Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-21-2006 RegularCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY March 21, 2006 7:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tern Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor Others Present: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Treasurer Building Official Public Works Director CONSENT AGENDA: Bob Hoog Jim Morgan Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Bennett Boucher Anthony Garganese Susan Stills Andrea Bowers Todd Morley Ed Gardulski 1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2006. 2. Proclamation for National Fair Housing Month. 3. Resolution No. 2006 -10; Appointing a Regular Member to the Business & Cultural Development Board (S. Roberts). 4. Cooperative Purchase of Playground Equipment for Cape View Park in the Amount of $26,917.26. Mayor Randels asked if any Council member, staff or interested party desired to remove any of the Consent Agenda items for discussion. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 2 of 10 No request was made to remove any of the items for discussion. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tom Hoog to A "Ie , Consent Agenda Items 1 through 4. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 vW1# y0ting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. CONSIDERATIONS: 5. Motion to Approve: Approval of the Annual Audit for the Year Ending September 30, 2005. Ms. Yvonne Claybome and Ms. Jennifer Kheswar of Bray, Beds and Koetter presented the Independent Auditors' Report for the year ending September 30, 2005. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] provides for the main audit report and is conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards. Ms. Claybome read the audit opinion and noted no instances of non- compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, or grants and no material weaknesses of internal control. The firm recommended that the City establish specific guidelines for maintenance of a reserve. Ms. Claybome stated that Capital Assets should be audited annually. The firm recommended a self -audit inventory process in which the Finance Officer physically performs a physical inventory check to ensure that the detailed listing matches the financial records. She commended the Building Department to amend the previous year's comments on the Building Permit process. Ms. Claybome reported that the City's financial highlights as: above the benchmark for the Unreserved Fund Balance, declining in long term debt, less than one percent for Governmental Fund Debt Service, a reduction in millage. Ms. Claybome reported that growth and building permits were now actualized in property tax revenues. Ms. Claybome reported that Intergovernmental Revenues increased due to FEMA disaster relief funding. She explained that, historically, this year's Sewer Revenue Fund is at a breakeven point. Ms. Claybome commented on the efficiency of the audit process. Mr. Petsos questioned the finding in the Reserve Funds. Ms. Bowers explained that set aside funds were not legally binding and would not become so with the Reserve Policy. She stated Escrows Accounts are a legal venue. Ms. Bowers explained that need for established set aside amounts for designated purposes. Mr. Morgan referred to Page 83 and questioned the reason of an audit of physical inventory. Ms. Bowers explained that it would more accurately track property transfers. Mr. Morgan questioned the statement that the City's Charter does not state a legal debt margin; therefore, a table depicting such has been omitted. Ms. Claybome stated that the City's Charter does not legally restrict the City to a certain level of debt. For the purpose of the Certification Program, it is a required statistical table if it exists in a City's Charter. Mr. Frank Kuhn noted that the graph for Public Safety combined both Fire and Police. Ms. Bowers welcomed Mr. Kuhn to contact her office or to visit the City web site for an City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 3 of 10 outline of separated departmental budgets. Ms. Claybome informed that the CAFR was available electronically and would be sent to the City's web site. Mayor Randels explained that City growth subsequently allowed for a lower millage rate. He reported that the City has two new parks: the Banana River and the Manatee Sanctuary Parks. The City has an Interlocal Agreement with the Brevard County School System for an after - school use park at Capeview Elementary School. The Building Department records were upgraded to a digital format. Mayor Randels noted the Baffle Box installations and announced the City as first in stormwater treatment in the State. Mr. Nicholas referenced a zero income in Fines and Forfeitures and inquired about the funds from citations. Ms. Bowers explained that in July 2004 the State determined that Counties would no longer fund the Court systems. Therefore, the State derives fees from the Fines and Forfeitures revenues in order to fund the Court system. Mr. Nicholas expressed his concern for the municipalities in funding a State regulated system. Mr. Petsos informed that the Florida League of Cities has been active in opposing such legislation. Mr. Frank Kuhn reported that when a Canaveral Precinct officer writes a citation outside of City limits, the funds are not directed to the City. He suggested a decal that would designate the Cape Canaveral Precinct vehicles. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve the Annual Audit for the Year Ending September 30, 2005. The vote on the motion AWWA carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. SITE PLANS: Mayor Randels requested that any person who intended to speak on the item provide their name and address for the record. 6. Motion to Approve: Request to Remove Two (2) Specimen Trees, Sea Shell Cay Townhomes, Sea Shell Lane, Harbor Heights. Council Member Morgan disclosed that he filed a Conflict of Interest with the City Clerk due to financial interest and would not vote on the item. Mayor Randels stated that Council's task was to hear input and to provide a decision based on the evidence presented. Mr. Morgan, Jr. stated that the Council also asked to hear from the expert Arborists. He stated that his interpretation did not find the two trees as specimen trees. Mr. Morgan, Jr. contacted the City Manager and noted that the City's arborst, Timothy Davis, did not complete his hazard abatement form. Mayor Randels explained that two arborists, one independent and one from City staff, prepared tree hazard evaluation forms. A calculated point system of low, medium, high or severe summarized the points for a total hazard rating. Mr. Petsos stated that both, the Certified Independent Arborist and City staff Arborist, evaluation reports indicated that the trees are diseased. Mr. Morgan, Jr. informed that he City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 4 of 10 planned to provide mitigation with healthy trees. The City Arborist stated that if the lot were left alone, the T -1 tree, the larger tree would continue to grow although it had a major cavity. He stated the multi -trunk oak the T -2 is not structurally sound. Mr. Davis stated that the T -1 tree would be stressed by additional construction. Mr. Morgan, Jr. informed that the boring showed three inches of quality wood but fibrous throughout the rest. Mr. Davis restated that the tree could continue to live without construction around it. Mr. Petsos asked about pruning. Mr. Morgan, Jr. replied that he asked the Independent Arborist about pruning the damaged portion; however, pruning was not possible. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog summarized that the hazard ratings were completed. He said that Mr. Morgan, Jr. submitted all the requested information and the Arborists evidence supports that the trees are diseased. He concluded that his questions have been answered. Mayor Randels read the City code regarding specimen trees. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog clarified the ordinance requires that only one of the criteria be met to disallow the tree as a specimen tree. Attorney Kate LaTorre clarified that the ordinance reads: undesirable, dead, diseased or trees that are structurally unsound and could not recover from pruning. If one of these criteria is present, then the tree would not be considered a specimen tree. Ms. Brandy Morish displayed photos of the trees in discussion. She noted substantial new growth on the tree. Ms. Morish agreed that if left alone, the tree would prosper. Mr. Joe Ross of 227 Coral Drive asked Mr. Davis for a percentage of diseased trees among specimen trees in the wild. Mr. Davis replied probably half of them, but it was rare not to find any decay. Mr. Ross then asked if the intent of the ordinance was for removal of any diseased tree. Mr. Petsos replied that the higher hazard rating was included with the indication of disease. Mr. Frank Kuhn stated that in the State of Virginia, foam injected into trees have saved them. Mr. Davis replied that the foam injection is no longer an accepted practice. Mr. Davis restated that the only method of saving the tree would be to leave it alone. Ms. Shannon Roberts of 307 Solana Shores Drive expressed concern that the Arborist indicated potential disease in many of the City's older trees and she hoped that this would not set a precedent for diseased tree removal. Attorney LaTorre clarified for the Council that each application would be addressed on a case -by -case basis. Mayor Randels read that the intent of this division was, "to encourage the protection of maximum amount of viable trees in this list and to this end it should be unlawful to destroy such trees." Mayor Pro Tem Hoog summarized that according to the ordinance, the trees could be removed and restated that the applicant met with the requirements. Mr. Craig Smith asked the City Arborist if the tree in discussion was one of the City's largest. Mr. Davis replied that there were many other large oaks throughout the City. Mr. Smith asked if the tree were in a dormancy stage. Mr. Davis replied that most oaks were in a growth stage at this time. Ms. Judy Lau of 211 Coral Drive referred to the large tree and noted that the City Arborist stated it would live further if left alone; however, construction would destroy the tree. She pointed out that if the large tree were left alone, it could live and, therefore, it is a specimen tree. Mr. Morgan, Jr. clarified that by definition the tree was not classified as a specimen tree. Ms. Morish reminded of the tree's new growth. Ms. Morish questioned the excavation under the tree. Mayor Randels clarified for the record that the Arborist removed the soil under the tree for testing purposes. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 5 of 10 Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that Mr. Morgan, Jr. exceeded the ordinance's requirements and also presented Arborists testimony. He made a motion to have the Building Official issue a permit for removal of the trees. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tom Hoog to Approve a Request to Remove Two (2) Trees, Sea Shell Cay Townhomes, Sea Shell Lane Harbor Heights. Motion failed for lack of a Second. Mr. Petsos clarified that the Council asked for the Arborists; therefore, Mr. Morgan, Jr. did not exceed the requirements. Mr. Petsos questioned the consequence of further litigation if the Council did not approve the tree removal. Attorney LaTorre recommended that the Council make a decision based on the weight of the evidence. Discussion followed on how construction would accelerate the tree's rate of decline. Mr. Sal Scotto, Cape Canaveral resident stated that discussion was about two diseased trees not specimen trees. He questioned why discussion was not focused on replacement trees. Discussion concluded that the trees were not specimen trees. Mayor Randels concluded that the trees in question were identified as diseased trees and were therefore not specimen trees. Attorney LaTorre stated that the applicant was not obligated to mitigate since the trees were not specimen trees. She recommended that the Council make a formal finding in its motion that the trees under discussion were not specimen trees. Findinq of Fact: After considerable discussion and based on competent evidence presented by the Arborists, the two trees in question were not found as specimen trees as defined in the City Code of Ordinances Section 102.36, Definition, Specimen Trees. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve a Request to Remove Two (2) Trees, Sea Shell Cay Townhomes, Sea Shell Lane Harbor Heights. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, Abstain; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. 7. Motion to Approve: Sea Shell Cay Townhomes, James Morgan, Applicant Four (4) Residential Units Located on Sea Shell Lane, Harbor Heights. Mayor Randels outlined the conditions met since the Planning and Zoning Board meeting for Site Plan approval of Sea Shell Cay Townhomes. Mr. Nicholas questioned a five -foot sidewalk and requested to retain two Bottle Brush trees on the south side of Harbor Drive. Mr. Todd Morley, Building Official, informed that the applicant was willing to meander the sidewalk to the extent possible. Mr. Nicholas would meet with the Building Official to further discuss retaining the trees. The Building Official replied to Ms. Morish that there is no requirement for a fence between residential units. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 6 of 10 A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tom Hoog to Approve Sea Shell Cay Townhomes, James Morgan, Applicant, for Four (4) Residential Units Located on Sea Shell Lane, Harbor Heights. The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, Abstain; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. 8. Motion to Approve: Development Agreement with Canaveral Bulk Storage, Inc. and Ambassador Services, Inc. Mayor Randels stated that the Attorneys for both Ambassador Services and the City drafted a Development Agreement for performance standards. Attorney LaTorre explained that because several parcels of land comprise the project, the Development Agreement also creates a Unity of Title for each owner. Mr. Petsos questioned the recording provision in Section 5A. Attorney LaTorre explained that the Agreement's execution established the Unity of Title for development purposes; therefore, the owner's could not sell the properties separately without Council's approval. She stated that Mr. May's Occupational Licensing issue was also remedied through the agreement. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection concerns and that of St. John's River Water Management Agreement sprinkling requirements were also remedied. Attorney LaTorre informed that the Agreement reserved the right to address noise and air control. She stated that the City nuisance standard would apply to excessive noise levels. Mr. Nicholas questioned the 24 -hour operation with regard to truck ingress and egress. Attorney LaTorre stated that the trucks were permitted daytime operation of 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. She stated that the Agreement required Mr. May to repair and properly maintain the system to benefit the health, safety and welfare of Cape Canaveral residents within 10 -days of notice. A default provision in the Agreement would apply to any unfulfilled obligations. Mr. Randy May explained that he would work with Mr. Dick BIM to build garages and storage to create a 26 -foot industrialt residential buffer. Otherwise, a standard wall that is aesthetic on the residential side would occur. Mr. Petsos referenced that the Development Agreement provided for one -year with a one -year extension to build the barrier. Attorney LaTorre clarified that the extension is for 90 -days. The Building Official replied that construction was within the industrial zoning requirements. Attorney LaTorre remarked on the unique circumstance of the project and the buffer that each would follow the distinct requirements for industrial or residential zoning. Attorney LaTorre informed that a Default Provision in the Development Agreement allowed legal remedies to the Applicant before proceeding to litigation. Mr. Petsos referred to Page 6(k) (2) providing for satisfaction in the buffer construction. Attomey LaTorre replied that the Agreement did not bind the applicant to the garage/ storage unit, but to construct a buffer. Attorney LaTorre explained that any sight and sound barrier required approval. She stated that the agreement did not bind the Applicant to build the planned structure, but to provide a buffer. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog questioned if the applicant were released from providing City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 7 of 10 an effective buffer. Discussion clarified that the City noise ordinance would provide relief. Attorney LaTorre stated that the Agreement's provision for Sovereign Immunity was amended to cap the threshold and reflect what is written in Florida Statutes 768.28. Ms. Shannon Roberts expressed concern with the number of trucks daily on George King Blvd. between 7 A.M. and 7 P.M. Mr. May replied 250 to 300 trucks daily. Ms. Roberts stressed the impact of traffic on a major artery for City residents. She also asked if North Atlantic Avenue was a possible exit area for the trucks. Mr. Nicholas asked if the Agreement could regulate the truck route. Attorney LaTorre reminded of the Constitutional Right to Travel. Mr. Craig Smith pointed out that City signage directs truck regulation. Mr. Morley questioned the subdivision of land to another owner for buffer construction. Attorney LaTorre replied that a further Development Agreement might be needed or approval of the Council for the subdivision of land. Mr. Donald Dunn questioned truck owners. Mr. May replied that the trucks were independently owned. A motion was made by Mayor Randels and seconded by Mr. Morgan to Approve the Development Agreement with Canaveral Bulk Storage, Inc. and Ambassador Services, Inc. The vote on the motion carried 4-1 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, Against; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. 9. Motion to Approve: Canaveral Bulk Storage Site Plan, Randy May, Applicant The Applicant requested to construct a conveyor belt system in the Industrial Zoning district adjacent to Port Canaveral. Mayor Randels stated that the item was tabled from the previous City Council Agendas of January 3 and February 21, 2006. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended a Unity of Title for the subdivided land and that the aggregate no longer encroach on adjacent sides and both of these were performed. The Building Official stated that all items were addressed. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tom Hoog to Approve Canaveral Bulk Storage Site Plan, Randy May, Applicant The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. ORDINANCES: Second Reading: 10. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No. 01 -2006; at Second Reading. Mayor Randels informed that Ordinance No. 01 -2006 was duly noticed on March 1, 2006 and a Special Meeting was held on March 8, 2006 for First Public Hearing. The ordinance was published on March 14, 2006 for Second Public Hearing. Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 01 -2006 by title. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 8 of 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS AND ISSUING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS UNDER SECTION 110 - 334(10) OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE C -1 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT ONLY ALONG THE A1A HIGHWAY CORRIDOR FOR A PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS; PROVIDING FOR THE BUSINESS AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF THE CITY'S RESIDENTS REGARDING WHAT KINDS OF BUSINESSES THE RESIDENTS DESIRE ALONG THE A1A HIGHWAY CORRIDOR; PROVIDING FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS ALONG THE A1A HIGHWAY CORRIDOR SHOULD SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALONG A1A BE PERMANENTLY DISCONTINUED; AUTHORIZING ONE SIXTY (60) DAY EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, Mr. Sal Scotto owner of a property behind 102 Columbia Avenue asked if his property was included in the ordinance. He explained that a future owner might prefer to change the property which is zoned commercial to residential. Mayor Randels explained that the City Council's intent of the moratorium was further research prior to allowing for Special Exceptions for residential in commercial areas. Mr. Todd Peetz, City Planner, affirmed that Mr. Scotto's property was included in the moratorium. Mr. Scotto explained that because of adjacent property zoning changes from commercial to residential, he anticipated the same. Mr. Morgan reminded that the study during the moratorium would provide assistance for Council's decision and he encouraged Mr. Scotto's input during the process. Ms. Shannon Roberts restated that the Business and Cultural Development Board recommended a Citywide moratorium in order to establish the City's developmental interests. Mayor Randels replied that, at this time, the ordinance was published for State Road A1A only. Mr. Scotto spoke on the type of businesses that the area could support. Mr. Morgan replied that the demographics dictate the type of business. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr. Morgan to Adopt Ordinance No. 01 -2006. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tom Hoog to extend the meeting to the conclusion of the Agenda. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. 11. Motion to Approve: Ordinance No. 02 -2006; Amending Chapter 110, Zoning, Clarifying the Building Off'icial's Duties; Clarifying the General Requirements for a Building Permit; Amending Building Permit Application Requirements, at Second Reading. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 9 of 10 Mayor Randels stated that Ordinance No. 02 -2006 was duly noticed on March 11, 2006. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Mr. Morgan and seconded by Mayor Pro Tom Hoog to Adopt Ordinance No. 02 -2006 by title. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tom Hoog, For; Mr. Morgan, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For and Mayor Randels, For. DISCUSSION: 12. Ballot Question Amending the City Charter, Article III, Section 1, Elected Officers, Qualifications and Terms. Mayor Randels read Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog related feedback from some City residents to include Ethics in the City Charter. He discussed the matter with the City Manager and requested this as an Agenda item for a Resolution to establish a Referendum to preclude any person charged with an Ethics violation from holding office in the City. Discussion brought out that a former City Manager was fired for Ethics violations and now holds public office. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog requested to place the matter on the ballot as a Referendum to allow the voters to decide. Discussion concluded that the City Board members are not Officers. Mr. Boucher informed that Board Members are subject to a standard background check at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Petsos pointed out that an Ethics violation is also created if a person fails to complete a Financial Disclosure Form in a timely manner. He asked if Mayor Pro Tern Hoog desired parameters for removal. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog replied that refusal to file was dissimilar from neglecting to file in a timely manner. Mr. Nicholas stated that a violation becomes one when heard by the Ethics Commission and that Commission also establishes penalty provisions. Mayor Randels questioned if this would create a double jeopardy for a violator who has already met the penalty provision. Mr. Nicholas stated that Mayor Pro Tern Hoog's intent appeared to disallow any person from seeking public office if they were convicted of an Ethics violation. Attorney LaTorre informed that a number of violations exist. Attorney LaTorre questioned if the Council's intent would apply to existing and future Public Officials. Council directed staff to provide further research. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: • Mr. Bud Whitney of Canaveral Breakers Annex thanked the Mayor for his assistance over the years. • Mr. Dave Barker of 8542 Canaveral Breakers Annex expressed concern with an unfinished building between Canaveral Breakers Annex and the Straw Hat Lounge. Mayor Randels related that the City Code previously had no provision for sunset of building permits. Mr. Barker expressed the need for a change to the previous ordinance. He informed that the property is unsightly, unkempt, attracts City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 10 of 10 transients and recently experienced a fire. Mr. Barker explained that after the fire, evidence of transient living quarters was found. Mr. Barker related that the female residents of Canaveral Breakers Annex were fearful of the transient population. He requested that the owner clear the property. Mayor Randels replied the owner planned to address the concern. • Ms. Beverly Wilson expressed concern that two residents did not wake up when the Fire Department arrived. She planned to contact the press if no action was taken. The Building Official replied that Code Enforcement addressed the issue. • Dr. Charles Pindziak addressed the Council and stated that someone from the Canaveral Breakers Annex played golf on the lot and was told to stop due to trespass and the person said that they would also go to the press as Ms. Wilson stated. He informed that the Canaveral Breakers Annex dumpsters as well as the driveway were encroaching into the adjacent property. Dr. Pindziak said that a fence would help the property, but would hinder those in Canaveral Breakers Annex. He stated that the transients were entering the property through Canaveral Breakers Annex. He stated that the lot was posted as No Trespassing. Dr. Pindziak expressed the difficulty in keeping people off vacant property. He stated that the owner was unaware of a fire for several weeks. Mr. Bud Hartnick informed that four years ago he photographed the property in an unkempt state and Dr. Pindziak removed some of the brush. Ms. Wilson stated that the dry vegetation on the property is a fire hazard which is against the City ordinance. Mayor Randels concluded that Code Enforcement would address the matter and he would address the fence and the dumpsters. Due to the lateness of the hour, no reports were forthcoming. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:50 P.M. Rocky Randels, MAYOR r - Susan Stills, CITY CLERK i FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS T NAME —FIRST A — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILI G ADDRESS l L I /J (_' � C �+t�.dn THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COON C I T- O — ' d t]( NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICA VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE ❑ APPOINTIVE 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 112.3143, 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- re 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. 163.356 or 163.357, 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. N �i 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 minu tes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM SB - EFF. 112000 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 _ � _!_________, 20 (a) A rrteasure came or will come before my agency which (check one) (,/ —_ �aured to my special private gain or loss; _` 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____________________________ ________________________- by whom I am retained; or ___ inured to the special gain or loss of ____________ _______________________________ _____________________, which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. fb) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: 7 Date Filed S nature 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, , EMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 112000 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ST =; E NAME T Nn�AM// 4 zL ? CIQ NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE O O K� f� MAILING ADDRESS /3 ���� = THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY O COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY �.+ OUNTY N ME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: z , ) 7 C r7 ,yti 4 � DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE ❑ APPOINTIVE 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 112.3143, 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 res to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited' from knowingly voting on a mea- re 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. 163.356 or 163.357, 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. 0 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 minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Con tinued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 I 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 ______ Z � 0 (a) A rr asure came or will come before my agency which (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 ------------- — - - - - -- b --------------------------------------------------- whom I am retained; or __- inured to the special gain or loss of -- -- ----- - - -- -- - -------------------------- which 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: SF;iL 4� F, c1 S C pt , � Date Filed 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, EMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2