with operators to drive the vehicles and provide the ser- vice and anticipate May 1st as the start up date for the program. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Perry advised that the Local Coordinating Board voiced concerns with regard to the TECH clients having prlortty for the service since their money would be provided in conjunction with the TD trust fund dollars. He indicated that their clients pay a share or portion of the ridership fees which are a part of the.fare box revenues which will be used against the local match. -He remarked that the Local Coordinating Board did not want to rely on private donations as the way to ~uarantee that trust fund dollars wonld be available. Mr. Perry stated that up until the present time, TECH has provided the local match required to get the system up and running from December until today. He noted that the reason for going to a 100~ government pro,ram without local private money involved is to ensure that there would be no prlortttzation of anyone's client. Commissioner Volpe advised that in discussions with Councilman Herms, he understands that the County would be able to take credit for the monies expended to provide transportation from Immokalee to the North Naples Clinic. He pointed out that agenda item 16F3 which is a recom~endation to authorize payments for taxi shuttle services for patients of the I~mokalee Health Clinic could be applied to the $43,000. Mr. Perry replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Volpe mentioned that the County has already paid $12,S00 for this purpose and would like to apply the same theory for credit to be given. He suggested that Mr. Perry pursue credit for Page 41 April 9, 1991 "that original $12,300. ]n addition, he explained that if TECH will not be ustng montes to subsidize this program, they have that much · L. more money to be used for some of their other programs and when they · ub·tt their budget requests later in the summer, this should be taken into consideration. Co~u~tssioner Shanahas stated that he believes that a Transportation Disadvantaged Program is needed in Collier County. .{W~mm~io~ew Shah·has moved, seconded by Com-lsetoner Volpe, to ~ ~ ee~i~e~dtture in an a~unt not to exceed 843.000, taking into c~r~tt~a th~ pr~vt~ ~ontH that have been expended for ,.~,- ~tim#rvlce~ fm the I~okal# Cltntc to Waple~ Co~unit~/ N~s~,it"'~l{ ~ that the source of funds be Identified at · later date. Commissioner Volpe questioned how the availability of this program is being communicated to the general public, to which Mr. Perry replied that Mr. Bob Wallace of TECH, is spreading the word through agency seetings, the hospital, School Board, local radio and newspaper publicity. gmergency SeNIces Administrator Reardon explained that some of the money that has been used to date can be placed against the County'e share of the dollar commitment. He noted that when his staff serves the clients they are being transferred from a walk in on demand clinic to a full service hospital. He noted that on February 5, 1991, bids were received from two taxi companies but the decision was made not to award the bid, instead tt was decided to provide the transpot- tation service in-house in order to reduce the costs from $56,000 per Fear to $23,000 per year. ~ MI~.' Ruse Batsley stated that Yellow Cab was the low bidder and provided transportation service for the people in Immokalee. He noted that When that agreement expired, a new bid was sent out and Naples .:Taxi was the low bidder and they provided the service until the agreement ended. He Indicated that In January, 1991, a new proposal · was sent out but he was unable to find out the results of same. He remarked that an article tn the newspaper stated that EMS was going to ooo !73 April 9, 1991 provide that service. He requested access to the bills and proof of insurance that he previously asked for. Mr. Reardon suggested that Mr. Baisley contact him tomorrow and he would provide him with access to any information he has. P.~CO~TZONTO AUTHORIZE PAYMENTS FOR TAXI SHUTTLE SERVICES FOR PATI!~tTN OF TH~ I!~FEAL~ HEALTH CLINIC - CURRENT PURCRASN ORDER ~ INA~AMOUNT NOT TO ERC~KD $12,300; FORMAL CONFETITIV~ BID This Item was discussed In con3unctton with Item #9A3 above. C~m~iulos!~i' Sh~l~l~l ~:~ved, seconded by Coatsstoner Volpe ud ~~ ~lY, to lncre~ the ~rr~t ~rc~se order in ~ mt ~ ~ ~ 812,S00 ~ tht the foml co~titl~ bid p~- :~ ~ ~ i~I~ ON ~ ~ING ~ ~P~TION OF ~ MPO Coordinator Perry stated that this item is a request to defer action on the funding and preparation of an Interchange Justification Report for a proposed interchange at I-~5 and Golden Gate Par~ay. He advised that the funds that are available are earmarked for construc- tion projects ~d staff believes it Is prudent to delay a $50,000 - $~0,000 repoFt that will lead to the expenditure of other funds. He advised that ~he State has programmed the necessary funds for desi~ Co~188toner Shanahah ~esttoned whether deferring this project ~ld lead to loslag the $3.8 million from the state for this tnterc~ge. Mr. Perry reported that the money would not be lost, but 'a r~est could b~ made to move it within the work program but this would delay every phase of the project. Ooatssloner Saunders ~es~loned the amount of time tha~ would be r~tred to ~o the study, to which Mr. Perry reported that a private mm 000 Page 43 consulting firm could probably complete the study within six months. Commissioner Volpe advised that $900°000 has been received as a result of the Leon County law suit settlement and asked whether those monies could be made available for this purpose. Mr. Perry replied that he was not aware of the settlement amount bat was aware of the anttcip&tion of a windfall in excess gas taxes, but noted that in lieu of the funding constraints In the construction program, his request i. -. ';'Commissioner Saunders stated that he does not feel that this study should be deferred. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advised that the bulk of the surplus gas tax was received last year and the majority of same has been programmed. He Indicated that staff is In the process of preparing budgets for the upcoming year and he believes that the dollars for the construction and design should be reviewed. He noted that currently, funds would have to be taken from contingency and then reimburse that fund once the gas taxes become available. He Indicated that if future dollars do become available in the upcoming year, another account could be reimbursed. .~..'-.:-~. :'~~ ~mders ~v~d, seconded by Cruiseloner Shanahen and ~ot to ~efer the project and staff directed to tlt~t tv~. ~ ;', Planner Lavetry stated that on March 29, 1991, a letter was ~f~f' received from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Indicating · receipt of the schedule for outstanding Land Development Regulations -'i"; (LDRts} adopted by the Commission on March 5, 1991. He noted that DCA ./. approved that schedule but contacted staff with respect to an of Rule 9J-24.003(J). /.. Mr. Lavert¥ advised that DCAms Interpretation of Rule 9J-24.003(~) Page 44 April 9, 1991 b,aatcall¥ afirees in part with that of the Audubon Soctety's challenge, which Indicates that certain programs and policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element are Land Development Re~ulatlons. He expressed that DCA has Identified five additional programs and polt- cles that they feel are LDRte as follows: 1. Boil Erosion Control Program Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Program Development standards and criteria for dominant/Indicative species for intertidal and coastal strands, xeric scrub habi- tats, with criteria for development and standards for land clearing. Management guidelines Incorporated as stipulations for land development orders to reduce disturbances to eagles nests, red-cockaded woodpecker and wood stork habitat. Hurricane Shelters for Mobile Home Parks Mr. Lavetry stated that staff recommends that the Soil Erosion Control Program which would Include criteria, guidelines, and best management practices will be addressed as part of the Unified Land ~':','-',,': Development Code. .: Mr. Lavetry indicated that staff of the Environmental Services I/;,Natura! Resources Director Santos and that staff be directed to ;~::: .,..~.' proceed with the recovery schedule as reflected in the Executive sumssty. :':, With respect to Hurricane Shelters for Mobile Home Parks, Mr. ::.i. Lavetry noted that this has been addressed by the County Commission Division has prepared a recovery schedule for Objectives and Policies in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element which includes actions that will address Objective 11.6 and Policy 6.1.1. He suggested that the Commission approve the dates as recommended by :., ' and Ordinance 91-28 was adopted on March 19, 1991. :-. Mr. Lavetry requested that staff be directed to proceed with an · .. ~;', addendum to the schedule that was approved on March 5, 1991. Conmlssioner Shanahen indicated that he was under the Impression that protection Is provided for the eagle, wood stork and red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Mr. Lavetry reported that protection Is provided Page 45 April 9, 1991 -';!'!....but DCA~s concern is that nothing has been formally adopted by the County which protects these species. He explained that after an Envlronmenta! Impact Statement is completed, it is forwarded to the i,.'.-. Game,~nd Fresh Water Fksh Commksslon and ~f one of these speckes ks fou/~d on skte, a letter Is provided to the Count" with recommendations and staff attaches these to the developer's petition. · .'~-~ "u': ~l~ ~uahan ~v~d, seconded by Coulesioner Husa ~nd ~ ~ledu~ani~usl¥, that staff be directed to respond to DCA's con- the schedule accordingly. I~OZ~FT~ON g1-304, AUTHORIZIN~ THE ACQUISITION BY aIFT, PURCHASE OR COND~M~XION OF I~tPETUAL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTILITY AND D~AINA~K ~ 1~ FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST-WEST SEGMENT OF T~ ~, ~TILIT~ AND D~AINAGK IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE NORTH NAPLES ~OAD~Y I~NIC!PAL SERVICE TAXIN~ AND B~NEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED Saunders ~v~d, seconded by Commissioner Shanaban and c~zT~~u~2F, that R~olutlon 92-304, nthortztng t~ ac~ts~- ~ e~t~ ~r~ for the co~t~ct~ o~ the ooo 177 Page 46 April 9, 1991 sor~ 8om~l PROCmU~T fROM ATf~F or mFTWOP~q SERVXCES for THE ~ FLOORS OF TH~ COm~HO~SS - APPROVED Mr. Herb Luntz, Communications Manager, stated that this item affects the telephone service to Building L. He noted that when the design and original ordering of the equipment for the §th and 6th · floors of Building L was composed, there was a communications break- down which omitted the agencies who were going to move to the §th floor. He stated that he moved forward in obtaining the necessary additional equipment for these agencies from AT&T and quoted a price of $33,967.00, noting that this quote is part of an existing system. Mr. Luntz stated that he negotiated a "Not to Exceed" figure with AT&T for an additional $7,500.00, which was agreed upon, therefore making the expenditure $41,466.95. -Mr. Luntz advised that the operation will provide full service to the Clerk as well as all other department agencies. Mr. Luntz remarked that this operation must be completed by April 15, 1991 in order to prevent a 10% price increase in the amount of $4,000.00. He asked the Board for approval of $41,466.95 to proceed with the ordering of the equipment so that the move onto the 5th and 6th floors of Building L can take place on schedule by June 3, 1991. seconded by Conlostonsr Saunders and that the sole source procurement fro~ ATaT of Page 47 April 9, 1991 is to update the Board on the status of Mathias L. Tart rs. ~-~.~ZNG !~ARDZII~ MATRZA~ L. T~I, ~ ~. ~. COLLI~ Brenda Wilson, Assistant County Attorney, stated that her intent Collier Count~ and to present a settlement proposal on behalf of the insurance couxlsel. -Miss Wi]son advised that there was an order from the Federal ~udge, directing the parties to mediation which resulted in a settlement option. She remarked that the settlement involves Mr, Tari having his property used only for a wholesale tree/plant nursery. She stated that there will be no expansion of Mr. Tari's 12-1/2 acre parcel and retail use of the land will not be permitted. In order to safe ~uard thts, Miss Wilson stated that the settlement will be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County. Miss Wilson observed that retail sales on the property will be permitted until June 30, 199~ based upon the recommendation of the med~ato~ that Mr. Tar~ needed this t~me to conclude h~s retail bus~- ': She reported that there w~11 be a d~smlssal without prejudice of t~ case, nottn~ that the court will retain Jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement. Miss Wilson remarked that the sale of fruit from the plants and trees is not to be Included in the sales that are permitted from the property. These sales must be made off site. Miss Wilson related that the Federal Court entered an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as of April 5, 1991. Due to rules allowing for a 5 day window extension, she Indicated that is there ts no sufficient cause shown why the case should be dismissed as of April 10, 1991, then the settlement agreement will be accepted by the court. She noted that Mr. Hootman, outside counsel, recommends that the county submit to the court their response to the order. This will approve the memo of understanding subject to the appointment of OOO 197 Page 48 April 9, 1991 a representative for Mrs. Tari' s estate. NAsa #Ilson indicated that she received a motion to withdraw from Mr. TarA's attorney, Mr. David Pearson. She noted that ~r. Pearson was formerly representing bokh ~r. and Hrs. Tart, but As now repre- senting the estate of Mrs. Tara only. She related that the reason Attorney Pearson made his motion to withdraw is due to Mr. Tara advising the court that he is not agreeable to the terms of the memo of understanding that he had previously signed. She indicated that Mr. Pearson believes that this is a conflict between his two clients. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Miss Wilson stated that it ls..the recommendation of outside counsel that the Board accept the memo of understanding. .~O~l~l~d~~S~m~er~:xv~d, seconded byCstselone~ Shanahah ~m~-l~i~'~z~amlmo~l¥, to accept the staff recommendation re, arCing ~mierstamding~hich allows the plaintiff until ~une 30, their retail ~alee. · .. &prtl 9, 1991 · ~T~F~OFF/N&L 3UDGI~NT Z~ TI~ CASK 0~ 30~ ~0~ ~ ~., V. ~ ~. ~ ~ e~ ~87-2957-C&-01 - AC~ Co~/~1oner Shanahah moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Hasse and carried ~lmously, that the satisfaction of final Judgment In the ca~e o~ 3o~ P~out, et al., v. Collter County, et al, be accepted and ~:- the c~imn authorized to st~ and the Clerk to record in the ctal records. Page 50 April 9, 1991 Co~lsstoner Goodnight stated that everyone has received a fax .:. about impact fees and there will be action taken on this matter this ~:0.'. week An Tallahassee. She stated that the Board needs to contact as -~f-',~ many people as possible expressing their opposition to this matter. 7~.~.,,,-She ~nd~cated that th~s matter could end u~ in cour~ and the County not be able to collect Impact fees for a number of months until the matter Is settled. Commissioner Goodnight stated that the other matter is community ~%) correctAol~s and this is moving along rapidly and appears that anything under 22 months will be housed in Collier County which will impact the County. CountF Manager Dotrill stated that he spoke with Mary Ellen Hawkins noting that she stated that there is reason to be concerned about the Ampact bill. He stated that there is about two dozen amend- ments to At, but It will probably go to the floor this week for a vote. He noted that the proposed bill for the State assuming resDon- slbtlity to regulate outside signs specifically billboards, is pro- babl¥ not going to make At. ConAssloner Saunders stated that a letter should be written by the Chairman to the legislative delegation concerning the impact fee proposal voicing objection. He Indicated that there should also be a letter w~ltten with regards to the corrections act. · Caniseisner Goodnight stated that she would take care of this "::~atter. 0 Page 51 April 9, 1991 m~d ~Tledun~nt~usl¥, that the following items under the con- ~t ~ be apl~Z~d Wld/Or adopted: *** 91-294 GRMITZNG FXNJLT, ACC:EPTJLRCI~ OF 'TEE VrREYARDS, AUI1OR~ZXlI~ RELE&SK OF 'lqrg ff. lkXRTERJLR'CE SECURITY See Page 91--295 GIUkRTING FXNAL ACCEPTARCE OF THE ROADNAY, See Page ~ 'G1~EYOAJ[S GOLF COURSE, Iq[ASE l&' - NI1q~ That the final plat not be recorded until the required Impro- vements have been constructed and accepted or until approved security Is received for the incompleted Improvements and that construction shall be completed within 36 months of the date of this approval. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. That no building permits be issued until the final plat is recorded. See Pages _~.~. 7' ~ I~ 91--296 GRANTING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, WATE!t AND $~WER IMPROVEMENTS FOR TH~ FINAL PLAT OF "VILLAGES O~~t ~ FOUR' - WITH STIPULATIONS Accept the Construction, Maintenance and Escrow Agreement (posted with the Clerk) as security for maintenance of the infrastructure until the Board of County Commissioners grants final acceptance of all improvements. : 2. Preliminary acceptance of improvements will not become effec- · ., tire until water and sewer facilities have been conveyed to '." Collier County Water-Sewer District :'~? See Page g~ ~O ..~.~ * IIiTll-.~ ~ FJ~XLXTX~ ACCEPTED FOR VXLLAGE OF MOIIT~]t~ XV - WITH :~:: ITZIRtX~T~Ei , , The water and sewer facilities to serve the project cannot be placed into service and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation furnishes a letter authorizing the placement of these systems into service; and 220 Page 52 April 9, 1991 Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements; and The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been satisfied, and the Fire District furnlahes a letter accepting the fire hydrant for ownership and maintenance. oR BOOK/ & PAGES/ ' ~ ~TANDNY LH~fER OF CREDIT NO. 543 ACCEPTED AS SECURITY FOR See Pages Z't*e~ #16~9 S~HF~CI~I~'X~S A~ FOX IJYNDEM~R~ PUMP STATION AND FORCE M~IN - ~ ~TXON LETTER OF C~DIT ~91,3/SUN BANK - ACCEPTED SEE PAGES 280 - 281 The Florida Department of'EnVironmental Re~latton furnishes a letter authorlzlng the sewer system to be placed in ser- vice. OR SOOK/&~ PAGES-~a~' /~ Xt~J1UIO STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 548, BARNETT BANK OF NAPLES, AIIDAFI~SOHAL BOND ACCEPTED AS THE SUBDMSION SECURITY FOR THE FRO3~TE]KR~IAS 'QUAIL WALE, PHASE ONE~, LOCATED IN SECTION 20, SOUTH, I~LNGE 26 ~AST, AND THE CLEI~K AUTHORIZED TO RELEASE P1~V~OUSLY ~gSTED SECURITY, LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 375300, BARNETT See Pages ~ BID J"91-1687, THEI~NOPLASTXC PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR Ivy 1990-91, J~IS~DTO ~ ENTERPRXSES IW TH~ ESTIMATED Agomrr oF ~2o,o0o ' Zte~ ~1~2 EXECOTZC~I OF ANEA.qEMENTAGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE ~ FOH/J,S~JJ~ITTACQUISXTXONN~CE$SARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ItOAD, IY2~LI~Lq~ANDDRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR-29 Xte~ ~1~431 BI~O~TLX~TAFFROV~DAND STAFFTO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH R.M.G. COSrSIF~TA~rES, I~IC., TO PROVIDE CONSULTIN~ SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE~/Z:~ZTZONOF A LIBRARY AUTOtLqTED SYSTEM FOR TH~ COLLIER COUNTY EETI31S~O!~OFANAGREEMENTWITHTHE SOUT~ LIBRARY NETI4~RK (~lgT)'~ ~ FROVISXON OF ON-LINE LIBRARY CATALOGING AND LIBRARY Page 53 See Pages~ April 9, 1991 !I~:50[,OT1011 tl-297 AUT~0RZZZN13 A CONTRACTUAL AGI~EI~'RT, 0g BEHALF OF ~ ~1~,I'~ ~ O~ C0LLI~R COUNTY, WZI'~ DKPARTMZ:NT OF COI,~!URZTY J~FF~, ~ GR&RT IqTRDS TO PROVIDg FOR REAT. TR SERVICES TO INDIGENT See Pages0%5'.5- · 91-16alo ~,lco~ TURBI~ OV~P~AU~, AWARDED ~O ~ggsro~ ~;~IIPOR&T~ON 1~ ~ ~ NOT TO ~ED ~42,99~.35 mt~ to ~ latar t~ 6/15/91 ~.~r-~:-~. I1~.~t~2"-1~ FOIt ~ RENOV&L OF J~BB:STOS CONTAI~II~ !~!ATERZALS FROM ~ T, ZBltlkRT A~tRDED I~ $/I~PSON &RD &SSOCZATES ZN T]~ .]:tii~2112 ~-~mwed to ~9~2 NOS. 69675, ?09?6, 43606, 56920, 16922, ~I.TIS~~ 011' ~:I'~!1 I~R SERVICES OF TI~ PUBT~IC DElr~IgDER -~ ~IDENt~ - FILED A~D/OR P~FmU~D The following miscellaneous correspondence was f/led and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Letter dated 3/29/91 to Chairman ~oodntght from Robert G. Nave, Director of Resource Planning and Management, Department of Community Affairs, with enclosures of Notice of Intent and Statement of Intent, re: review of the 2/5/91 adopted comprehensive plan amendment (Ordinance 91-15; DCA 9I-1) for Collier County and determination that parts of the amendment do not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, for compliance. Copies to Bob Blanchard, Netl Dorrlll, Marjorie Student, and filed. 2e Letter dated 3/26/91 to Chairman, BCC, from Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental Specialist, Department of Environmental Re~llation, re: Collier County - WRR; File No. 111942675; application for dredge and fill activities by Port of the Ielands, Inc. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed. Letter dated 3/26/91 to Chairman, BCC, from Jori M. Iglehart, Environmental Specialist, Department of Environmental Reffulation, re: Collier County - WRR; File No. 111941245; 222 Page 5 4 April 9, 1991 application for dredge and fill activities by N. C. Outward Bound School. Copies to Nell Dotrill, Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed. 4e Letter dated 3/19/91 to Commissioner Hawse from Delores G. Dry, Dtstrlct Administrator, Department of Health and Rehabtlttattve Services, re: Increase in the award of federal funds in the amount of $21,700, for the WIC Program for contract year 1990-91. Copies to Nell Dotrill, John Yonkosk~, Chairman Goodnight, and filed. ' Memo dated 3/21/9! to Interested Persons from Mary Kay Falcons, Executive Director, and Shannon Starace, Legislative Analyst re: "Estimated" Salaries of County Constitutional Officers for FY 91-92. Copies to Nail Dotrill, BCC, Budget Department, and filed. From the Governor's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Advisory Committee: Request for Proposals for School-Based Early Intervention Delinquency Prevention Programs in High Crime Areas. Copies to Nail Dotrill, Sheriff Hunter, and filed. Letter dated 3/27/91 to Chairman Goodnight from Guy L. Car/ton, Collier County Tax Collector, re: distribution of Current Ad Valorem Tax to the Board of County Commissioners, after Tax Coilactor's commissions. Filed. Copy of letter dated 3/18/91 to Michael R. Arno]d, Administrator, Collier County Utilities Division, from William B. Durkln, P.E., Vice President, Malcolm Ptrnte, Inc., re: Collier County South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Preliminary Nuisance Odor Evaluation. Filed. 9. M~nutes received and filed: Marco Island Beautiftcation Advisory Committee Minutes Of March 5, 1991. CCPC Agenda for April 4, 1991, and Minutes of February 21, 1991. 10. Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Agenda for March 2?, 1991. Notice to Owner dated 3/28/91, to BCC from Robert Pease, President, Identity, Inc., under an order given by Ken Construction, for hauling of construction materials for the expansion of the Main Public Library. Copies to Nail Dorr~ll, Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, and filed. 11. Preliminary Notice to Owner, to BCC from Elaine M. Stultz, Controller, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., under an order given by Bear's Plumbing, Inc., for plumbing and other related ~ater~als for the Collier County Library. Copies to Nail Dotrill, John Yonkosky, Steve Camell, and filed. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the ,.-~$~:~eet~ng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:30 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONIN~ APPEALS/~X OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL Page April 9, 1991 I~ATRICIA ~NNE GOODNfGH~, ~AIRMAN r., .a~roved by the Board on , or as corrected Page 56