Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-09-2007 RegularCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX I11 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TH U RS DAY August 9, 2007 7 :00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Mayor Council Member Others Present: City Manager City Clerk Building Official Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Shannon Roberts Bennett Boucher Susan Stills Todd Morley BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEWS: The interview was conducted after the Approval of the Consent Agenda items. Carol Delano — Recreation Board Ms. Delano affirmed that she answered all of the questions true and Correct to the best of her ability. Ms. Delano stated that she truly loved the City and desired to make a difference although she had no past experience. Ms. Delano stated that she lived in Cape Canaveral for over 15 years, has a family and is a good Citizen. She has a part -time job with Cape View Elementary School's after -Care program. Ms. Delano informed that this job involves her participation in the feeding, Care, and Concern for school -aged Children. Ms. Delano informed that she accepted the position related to her studies as a teacher. Mr. Petsos expressed that Ms. Delano served in a front -line Capacity at Cape View School and would hear what it is that the Children desire in Recreation. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2097 Page 2 of 11 expressed that he knows Ms. Delano as a neighbor and she would be an asset to this volunteer Board. Ms. Roberts questioned the number of vacancies on the Recreation Board. Robert Lefever, Acting Recreation Director, replied that there were three vacancies. Hank Dinenno — Recreation Board Mr. Boucher requested to place a Resolution to appoint Mr. Dinenno to the Recreation Board on the next City Council Agenda of August 21 and also to conduct his interview at that time since the Recreation Board was in need of members. Council agreed by consensus. Mayor Randels informed that a Resolution to aToint them both to the Board would appear on the next City Council Agenda of August 21 _ CONSENT AGENDA ' . City council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 20070 2. city council special Meeting Minutes of July 31, 20070 3. Resolution No. 2007 -13; Appointing Lt. Hugh Evans as a Regular !Member of the Business and cultural Development Board. Mayor Randels asked if any member of Council, staff or interested parties desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda items for discussion. No request was made to remove any item for discussion. A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve Consent Agenda Items No. I through 3. The vote on the motion carried 5 -0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tenn Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 4. Motion to Approve: Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Adopt -A -Shore Agreement for Manatee sanctuary Park. Mayor informed that the City received a letter from Keep Brevard Beautiful requesting to allow the Residence Inn to adopt Manatee sanctuary Park. Keep Brevard Beautiful would provide the sign, bags, and clean -up tools and Residence Inn by Mariott has agreed to keep it clean at their expense. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Adopt -A -shore Agreement for Manatee Sanctuary Park. The note on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 3 of 11 Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randeis, For, and Ms. Roberts, For. 5. Motion to Approve: An Appeal of the Community Appearance Board's Decision -- Enterprise sign. Ms. Roberts stated that she was bringing this item before the Council as a Concerned citizen and had to recuse herself from the vote. Ms. Roberts explained that Enterprise Rental Cars presented this Application to the Community Appearance Board on July 16th; however, subsequent to the meeting, other options were made available of which was the Board was not aware. Ms. Roberts suggested that Council recommend for Enterprise Car Rentals return to the Community Appearance Board with these options. Mr. Carlos Montanez of Enterprise Rental Cars informed that there were several q uestions that Came out of the meeting. Mr. Montanez explained that Enterprise presented three options to the Board: 1) a wall sign parallel to the street, 2) a wall sign perpendicular to the street, and 3) a pole sign. Mr. Montanez stated that the Board's decision was to use the sign parallel to the street shown on Photo No. (2) and the pole sign shown on Photo No. (3 ). He said that the option to use a vertical sign would require further review and Enterprise would want two wail signs. Todd Morley, Building Official, explained that per parcel of land, a property might ht have: two ground signs and one wall sign, or two wall signs and no ground signs. Ms. Roberts mentioned that the Community Appearance Board agreed to a sign of 3 --feet by 15 feet. Ms. Roberts referred the optional examples that Enterprise could use and she recommended that the Community Appearance Board review those options. Mr. Montanez explained that if the firm Came before the Board again, their si na a would g g be delayed for two additional weeks. Mayor Randels clarified that the original request met q the requirement that the Board approved. Mr. Montanez stated that Enterprise was in Agreement with the Board's approval; the wall sign parallel to the street and the n. ole sign. g Ms. Roberts explained how a corporation that presents to the Community Appearance earance Board did not present all of their options before the Board makes a decision. Ms. Roberts asked a member of the Community Appearance Board to Comment. Mr. Petsos asked Mr. Montanez if Enterprise had ordered their sign. Mr. Montanez replied that he stopped the order upon receipt of the Notice of Appeal. Mr. Randy Wasserman, Chairperson of the Community Appearance Board, explained this as a test of the Appeals system since to date no Appeal had been made, even on a denial. He thanked Ms. Roberts for Contributing value to the process. Mr. Wasserman cautioned on retroactive Concerns applied to the evidence presented to the Board under sworn testimony and approved by the Board. He highlighted the meeting and stated that the Board allowed for two signs and one smaller than the originally submitted 80-square-foot pole sign. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Wasserman stated that his hesitancy to reactively set higher standards which could lead to an Appeal and adverse judgment. Mr. Wasserman pointed out that the City code related to Appeals referred to the denial and not an approval of a Board decision. He also stated that in order to support an Appeal; one would need to prove that the testimony provided was false. Mr. Wasserman stated that for future applications, the Board would attempt to bring to the forum the most complete options possible related to corporate signage. Mr. Nicholas asked if there was a process for the applicant to request reconsideration. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Mr. Nicholas stated that an Appeal was generally based on an Applicant's dissatisfaction. Ms. Roberts stated her concern, as a resident, was that the Community Appearance Board did not have a complete presentation in that it did not include all of the corporate examples possible. Mayor Randels stated that there were no grounds that the Applicant could not have the signs since he met the requirement. Mr. Walter Bowman, community Appearance Board member, stated that the Board considered the signage based on the evidence presented. The Board used its authority to adjust the size of the signage presented. Mr. Bowman concluded that only two signs were allowed under the city code and if the Board had had what was presented this evening, then they might have chosen the two walls signs using one of these examples. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that the Applicant worked with the Board, and if the Board agreed on something and the Applicant accepted it, then there was no point of discussion. Ms. Roberts stated that the community was not well served since the Board did not have full disclosure of all of the options from the Applicant; therefore, she presented an Appeal to council. Mr. Wasserman stated that the burden of proof was difficult in ascertaining if the Applicant was knowledgeable of all possible options or if it were mere ignorance on his part. Ms. Roberts stated that the information was available on the Enterprise web site and staff could provide the additional research in support. Mr. Wasserman pointed out how extended research was outside of the scope of the Board making a decision on what was presented. He stated that the applicant had the burden to present a complete package. Mr. Wasserman concluded that the Board could only ascertain that what was being presented was harmonious; however, the Board could not force an Applicant to comply. Mr. Petsos commended the Board on their decision that provided for a reduced sized, sign that was set back further on State Road Al A. Mr. Roger Combs commented that when a corporation applied to a Board, he did not believe the City had a right to pursue options aside from those presented as long as an Applicant met the city's code requirement. Mr. Dobson stated his objection to research in advance of the meeting. Mr. Wasserman reminded that Florida Municipal Home mule did successfully guide appearance standards. Ms. Roberts stated that the Board appeared to have struggled with the Application review and the corporation in good faith could have presented the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 5 of 11 other options. In closing, Mr. Wasserman stated that the decision was a cooperative effort between the Board and Mr. Montanez. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Deny an Appeal of the Aggrieved Party related to the Enterprise Rental Sign. The vote on the motion carried 4 -0 to Deny the Appeal with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, Recused. SITE PLAN: fi. Motion to Approve: Consideration of Mermaid Key site Plan — 140 condominium Units and 25,800 Square Feet of commercial. Mayor Randels reviewed that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended the Site Plan on June 28th with (7) conditions. The City Council first heard the Site Plan on July 17, 2007 and added (2) conditions: 1) the Unity of Title be prepared and executed on the south commercial parcel and, 2) the Applicant would bear all costs associated with the vacation of the existing sewer easement and the dedication of the proposed relocated sewer main easement, as well as design and installation change orders for the force main replacement. Mr. Boucher informed that the City had discussions with St. John's River Water Management District related to wetland on the property and the need for a Mitigation Plan. Jeff Ratliff, Stormwater Administrator, was available for any questions from the Council. Mr. Boucher stated that although the project was a proposed phased development, the Project would need to remain in progress in order to keep the Site Plan active. Attorney Tim Pickles 3490 North US 1 , Cocoa addressed the Council on behalf of Mr. Martin Greene, Mermaid Key LLC. He stated that this application was presented in February, approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in June and still with the City Council in August. Attorney Pickles read from the City code related to Site Plans concluding that the City Council shall make a final decision if the Applicant has met the requirements. He concluded that Mr. Greene would apply for extensions as necessary. Mr. Martin Greene, Mermaid Key LLC, affirmed his intent of a phased project with a completion date of 2012 constructed in two to three buildings at a time. He explained that there was six months of site work anticipated first. He stated that the first occupancy level would begin in 2009. Mr. Petsos questioned if the City could seek a Development Agreement since this was a phased development. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Ms. Roberts addressed information related to the condominium documents and a permit request from the St. John's River Water Management District [SJRWMD]. Ms. Roberts also stated her concern that when the site Plan was proposed it was not presented as a resort condominium. Attorney Pickles replied that the Site Plan was for a residential City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 0 of 11 condominium. However, the City's ordinance provided the mechanism for Mr. Greene to apply as a resort condominium. Any consideration outside of the City's code was an incorrect application of the City ordinance. Ms. Roberts represented her concerns that the Applicant did not provide the Planning and Zoning Board with all of the information to make recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Roberts stated her belief that the Council had a broader role to represent the interests of the community as it relates to the interpretation of the Ordinance and the carrying out of the community's interest. Attorney Pickles clamed that the Council would make a decision within the parameters of the Ordinance. Ms. Roberts stated that she tabled the Approval at the City Council Meeting on July 17 based on: 1) there was a question related to condominium documents, 2) the application presented to the Planning and Zoning Board did not present the project as a resort condominium project, and 3) there was permit work with the SJRWMD that was not apparent to the Planning and Zoning Board. She concluded that there was not full disclosure and that the City needs more time to deliberate on the actual intent of this development. Attorney Pickles stated that the condominium records, in Draft form, were in place for the permit related to SJRWMD that sought to ascertain that an Association would be present to enforce the terms of its permit. Mr. Petsos informed that the documents were very thorough and concise and Page 14 referred to 30-day rentals. Attorney Pickles informed that the documents were submitted to the SJRWMD not the Department of Business and Professional Regulations [DBPR]. Attorney Pickles stated that the documents could not be submitted to the D B P R until the Site Plan was approved. At the time they were submitted to the SJRWIVID for the purpose of establishing stormwater intentions, the City had not finalized its ordinance on resort dwellings. Mr. Nicholas asked if there were issues related to mitigation since St. John's was mentioned several times. Mr. Ratliff would address this question. Ms. Roberts stated her concern that the Planning and Zoning Board did not have the full disclosure as presented to the Council related to resort dwellings. Attorney Pickles requested to establish for the record if the council was using becoming a resort condominium as a basis for their decision and he did not believe that that was appropriate. Ms. Roberts responded that the full disclosure was not made to the Planning and Zoning Board. Attorney Pickles stated that the site Plan was an overlay of development on a given parcel of land based on certain criteria not its potential use. Mr. Boucher pointed out that the supplementary District regulations in section 110-491, required two spaces per living unit. Mr. Morley replied that the project was reviewed as two per unit. Todd Peetz, City Planner, informed that at this time there was nothing in the code related to parking for resort dwellings. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that the parking City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 7 of 11 requirements should come into consideration if he should apply for a Resort Condominium application. Mayor Randels informed that Mr. Greene received information from Mr. John Juliana from the SJRWND related to mitigation: 1) a drainage ditch, and 2} a pond. Mr. Greene informed that SJRWMD's provided stringent regulations. He referred to the City's drainage ditch project and he asked if he could use the funding toward the drainage ditch between his properties versus sending it to the Miami Corporation. Mr. Greene informed that SJRWMD provided a strict checklist related to this mitigation project. Mr. Ratliff: informed that SJRWIVID expressed their favor with the project and in their work with Mr. Greene's staff. Mr. Greene informed that he responded "no" to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission related to adding any docks, boat launches, or changing the area related to the manatees. His civil engineer would reply on any permissible pipes running into the canal. Mr. Greene stated that the Planning and Zoning Board was thorough and he stated there was nothing undisclosed. Mr. Greene also reminded that the mitigation funding was available to the City. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog thanked Mr. Greene for seeking the mitigation- funding venue and said that the City would continue this practice with developers in the future. Mr. Nicholas questioned if the recreation area issues was resolved. Mr. Moe Ledeaux, President of the Treasure Island Club thanked the Council for hearing from their Association. He stated that Treasure Island Club prepared through their Attorneys a list of issues related to walls, fences, boundaries, docks, water rights, and easements. Mr. Ledeaux presented a copy to Council members. Mr. Ledeaux stated that Mr. Greene informed him that he would review the document with his Attorney as well. Mr. Ledeaux also stated that Treasure Island Club would continue dialogue with Mr. Greene. Attorney Pickles stated that he could not answer if all of the criteria on the document were agreed to at this time without subsequent discussion. Mr. Nicholas asked if there were any plans on the developer's part to make improvements to the Recreation area. Mr. Greene stated that he did not desire to disturb their peaceful rights to the use that property until the last possible moment and for the shortest duration of time. Mr. Greene summarized that he would request minimal disturbance from his site engineer. Mr. Greene replied to Mayor Randels that there were no plans for crossovers. Mayor Randels stated that all conditions must be met within 90-days from City Council's Site Plan approval. Mr. Boucher stated that the City should also receive a record copy of the Wetlands Mitigation Plans from SJRWMD as an additional Condition of site Plan approval. Attorney Garganese explained how a Development Agreement would allow to phasing their development project without expiration of their Site Flan. Attorney Pickles expressed that the applicant would be willing to pursue a Development Agreement; City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 8 of 11 however, the developer had met the Site Plan criteria. Mr. Boucher summarized for the record that the Council reviewed this Site Plan as a residential condominium. An amended Site Plan would return to the Council. Ms. Roberts stated that the community was not informed of the Applicants intent to apply as a resort condominium that was different from a residential condominium. Attorney Pickles stated that the Ordinance did not delineate a difference for purposes of a Site Plan application. Attorney Garganese explained that a Site Plan review related to the technical requirements of the City code. He concluded that the Mermaid Key project met the technical requirements. Mr. Lamar Russell, Planning and Zoning Beard Mice Chairperson, stated that the Site Plan was reviewed in a technical manner based on a checklist within the City code. Mr. Russell explained that an application as a resort condominium would have also become part of the technical review. Mr. Russell summarized that the site Plan was for a residential use in a residential zone. He stated that if the Council did not approve the site Plan and proposed to send it back to the Planning and Zoning Board, he requested to know what was yet required when the Applicant met the criteria. Ms. Roberts stated that the Planning and Zoning Board had, in her opinion, a role beyond a technical review. Mr. Russell stated that the SJRWMD permit cane out during discussion and it was added to the list of conditions. Mr. Russell stated that all City meetings were open to the public and residents were welcomed to attend and voice their concerns. Ms. Roberts stated that the community had the right to weigh in on whether or not the Mermaid Key project was planned as a resort condominium. Ms. Sharon Molinari of the Treasure Island Club condominiums questioned what the City planned to do about the proposed traffic due to the Mermaid Key project. Mayor Randels replied that the Planning and Zoning Board addressed all concurrency issues related to the project to include traffic. Mr. Nicholas reminded that the City had petitioned the State many times for a traffic light at the Columbia Drive intersection; however, they were refused. Mr. Boucher informed that the Florida Department of Transportation preferred to observe the active levels of traffic prior to installing a streetlight. Ms. Molinari reminded of the two deaths that occurred due to the lack of a traffic light. Mr. Paul Stewart informed that he was waiting for Mr. Greene's development in order to purchase there. He reminded that Mr. Greene previously brought a mixed -use development project to the Council that the Council denied. Mr. Stewart requested that the Council proceed to take action in light of his interest in a property purchase. Mr. Boucher referred to the June 28 memo from the Planning and Zoning Board listing the (7) conditions: 1 The sewer line from the south commercial building needs an easement; and the sewer line needs to be relocated to save a 20" tree. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 9 of 11 2) The lift station pump sequence shall be changed so an alarm is activated if the liquid level rises above the lead pump "on" level and before the liquid level reaches the lag pump "on" level. 3) The north and south fountain details shall be redesigned, because the present 18" dimensions are incorrect.. 4) Provisions shall be made for recycling containers at each dumpster site. S) A lighting plan for the streets and sidewalks shall be submitted and approved by the City. 5) The City shall approve a shared parking easement on the north parcel. 7) Cross access easements shall be provided on the north and south parcels. Mayor Randels also read the three additional conditions: 8) The Unity of Title be prepared and executed on the south commercial parcel. 9) All costs associated with the vacation of the existing sewer easement and the dedication of the proposed relocated sewer main easement, as well as design and installation change orders for the force main replacement project, be home by the applicant. 10) An approved mitigation plan from the St. John's River Water Management District for the pond area classified as wetlands shall become part of the approved Site Plan. Mr. Greene informed that Ed Gardulski, former Public Works Director had discussed with him the best place to install the sewer main; therefore, he was aware of the intended placement and its cost. Mr. Boucher clarified that the cost for any change orders related to this project would be borne by the Applicant. I'll1r. Greene made note that he would confer with Jeff Ratliff, Stormwater Administrator, relating to the funding from the St. John's River Water Management District, in order to obtain his permit from the St. John's River Water Management District. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Hoag and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve: Consideration of Mermaid Key Site Plan — 140 Condominium Units and 25,800 square Feet of Commercial Contingent Upon the (10) Conditions Within (30) Days of the Approval. The vote on the motion carried 4 -1 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, Against. REPORTS: 'l. City Manager • Mr. Boucher thanked everyone who participated with the National Night out. • Mr. Boucher announced the Space coast League of cities dinner in Cocoa Beach on Monday, August 13 1h . Mr. Boucher announced the Florida League of Cities Annual Conference on August 18 through August 18th. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 10 of 11 • Mr. Boucher announced that the next city Council Meeting on August 21 -5t would occur at the Library Meeting Room. The President of Ron Jon's would make a presentation. • Mr. Boucher scheduled a meeting on Tuesday, August 28th at 5:30 P.M. related to the Chronic Nuisance ordinance and the civil Citation Program. Mr. Boucher scheduled an Evaluation and Appraisal Report Meeting on August th 29 at 5.30 P.M. * Mr. Boucher reported the need for discussion on mixed -use development. • Mr. Boucher made note that the Development Review Process as also a subject left for discussion. [Ms. Roberts expressed her concern that a date had not been set for this meeting.] • Mr. Boucher scheduled a meeting on Thursday, Sign code on August 30th at 5:30 P.M. 2. Staff Mr. Morley • Mr. Morley announced that draft interior plans were available for the new building and he encouraged the council to review and comment. He was in the process of bidding out the work. Todd Peetz • Mr. Peetz and the city Manager would schedule a date and time for a Mixed -Use discussion. City clerk • No report. City Attorney • No report. AUDIENCE To BE HEARD: • Ms. Martha Hoffman, addressed the Council on the gazebo at center street. She related that the manatees were being harassed and the gazebo abused. Ms. Hoffman asked if there were anything else that the city could do to secure the premises and she informed of how the police were non - responsive to the residents concerns. She recommended signage and informed that their Association was considering surveillance cameras. The concerned residents requested to convey in some form that the park be used for its intended purpose. I City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting August 9, 2007 Page 11 of 11 1 3. City Council 4 Ms. Roberts • Ms. Roberts stated her concern for lack of time to discuss the concerns from the community as well as the Council. Mayor Randels suggested providing the City Manager for two or three items for the Discussion portion of the Council Agenda. Mr. Nicholas • Mr. Nicholas requested to revise the Agenda in order hear Council Members comments in the beginning of the meeting. 1 Mr. Petsos • Mr. Petsos requested to place on the Agenda the potential of stop signs on North Atlantic Avenue. This would provide for public notice. Ms. Roberts asked if some of the questions submitted earlier related to North Atlantic Avenue could be answered prior to the discussion on the stop signs. • Mr. Petsos acknowledged that the City web site was under construction and I thanked the City Clerk for her assistance with N'Sync Data Systems on this , project. 1 i C Mayor Pro Tem Hoog • No report. Mayor Randels • No report. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M. I 0 Ck ..‘ COP%''OCL-C214- Rocky Randels, MAYOR I 1 Susan Still , CI l CLERK .. . I i i 1 I 1 i i i WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 11 2.31 43, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which ures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- _,ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.355 or 153.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the m i n utes or t h e meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on ot side) CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE of LOCAL OFFICER`S INTEREST _�-------------- _---_= hereby disclose that on 7 _ __- �______ _____ _- --------- 20 D 7. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency whim (check one) _ inured to my special private gain or loss; __- inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, - inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, _ inured to the special gain or loss of_ ........ ....................... whom l am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: -� by -, which ..0 G-a... 41(.. - h•n r" � '''^ Tv.,� cOPa.�.+...e.rC,.� Zo% V e - 4e%o Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM $8 - EFF. 1 /2000 PAGE 2