Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 11 09 City Commission Regular Minutes -;"'>" . -""~...".", .... 1982-83-4 .. . REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS NOVEMBER 9, 1982 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor John V. Torcaso. The invocation was given by City Manager Richard Rozansky. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Maureen Boyd. Roll Call: Mayor John V. Torcaso, present City Manager Richard Rozansky, present City Attorney John Sunner, late Commissioners: Jim Hartman, present Buck Adkins, present Martin Trencher, present Maureen Boyd, present Leanne Grove, present Motion was made by Commissioner Trencher to approve the minutes of Oct. 26, 1982. Seconded by Commissioner Hartman. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; motion carried. . Public Input: Ben Kaplan, Burgos Road, spoke in reference to an article by Tom Freeman regarding elections. Bill Jacobs, S. Edgemon Ave., asked if there were any plans for getting a city complex. Charles Rowell, Algiers Ave., invited the Commission and City Officials to the Open House of the V.F.W. on Sunday, November 21st at 2:00 p. m. General Agenda: Public Hearing for Ord. No. 270 rezoning Lot 2, Block E, N.Orlando Ranches Sec. 3 from RC-l to R-lAA, etc. Second Reading: Motion was made by Commissioner Trencher, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to read Ordinance No. 270 by title only on second reading. Discussion.Vote on the motion: Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; motion carried. Attorney Sunner read Ord. No. 270 by title only on second reading. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyd to adopt Ord. No. 270. Seconded by Commissioner Hartman. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; motion carried. Public Hearing to consider a request of Winter Springs Development Corp. for amend- ment to the approved preliminary development plan of the Tuscawilla P.U.D.: (A) to redesignate 16 acre Park site east of Howell Creek to condominium and 14 acre school site on Trotwood to Park; (B) to redesignate 44 acres of the commercial site between Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard to condominium; (C) to redesignate a 43 acre single family site to condominium, south of Bear Creek, north of Winter Springs Boulevard; and west of the eastern end of Northern Way. Mayor Torcaso recessed the Commission Meeting and convened the public hearing. Persons wishing to speak were sworn in by the City Clerk. The City Planner pointed to the area on the map. Request (A) involved two parcels, the existing school site on Trotwood which is 14 acres and the existing park site on Winter Springs Boulevard which is 16 acres. The request is to change the school site to a park site to be developed along with the existing Lake Tuscawilla park. In conjunction with that the park site along Bear Creek would be requested to be changed to condominium. Request (B) is to change . ~"T~~__ .~ ,. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 9, 1982 the existing commercial site on Northern Way which is and request (C) is to convert this single family area acres to condominium. Page 2 1982-83-4 44 acres to condominiums also on Northern Way which is 43 Mr. Ken Bishop, Attorney representing the Winter Springs Development Corp., spoke about the modifications to the plan. The first concern which was pointed out by the City Planner was the total elimination of the (Bear Creek) park would leave residents completely without access to the creeks that run through (the P.U.D.). The developer has agreed that there is (nearly) a 5 acre (single-family) parcel that adjoins Bear Creek that can be changed to park that would give the residents approximate- ly 800 feet of access to the creek. The total park frontage along the creek would actually be increased by this change. Another objection was rezoning the commercial property to multi-family zoning. One of the concerns raised was that (multi-family development on Tract B) replaces a single-family development (previous designation of commercial tract east of Bear Creek). The second concern was the total density for this tract, which would be a total of 12 units per acre. In this particular tract the developer has agreed to 6 units per acre, and is also amenable to imposing some buffering restrictions - to provide some 50% buffering at the time of construction and 75% two years hence. . Another concern (Request C) that was raised - by bringing the multi-family into the center corridor, there would be an increase in traffic in this area. To better service this property, the developer has agreed that they would add a deceleration lane (on Winter Springs Boulevard) through here to help alleviate the traffic problems that might occur. The developer has agreed to reduce the total density from 12 to 8 for the entire tract; also (to add) buffering requirements for the entire outer boundary of the property. So at this point we would formally amend the petition to incorporate those changes. Nothing has been presented to the City in writing. Art Harris, Sable Court, said the Developer said at their Planning Committee Meeting that this would be it as far as coming in for any more multi-family. They also said they would lower their stated maximum to 7500 from 9700, and that they would agree to approximately 50 - 50 distribution of multi-family as opposed to single family. The original P.U.D. was approximately 60 - 40. Based on those concessions, the Planning Committee had recommended to accept these proposals. However, this was presented at a meeting last Thursday and the consensus of the participants was they would go along with amended proposal A but the other two proposals they wanted to hold out for single family. Ken Bishop - We will go on record as saying we have no further requests. Dave Dearolph - what about the stables? Does that mean no further requ2sts regarding the stables? The stables will remain open pasture land? Ken Bishop - That's correct, the stables will remain as is. ~p;~ Louis R. Ogus, White Oak Court, William M. Davis, Blue Spruce Court, John Doyle, Tuscora Drive, Peggy Baker, Tuscora Drive, Jerry Eans, Sybilwood Circle, Ray Laub, Blue Spruce Court, Inez Linville, Dyson Drive, and Tom Sullivan all spoke in discussion. Ken Bishop - the original density is approximately 9500 and with the changes that have been made and proposed to be made, the committment is to reduce that density to no more than 7500. . Mayor Torcaso closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hartman asked about the amenities to the park. Mr. Jay Alpert said what ~,__--- _ yf . Regular Meetingt City Commissiont Nov. 9t 1982 the existing commercial site on Northern Way which is and request (C) is to convert this single family area acres to condominium. Page 2 1982-83-4 (Amended) 44 acres to condominiums also on Northern Way which is 43 Mr. Ken Bishopt Attorney representing the Winter Springs Development Corp.t spoke about the modifications to the plan. The first concern which was pointed out by the City Planner was the total elimination of the (Bear Creek) park would leave residents completely without access to the creeks that run through (the P.U.D.). The developer has agreed that there is (nearly) a 5 acre (single-family) parcel that adjoins Bear Creek that can be changed to park that would give the residents approximate- ly 800 feet of access to the creek. The total park frontage along the creek would actually be increased by this change. Another objection was rezoning the commercial property to multi-family zoning. One of the concerns raised was that (multi-family development on Tract B) replaces a single-family development (previous designation of commercial tract east of Bear Creek). The second concern was the total density for this tractt which would be a total of 12 units per acre. In this particular tract the developer has agreed to 6 units per acret and is also amenable to imposing some buffering restrictions - to provide some 50% buffering at the time of construction and 75% two years hence. . Another concern (Request C) that was raised - by bringing the multi-family into the center corridort there would be an increase in traffic in this area. To better service this propertYt the developer has agreed that they would add a deceleration lane (on Winter Springs Boulevard) through here to help alleviate the traffic problems that might occur. The developer has agreed to reduce the total density from 12 to 8 for the entire tract; also (to add) buffering requirements for the entire outer boundary of the property. So at this point we would formally amend the petition to incorporate those changes. Nothing has been presented to the City in writing. Art Harrist Sable Courtt said the Developer said at their Planning Committee Meeting that this would be it as far as coming in for any more multi-family. They also said they would lower their stated maximum to 7500 from 9700t and that they would agree to approximately 50 - 50 distribution of multi-family as opposed to single family. The original P.U.D. was approximately 60 - 40. Based on those concessionst the Planning Committee had recommended to accept t~ese proposals. Howevert this was presented at a meeting last Thursday and the consensus of the participants was they would go along with amended proposal A but the other two proposals they wanted to hold out for single family. Ken Bishop - We will go on record as saying we have no further requests. Dave Dearolph - what about the stables? Does that mean no further requests regardin~ the stables? The stables will remain open pasture land? Ken Bishop - That's correctt the stables will remain as is. If all three proposals are accepted by the Commissiont they would not come back at a later date and request any further changes. All three proposals were not accepted by the Commissiont therefore they can request future changes in the zoning of the P.U.D. . Louis R. Ogust White Oak Courtt William M. Davist Blue Spruce Court, John Doyle, Tuscora Drivet Peggy Bakert Tuscora Drivet Jerry Eanst Sybilwood Circle, Ray Laubt Blue Spruce Courtt Inez Linvillet Dyson Drive, and Tom Sullivan all spoke in discussion. Ken Bishop - the original density is approximately 9500 and with the changes that have been made and proposed to be maket the committment is to reduce that density to no more than 7500. Mayor Torcaso closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hartman asked about the amenities to the park. Mr. Jay Alpert said what ... . . ~ J . ...... . . . - -"---. ":'l";"'":,,,_ J. ,- ~:gula~ ~e~ting City Commisaipn, Nov. 9, 1982 Page 3 1982-83-4 theyhad'proposed to the Planning & Zoning Board is still proposed and that was all the passive amenities that were scheduled for the north park be moved to the south park, so there will be no reduction in amenities on that site. Also on the school site one additional ballfield and two soccer fields be placed on that property. Also we committed that when we put in the Bear Creek park and the five acre park that we would clear it and treat it as a road side picnic park along the creek. ~cui 1:l.~A~) Motion was made by Co ssioner Adkins to redesignate 16 acre park site east of Howell Creek to condominium and 14 acre school site on Trotwood to park with the letter to the Homeowners Association written into that stipulation about the amenities added to the large park site moving the amenities from the north park site to the south park site. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Grove, aye;Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Adkins to redesignate 44 acres of the commercial site between Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard to condominium with the following stipulations: 1. A site buffer plan that the City and the Homeowners Association has in its possession; 2. that the preliminary site review plan first be presented to the Homeowners Association; at six per acre. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher for discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, no; Commissioner Grove, no; motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman to deny (c) (to redesignate a 43 acre single family site to condominium, south of Bear Creek north of Winter Springs Boulevard and west of the eastern end of Northern Way). Seconded by Commissioner Trencher. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; motion carried. Commissioner Adkins said he would like to vote (again) on C to entrench the developer into committing that they have no more changes in the P.U.D. Motion was made by Commissioner Adkins that we strike the last vote on the changes in Tuscawilla (~). Seconded by Commissioner Trencher for discussion. Commissioner Trencher explained that by denying (C) we leave it open for the developer to come back for future changes. Some people have raised the point that if we vote the other way on (c) we in a sense have locked you in to no more changes because we have approved everything you asked for. So the question before the floor is if we go back and change that vote we then hold you to our original agreement of no more requests for changes. If it stands the way it is you do have the opportunity to request additional changes. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Trencher, no; Commissioner Boyd, no; Commissioner Grove, no; Commissioner Hartman, no; Commissioner Adkins, aye; motion failed. Wander Lake Report: Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, said he was recently requested by the City Commission to review and render an opinion on the present status of Wander Lake in regard to legalities and the potential liabilities that mayor may not exist to the City. As a background, the project is commonly referred to as the Wander Lake Project. This came about by the City fathers making a decision that they wanted to rehabilitate what was otherwise a dying or unattractive area into an attractive lake. They entered into a contract with Boulder Construction Company to excavate the project. In that contract Boulder Construction Company agreed to provide and obtain whatever necessary ~"'-- ."" ~ .",-^..,~".~.,._~7"~,-_ : , . Regular Meeting City Commission, Nov. 9, 1982 Page 3 1982-83-4 (Amended) they had proposed to the Planning & Zoning Board is still proposed and that was all the passive amenities that were scheduled for the north park be moved to the south park, so there will be no reduction in amenities on that site. Also on the school site one additional ballfield and two soccer fields be placed on that property. Also we committed that when we put in the Bear Creek park and the five acre park that we would clear it and treat it as a road side picnic park along the creek. Motion was made by Commissioner Adkins to redesignate 16 acre park site east of Howell Creek to condominium at 12 units per acre and 14 acre school site on Trotwood to park with the letter to the Homeowners Association written into that stipulation about the amenities added to the large park site moving the amenities from the north park site to the south park site. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher.Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Adkins to redesignate 44 acres of the commercial site between Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard to condominium with the following stipulations: 1.A site buffer plan that the City and the Homeowners Association has in its possession; 2. that the preliminary site review plan first be presented to the Homeowners Association; at six per acre. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher for discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, no; Commissioner Grove, no; motion carried. . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman to deny (c) (to redesignate a 43 acre single family site to condominium, south of Bear Creek north of Winter Springs Boulevard and west of the eastern end of Northern Way).Seconded by Commissioner Trencher. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; motion carried. Commissioner Adkins said he would like to vote (again) on C to entrench the developer into committing that they have no more changes in the P.U.D. Motion was made by Commissioner Adkins that we strike the last vote on the changes in Tuscawilla (C). Seconded by Commissioner Trencher for discussion. Commissioner Trencher explained that by denying (C) we leave it open for the developer to come back for future changes. Some people have raised the point that if we vote the other way on (c) we in a sense have locked you in to no more changes because we have approved everything you asked for. So the question before the floor is if we go back and change that vote we then hold you to our original agreement of no more requests for changes. If it stands the way it is you do have the opportunity to request additional changes. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Trencher, no; Commissioner Boyd, no; Commissioner Grove, no; Commissioner Hartman, no; Commissioner Adkins, aye; motion failed. Wander Lake Report: Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, said he was recently requested by the City Commission to review and render an opinion on the present status of Wander Lake in regard to legalities and the potential liabilities that mayor may not exist to the City. . As a background, the project is commonly referred to as the Wander Lake Project. This came about by the City fathers making a decision that they wanted to rehabilitate what was otherwise a dying or unattractive area into an attractive lake. They entered into a contract with Boulder Construction Company to excavate the project. In that contract Boulder Construction Company agreed to provide and obtain whatever necessary . . . .-'.(...,ft...__.......__.........,~_,... >".',."""..-$'<':",' "''''~\'','!'l'''''~'P ........"''''.. : , Regular Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 9, 1982 Page 4 1982-83-4 state permits were necess-ary. The City agreed to work with Boulder to obtain any specific DER permits that were necessary. Following the contract excavation was done and work has been done on the project. DER has since come in somewhere around September of this year and said you don't have authorization - cease and desist. DER has not formally implemented a notice of process. They have entered only into preliminary stages of saying we want to talk with you. We think you are in violation. Based upon that background and my review of the law and my discussion with DER at a meeting and with their counsel in Tallahassee, I give the following opinion: First of all as a premise to my opinion and my obligation is to protect each of you and the City from any liability and in doing that I am going to take the most con- servative approach towards this project. Initially I think you have to formally vote to authorize your City Manager and myself to take the following actions: 1. you should require that Boulder, in a letter hand delivered to them immediately provide you with proof that they are in compliance with DER; that is a requirement under their contract. Alternatively you should advise them that until such time as they provide that notice they should cease and desist from doing any further activity. Any activity that is taking place on a daily basis will expose this city to a potential $10,000 per day fine plus whatever damages may incur, without DER's authorization. Whether or not DER is right in their position is a different question. You can not gamble and say we are going to let you dig and hope that you are right later on. The contract says they have to have authorization and a DER permit to dig. They don't have it. Second you should authorize that we immediately determine who has jurisdiction and that will take some time and that is why you are stopping the work in the meantime. I think you independently want to determine jurisdiction rather than say to Boulder you determine it. That would require retaining experts in the field of determining whether or not this particular lake is totally within the jurisdiction of the City or not. If the City has jurisdiction of the entire lake DER has no jurisdiction and this whole issue is mute. If the City does not have complete jurisdiction and""1>ER has jurisdiction then we get into the next issue of is there liability and I have to tell you very definitely so there could be liability exposed to the City for everything that has been done. Is there restoration liability? Yes most definitely and restoration involves simply what it means, bringing back all that type dirt and reconstructing to every extent possible that lake in the habitat it was prior to the disturbance. DER has recently won several major liability restoration cases in the state so I do not think we should treat them just as an agency tinkering around and I think we ought to deal up front with them and work with them and try to resolve the matter. I think the next step would be that we notify Boulder's Insurance immediately that we have a potential claim. I am concerned whether or not their insurance policy would pay us anything because the policy as I read it and I only have a cover sheet indicates they cover negligence. Frequently insurance companies will say we'll cover negligence but if you haven't had proper authorization for state approval we're off the hook which leaves us going against Boulder Construction with quite frankly, doesn't leave us with too much. They can declare bankruptcy and we're out the window. I think the next thing you want to do is we will advise them in a formal letter we consider the contract in breach and as a condition we want to create a new contract if they want to go forward after this date and will require the posting of a bond to cover damages and I'm not talking a $10,000 bond. I'm talking any where from 5 to 10 million dollars. I think we have to take these steps. __""M~.C7:~ ..~ow:-.,,~:,~K' '.~ "',..~"".~'!''''','7 .. , . Regular Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 9, 1982 Page 5 1982-83-4 Finally and fifth, this is not a negative reflection on any individual. I think the Commission should formally advise the City Attorney that they do not want him representing the City in this particular matter. They also would request that he not represent Boulder Construction in regard to this matter and that concludes my recommendations to you. I think the quicker you act on this the safer you will be in terms of preventing any exposure. I just want to clarify all this. If DER does not have jurisdiction there is nothing to be concerned about. Mayor Torcaso - I think the main thing is for us to approve the City Manager and your firm representing the City in this Wander Lake project plus the Commission to authorize hiring a surveyor to survey the property and find out if it belongs to the City of Winter Springs. Mr. Kruppenbacher - I would just authorize those particular necessary steps and leave it to us to decide whether we need a surveyor, who we need exactly and again be assured that I will be very aware of the cost. Mayor Torcaso - that is what I was trying to find out. What kind of costs to the City, whether it would cost 5, 10 or $25,000? Mr. Kruppenbacher - to the extent I think the City is exposed to any costs, we should advise Boulder that we think their insurance company should reimburse us. It was not us that failed to get the permit and the contract says they should get it but again DER is going to say you're both liable and we have the deeper pocket. Commissioner Adkins - I would go along with all of Mr. Kruppenbacher's recommendations. Also I would add one that we require Boulder to pay for your expenses as well as the surveys. Contract says Boulder is liable for expenses incurred in connection with enforcement of the contract. I would imagine this would be one of the expenses. . Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman that we go along with Mr. Kruppenbacher's recommendations and that we ask the City Manager to work with Mr. Kruppenbacher to resolve this situation and that ~eulder be required to pay for Mr. Kruppenbacher's expenses. S'econded by Commissioner Boyd. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins~ aye; Commiss-ioner Trencher, aye; motion carried. ResolutionNd.396forTrdy Piland: Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman, seconded by Commissioner Trencher to adopt Resolution No. 396. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; motion carried. Elections Re~ults: ~. November 2, 1982: Mayor: John V. Torcaso, 1538 Marty Trencher, 1433 Commiss-ion::,~ Seat I: Jim Hartman, 2023 George Kaplan, 882 . Commission Seat III: Inez Linville, 1071 Harry G. Reid, 979 Ellen Weiss, 893 ",'5~_~~ ~ ~",,,,,,_~___'"_'" ~-'."',-"'"".".f"" -._.T~.;~ '~"''''''''''}j'' ~..- : , , . Regular Meeting, City Commission Nov. 9, 1982 Page 6 1982-83-4 . Commission Seat V: Leanne Grove, 1484 Gary Hunt, 1334 Commissioner Trencher publicly thanked everyone who voted for him. City Manager - Richard Rozansky: On November 4, 1982 we had the bid opening for the repairs to the Hayes Road Bridge. The City engineer recommended Jon Hall Company, $16,750.00. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyd that we accept the bid of Jon Hall for repairs to the Hayes Road Bridge. Seconded by Commissioner Hartman. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman that we allow the City Manager to proceed with his actions to acquire a grader. Seconded by Commissioner Trencher. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Trencher, aye; Commissioner Boyd, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; motion carried. Manager Rozansky reported that our Holiday Parade is coming along and is right on schedule. Commission Seat I - Jim Hartman: Commissioner Hartman thanked everyone for their support in the Election. . Commission Seat II - Buck Adkins: No report. Commission Seat III - Martin Trencher: Commissioner Trencher submitted his resignation effective Nov. 22, 1982. Commission Seat IV - Maureen BOyd: Commissioner Boyd gave farewell wishes to Commissioner Trencher. Commission Seat V - Leanne Grove: Commissioner Grove thanked the Commission for swearing her in. Mayor's Office: Mayor Torcaso appointed the City Manager as the permanent member to the Transmission Authority and the Mayor as the alternate member, and the Commission concurred. Mayor Torcaso reappointed Mary Norton, City Clerk. Mr. Dave Dearolph asked that another entrance for Tuscawilla be looked into. Meeting was adjourned 10:15 p. m. Respectfully submitted, . ~I-~ Approved: Mary T. Norton, City Clerk y~ ,MAYOR FORM 4 lllq-jtJr . MEMORANPUM OF VOTING CONFLICT I / -T.~-".,.,.".,-=~..-^..,_",'_"----'--'-;- ..- 7>~ LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME \~<, f.J~ . t)(l,L G-Et.JP MAILING ADDRESS ~"3 1=>-H {.f\S. A-a(.,\ C (t'( ZIP COUNTY . l "l- '"\7( ve .s pel Mr-.s "3 d7 DB S6n III-(}(. NAME OF AGENCY c... l r 6 ~ vLH ~ K. ~ PR.IIV 0-..5 AGENCY is unit of: o STA TE Ii NAME OF PERSON RECORDING MINUTES In fJ l' WIlT(JlJ TITLE OF PERSON RECORDING MINUTES e i7 C L{-li SPECIFY DCOUNTY ~UNICIPALITY DOTHER MEMORANDUM OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A VOTING SITUATION [Required by Florida Statutes ~1l2.3143 (1979) 1 If you have voted in your official capacity upon any measure in which you had a personal, private, or professional interest which inures to your special private gain or the special private gain of any principal by whom you are retained, please disclose the nature of your interest below. 1. Description of the matter upon which you voted in your official capacity: RfZD UE;-- 0 ~ C~ ~\1\\.;.J L.- A- N() -PU ~ peeD(\'\ :PA RIL '10 \) ell' ALe e- AA~ce L- cp0Q'C If.-} ,0~C"l<klLLa. l ~ c) 'v ft:S~ 2. Description of the personal, private, or professional interest you have in the above matter which inures to your special private gain or the special private gain of any principal by whom you are retained: e ~t-Du.) J.J-e-~ ~ ~0 L~~ ff-rYV- f:-S I JU THe::- s fl Ylt' f- n~ S~6-<.6- .puD ~L~ 3. Person or principal to whom the special gain described above will inure: ~ GJqf,,,, I ~ (.I (J L tn~:() ----.:> a.D Yourself b.D Principal by whom you are retained: (NAME) ~ DATE ON WHICH FORM 4 WAS FILED WITH THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING MINUTES~ OF THE MEETING AT WHICH TH;/Z;;1i-:;ED: SIGNATURE FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (15) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person responsible for recording the minutes of tpe meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict. Florida law permits but does not require you to abstain from voting when a conflict I of interest arises; if you vote, however, the conflict must be disclosed pursuant to the requirements described above. r-. I I NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIOlls OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317 (1979), 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 I OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $1),000. ___J CE FORM 4 - REV. 12-79