PBSD MSTBU Agenda 03/07/2012PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
IWAk : 2 2012
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, RRCN-7-,-2fl1-2•-
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION,
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY,
LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited: Fiala
Hiller
1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle ng
2. Roll Call
— ' - ----
3. Agenda Approval Coletta
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
b. January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee
5. Administrator's Report
a. Pathways
i. Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (Chandler)
ii. Pelican Bay Foundation's (PBF) Request for Reconsideration of February 1 Board Action
iii. Obstructions between Pathways and Roadway Blocking Street Lights at Night on Pelican Bay
Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil (Levy)
b. Discussion of Proposed Projects to Implement Summer 2012 (Levy)
i. Community Crosswalks
ii. Community Landscaping
c. South Berm Restoration
i. Ownership of berm and water management easement improvements (O'Brien)
ii. Berm engineering plans to date (O'Brien)
d. Revisit Proposal to Resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard Early (O'Brien)
e. Monthly Financial Report
6. Chairman's Report
a. Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal
b. April Meeting Schedule
c. Announcements
7. Committee Reports
a. Budget (Levy)
b. Clam Bay (Trecker)
i. Clam Bay Permits Annual Reporting and Aerial Photography Requirements Status (Levy)
ii. Recommendation to Support Collaborative Workshop Request (Cravens)
c. Landscape Water Management (Cravens) Misc. Corres:
d. Strategic Planning Committee (Womble)
8. Old Business Date: a k 22- 1 L
9. New Business
10. Audience Comments item: �l- �Z2 -
"� t4
11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Cqpiesto:
12. Adjournment
ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC
COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT
YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING
PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE
PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYSERVICESDIVISI ON. NET.
3/2/2012 1:59:36 PM
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, Wednesday,
February 1, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The
following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman
John P. Chandler
Geoffrey S. Gibson
JohnIaizzo
Michael Levy
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator
Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager
Susan O'Brien
Dave Trecker
Mary Anne Womble absent
John Baron absent
Hunter H. Hansen absent
Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary
Also Present
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group
Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation
REVISED AGENDA
I . Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Approval of January 4, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
5. New Business
a. Clam Bay Restoration Plan Annual Report Update (O'Brien)
b. East of Berm Water Samples Results Update (O'Brien)
6. Administrator's Report
a. Community Crosswalks
b. Community Landscaping
c. Pathways
i Presentatinnc to Adiacent Aacnciatinnc Undate
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
8526
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
February 1, 2012
ROLL CALL
With the exception of Ms. Womble, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen all Board members were present.
There were approximately seventy -five people in the audience.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Chairman Dallas amended the agenda to hear New Business items regarding Clam Bay first. Mr. Levy added Budget
Subcommittee to Committee Reports. Mr. Chandler added "Letter to Commissioner Hiller to Request Increasing the Road
Maintenance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget' to additional New Business.
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended.
The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passe&
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 4, 2012 Regular
Session minutes as resented. The Board voted unanimous) in favor and the motion was assed.
W
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
February 1, 2012
Mr. Dorrill explained landscaping and irrigation improvements at the North Tram station were only made in the
medians and adjacent areas of the new crossing. The remaining area where there is sod was not part of the project's scope.
PATHWAYS
Mr. Dorrill presented the proposed pathways widening project as having evolved from the Pelican Bay Foundation's
strategic master planning study in 2009 and Community Improvement Plan's many workshops and town hall meetings held
jointly with the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee and Pelican Bay Services Division Board in 2010 and 2011. The
proposed project consists of replacing the five feet wide pathways with eight feet wide asphalt pathways because since the
community was built more than thirty years ago the standards have changed and more pedestrians and bicyclists are sharing the
pathways. The minimum code recognized multiuse pathway is ten feet to as wide as twelve. However space limitations in the
road right -of -way cannot accommodate ten feet wide pathways. The question to be considered today is whether the Board
would like to continue with eight feet wide pathways that would meander in a uniformed fashion to improve line of sight issues
at cross streets and service driveways, and to avoid having to remove trees and develop a plan to replace trees.
Mr. Dorrill reported on January 4, the Board directed staff to review the proposed pathways widening project with
residents of adjacent condominiums and comments were received, some were well- founded, and some were negative in regards
to perceived impact. However this project has been in the planning process for three years and was conceived for the greater
good of the community.
Mr. Jim Carr, P.E. explained the existing five feet wide pathways could be widened up to eight feet and still be
classified as a sidewalk primarily for pedestrians, but bicyclists are not prohibited from riding on the pathway. He advised
against installing signage to direct traffic on the pathways and cited a 2007 County Attorney opinion that bicyclists must yield
the right of way to pedestrians. To be classified as shared, multi -use pathways, the standard is a minimum of ten feet wide, but
twelve is preferred The current right of way permit was approved for widening the pathways to eight feet. If the project was
changed to widen less than eight feet, the savings would be approximately $20,000. Installation of root barriers underneath
carries the bulk of expense. The code requires maintenance of what the standard was when built.
Vice Chairman Cravens acknowledged pathways maintenance is the County's responsibility, but not being done.
Chairman Dallas pointed out the Services Division has funds available that are intended for completing the proposed
pathways widening and various other Community Improvement Plan projects then opened the floor for audience com
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ten residents expressed opposition to the proposed pathways widening project for various reasons: 1 at
wider pathways would encourage more bicycle traffic on the pathways, creating unsafe conditions, espe at entranc
driveways; 2) objected to removing trees obstructing proposed route of wider pathway; and 3) dis t ways were
"crowded" or pedestrians and bicyclists usage was increasing and therefore there was no justifi r the expense.
Suggestions were made 1) to install bicycle lanes in the roadway and 2) perform a commu be ing forward
with the project. Public speakers opposing the project were Paul Liberti (Coronado); Bru a ington Club);
Diane Lustig (Hyde Park); Henry Bachman (Claridge); Marcia Cravens (Dorche Me ay Colony); Dave
Ritger (Oakmont); Roy Curbow (Montenero); John Domenie; and Elaine Da _ onte Additionally, Coronado
residents submitted two petitions opposing the project.
Seven residents supported the proposed pathways widening pr fo reas s: derived from the Community
Improvement Plan study; 2) both the Foundation's Strategic Pla ee ' elican Bay Services Division Board
who agreed the pathways should be widened to eight feet as ende improvements should be made to maintain
property values; and 4) to uphold Pelican Bay's premier commu Public speakers in favor of widening the
8528
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
February 1, 2012
pathways were Bill McCormick (Bay Colony); Calvin Grayson (Serendipity); Charles Bodo (Crown Colony /Strategic Planning
Committee); Carson Beadle (Strategic Planning Committee); Howard Boyd (Chateaumere); Ray Bozzacco (St. Kitts); and Jack
Thompson (St. Maarten/St. Thomas).
Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt supported the project that was carefully planned over a long period, due diligence was done,
and that residents had already paid for through property taxes.
There were no additional public speakers and Chairman Dallas closed the audience comments session.
DISCUSSION
The Board discussed how to proceed with the proposed pathways widening project.
Ms. O'Brien recommended before moving forward the Board should do a survey to gauge public sentiment.
Mr. Dorrill said if the Board decided to do a survey staff would hire an unbiased entity to prepare questions and
implement in a format that would achieve statistically significant results. Also the Board would need to consider the
commercial properties who do not usually want to spend their money on residential improvements.
The Board acknowledged that the pathways were in poor shape, it was the County's responsibility to maintain the
pathways, and whether to lobby Commissioner Hiller for support. Consensus was that the pathways needed to be redone, but
the issue was deciding whether to widen and by how many feet, safety issues, and circumnavigating trees.
Mr. Dorrill would look into what the County is planning for roadway and pathway maintenance for Fiscal Year 2013
and report back.
FAILED MOTION
Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modifying the eight foot
width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side of Pelican Bay
Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and with the following
caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible) 1) if a tree is taken out,
or what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in- kind close by; and 2) to
address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas
requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibson, Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), 5 opposed
(Dr. Trecker. Vice Chairman Cravens. Mr. Chandler. Mr. Iaizzo, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed.
PASSING MOTION
(Pathways failed motion and passing motion transcription pages 85
Mr. Dorrill reported staff had confirmed agency permitting req
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is requiring a nationwid4"d
District (SFWMD) is not requiring a letter of modification Environmental Protection (FDEP) affirmed through a letter
8529
berm restoration project. The
South Florida Water Management
permit; and Florida Department of
within the drainage easement there are no
J
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
February 1, 2012
restrictions to trim or make alterations to mangroves. Wilson Miller - Stantec environmental consultants have suggested
exploring amending the site development plan. However, Mr. Dorrill said staff has gone beyond what is reasonable to obtain
the required permitting for what is considered a maintenance project. Staff plans to put this project out to bid, so that work can
begin this summer. To accommodate equipment and fill, the south berm may need to be partially closed at times for a period of
about 3 -4 weeks.
Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned about the south berm being inaccessible.
Mr. Dorrill assured that staff would work with the Foundation to provide necessary access to residents and trams.
Dr. Trecker distributed a legal opinion that he was concerned about stating the Foundation owned the berm and
requested clarification because the Pelican Bay Services Division is spending its funds on private property.
Mr. Dorrill said there is no question that the land is owned by the Foundation. However the earthen berm was
constructed with bond proceeds and therefore is an asset of the Pelican Bay Services Division. Drainage facilities and lakes are
also assets of the Services Division because they are part of the master drainage system. The asphalt pathway atop the berm
was built by the developer and maintained by the Foundation and owned by the Foundation.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said he would provide documentation regarding ownership of the berm and the Board planned to
discuss further at the March 7 meeting.
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mn Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the financial report into the record. The Board
voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CLAM BAY UPDATE
Chairman Dallas reported there is no news regarding Seagate's lawsuit except the FDEP rejected Seagate's request for
an administrative hearing; Mr. Feldhaus is still working with the County to develop a mutual agreement to manage Clam Bay;
and the Legislature is expected to approve water quality regulations soon.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings: Foundation Board Candidate Forums are February 7 and at 4
p.m.; Coastal Advisory Committee meets February 9 at 1 p.m.; Budget Subcommittee meets February 13 at 3 p. Hall
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker that t an aces Division wouldil
not use any exotic invasive plants (including Mexican Petunia and ) lis the current Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council's invasive plant list for landscaping ial a ay. The Board voted
seven (7) in favor - one (1) opposed (Ms. O'Brien) and the motio
8530
r, t
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
February 1, 2012
BUDGET
Mr. Levy reported the Budget Subcommittee met January 17 and discussed the Fiscal Year 2013 budget preparation
schedule. The proposed FY 2013 budget would be presented to the full Board at the May meeting. The next Budget
Subcommittee meeting is February 13 at 3 p.m.
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Chairman Dallas reported on behalf of Ms. Womble that both the Foundation and Strategic Planning Committee
supported the pathways widening project.
OLD BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dr. Ted Raia said the berm became property of the Foundation as part of a lawsuit settlement.
Ms. Marcia Cravens presented a map of Pelican Bay that showed restrictions and protective covenants; and disc that
contained the map and related historical documents.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion, second and unanimous vote was made to ad'ourn the meetin at 4 :21 .m.
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/2/2012 11:11:33 AM
8531
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPTION OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PATHWAYS DISCUSSION
MOTIONS, SECONDS, VOTES
MR. GIBSON: "I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to propose that this Board proceed with the pathways project,
that the eight -foot width issue should be modified to flex [down to] six -feet minimum because I agree, I want the
paths to be wider, but do we need eight feet? I don't think so. And I'd also like to put that caveat in because I know
we've had a lot of people very sensitive to trees and nature and I'm one of them. If we have to take a tree out, for
what is the last ditch effort to do that, that that tree be replaced somewhere in kind close by."
DR. TRECKER: "I second the motion."
MR. LEVY: "Would you entertain adding to that motion that a pathway in no instance will be any closer to a
building driveway ?"
MR. GIBSON: "I agree. That's a serious... I do ride bikes and I do walk and I haven't been hit yet, but I'll tell you
what, I've almost been guilty of hitting people, but I'm not on the other side of that ... I know how dangerous that is."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS ASKED MR. GIBSON: "So, you will accept the inclusion of that in the motion ?"
MR. GIBSON: "Absolutely."
MR. IAIZZO: "We have to agree to one more foot which way we are going to go. We are going to go toward the
street."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "We need to leave that up to the engineers to put it where it makes sense. We are not
trying to disrupt the current landscaping, sometimes it just depends where we are, some places you can go toward
the street, but sometimes there is something in the street, I mean there's trees between the pathway and the street, so
you can't go that way."
MR. CHANDLER ASKED MR. GIBSON what he meant about "flex down to six feet."
MR. GIBSON: "We should proceed and not have the new pathway any narrower than six feet but perhaps there is
a caveat to that with an engineering study."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "I thought your recommendation was six
and eight." V%WM
MR. GIBSON: "Yes, in between six and eight. There's areas where... and ur po a very good one
because don't we want to encourage more bike riding in this community ?"
MR. CHANDLER: "No, not on the pathways."
DR. TRECKER: "Not on the sidewalks."
8532
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. GIBSON: "Okay, then we don't want to encourage it [more bike riding]. Okay.
e
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. GIBSON: "It should be very clear, but first we need a second."
MR. DORRILL: "Dr. Trecker seconded it."
DR. TRECKER: "I'm certainly willing to withdraw the second."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Is there another second to it ?"
DR. TRECKER: "The motion was made then withdrawn and the second was also withdrawn."
MR. CHANDLER: "I thought that Geoff said that he would revise his motion to be a six -foot pathway. Is that
correct ?"
MR. GIBSON: "Yes, because what I'm visualizing happening here this afternoon is that the whole project be ash -
canned for who knows how long."
MR. LEVY: "Well, let's first try to get it the way it was conceived to be in the Community Improvement Plan."
MR. GIBSON: "You mean, no narrower than six feet and no wider than eight feet, reasonable transitions as
verbalized by our [Administrator]."
MR. LEVY: "Yeah."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "So you do it wider where it works and slightly wider where it doesn't."
MR. IAIZZO: "That will be crazy wavy."
MR. LEVY: "No."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I don't think it will be that wavy. Not if you do it gradually."
Someone in the audience wanted to make a comment
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Sorry, we'll never get to a vote if we take too many comments and we've heard
comments."
MR. CHANDLER: "I joined the CIP committee maybe a third of the way through, maybe half of the way through,
just before I was elected to the Board here, and I frankly don't recall any conversation when we were talking about
this potential widening about the potential accidents that might happen to bringing more people onto the pathw
with a wider pathway and the issues we have at the driveways, so even though maybe people put time into goi
a certain way, I think we have to, if we see a problem, someone raises an issue to our attention, `hey there's
issue here' I think we have to recognize it. That's why I'm on the thought that eight -foot is too wide. It' o g to
encourage more bikes on the pathway, it's going to encourage more accidents, I think six is probably oing to
bring people out of the streets onto the path, it's pretty wide. I would support six.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "What is the motion we have in front of us? Is it eight or is it six ?"
MR. GIBSON: "It was eight feet, no narrower than six."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there a second to that ?"
MR. LEVY: "Well, he also said that trees should be repl,
buildings and driveways. I just want to get the full motion."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, with replace the trees in t
MR. GIBSON: "There's no second."
8534
to the
leways.
i t �
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "If there's no second then that's the end of the discussion."
MR. LEVY: "I second it."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, there's the three points. Modified eight feet, no less than six feet, nice transitions;
replace the trees in the area where we take them out, and again the idea is to minimize the number of trees we have
to take out, that's why we're going to six feet in those areas probably; and at driveways, no closer to buildings.
MR. LEVY: "And it's a safety issue at entrances and exits.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's in there, that's a good point. Any discussion? I'm going to have a roll call vote just
because I know it's going to be split. Start with the guy who did it."
MR. GIBSON: "Aye."
DR. TRECKER: "No."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "No."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yes."
MR. CHANDLER: "No."
MR. LEVY: "Yes."
MR.IAIZZO: "No."
MS.O'BRIEN: "No."
MR. DORRILL: "Failed 3 -5."
Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modifying the
eight foot width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side of
Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and
with the following caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible)
1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere
in- kind close by; and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer
to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibso
Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), S opposed (Dr. Trecker, Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler,
Iaizzo, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed.
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there another motion ?"
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "I'll make a motion to make it a six -foot path throughout with
were in Geoff s original motion."
MR. CHANDLER: "I second."
MR. MOFFATT: "What about phasing? Do the worst areas first ?"
MR. GIBSON: "Till the whole thing gets done."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah. What we're voting on this year is for that
8535
that
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. LEVY: "I think Susan is raising a valid point. We're essentially replacing the pathway. That's essentially what
we're doing.
MR. GIBSON: "It's a foot wider. That's a big difference."
MR. LEVY: "A foot wider. But if that's what we're doing, I think we should do the worst part of the pathways first.
Why do this part of the pathways which is probably one of the best parts of the pathways that we have from The
Commons down to the North Tram station."
DR. TRECKER: "If that's the best then we're in bad shape."
MR. LEVY: "The east side of the pathways are probably in worse shape."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "You think the west is bad because you walked on the east. There are a lot of sections that
are in bad shape. Other discussion ?"
MR. DORRILL: "On the motion, I have detailed sketches and plans for the west side. If anything other than that
requires me to go all the way back and redesign and re- permit and we've accomplished nothing. If we can stick to
the project as conceived it is much easier to have the engineer issue an addendum for a width of six feet with some
minor design changes. That's what I would recommend."
MR. LEVY: "A number of speakers here recommended adding a foot - and - one -half which is six - and - one -half feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's interesting. I Googled this when the discussion started coming up. It depends on the
use of the pathway, but besides the eight to ten feet multi -use they say well five feet in a walkway, they are talking
about pedestrians not bicycles. Five -foot bare minimum, six -foot, six - and - one - half -foot is really recommended..."
MR. LEVY: "Well then let's go with six - and - one -half feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I feel more comfortable with six - and - one -half but there's some places where you
probably can't get six - and - one -half in, but I'm having the same problem you are. The idea here was to make them
wide enough so they aren't uncomfortable and we're on the bare minimum side of uncomfortable I think."
DR. TRECKER: "You have a motion on the table for six feet."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "That's true. Any more discussion ?"
MR. LEVY ASKED VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Would you reconsider revising your motion."
Someone called out from the audience accusing the Chairman of already making a decision before the
CHAIRMAN DALLAS responded he was voicing his opinion and the Board would make a
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "This is a substantial modification to what was originally proposed.
DR TRECKER and MR. GIBSON agreed.
MS. O'BRIEN: "So if we would prefer to have six - and - one -half feet, we would
There was general agreement that if a member preferred any width other
motion.
DR. TRECKER: "Call the question."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS called another roll call vote.
8536
vote no on the
� f
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion
MR. GIBSON: "Aye."
DR. TRECKER: "Aye."
VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Aye."
CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "No."
MR. CHANDLER: "Aye."
MR. LEVY: "No."
MR.IAIZZO: "Yes."
MS.O'BRIEN: "No."
The Board voted 5 in favor, 3 were opposed, and the motion was passed.
MR. DORRILL would have the engineer issue the requisite addendum and "you will not see this again until it
comes time to award the bid" that he estimated would be in April.
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler "to make it a six-foot path
throughout (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The
Commons to the North Tram station) "with the conditions that were in Geoff s [Gibson] original
motion" (where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible): 1) if a tree is taken
out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in -kind close by;
and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings.
Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted S in favor (Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Iaizzo, and Dr. Trecker) and 3 opposed (Chairman Dallas, Mr. Levy, and
Ms. O'Brien) and the motion was passed
8537
Transcribed by Lisa Resnick 2/28/2012 3:00:34 PM
l
LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board met on Tuesday, January 10`h at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay
located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present:
Landscape Water Management Subcommittee
Tom Cravens, Chairman
Geoffrey S. Gibson
Dave Trecker
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator (absent)
Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager
Also Present
Michael Levy
Susan O'Brien
Mary Anne Womble
Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Presentation by Kyle Lukasz on Pelican Bay's Water Management System
3. Discussion on Exotic Invasive Plants
4. Audience Comments
5. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
All Subcommittee members were present.
PRESENTATION BY KYLE LUKASZ ON PELICAN BAY'S WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Mr. Kyle Lukasz made a presentation about Pelican Bay's surface water management system that consists
of six basins or drainage systems, forty -four (44) retention lakes that stormwater runoff flows through and is
managed by the Pelican Bay Services Division at drainage easements, or at locations where stormwater is
Dr. Ted Raia was concerned about contractors not applying fertilizer using best
Mr. Lukasz explained the purpose of Tim Hall's ongoing nutrient management s
identify areas where there are high nutrient levels and through the Foundation's authority
implement landscaping best management practices.
DISCUSSION ON EXOTIC INVASIVE PLANTS
Chairman Cravens described exotic plants as any plant introduc
occurred or roughly the year 1500. Exotic plants are not necessarily bad
become invasive. According to the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Cou
11
be
Man contact
se plants can
plants have escaped
} f
Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 10, 2012
cultivation, invaded natural communities, and disrupted and caused damage to the environment. Category II Exotic
Invasive plants have not yet disrupted and caused damage to the environment, but have potential to do so. Coastal
Zone Management department received a grant to remove exotics at Clam Pass Park and along the beach in Pelican
Bay which are mainly Australian Pines, Brazilian Pepper, and Scaevola.
Chairman Cravens is concerned about using exotic invasive plants in landscaping in Pelican Bay and would
like to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Services Division stop using exotic invasive plants in
landscaping in Pelican Bay and attempt to remove those that are already being used. The Subcommittee directed
Mr. Lukasz to develop a landscaping plan to replace exotic invasive plants with non - invasive plants, such as
Cocoplum, with a cost estimate that the Subcommittee could recommend to the full Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Tom Cravens, Chairman
12
Minutes by Lisa Resnick 2/8/2012 11:48:03 AM
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ai. Administrator's Report Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (Chandler)
Page 1 of 4
From: John Chandler [mailto:johnchandler219 @gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 3:50 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: PBB Pathway Data
Lisa,
Please forward this email and its attachments to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication.
Since it appears that we will be discussing "Pathway Widening" at our 3/7 Board Meeting, I decided to
gather some more facts in order to help us reach an informed decision. The attached "Pathway Walk
Notes" detail the results of my walk along Pelican Bay Blvd, today. The "Pathway Walk Statistics"
summarize and average observations that Dave Trecker and I have made at different times of the day.
You will recall that accident data provided by Lisa last month showed that in the last four years, there
were two reported car vs bike accidents on the boulevard and two on the pathway. Both accidents on the
pathway occurred when cars exiting an association driveway struck bikes that came from the right (going
north) on the pathway. Dave and my observations show about six times more bikes using the boulevard
versus the pathway. Thus, the numbers indicate it is six times more dangerous to be riding a bike on the
pathway on the west side of PBB than it is to be riding a bike in the boulevard.
John Chandler
Pelican Bay Boulevard
Pathway Walk of 2/25/2012 Notes
• Walked from the Commons to the North Tram Station and back, today. Took paper
and pen and stopped and made notes along the way.
• Started my walk at 10:55 AM and ended it at 11:38 AM
• Counted the number of pedestrians that I encountered during this 2.6 mile walk.
There were 18. This equals 7 per mile.
• Counted the number of bikes that passed me on the pathway. There were 3. This
equals roughly one per mile.
• Counted the number of bikes that passed going southbound on the boulevard. There
were 22.
• I encountered no baby strollers or rollerbladers
• I stepped off the pathway, into the grass, four times (to let the three bikes pass and to
let a group of four pedestrians pass)
John Chandler
c �
o v
m _
UU
O U
E +�
N w'
2
`a
m °a)
oZ
,t Y
y T
U_ O
�
U L_
0_
co
O O
m d
C N
U of
CD
UI
CL
N_ N
O N
N C w
O
r '�O N
U Q N
(6 '(a ca
un a
N
�
CO
O
4)
—
M
f-:
L6
Ua
C
0
°
O
Y_
m
m
�
N
N
00
cM
V-
r,
d
N
C
O
I
�
Q
m
I
W
C
N
(.0
0)
G'
(d
(0
(0
l()
N
�
I
4)
C
CL
a
a
c0
(0
(0
c0
CO)
N
N
N
N,
7
O
Q.'
(0
LO
N
00
Cl)
N
N
N
Y_
ate+
m
O
•�
O
M
00
M
L"
Y
�
ma
o
co
E
�m
c
-
Lo
`—
U)
_
U)
U
C
.,
�
•-
,N
!)
(0
N
f0
O
LO
U)
d
N
>
Y
O
CO
c0
*k
c
O
m�
QaQ
m
C
O
E
O
O
Lo
5u
�
U�
�p
-
(n
�7-
M
00
M
MO
Lo
C
d
�
N
N
N
N
r
Y
m
O
O
O
v-
O
N
N
N
O
LO
00
LO
N
O
N
N
N
�
r
N
E
--
_ _
-
--
--
-
-
N
`
N
_Ile
:6
N
N
a
N
0)l
t
�-
(6
U
O
cu
N
O
U
I�
0
Q
Z
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ai. Administrator's Report Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (Chandler)
Page 3 of 4
Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009
Plans Preparation Manual Volume 1 — English Revised — January 1. 2012
8.5 Drainage and Utility Considerations
Drainage inlets, grates and utility covers are potential problems for bicyclists. When a
new roadway is designed, all such grates and covers should be kept out of the
bicyclists' expected path. For RRR projects refer to Chapter 25.4.19.2 of this volume.
Refer to Figure 3 -11, Curb Inlet and Gutter Inlet Application Guidelines, and Figure
3 -12, Ditch Bottom and Median Inlet Application Guidelines, of the Drainage
Handbook: Storm Drains; and Design Standards for further information in selecting
appropriate grates and inlet tops.
See Chapter 2 of this volume for horizontal clearances for light poles.
8.6 Shared Use Paths
Shared use paths are paved facilities physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic
by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right of way or an independent
right of way. Shared use paths are used by bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, runners and
others. The bicycle's operating characteristics will govern the design of shared use paths.
The term path as used in this section refers to these paved shared use paths. An
example typical design is provided for guidance in Volume 2, Exhibit TYP -15.
Em
Shared use paths adjacent to a roadway may be considered if the following conditions are
met:
1. The path will be separated from the roadway.
2. There will be few access points or roadways crossing the path.
3. There will be adequate access to local streets and other facilities along the path.
4. There is a commitment to provide path continuity with other bikeways throughout
the corridor.
Shared use paths are not replacements for on- street bicycle lanes. Within a roadway
right of way, bicycle lanes are the safest, most efficient bicycle facility. When paths are
located immediately adjacent to roadways, some operational problems are likely to occur:
1. Paths require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against motor vehicle traffic,
which is contrary to the normal Rules of the Road. Motorists are not in the habit
of scanning for traffic from that direction.
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -24
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session +
5ai. Administrator's Report Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (Chandler)
Page 4 of 4
Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009
Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — English Revised — January 1, 2012
2. At path ends, bicyclists riding against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the
wrong side of the street, as do bicyclists getting on to a path. Wrong -way travel by
bicyclists is a major cause of bicycle /automobile crashes and should be
discouraged.
3. Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the path because they have found
the roadway to be safer, less congested, more convenient, or better maintained.
8.6.2 Widths
The appropriate paved width for a shared use path is dependent upon context, volume
and mix of users. Typically, widths range from 10 -14 feet, with the wider values
applicable to areas with high use and /or a wider variety of users (bicyclists, pedestrians,
joggers, and skaters). The need to provide for larger emergency or maintenance
vehicles or manage steep grades can also affect appropriate width. The minimum width
for a two- directional shared use path is 10 feet. FHWA's Shared Use Path Level of
Service Calculator may be used as a guide in determining when a width greater than
the minimum might be needed.
At locations where the path narrows from the typical width warning signs or pavement
markings in conformance with the MUTCD should be used.
8.6.3 Cross Slopes
Since pedestrian use is expected on shared use paths, ADA requirements shall be met.
Therefore, the maximum cross -slope shall be 2 %.
8.6.4 Grades
To meet ADA the maximum grade is 5 %. Grades greater than 5% should be
considered ramps and designed accordingly. Maximum ramp slopes are 8.33% and
can have a maximum rise of 30 inches, with a level landing at least 60 inches in length.
To accommodate bicycles exclusively, grades should not exceed 5 %, since steeper
grades cause difficulties for many bicyclists. If the terrain makes it necessary to use
steeper grades on short sections, the following restrictions are recommended:
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -25
February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5c. Pathways. J. Chandler's Pathway Walk Comments (by J. Chandler) and (by D. Trecker)
Page 1 of 2
From: John Chandler [ mailto :johnchandler219 @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:42 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: PBB Pathway Walk Notes
Lisa,
Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication.
I think it would be useful if other Board members took the same walk, at a different time, and
took similar notes. The more data that we have, the better decision that we will make.
John Chandler
Pelican Bay Boulevard
Pathway Walk Notes
• Walked from the Commons to the North Tram Station and back. Took paper and
pen and stopped and made notes along the way.
• Started my walk at 8:30 AM on Wednesday, January 25 and ended it at 9:21 AM
• Counted the number of pedestrians that I encountered during this 2.6 mile walk.
There were 16. This equals six per mile.
• Counted the number of bikes that passed me on the pathway. There were three.
This equals a little over one per mile.
• Although I did not make an exact count of the number of bikes on Pelican Bay
Blvd, I would estimate that about three dozen passed by on the west side of the
boulevard. About eight of these were in a pack.
• 1 encountered no baby strollers or rollerbladers
• 1 encountered congestion just once. A walker and a jogger were headed toward
me and I could see that all three of us were going to arrive at the same spot at
the same time. I paused on the pathway for about five seconds. Problem solved.
• Pavement quality is good, overall, although there is some root upheaval in those
few areas where there are trees
• Several cars went in or out of the driveways that I crossed during my walk. Only
one car had to wait for me to cross in front of it.
• Observed one traffic infraction. An SUV exited the main entrance of Montenero
and did not obey the STOP sign. The driver looked only to the left as she
approached and crossed the pathway.
February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5c. Pathways. J. Chandler's Pathway Walk Comments (by J. Chandler) and (by D. Trecker)
Page 2 of 2
From: david trecker [mailto:djtrecker @yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:52 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: Sidewalks
Lisa - Please distribute this to the other directors as a one -way communication.
John Chandler suggested we walk the sidewalk on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. between
the Commons and the North Tram Station so we have some feel for the sidewalk - widening issue.
I did so -- up and back -- on Saturday, January 28 between 3:30 and 4:20 p.m. Here are my
observations.
There are cracks and upheavals along much of the sidewalk.
I passed only 12 walkers -- no joggers, skaters or carriages. I passed 8 bikers (5 in one group) on
the sidewalk -- tight quarters. During the walk, I counted 25 bikers on the street. No problems.
Cars slowed and passed them. Car traffic was light, but steady. No problems with cars turning
onto or off of PB Blvd. Good behavior all around.
Maybe this is atypical. Anyway, that's what I saw.
Dave
L
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
February 23, 2012
Mr. Keith Dallas
Chair
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Re: Pathway Widening
Dear Chairman Dallas,
The Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF) Board respectfully requests that the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD)
Board reconsider its decision from its February 1, 2012 meeting to reduce the previously recommended
widening of the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. from eight (8) feet to six (6) feet.
An extensive process has been utilized to properly inform the decision to widen the pathway from five (5) feet
to eight (8) feet (please see the included "Background Addendum" below). The PBSD Board directed its
administrator, and its engineer to pursue the development of plans to effect the widening on the path to eight
(8) feet, and the Chair stated in an article In the Pelican Bay Post that the PBSD Board would discuss this issue at
both the February and March PBSD Board meetings.
The purpose of the Strategic Master Plan and the CIP was to ensure that all projects in Pelican Bay fit into a
long -term vision of keeping Pelican Bay competitive for the next 30 years and do not fall victim to the vagaries
of individual personal preferences and shorter -term considerations. Unfortunately, by reversing its decision on
this project prior to the previously reported timeframe, the PBSD Board has inadvertently disenfranchised
those members who have a legitimate expectation of the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. from
the Commons to the North Tram Station to be widened to eight (8) feet.
At the February PBSD Board meeting, Mr. Geoff Gibson made a recommendation that the PBSD Board move
ahead with the expansion of the pathway to 8 (eight) feet with three caveats: 1) that when necessary and
appropriate, the pathway width be allowed to be modified down to a minimum of 6 (six) feet to save desirably
kept trees; 2) that at the driveways, the pathway be positioned as close to Pelican Bay Blvd. as possible so as to
improve lines of sight between vehicular, and pathway users; and 3) that the removal of any trees due to
unavoidable pathway design or because of the health of the tree be compensated for by planting replacement
native species trees at appropriate locations along Pelican Bay Blvd. as identified by the PBSD retained
landscape architect. The PBF Board believes that Mr. Gibson's recommendation is a thoughtful and reasonable
alternative and compromise.
The PBF Board respectfully requests, and urges, the PBSD Board to please reconsider its action of February 1,
2012, and Instead to pursue either the previously disclosed, and fully vetted CIP widening of the pathway along
the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd from the Commons to the North Tram Station to eight (8) feet, or Mr. Gibson's
reasoned compromise proposal.
Sincerely,
illiam arpenter
Chair
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. - 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard - Naples, Florida 34108
(239) 597 -8081 - (239) 597 -6802 FAX - E -Mail: memberservices @pelicanbay.org
Subsequently, and coincidently, in an article that ran in the Naples Daily News on February 4, 2012 about the
pathway along Vanderbilt Drive (not to be confused with Vanderbilt Beach Drive), Nick Casalanguida, Deputy
Administrator for the County's Growth Management Department was quoted as saying, "The path also will be
wider than the current version, which is between 4.5 feet and 5 feet and is crumbling at the edges. At one time,
there was talk that the path would be 12 feet wide, which is the state guideline." The article also stated that
Casalanguida said the state allows communities, in certain conditions, to construct paths that are 8 feet wide,
instead of the 12 feet, which is what will be done along Vanderbilt Drive.
Both Wood & Partners and WilsonMiller emphasized that an improved pathway system was a key component of
any strategic or community improvement plan and an item that was not only prioritized by members, but also
an area that was specifically identified as an "under met need." Attached is a recent Pelican Bay Pathway
Report that reinforces the viewpoint that multi -use pathways were always considered an integral part of
Pelican Bay's lifestyle allure, and in fact were marketed as "bicycle and jogging paths ".
.lames F. Morrison
100 Glenview Place, #904°
Naples, Florida 34108
Pelican Bay Service I)Msion
8251 Pelican Bay Blvd-
Naples , Florida 34108
F3ECEI VEp
• r,
PELICAN BA
19 February 2012 SERVICES DIVISION
Dear Sir.
I have read with interest your idea to widen some of the walkways in Pelican Say.
There is a MORE pressing sidewalk safety issue that I think needs to be addressed first.
It can be done quickly and not at a great cost. at night about 15 yea-
My wife and I reside at The Glenview and walk from The Glenview whererlbushes block out limitedr
This sidewalk is NOT SAFE to walk at night as there are many pces
lighting there is. It is impossible to see the sidewalk_ There could be sticks, debris or even animals that
you cannot see on the sidewalk
This is an accident waiting to happen-
For some reason the west side sidewalk on Pelican Say Boulevard and to a lesser extent the east side
sidewalk from the Glemriew to the Phil are the The ONLY
west sidewalk's Pelican Bay much m� convenient and we
bushes BETWEEN the sidewalk and the street -
do not have to cross Pelican Say Blvd twice at night which we would do if we used the east sidewalk
Some of the bushes are waist high and some are head high. in some cases the bushes extend about a
third of the way over the narrow sidewalk.
My is this the ONLY area that has bushes this high between the sidewalk and the street?
i note there is one area where there are VERY high bushes. They help hide the telephone equipment.
Why is there only one area on Pelican Bay Blvd_ where this equipment is between the sidewalk and the
street so that high bushes am needed?
Reducing the bush height will not salve the entire problem because the trees have grown over the years
and black -out more of the street lighting, but eliminating the bushes would be a big help.
Please investigate this sduafion and advise me what you wilt do AND when.
This is a safety issue that can be easily corrected with landscaping expertise.
Sincerely,
I
Gt cM,_ 7.
ames F_ Morrison
3
M7
iv.e ( hssr
I° 1 °"` l+hi'
S C IA��J
ALf�`(A
..��t
�-
G��
jaw�t
b u1�� S �y
n� "i"'IcGt.l�/ •J�%T%��
3%5�1L
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5.a.iii. Administrator's Report Pathways
Obstructions between Pathways and Roadway Blocking Street Lights at Night on Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil (Levy)
Page 1 of 1
James F. Morrison
100 Glenview Place, #904
Naples, Florida 34108 RECEIVED
Pelican Bay Service Division �3a t lJ
6251 Pelican Bay lvd.
Y PELICAN BAY SEfik rCES p1y1S10N
Naples , Florida 34108
19 February 2012
Dear Sir,
I have read with interest your idea to widen some of the walkways in Pelican Bay.
There is a MORE pressing sidewalk safety issue that 1 think needs to be addressed first.
It can be done quickly and not at a great cost.
My wife and I reside at The Glenview and walk from The Glenview to the Phil at night about 15 times per year.
This sidewalk is NOT SAFE to walk at night as there are many places where bushes block out what limited
lighting there is. It is impossible to see the sidewalk. There could be sticks, debris or even animals that
you cannot see on the sidewalk-
This is an accident waiting to happen.
For some reason the west side sidewalk on Pelican Bay Boulevard and to a lesser extent the east side
sidewalk from The Glenview to the Phil are the ONLY areas on Pelican Bay Boulevard that have high
bushes BETWEEN the sidewalk and the street. The west sidewalk is much more convenient and we
do not have to cross Pelican Bay Blvd twice at night which we would do if we used the east sidewalk.
Some of the bushes are waist high and some are head high. In some cases the bushes extend about a
third of the way over the narrow sidewalk.
Why is this the ONLY area that has bushes this high between the sidewalk and the street?
I note there is one area where there are VERY high bushes. They help hide the telephone equipment.
Why is there only one area on Pelican Bay Blvd. where this equipment is between the sidewalk and the
street so that high bushes are needed?
Reducing the bush height will not solve the entire problem because the trees have grown over the years
and black -out more of the street fighting, but eliminating the bushes would be a big help.
Please investigate this situation and advise me what you will do AND when.
This is a safety issue that can be easily corrected with landscaping expertise.
Sincerely,
L . ames F. Morrison
0
0
a
r
c
O
0
O
(\J
N
N
O
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5bi. Administrator's Report Discussion of Proposed Projects to Implement Summer 2012. Community Crosswalks
Page 1 of 1
Project Manager: Kyle Lukasz 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Community Crosswalks
Dept: Pelican Bay
Crosswalk 1
1
LS
$73,415.11
Brooks &
Bateman
Item
I Amount
I Unit
Bonness
I Freund
Construction
Crosswalk 1
1
LS
$73,415.11
$84,922.00
Crosswalk 2
1
LS
$53,618.82
$62,470.00
Crosswalk 3
1
LS
$60,565.57
$71,128.00
Crosswalk 4
1
LS
$45,950.00
$61,242.00
Crosswalk 5
1
LS
$47,050.26
$62,304.00
Crosswalk 6
1
LS
$96,769.92
$95,184.00
Crosswalk 7
1
LS
$58,914.34
$77,752.00
Crosswalk 8
1
LS
$69,870.87
$86,215.00
Crosswalk 9
1
LS
$46,419.97
$61,860.00
Crosswalk 10
1
LS
$49,979.33
$68,383.00
Crosswalk 11
1
LS
$44,895.14
$50,090.00
Crosswalk 12
1
LS
$59,391.88
$70,570.00
Crosswalk 13
1
LS
$60,550.21
$73,574.00
Crosswalk 14
1
LS
$85,385.24
$83,225.00
Total $852,776.66 $1,008,919.00
Solicitations sent: 1216
Downloaded: 86
Bids: 3
$72,626.00 #1 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Ridgewood Drive (PBSD)
$45,928.00 .
$51,044.00 .
$33,666.00 #4 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Glenview Place
$34,262.00 .
$78,600.00 #6 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Gulf Park Drive (PBSD)
$49,952.00
$60,000.00
$34,135.00
$35,822.00 #10 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Beachwalk Pathway
$28,406.00 #11 Pelican Bay Boulevard / North Tram Station
$47,956.00
$45,624.00 #13 Pelican Bay Boulevard /Hammock Oak Drive
$67,584.00 #14 Pelican Bay Boulevard / Oakmont Parkway (PBSD)
$685,605.00
Everify
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bonds
Yes
Yes
Yes
LVP
Yes
Yes
Yes
References
Yes
Yes
Yes
Addendum
Yes
Yes
Yes
Opened b)Jack Curran, Purchasing Strategist
Witnessed Brenda Reaves, Purch tech
..Silhouette
11
V,
OOUGAIN)
To REMAO
(5) Blenchenen. Yell-
(9 Asian J..m..
FOUR W
STOP
�27) 6--1 Flower
(104) Seasonal FCrvv0r
0
4
73 Bou avrrolleit -Eidn-efte
123)L221Jasmine
can Boy Blvd & Ridqewood Drive - Material List
r.-V. P eli
Bromeliad
T7K
22LS#w- S.- P.1-
Jasmines 7
PALMS AND TREES
QTY 1 sot kcal Cmmmoo
R-1k.
15 I S.bol p tto 5 .b.1 P.hn
i5) 8 c!, (6) 12 ct (5) 16 1.
fronds removed, booted
4 Thrinox —411 Key Thatch Pai.
A'-, Nil, -,r.i-
10 -i.-. -di-- Fl.,Id. Thatch P.I.
5.6' oa, 4' spr, full head,
single trunk, conutinst
ACCENT
QTY S.W.W -I't u --ek-s
16
A-+... rubes B-.H.d 'Rb.n,
10' pot, Sun grown, 1-1. on sff. per LA,
16
Ae,Jymso blar"'th"" 01-J ti.
0' pot, Sun - grown, locate on site per Lk
-L."
275
A-1, pp. Selected by
S.—I No-
12"1- 4' ports, —d it
0--
-
109
- - ----------------
Bw.kMll-'Slth-rt.'
18* ..' NO, -W-" 3'
s,
9 H.h,nb.rgi. 10* pot, Sun- own, loct. site per LA.
B—H.d
00-g. Bird
5 S".1"Ii. rest-. le of 30" fuil, 6'
L:F-:� Po
GRASSES/SHRUB R U DCOVER
CITY
"tteolesi Co....
R—k.
103
Di-11. tasmanfco
Flo. Lily
18" uo W1, container, 24"
1973
T-h Jasmine
6" -, 12" or, 18' -, Ul
..I.ti
76
Z--i. florid- C-ti. F-
24" o., Nil, container, 3' oc
MATERIAL
QTY
BoMnimi C—
R►..ks
12800
MWO (Sri
All pf-fi,g beds, 3- depth
use in .11 .-ol bed posed of
7
Planting Soil (CY) 4' depth
-.-d pew, 1/3 -posted pi- boric,
1 /3 co.- -d with pH di-ted to 6.5
A/R
Bob.] ?.I. --I
Sel-d
Non Right-of-Way Areo(s)
11
Sabel Palmetto Sobal Polm (3) 8'ct, (4)12' ot, (4) 16' ct.
fronds removed, booted
22
Set.- rp.r, oinerets SIN., Saw Palen. f 24" ao, f.11, cOnhti-r, 4'
73
B«gainriilea Silhouette'
2200
M.1ch (SF) - ---- ---- All Plonting beds, 3° depth
E
0
V) j 0
W z
V)
Q) t E 2 -E
UJI
c 0
+ Q
Na 0 3:
R
LLJ 0 V
0
0 C)
0-
<
-7
0
I--
V
13e
zui
t-
uj Z
I�E LLJ
U.1 >
>
On .0
Cie 0
CL 0
3:
Lu z
<
Q0Z
> z
on
0
tD Z 0
LIJ
CL 4:1. z < Q�: 0
DsTh 7/20720)1
DY(G ME) ROADWAY 3 5_t2
RtFvrtlo. stexr
8"S/11
ST/
3:S" 1!' LP-1
O
rr
ry
-7
0
I--
V
13e
zui
t-
uj Z
I�E LLJ
U.1 >
>
On .0
Cie 0
CL 0
3:
Lu z
<
Q0Z
> z
on
0
tD Z 0
LIJ
CL 4:1. z < Q�: 0
DsTh 7/20720)1
DY(G ME) ROADWAY 3 5_t2
RtFvrtlo. stexr
8"S/11
ST/
3:S" 1!' LP-1
40• L7637 Bougalnh!lea F)warf HI.4. Jm-
wtle Fem
lot
(51 Florida Thatch N.
14)Coontie Fens
SELECTIVE REMOVAL
OF 3 SABAL PALMS
E
N
V) U J
W z
CL <
QV E
V) U
ce 0
+ <
uj 0
LU U
0 0
t,
V)
z
LIJ
Z
0
Z
ix
0
Z
F- z
D <
0 CL
LL > LU
z
0
Q:: z
co
Zooui
u V)
ul z <
< 0
CL J Z 0�
Lp- I
1
i
i R �
1
I
t11
VI
i1267B.uga
mdo 1 ft50�A�pn JSSrnme
Dwetf Helen Jonnscn'
Yel ow
'226 ASiar Jexm�ne �//
g't Blanchatiana Yell—
__i
(68)ASian Jasmine
{
1
1
i
R
CL °-
J J
i
i
i
I
u(
al
I
I
1
(
I
1
(
I
1
1
tv ( ,-
a_ a_
Pelican Bay Blvd & M. J. Daniels Parkway - Material list
PALM TREES
QTY
6otonkol - -�
Common
Spscitttationx
3
I
7hrinaz rodicta
Florida Thatch F.I.
S oa, t spr, TO head single 1
Vunk, contalrer I
9 {
Soboi p0raatto
Sabai Palm
(3) 8' at' (3) 12' ct, (3)18' ct.
fronds removed, booted
5
Th,]— morrisii
Key Thatch Folm
4' oo, full, comeiner
ACCENT
QTY Botanical Common speeff c-Ag c v�
bl —heli—
.
I
, Sun - grown, bmta
Leo
9
slwchetiana Yeilow
��-
on A � per L.A.
Aechmeo blaxhetiarw
151-1,efiatw
10" pd, Sun - grown, bcote
2
' Raspberry'
Raspberry
on site per L.A.
343 Bwgain46. Dwarf
8ou9omillea Dwarf
I8" oo, 24' apq full
'Helen Johnson'
"Heim Job—,
_._._.
GRASSES /SMRU BS(GR OU N DCOV ER
aTYT Botankd
Commoe I SpecNiwkons
80 DicneUa 1--ico
Fla. Lil y ' 18 ad, full, container, 24"
riegata'
oc
2Q14 TsicHnm rodielospermun
1 pr, 1 oa, ful!
Allan Jasmine b" ea, 2" s 8"
-_—
MATERIAL
OTY Botankol Common^
spec16w6 -, ^...
12600 j Muich (SFI
All planting beds, 3" depth
A/R j Seba1 Paim removol
Selected
�— Non Right -of -Way Area(s)
d
Sabai palmetto
Sobol Polm
(1) 8- cl, (2) 12" ct, (1) 18' at,
fronds removed, booted
E
0
N
t%)
ZV °
_ s
W M C
CL t1) 3 U
Q U O
I E
. w
Z o E
V � _
+Q
Z. o ;�
r n�j
1'Ja
L �; _
r
V W ^ U
I--
W ' o �
O N
[ \/I Z Z -'boa m
0QrMD
� N �
J .= w
5
`o
N
� y
6
N
Z
0
i1J
t)
LLJ
Z
Z —
� DO
`
11J
OZ
ce. d
CL o
Q
Q
J
Q Q
® Q O
ULLJ
v
m J J
Q
0— Z
oazwra cacao
cracr..Entc
6WG, P830 ROADWAY ]5 -l:
RfY13AN, SMEEi
aJt9� Mi i
3,3/2012 LP -2
Pelican Bay Blvd &Gulf Park Drive -Material List i
PALMS AND TREES
Qry
c
Sily, "—d
8'-9'.., 3 d, 11111unk, full,
13 S.b.1 p.l..q.
s.b.1 P.Im
f,-d, boated"
...-d,
ACCENT
L_07_11
Co�n
15
4
1
bl Ii
A-h— rvbenz
B,—.1i.d Rub—'
10' P.1, s—w—, io l. on j
ift p,,, L.A.
0" P."
site Per LA.
624
A-1, �pp' W.C.d
S--1 Fl.—
12"-, 4" p.1% .—d W1
by 0—
112
18* full, c_t.H_" 3' .
S
st-lifti. .gi—.
Change Bird f
Paradise
I 30" oa, full, comai, 6 .
GRASSES/SHRUBS/GROUNDCOVER
OTY
78 Mhl-b.,gi. capill.ri, I Pink Mhly G,..
10 S..—'.pens 6..
Sp"ificalli"s
18' oa, full, 3'.
24" oa, full, tlw, 4'
1311511 Asian Ji-
6" 1-, 12 p,, 18" .,, full
MATERIAL
QTY 11—i -I
C_n
10800 i mulch isF)
All beds, 3' depth
irl all —.1 lb.th'
15 Pl..ftq Soil (cy)
4* depth
c—p.-d of 1 /3 --cl
P**
bark,
adNaed to 6.5.
R
S.I.dd
A, Saba] P.T. 1
Non Right-of-Way Areo(s)
2 My' if
k.
W.. myol.
8' Ififk, full,
container
(4) 1 2'
l 11 S.b.1 p.l.."
Saba! Palm
(4) 16 ' fronds --d"
S ... — _'.p... 6h '..
SIN., S Palmetto
24"
Bougoinvillea 64
Sithou."'
's;lh_t'.'
18" full, 3'
2600 Mk+ (SF)
All plclft beds, 3" d.p
W 7
CL V)
000
LX H 2
V) U
Q a
0.
+
LU 0
LJJ
0 z
rn
.5
Z
0
V) E—
I U11
Ztn
Cle
U.J
�._ LU
Z
U.j U,
0
Oe
CL.
LL
< 0
r) >
< 03
0 '< <
co
Q
co
LIJ
a_ z
V)
Z
z
CL
DATE ]�20,'2ail
QEVISipri S_
" "p" Ll —5
Z
0
LU
z z
LU >-
>
0 0-
CL
0 Ln
z
< 0
0
06
> z
0
ce <
z
co
LIJ 0
CL z ce
0 16 2O
NA—
.1a 11, M I
PEVtS10N, 5th'
LP-6
O
V) 0
W Z
A
u
0 F-
2
uj
E
Z E
+
S) 3v
NC
0
c.
uj
,
0
OZ
Z
0
Z
0
LU
z z
LU >-
>
0 0-
CL
0 Ln
z
< 0
0
06
> z
0
ce <
z
co
LIJ 0
CL z ce
0 16 2O
NA—
.1a 11, M I
PEVtS10N, 5th'
LP-6
MATURE CONDITIONS GOETZ +STROPES
GULF PARK MEDIAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
r `�O�' �. � f ,
_r -. b ,t �ye m k Y. -i
��....� _ __...,,.._ ,� z .� i
n�
"4: t 1, x:
tins.. ., .. .. _ .*�.�.�R. ,YK. u; �'� `
1. _ __ .._.___.- -•: _•-,, ..- «_�.�:. �..� -„ ,r•... =sw�, t„�"v -% ,.. tea: ,{s�aa
'' .1f ..k: z. .n
.'
'' Y.- i
�r
7,. e
Ali
%71
I
MM
41%
. A41.jr
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5c. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration. What is Riprap? (Womble)
Page 1 of 1
What is Riprap?
Riprap lining a lake shore
Riprap
Concrete rubble used as riprap along
the San Francisco Bay shoreline
tkiprap Sufrsv.ly
*ia
1
i
Riprap Stairway
Riprap also known as rip rap, rubble, shot rock or rock armour or Rip -rap — is rock or other
material used to armor shorelines, streambeds, bridge abutments, pilings and other shoreline
structures against scour, water or ice erosion.
It is made from a variety of rock types, commonly rg_anite or limestone, and occasionally concrete
rubble from building and paving demolition. It can be used on any waterways or water containment
where there is potential for water erosion.
Protection mechanism
Riprap works by absorbing and deflecting the energy of waves before they reach the defended
structure. The size and mass of the riprap material absorbs the impact energy of waves, while the gaps
between the rocks trap and slow the flow of water, lessening its ability to erode soil or structures on
the coast. The mass of riprap also provides protection against impact damage by ice or debris, which
is particularly desirable for bridge supports and pilings.
It is frequently used to protect the base of old Edwardian and Victorian sea walls, which being
vertical are often undermined. The riprap absorbs the impact of the waves as they shoot up the wall
and then fall back down.
Riprap information from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements
Page 1 of 6
From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:18 PM
To: McCaughtryMary
Subject: RE: PELICAN BAY OWNERSHIP of water management system
Mary: This opinion is consistent with my belief that any improvements or water management facilities
built by PBID within this tract are the property of the Services Division. Please share this information with
the Board, Kyle and Kevin. Neil
From: McCaughtryMary [mailto:MaryMcCaughtry@colliergov.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:46 AM
To: Neil Dorrill
Cc: LukaszKyle; Jim Powers
Subject: FW: PELICAN BAY OWNERSHIP of water management system
Neil —see Heidi Ashton - Cicko's comments on berm ownership.
From: AshtonHeidi
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:34 AM
To: McCaughtryMary
Cc: Sheffield Michael; ZimmermanSue; KlatzkowJeff
Subject: FW: PELICAN BAY OWNERSHIP of water management system
Mary,
The issue presented is whether the county by virtue of holding drainage easements over certain property in
Pelican Bay would retain ownership over the improvements that the County constructs within its easement.
In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, Collier County would be the owner of the improvements
constructed within its drainage easement by the County with public funds for the Pelican Bay water
management system maintained and operated by the Pelican Bay Services Division, a department of Collier
County, as successor to the Pelican Bay Improvement District (PBID). The County will have the burden of
proving that the improvements that were installed were in fact part of the Pelican Bay water management
system.
Please note that I have not reviewed the drainage easements conveyed to the PBID or to Collier County. If
you would like me to review them, please let me know and have them sent to me.
Please note also that I have no recollection of a conversation with Mr. Jim Carroll in 2003 and that I do not
issue oral opinions, except during publicly noticed meetings.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
7Zei� irLon- -o "E.
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Land Use Section Chief
Phone (239) 252 -8400
Fax (239) 252 -6300
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements
ITEM NO.: Page 2 of 6
FILE NO.:
ROUTED TO:
DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE (orig. 9/89)
REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Date: February 21, 2012
To: Jeff Klatzkow
County Attorney's Office
From: Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Pelican Bay Services Division
Re: BERM OWNERSHIP
BACKGROUND OF REQUEST /PROBLEM:
In 2003 there was an opinion by Heidi Ashton, who at the time was working with Lisa
Barnett, a copy is attached. The current Pelican Bay Services Division Board is asking
about berm ownership again as we are seeking a permit to do some renovation work.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Please review and advise that if bond proceeds were used to construct the berm,
spreader swale and culverts, as part of the water management system, would that make
them county assets?
OTHER COMMENTS:
Please return by email at your earliest convenience.
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements
Page 3 of 6
PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Dave Trecker
DATE: October 30, 2003
SUBJECT: Berm Ownership
Jim Carroll, Chairman of the PBSD, called Heidi Ashton, the county
attorney with whom Lisa Barnett has been working in an effort to resolve the
berm ownership question. Jim reported that Heidi said unequivocally that the
Foundation owns the berm.
Jim queried Heidi about the argument put forth by Jim Ward that, because
the dyke was built with public funds, the dyke/berm is owned by the county.:
According to Jim, Heidi said that that had no bearing on berm ownership
and that, as far as she was concerned, the Foundation owns the berm.
Jim then reportedly contacted Jim Ward, told him of Heidi's position and
urged Ward to accept that decision, which is in the best interests of the
community. Ward apparently agreed.
I feel it is unlikely that we will get any of this in writing. But with the
position of a county attorney communicated to a community leader not
affiliated with the Foundation, we probably have the next best thing.
We owe Jim Carroll a debt of gratitude.
I have prepared an article for the PB Post indicating that the Foundation, not
the county, owns the berm.
:f J. Trecker Copy: Kyle Kinney
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements
Page 4 of 6
CHEFFY PASSIDOMO
WILSON & JOHNSON
EDWARD K. CHEFFY
BOARD CERTIFIED OVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LLnOATION ATTORNEY
JOHN M. PASSIDOMO
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
GEORGE A. WILSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
F. EDWARD JOHNSON
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS 6 ESTATES ATTORNEY
JOHN D. KEHOE'.
BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO
BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
JEFF M. NOVATT
DAVID A. ZUUAN
ATToRNEys AT LAW, LLP
821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE: (239) 261 -9300
FAX: (239) 261 -9782
E -MAIL: CPWJ *napleslaw.com
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. Board of Directors
FROM: Lisa H. Barnett
RE: Ownership of Foundation Common Areas
DATE: April 9, 2003
KEVIN A. DENTI
JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN
BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY
LOUIS W. CHEFFY
BOARD CERnFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
USA H. BARNETT
BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY
ANDREW H. REISS
WILLIAM J. DEMPSEY
STANLEY A. GUNNER, JR.
FRANK J. CAMPOAMOR
OF COUNSEL_
R. SCOTT PRICE
.;
You have asked that we review the ownership of the Pelican Bay berm, Oakmont Park,
Ridgewood Park and Hammock Oak Park, and determine what rights the Pelican Bay Services
District has in said properties, if any. In reaching the following opinions, we relied on ownership
and encumbrance searches performed by Attorneys Title Insurance Fund. The legal descriptions
searched were provided to us by the Foundation and we did not independently verify the
completeness of the legal descriptions. The documents disclosed by the searches were voluminous,
and in an effort to provide you with a coherent opinion, the statements of law and fact contained in
this memorandum are summary in nature. Upon request, we will gladly provide you with a more
detailed analysis.
Ownership.
We reviewed title to the south berm, the north berm, the berm west of St. Lucia, Hamock Oak
Park, Ridgewood Park, Oakmont Park (the "Properties ") and the portion of the berm owned by Gulf
Bay Land Investments, Inc., and Parcel J -1 Development, Inc. (the "Gulf Bay Property "). Title to
the Properties was conveyed by several quit claim deeds from WCI Communities (and its
predecessors in interest) to the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., and title to the Properties appears to
be vested in the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. The Properties are subject to various easements in
favor of the Pelican Bay Services District (formerly the Pelican Bay Improvement District) (the
"PBSD "). Although the easements are not all identical, all of the easements specifically provide that
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements
Page 5 of 6
the easements are for drainage purposes. This includes construction and maintenance of drainage
facilities. Additionally, all of the easements provide that the Grantee (i.e., PBSD) is responsible for
the maintenance of the easements and, in maintaining the easements, will not interfere with the
Grantor's right of ingress and egress (or the rights of ingress and egress of its successors and assigns).
The easements further provide that if the Grantees or their successors fail to use the easements for
the purpose intended, then the Grantee, its successors or assigns, will vacate the easement or relevant
portion thereof. Some of the easements specifically provide that they are private easements between
Grantors and Grantee and specifically state "neither the general public nor any purchaser of property
encumbered by this easement shall acquire any right, title or interest in or to the easement area."
Finally, it is worth noting that some of the easements state that the Grantor (i.e., WCI Communities
or their predecessors in interest) agrees for itself and its successors and assigns that it will be
responsible for any and all repairs, replacements and maintenance or restoration of improvements
and landscaping, including sodding over the easement area, except for repairs and replacements
required by the grantees activities.
As part of our review, we also reviewed the relevant plats. Again, although the dedications
in each plat differ, none of the plats contain language which would have the effect of dedicating any
of the PBSD drainage easements to the public. In fact, several of the plats specifically provide:
"Easements to the Pelican Bay Improvement District shown in the plat are shown merely for
informational purposes and are not dedicated hereby... Neither the public nor any purchaser shall
acquire any right, title or interest in or to the PBID easement areas by virtue of this plat."
Based on the above, it is our opinion that title to the Properties is vested in the Pelican Bay
Foundation, Inc., subject to the drainage easements in favor of the PBSD, which are private
easements and confer no rights on the public.
H. Anal,.
A general principle governing all easements is that the burden upon the servient estate must
not be increased to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time the
easement was created. Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139 (Fla. l" DCA 1984). Where an easement
specifically states the uses or purposes for which it was created, the use of the easement must be
strictly confined those purposes and cannot be enlarged by any change in the use or character of the
dominant estate. Id. Further, although the courts recognize that. easements carry with. them an
implied right to do what is necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, that ri ght is liited and
must be exercised in a reasonable manner so as not to injuriously increase the burden on the servient
estate. Id. Thus, where, as here, the easements specifically state that they are for drainage purposes
and maintenance of drainage facilities, the PBSD does not have right to expand the scope of the
easements.
Another principle of law governing easements is that an easement is distinct from the right
to occupy and enjoy the land itself. It gives no title to the land on which it is imposed and is not a
possessory interest. Platt v. Pietras, 382 So.2d 414 (Fla. 5'b DCA 1980). Although the PBSD may
2
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements
Page 6 of 6
own the actual utility facilities placed within the easement areas, the PBSD does not have any claim
to ownership of the land and cannot claim a possessory interest in the land encumbered by the
easements. Also, the easements specifically prohibit the PBSD from interfering with the rights of
ingress or egress of Grantor and its successors and assigns.
Finally, it is our understanding that the PBSD has taken the position that it is not required to
comply with the Declaration and General Protective Covenants for Pelican Bay (the 'Declaration ").
Somd of the easements in favor of the PBSD were recorded prior to the Declaration (copies of those
easements are enclosed). The subsequent recording of the Declaration did not bind the PBSD since
the PBSD does not appear to have joined in and consented to the Declaration. However, there are
also easements in favor of the PBSD that were recorded subsequent to the Declaration. The
Declaration contains covenants that run with the land. This means that any person or entity with any
right, title or interest in the land, takes that interest subject to the Declaration once it is recorded.
Although there is case law in Florida which provides that a governmental entity which takes title to
real property by eminent domain is not subject to restrictive covenants, we were not able to locate
case law which exempts a governmental entity with only easement rights from complying with use
restrictions governing the use of real property.
Based on the above, it is our opinion that the Declaration is binding on the PBSD only with
regard to its rights to use the easements that were recorded subsequent to Declaration. However,
regardless of whetherthe PBSD must comply with the Declaration, the PBSD does not have the right
to expand the scope of the easements granted and any signage or improvements made by the PBSD
that are not reasonably related to the use of the easements for drainage and maintenance purposes
would be prohibited without the consent of the Foundation. , ,
F:\ wpdocslREXPe &anBayFoucdatiodSoard of Dascton-- benn&Oak=nt wpd
3
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 1 of 7
WilSoo7MVIOr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Laney, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc,
FROM: Dan Waters, PE
DATE: November 24, 2010
SUBJECT: Pelican Bay South Berm
Erosion Considerations / Side Slope Restoration
Permitting_ History
The 1,200 acre Pelican Bay subdivision was originally permitted by the SFWMD as Permit No.
04178 -C in August 1978 and by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The original permit
approvals authorized the construction of a 50 foot wide berm and spreader swale from Seagate
Drive along the western boundary of the developed areas of Pelican Bay northward to what is
now the Montenero condominium. The berm was designed to serve both as a recreational
facility and as part of the infrastructure of the Pelican Bay surface water management system.
The berm was permitted to have a ten foot asphalt path on its top; the asphalt path remains in
place and serves as a shared -use pedestrian trail as well as the travel way for trams conveying
residents and visitors to the beaches, The berm also acts as the perimeter containment that
allows for stormwater to be stored within the detention areas on the east side of the berm while
stormwater control structures that are placed intermittently along the berm's length discharge
the runoff from the developed areas west to the existing wetland areas adjacent to Clam Bay at
a controlled rate.
The permitted berm cross section consisted of a four foot high berm with four to one side
slopes, a ten foot wide asphalt path on top of the berm, and an eight foot wide spreader Swale
on the western side of the berm. A copy of the permitted berm section is shown in the center of
sheet 41 of the Water Management Plan attached to this memorandum as Attachment A. The
permitted section consists of a 50 foot wide envelope (a 42 foot wide berm and an eight foot
spreader swale).
Current Permitting Requirements / Design Standards
The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) contains standards for berm and
embankment slopes and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation
Manual provides standards for sideslopes for pedestrian facilities.
LDC Section 4.06.05.J provides for the required treatment of slopes (a copy of the LDC Section
has been included as Attachment B). For slopes of four to one (horizontal to vertical) or flatter,
grass groundcover may be used as stabilization. Embankments with slopes no steeper than
three to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize trees, groundcover (pinestraw, mulch, etc.),
ornamental grasses, and shrubs as stabilization. Embankment slopes that are not steeper than
two to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize rip -rap or other forms of scour protection.
Section 8.6 of the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual provides the criteria for Shared Use Paths
(a copy of Section 8.6 has been provided as Attachment C). Section 8.6.5 of the FDOT
standards suggests that a two foot wide flat area be provided adjacent to paths that are typically
7/51:1Do7, 190613 Vac 011 UvATERS
+.0
05335{ {M2 ECOA -;290%
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 2 of 7
Pelican Bay South Berm Page 2 of 4
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
utilized by pedestrians, joggers, in -line, skaters, and bicyclists. The intent of this two foot wide
flat area is to provide an area of relief and recovery outside of the pathway for pedestrian users
prior to the steeper side slope back to existing grade. This two foot flat area for recovery was
not proposed as part of the original design of the berm / pathway system, however we
recommend that it be added as a part of the improvements to bring the path to the current
required standards.
Problem Statement / Existino Condition
Based on several site reviews and the compilation of survey information for the berm, the most
significant maintenance problem on the south berm is the erosion of the sideslopes on the
western side of the berm adjacent to the preserved wetland areas. As a part of this evaluation,
WilsonMiller Stantec performed topographic survey cross sections of the berm at 200 foot
intervals; the existing- condition survey information was then interpolated to create cross
sections at 50 foot intervals for use in evaluating the current condition of the berm. The plan
containing the existing condition survey information is included with this memorandum.
A review of the existing- condition survey indicates that severe erosion of the side slopes has
occurred along the western side of the berm. In contrast, the eastern side of the berm has not
experienced significant erosion from the original design standard. It appears that the erosion
has occurred from the toe of slope of the berm and proceeded up the slope toward the pathway.
In this case, the erosion appears to have potentially been caused by either storm surge or grass
die off / lack of slope stabilization instead of wash outs from stormwater runoff.
Some of the concerns created by the eroded condition of the berm are as follows:
• Drop Off Hazard: As stated above, the design plan and existing condition do not
provide any flat area for relief from the side of the path to the bottom of the berm. This
could potentially create an unsafe condition for tram operation, bikers, in -line skaters,
or pedestrians. The lack of the flat area to provide relief for someone that inadvertently
leaves the path is exacerbated by the fact that the eroded slopes are extremely steep
in some areas and make recovery difficult.
• Maintenance Difficulties: Generally, a four to one (horizontal to vertical) side slope or
flatter is required to allow for the use of riding mowers for maintenance. Based on
conversation with Pelican Bay Foundation staff and Pelican Bay Services Division staff,
the deficient portions of the berm are currently too steep to be cut with a mower and
t 113,7010 , 220471 - Vw: / • VWATEPS
WMI -M.M ECOR A3313
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 3 of 7
Pelican Bay South Berm Page 3 of 4
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
maintenance is currently performed with weed whackers.
• Aesthetics: As stated above, the severe erosion makes maintenance of the grass
difficult and therefore creates aesthetic issues.
• Berm Stability: The continued erosion of the berm side slopes is likely to con inue and
could eventually undermine the integrity of the berm and pathway.
Proposed Remedies
The correction of the erosion obviously requires that the berm sidesiopes be restored and that
the appropriate slope coverage be provided to provide stabilization and prevent future erosion.
Potential stabilization options that have been investigated include the following:
Option 1 - Rip Rap at Toe -of- Slope: An on -site investigation indicated that the vast
majority of the erosion occurred at the toe of slope of the berm along the western side.
This erosion at the toe of slope may be caused either by the movement of the tidal
waters within the wetland areas or could be a result of the die -off of grasses at the toe of
slope that are not tolerant of water with high salinity. The placement of rip rap at the
base of the restored slope would provide a maintenance free solution and provide the
stability for the portions of the slope above the mean high water levels. Reference sheet
two of the plans for two typical cross sections depicting the restored berm with rip rap
protection at the toe of slope. The two sections evaluated for Option 1 are as follows:
o Restoration of the berm to its original cross section with four feet of rip rap at the
toe of slope on the western side and a sodded four to one slopes to the top of
berm. This alternative would include placing additional along the west side of the
berm to "reclaim" the original berm footprint and would include trimming of
vegetation to allow for the construction to occur.
a Restoration of the berm within its existing footprint with eight feet of rip -rap at a
two to one slope from the existing toe of slope to the top of the berm. This
alternative would either eliminate the need to trim the existing vegetation or
require only minimal trimming. It would also preserve the low areas that currently
hold water adjacent to the existing toe of slope at their existing elevation.
Option 2 - Slope Stabilization Product at Toe -of- Slope; There are a wide variety of slope
stabilization products available for use in this type of application. These systems are
typically high strength cellular confinement systems that can be filled with soil material
and planted with sod to provide stable slope protection from concentrated flows and long
term erosion. If, as suspected, the high salinity levels in the brackish water within the
preserved wetlands are responsible for the die -off of the grasses at the toe -of- slope, the
grasses would continue to die -off if planted on the cellular confinement system and
periodic replacement of the sod would be required. A picture of a typical cellular
confinement system is provided below.
11127ROIO - 3804;1 - VW. 1 - CWATERS
N010?066 =010 - ECOR .00?t5
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 4 of 7
Pelican Bay South Berm Page 4 of 4
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
Option 3 - Different Sod Varieties: If neither of the above two methods are utilized for the
slope restoration, it would be advisable to test and observe the performance of a variety
of sod types in small areas prior to installing the best sold alternative along the entire
length of the restored berm. Typically a berm of this type, where irrigation is not
available, would have been planted with bahia sod. Bahia has poor tolerance to shade
and saltwater, and in light of the fact that the erosion has generally occurred on the
western side of the berm, the influence of the brackish water in Clam Bay and the lack of
sunlight due to the shading provided by the encroachment of vegetation on the western
side of the berm, have likely been detrimental to the bahia sod planted on the western
side of the berm. The ideal sod to be planted along the western side of the berm should
have a combination of good drought tolerance (because no irrigation its available), good
shade tolerance (because the vegetation along the western side of the berm blocks
sunlight), and a high tolerance to salinity.
Due to the uncertainties associated with the survivability of grasses in options two and three, it
is our suggestion that one of the alternatives shown on sheet two the plan for Option 1 be
pursued.
Construction Considerations
As a part of this evaluation, we conducted a site visit to review the existing berm with an
earthwork contractor to receive an evaluation of the existing conditions and considerations
related to access and staging of materials.
It is anticipated that two weeks will be required to complete the construction of the berm
restoration. The two week timeframe assumes that the work could be completed in the end of
the dry season (April or May) to avoid delays as a result of washouts caused by heavy rains
during the construction. To ensure safety during construction, access to the berm by
pedestrians and tram traffic would have to be eliminated or restricted to early morning and
evening hours (periods during which work is not occurring).
The construction work could be completed using small rubber -tired vehicles that would not
damage the existing asphalt path and require repairs. An Opinion of Probable Cost has been
prepared for the two alternative cross sections for Option 1 (shown on sheet two of the plans).
The unit costs included in the attached Opinion of Probable Cost (Reference Attachment D)
assume the following:
• The parking lot at the Pelican Bay Foundation can be used for storage and staging of
materials (rip -rap, filter fabric, fill material, vehicles, etc.);
• The turnarounds on the berm, specifically adjacent to Heron Point, the Glenview, and
the boardwalk, can be utilized for staging of materials;
• Construction traffic traveling along the berm will be able to drop off material at locations
along the berm and exit at the southern end of the berm through the county park
(instead of having to turn around and travel back north to the Pelican Bay Foundation
site);
11:23:2010.22047! . VW. I . DWATERS
I0 0M.2D1 ECOR I=15
rJ
0
ONE
SELECTIVE TRIMYfNO
OF VEGETATION
4'
42 FOOT
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 5 of 7
10'
2'
(MIN)
V
WEST
EXIST
42 I= PERMITTED BERM CORRIDOR
2'
2'
F7
6' VARIES (MIN) 10' 7
(MIN)
14'
N
90.11M P
Sam
(TYP)
REFERENCE MEMORANDUM
FOSS SLOPE STABILIZATION
OPTIONS
TAE INTO EXISTING
f
GRADE
EXISTING SLOPE
STABILIZED' TYPE B'
",
TO R19"I
TO LBR 40
4 (TYP)
�
-� ",!' 'TYPICAL ERODED
1
.,•. BERM
:SLgK TO W REPAIRED . �.
-
RAP W/ FILTEi?
,.
- ;FABRIC UNDERUIYMEN7 AREA, PROPOSED TO BE FlLLED
�I
.
- SILT FENCE AT pI "NG..
70 RESTORE BERM SLOPE
TOE-OF -SLOPE
RIP RAP AT 2:1 SLOPE
STARTING AT TOE OF
EXISTING SLOPE
TYPICAI RFSTORFD SHARED USE
PATH
SECTION
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 6 of 7
i
Project: Pelican Bay Berm Repairs
���„��
PIN, N0103 -086 -020
Caic by DW / 1319 11/18/10
New Directions In Planning, Design & Engineering Checked by DW 11319 11/18110
Pelican Bay Berm Repairs
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
OPTION 1 - RESTORE TO ORIGINAL PERMITTED CROSS SECTION
Description
Quantity Unit Unit Price
Total Amount
Mobilization
1 LS $2,000.00 ! LS
$2,000.00
Selective Trimming
1 LS $6,000.00 ! LS
$6,000.00
Silt Fence
4.285 LF $1.85 ! LF
$7,927.25
Excavation and Grading
1 LS $9,150.00 / LS
$9,150.00
Rip Rap w/ Filter Fabric
2.000 SY $36.45 / SY
$72,900,00
Fill Material (Imported including compaction loss) 1,200 CY $15.75 / CY
$18,900.00
Bahia Sod
5,710 SY $1.62 / SY
$9,250.20
Sub Total =
$126,127.45
20 % Contingency =
$25,225.49
Project Total =
$151,352.94
ttrlLSUta .I2or0e, v.r� � .DMATERS
uvq
,.pr03.M8030 . [CON ]]J15
WlsonMiller
New Direotloas in Plawft Design & Engineering
neanom.axaae -v.r , avarEas
w :]
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien)
Page 7 of 7
Project: Pelican Bay Berm Repairs
PIN: N0103 -086 -020
Calc by,. DW / 1319 11118!10
Checked W. DW / 1319 11118/10
Pelican Bay Berm Repairs I
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
OPTION 2 - REPAIR SLOPE TO MINIMIZED CROSS SECTION WIDT
Description
Quantity Unit
Unit Price
TotaiAmount
Mobilization
1 LS
$2,000.00 / LS
$2,000.00
Selective Trimming
1 LS
$6,000.00 / LS
$6,000.00
Silt Fence
4,285 LF
$1.85 / LF
$7,927.25
Excavation and Grading
1 LS
$9,150.00 ! LS
$9,150.00
Rip Rap w/ Fitter Fabric
1600 SY
$36.45 / SY
$136,510.00
Fill Material (Imported including compaction loss)
1,200 CY
$15.75 / CY
$18,900.00
Bahia Sad
3,910 SY
$1.62 / SY
$6,334.20
Sub Total = $186,821.45
20 % Contingency = $37,364.29
Project Total= $224,185.74
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5d. Administrator's Report. Revisit Proposal to Resurface Pelican Bay B ulevard Early (O'Brien)
Page 1 of 2
From: ChesneyBarbara
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:12 AM
To: FederNorman; VlietJohn; CasalanguidaNick; GossardTravis; TeachScott; SheffieldMichael; OchsLeo;
Cc: MarcellaJeanne; BetancurNatali
Subject: FW: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request
To all: Please see Mr. Chandler's response below. I am closing this issue out.
Thanks
Barb
From: John Chandler [ mailto :johnchandler219 @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:21 AM
To: ChesneyBarbara
Subject: Re: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request
The Pelican Bay Services Division Board has decided, at this time, not to further consider loaning money to the County to advance
the scheduled repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard.
However, our PBSD Board Chairman recently sent a letter to Commissioner Hiller, pointing out the deteriorated condition of PBB
and our sidewalks and asking that she and the other commissioners work together to see that the County's road and
sidewalk maintenance budget is significantly increased.
Please advise other interested parties of our position.
John Chandler
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:15 AM, ChesneyBarbara <BarbaraChesney(dcollier og v.net> wrote:
Mr. Chandler: Good morning. I am checking back with you to see if you are going to continue to move for-,- and *ti ith the
accelerated resurfacing request.
Thank you
Barbara Chesney
GMD Administration
From: ChesneyBarbara
Sent: Monday, December 05, 20114:30 PM
To: iohnchandler219 (&grnail.com
Cc: FederNorman; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; VlietJohn; GossardTravis; TeachScott
Subject: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request
Mr. Chandler:
I appreciate the information below. I will check back with you/staff first of March to see whether or not you wish to
continue to move forward with this item. Thank you again for advising.
Barb
From: John Chandler [ mailto :iohnchandler219(&,P- mail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 20114:25 PM
To: ChesneyBarbara
Cc: OchsLeo; FederNorman; CasalanguidaNick; VlietJohn; GossardTravis; TeachScott; ResnickLisa; Neil dm fl.com;
SheffieldMichael; BetancurNatali; HillerGeorgia
Subject: Re: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request
Since our Board has committed to holding public workshops on this topic, I can't see it approving the proposed transaction before
March.
John Chandler
PBSD Board Member
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5d. Administrator's Report. Revisit Proposal to Resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard Early (O'Brien)
Page 2 of 2
Collier County *Tentative FY2011 -2012 Overlay Program
Pelican Bay Roadway Asphalt Rating
Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 (Oct. 1, 2011 - Sept. 30, 2012)
"Siashpine CL ( Bentwood Dr. to Dead End)
510/3
* *Glenview PI (Pelican Bay Blvd. to Dead End)
52%
**Willowwood Ln. (Oakmont Pkwy)
52%
"Buttonbush Ln. (Dead End to Dead End)
56%
King Bird Ct. (Buttonbush Ln. to Dead End)
58%
Tramore (Greentree to Dead End)
55%
*Whimbrel Ct. (Buttonbush I n. to Dead End)
60%
Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. aka West Blvd. (Seagate Dr. to Pelican Bay Blvd)
60%
Bentwood Dr. (Ridgewood Dr. to Ridgewood Dr.)
60%
Pelican Bay Blvd. N. &S. (US41 to US41)
61%
Lake Vista Ct. (Ridgewood to Dead End)
62%
Oakmont Pkwy. (Greentree Dr. to Pelican Bay Blvd.)
65%
Lynnmore (Greentree Dr. to Dead End)
66%
Hammock Oak (Pelican Bay Blvd to VBR)
67%
Knollwood Ct. (Tallow Tree Ct. to
70%
Tallow Tree Ct. (Bentwood Dr. to
71%
Pine Side Ln. (Dead end to Dead end - both sides of Oakmont Pkwy.)
74%
Hollybriar Ln. (Ridgewood Dr. to Dead End)
75%
Tamarind Ct. (Ridgewood Dr. to Dead End)
76%
Crayton Rd. (Pelican Bay Blvd. to Dead End)
77%
Shadow Lake Ln. (Dead end to dead end)
80%
Ridgewood Dr. (Gulf Park to Laurel Oak)
80%
Greentree Dr. (Gulf Park - Oakmont Pkwy.)
82%
Gulf Park Dr.
82%
Arrowhead Dr. (Oakmont Pkwy. to dead end)
82%
Pine Creek Ln. (Dead End to Dead End off of Oakmont Pkwy.)
96%
*as of February 16, 2012, budget permitting, these roads are tentatively scheduled for resurfacing in FY 2011 -2012
** these roads pending or already complete FY 2011 -2012
F
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Vehicles
Due from Property Appraiser
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
Accrued Wages Payable
Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012
Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012
(Unaudited)
Assets
2,322,825.44
96,538.00
$ 2,419,363.44
$ 2,419,363.44
Liabilities and Fund Balance
$ 916.22
20,230.65
1,292,615.54
1,105,601.03
$ 21,146.87
2,398,216.57
$ 2,419,363.44
Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 87,700.00 $ 82,816.31 $ 4,883.69
Water Management Field Operations
Payroll Expense
Pelican Bay Services
51,100.00 $
49,861.35 $
1,238.65
Engineering Fees
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
5,000.00
236.25
4,763.75
Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012
14,000.00
2,900.00
812.65
Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012
Landscape Materials /Replanting Program
8,500.00
200.00
(Unaudited)
200.00
Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab)
22,600.00
9,400.00
Annual
YTD
YTD
1,500.00
-
Budget
Budget
Actual
Variance
Operating Revenues:
286.42
113.58
Temporary Labor
42,400.00
Carryforward
$ 1,122,300.00 $
1,122,300.00
$ 1,122,300.00
$ -
Special Assessment - Water Management Admin
666,300.00
586,344.00
592,676.96
6,332.96
Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification
1,907,800.00
1,678,864.00
1,696,831.19
17,967.19
Special Assessment Past Due
-
-
2,603.19
2,603.19
Charges for Services
1,500.00
-
900.00
Surplus Property Sales
450.00
-
-
1,700.00
Insurance Payment for Damages
-
-
-
5,400.00
Interest
15,300.00
6,373.00
2,695.88
(3,677.12)
Total Operating Revenues
$ 3,713,200.00 $
3,393,881.00
$ 3,417,107.22
$ 23,226.22
Operating Expenditures:
7,488.00
5,012.00
Clothing and Uniforms
1,100.00
Water Management Administration
720.38
(120.38)
Payroll Expense
$ 41,400.00 $
15,900.00
$ 15,844.98
$ 55.02
Emergency Maintenace and Repairs
8,800.00
-
-
-
IT Direct Capital
400.00
200.00
200.00
-
IT Office Automation /Billing Hr.
4,800.00
2,400.00
2,200.00
200.00
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
84,500.00
42,300.00
42,250.00
50.00
Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment
13,400.00
6,700.00
6,700.00
-
Other Contractural Services
26,900.00
11,200.00
8,216.00
2,984.00
Telephone
3,900.00
1,600.00
1,197.30
402.70
Postage and Freight
3,000.00
200.00
107.69
92.31
Rent Buildings and Equipment
11,300.00
4,700.00
5,183.00
(483.00)
Insurance - General
1,200.00
600.00
600.00
-
Printing, Binding and Copying
2,300.00
200.00
-
200.00
Clerk's Recording Fees
2,000.00
200.00
-
200.00
Advertising
2,000.00
200.00
-
200.00
Other Office and Operating Supplies
2,000.00
800.00
232.34
567.66
Training and Education
1,100.00
500.00
85.00
415.00
Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 87,700.00 $ 82,816.31 $ 4,883.69
Water Management Field Operations
Payroll Expense
$ 132,800.00 $
51,100.00 $
49,861.35 $
1,238.65
Engineering Fees
12,000.00
5,000.00
236.25
4,763.75
Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc.
14,000.00
2,900.00
812.65
2,087.35
Landscape Materials /Replanting Program
8,500.00
200.00
-
200.00
Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab)
22,600.00
9,400.00
2,528.25
6,871.75
Plan Review Fees
1,500.00
-
-
-
Other Contractural Services
1,000.00
400.00
286.42
113.58
Temporary Labor
42,400.00
21,300.00
22,120.00
(820.00)
Telephone
500.00
200.00
144.16
55.84
Trash and Garbage
5,700.00
3,300.00
2,510.87
789.13
Motor Pool Rental Charge
100.00
-
-
-
Insurance - General
2,300.00
1,150.00
1,150.00
Insurance - Auto
900.00
450.00
450.00
Building Repairs & Mntc.
1,700.00
-
-
-
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
5,400.00
2,300.00
846.59
1,453.41
Fuel and Lubricants
8,900.00
3,700.00
1,061.42
2,638.58
Tree Triming
30,000.00
12,500.00
7,488.00
5,012.00
Clothing and Uniforms
1,100.00
600.00
720.38
(120.38)
Page 1 of 3
I I
Personal Safety Equipment
Fertilizer and Herbicides
Other Repairs and Maintenance
Other Operating Supplies and Equipment
Total Water Management Field Operating
Right of Way Beautification - Operating
Payroll Expense
Emergency Repairs and Maintenance
IT Direct Capital
Office Automation
Other Contractural Services
Telephone
Postage
Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage
Insurance - General
Printing, Binding and Copying
Clerk's Recording
Legal Advertising
Office Supplies General
Training and Education
Total Right of Way Beautification Operating
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Payroll Expense
Emergency Maintenance and Repairs
Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.)
Pest Control
Landscape Incidentals
Other Contractural Services
Temporary Labor
Telephone
Electricity
Trash and Garbage
Rent Equipment
Motor Pool Rental Charge
Insurance - General
Insurance - Auto
Building Repairs and Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
Fuel and Lubricants
Licenses, Permits, Training
Tree Triming
Clothing and Uniforms
Personal Safety Equipment
Fertilizer and Herbicides
Landscape Maintenance
Mulch /Landscape Materials
Pathway Repairs
Sprinkler Maintenance
Painting Supplies
Traffic Signs
Minor Operating Equipment
Other Operating Supplies
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating
Total Operating Expenditures
500.00
200.00
491.34
(291.34)
98,400.00
34,200.00
30,073.11
4,126.89
1,500.00
600.00
381.25
218.75
2,500.00
2,500.00
2,879.87
(379.87)
$ 394,300.00 $
152,000.00 $
124,041.91 $
27,958.09
$ 42,600.00 $
7,400.00
400.00
14,100.00
34,300.00
3,900.00
3,000.00
12,500.00
500.00
2,600.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
1,500.00
$ 129,300.00 $
$ 807,300.00 $
3,300.00
89,900.00
5,000.00
2,500.00
29,500.00
190,100.00
3,200.00
3,400.00
17,000.00
2,500.00
300.00
8,800.00
10,000.00
1,700.00
25,100.00
67,300.00
800.00
63,600.00
9,400.00
3,000.00
62,000.00
46,000.00
53,100.00
6,000.00
30,000.00
800.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
9,000.00
$ 1,556,600.00 $
$ 2,289,200.00 $
Page 2 of 3
16,400.00 $
200.00
7,100.00
14,300.00
1,600.00
400.00
5,200.00
250.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
1,000.00
600.00
47,650.00 $
310,500.00 $
38,800.00
2,100.00
1,000.00
16,800.00
101,200.00
1,300.00
1,400.00
5,400.00
1,000.00
100.00
4,400.00
5,000.00
700.00
10,500.00
25,500.00
300.00
56,500.00
3,000.00
1,300.00
22,900.00
29,200.00
39,800.00
2,500.00
9,200.00
300.00
1,300.00
1,300.00
3,800.00
697,100.00 $
984,450.00 $
16,324.12 $ 75.88
200.00
-
7,000.00
100.00
12,283.00
2,017.00
1,198.30
401.70
(92.28)
492.28
5,600.60
(400.60)
250.00
-
-
200.00
200.00
-
200.00
371.47
628.53
105.00
495.00
43,240.21 $ 4,409.79
290,215.00
36,643.67
2,325.00
471.44
15,814.00
100,487.74
897.18
904.72
5,398.95
1,114.67
76.93
4,400.00
5,000.00
11,750.57
11,042.43
101.94
57,759.25
2,942.51
644.34
22,975.97
31,326.75
22,517.40
3,687.58
28.66
1,333.96
2,713.49
632,574.15
882,672.58
20,285.00
2,156.33
(225.00)
528.56
986.00
712.26
402.82
495.28
1.05
(114.67)
23.07
700.00
(1,250.57)
14,457.57
198.06
(1,259.25)
57.49
655.66
(75.97)
(2,126.75)
17,282.60
2,500.00
5,512.42
271.34
1,300.00
(33.96)
1,086.51
$ 64,525.85
$ 101,777.42
Capital Expenditures:
Water Management Field Operations
Other Machinery and Equipment
General Improvements
Total Water Management Field Operations Capital
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Autos and Trucks
Other Machinery and Equipmeny
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital
Total Capital Expenditures
Total Operating Expenditures
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Transfer to Fund 322
Tax Collector Fees
Property Appraiser Fees
Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations)
Reserves for Equipment
Reserved for Attrition
Revenue Reserve
Total Non - Operating Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Net Profit /(Loss)
1 1 1
f
$
1,000.00
$
-
$
$
73,300.00
$
1,000.00
$
-
$
$
94,800.00
$
102,000.00
$
96,600.00
$ 96,538.00
$
62.00
1,000.00
-
-
$
103,000.00
$
96,600.00
$ 96,538.00
$
62.00
$
104,000.00
$
96,600.00
$ 96,538.00
$
62.00
$
2,393,200.00
$
1,081,050.00
$ 979,210.58
$
101,839.42
$ 436,500.00 $
436,500.00 $
436,500.00 $ -
79,600.00
47,760.00
45,790.16 1,969.84
73,300.00
40,315.00
38,134.55 2,180.45
538,000.00
540,300.00
540,300.00 -
94,800.00
94,800.00
94,800.00 -
(31,700.00)
(31,700.00)
(31,700.00)
129,500.00
-
-
$ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,127,975.00 $ 1,123,824.71 $ 4,150.29
$ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,209,025.00 $ 2,103,035.29 $ 105,989.71
$ - $ 1,184,856.00 $ 1,314,071.93 $ 129,215.93
Page 3 of 3
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012
Street Lighting Fund 778
(Unaudited)
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenue (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Assets
501,143.98
Liabilities and Fund Balance
4,055.00
$ 501,143.98
$ 501,143.98
$ 4,055.00
194,157.20
302,931.78
497,088.98
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 501,143.98
Street Lighting Field Operations
Payroll Expense
62,500.00
24,000.00
23,628.48
371.52
Emergency Maintenance & Repairs
9,600.00
-
-
-
Other Contractual Services
800.00
300.00
-
300.00
Pelican Bay Services
400.00
200.00
144.16
55.84
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
44,200.00
18,400.00
14,452.43
Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012
Insurance - General
800.00
400.00
Street Lighting Fund
778
- FY 2012
900.00
450.00
450.00
-
(Unaudited)
1,700.00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
Annual
1,800.00
YTD
YTD
Fuel and Lubricants
11200.00
500.00
Budget
393.20
Budget
Actual
100.00
Variance
Operating Revenues:
Personal Safety Equipment
500.00
200.00
-
200.00
Electrical Contractors
Carryforward
$ 157,600.00
$
157,600.00
$ 157,600.00
$
-
Curent Ad Valorem Tax
436,800.00
384,384.00
384,027.50
$
(356.50)
Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax
$
-
Insurance Claim
18,330.25
$
18,330.25
Interest
4,500.00
1,485.00
386.76
$
(1,098.24)
Total Operating Revenues
598,900.00
543,469.00
560,344.51
16,875.51
Operating Expenditures:
Street Lighting Administration
Payroll Expense
$ 41,400.00
$
15,900.00
$ 15,844.86
$
55.14
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
5,300.00
$
2,650.00
2,650.00
$
-
Other Contractural Services
26,900.00
$
11,208.33
10,216.00
$
992.33
Telephone
3,900.00
$
1,600.00
894.02
$
705.98
Postage and Freight
2,000.00
$
200.00
107.69
$
92.31
Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage
12,100.00
$
5,000.00
5,425.95
$
(425.95)
Insurance - General
300.00
$
150.00
150.00
$
-
Office Supplies General
800.00
$
300.00
15.36
$
284.64
Other Office and Operating Supplies
1,000.00
$
400.00
-
$
400.00
Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 93,700.00
37,408.33
35,303.88
2,104.45
Street Lighting Field Operations
Payroll Expense
62,500.00
24,000.00
23,628.48
371.52
Emergency Maintenance & Repairs
9,600.00
-
-
-
Other Contractual Services
800.00
300.00
-
300.00
Telephone
400.00
200.00
144.16
55.84
Electricity
44,200.00
18,400.00
14,452.43
3,947.57
Insurance - General
800.00
400.00
400.00
-
Insurance - Auto
900.00
450.00
450.00
-
Building Maintenace & Repairs
1,700.00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
4,300.00
1,800.00
905.02
894.98
Fuel and Lubricants
11200.00
500.00
106.80
393.20
Other Equipment Repairs
200.00
100.00
64.40
35.60
Personal Safety Equipment
500.00
200.00
-
200.00
Electrical Contractors
7,300.00
3,700.00
3,899.00
(199.00)
Light Bulb Ballast
12,400.00
3,300.00
2,144.50
1,155.50
Page 1 of 2
Total Street Lighting Field Operating
Total Field Expenditures
Capital Expenditures:
Street Lighting Field Operations
Other Machinery /Equipment
General Improvements
Total Capital Expenditures
Total Operating Expenditures
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Tax Collector Fees
Property Appraiser Fees
Reserve for Future Construction
Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations)
Reserves for Equipment
Revenue Reserve
Total Non - Operating Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Net Profit /(Loss)
146,800.00
240,500.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
53,350.00 46,194.79
90,758.33 81,498.67
7,155.21
9,259.66
200.00 - 200.00
200.00 - 200.00
241,500.00 90,958.33 81,498.67 9,459.66
13,500.00
8,100.00
7,723.40
376.60
8,900.00
4,895.00
-
4,895.00
228,100.00
228,100.00
228,100.00
54,900.00
54,900.00
54,900.00
-
30,000.00
30,000.00
30,000.00
-
22,000.00
-
-
357,400.00
325,995.00
320,723.40
5,271.60
598,900.00
416,953.33
402,222.07
14,731.26
-
126,515.67
158,122.44
31,606.77
Page 2 of 2
i
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012
Clam Bay Fund 320
(Unaudited)
Assets
$ 422,055.11
422,055.11
$ 422,055.11
Liabilities and Fund Balance
2,762.50
303,213.58
116,079.03
2,762.50
419,292.61
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 422,055.11
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward
Special Assessment
Special Assessment Past Due
Fund 111
Transfer from Tax Collector
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenditures:
Clam Bay Restoration
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Tree Trimming
Other Equipment Repairs
Aerial Photography
Minor Operating
Other Operating Supplies
Total Clam Bay Restoration
Clam Bay Ecosystem
Engineering Fees
Other Contractual Services
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012
Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual
$ 289,511.88 $
127,100.00
34,000.00
700.00
Variance
289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ -
113,119.00 113,032.16 (86.84)
34,000.00 34,000.00 -
500.00 584.55 84.55
$ 451,311.88 $ 437,130.88 $ 437,128.59 $ (2.29)
$ 163,368.75 $ 68,100.00 $ 17,657.75 $ 50,442.25
70,151.60 29,200.00 9,728.00 19,472.00
29,000.00 12,100.00 - 12,100.00
349.77 - - -
7,500.00 - -
588.01 - - -
1,000.00 - - -
$ 271,958.13 $ 109,400.00 $ 27,385.75 $
$ 7,253.75 $
143,000.00
Total Clam Bay Ecosystem
$
150,253.75 $
Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures
$
422,211.88 $
Non - Operating Expenditures:
100.00 $ -
1,200.00 -
01
1,300.00 $ - $
110,700.00 $ 27,385.75 $
82,014.25
100.00
1,200.00
1,300.00
83,314.25
Tax Collector Fees
$
3,900.00
$
2,340.00
$
2,260.64
$
79.36
Property Appraiser Fees
2,600.00
1,558.00
1,482.37
75.63
Revenue Reserve
6,700.00
-
-
Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations)
15,900.00
15,900.00
15,900.00
-
Total Non - Operating Expenditures
$
29,100.00
$
19,798.00
$
19,643.01
$
154.99
Total Expenditures
$
451,311.88
$
130,498.00
$
47,028.76
$
83,469.24
Net Profit /(Loss)
$
-
$
306,632.88
$
390,099.83
$
83,466.95
Page 1 of 1
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012
Capital Projects Fund 322
(Unaudited)
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
$ 2,575,437.06
Liabilities and Fund Balance
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
Goods Received Inv. Received
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
47,013.85
7,653.85
2,582,848.52
(62,079.16)
2,575,437.06
$ 2,575,437.06
54,667.70
2,520,769.36
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,575,437.06
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward
Transfer from Fund 109 General
Foundation Payment for Crosswalks
Special Assessment
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
Pelican Bay Services
10,300.00
$ 6,180.00
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
$
277.45
Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012
6,800.00
Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012
3,896.51
(Unaudited)
17,500.00
Annual YTD
YTD
Budget Budget
Actual
Variance
$ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04
$ 2,553,384.04 $
-
436,500.00 436,500.00
436,500.00
-
- -
53,487.00
53,487.00
331,900.00 292,072.00
295,124.59
3,052.59
19,500.00 6,435.00
4,098.50
(2,336.50)
$ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,288,391.04
$ 3,342,594.13 $
54,203.09
Operating Expenditures:
Irrigation & Landscaping
Hardscape Project (50066)
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Sprinkler System Repairs
Landscape material
Permits
Electrical
Other Operating Supplies (Pavers)
Other Road Materials
Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103)
Traffic Signs
Lake Bank Project (51026)
Swale & Slope Maintenance
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Tax Collector Fees
Property Appraiser Fees
Reserve for Contingencies
Revenue Reserve
Total Non - Operating Expenditures:
Total Expenditures
Net Profit /(Loss)
$ 131,654.37 $ 13,165.44 $ 12,345.90 $ 819.54
2,956,362.25 443,454.34 426,539.74 16,914.60
5,568.58
69,365.50
1,000.00
13,680.14
39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10
21,323.00 - - -
50,000.00 - - -
85,000.00 - - -
500.00 - - -
22,275.72 - - -
$ 3,306,684.04 $ 496,188.47 $ 567,053.46 $ 18,749.23
$
10,300.00
$ 6,180.00
$ 5,902.55
$
277.45
6,800.00
4,080.00
3,896.51
183.49
17,500.00
-
-
-
$
34,600.00
$ 10,260.00
$ 9,799.06
$
460.94
$
3,341,284.04
$ 506,448.47
$ 576,852.52
$
19,210.17
$
-
$ 2,781,942.57
$ 2,765,741.61
$
73,413.26
Page 1 of 1
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5e. Administrator's Report Monthly Financial Report /Revised/ Page 11
Page 1 of 1
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012
Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward
Transfer from Fund 109 General
Foundation Payment for Crosswalks
Special Assessment
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenditures:
Irrigation & Landscaping
Hardscape Project (50066)
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Sprinkler System Repairs
Landscape material
Permits
Electrical
Other Operating Supplies (Pavers)
Other Road Materials
Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103)
Traffic Signs
Lake Bank Project (51026)
Swale & Slope Maintenance
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Tax Collector Fees
Property Appraiser Fees
Reserve for Contingencies
Revenue Reserve
Total Non - Operating Expenditures:
Total Expenditures
Net Profit /(Loss)
$ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ -
436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 -
- - 53,487.00 53,487.00
331,900.00 292,072.00 295,124.59 3,052.59
19,500.00 6,435.00 4,098.50 (2,336.50)
$ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,288,391.04 $ 3,342,594.13 $ 54,203.09
$ 131,654.37 $
13,165.44 $ 12,345.90 $
819.54
2,956,362.25
532,145.21 426,539.74
105,605.47
5,568.58
(5,568.58)
3,896.51
69,365.50
(69,365.50)
1,000.00
(1,000.00)
-
13,680.14
(13,680.14)
39,568.70
39,568.70 38,553.60
1,015.10
21,323.00
- -
-
50,000.00
- -
-
85,000.00 - - -
500.00 - -
22,275.72 - - -
$ 3,306,684.04 $ 584,879.34 $ 567,053.46 $ 17,825.88
$
10,300.00
$ 6,180.00
$ 5,902.55
$
277.45
6,800.00
4,080.00
3,896.51
183.49
17,500.00
-
-
-
$
34,600.00
$ 10,260.00
$ 9,799.06
$
460.94
$
3,341,284.04
$ 595,139.34
$ 576,852.52
$
18,286.82
$
-
$ 2,693,251.70
$ 2,765,741.61
$
72,489.91
Page 1 of 1
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6a. Chairman's Report Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal
Page 1 of 2
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT RECAP
Original Contract approved by BCC 6/23/2009 with commencement date of July 1,
2009.
Annual Amount $42,300 for the 1st year
Contract states increase in the 2nd year to $56,400 (July 1, 2010) but the board
approved an additional $18,960 starting July 1, 2010 at their 7/7/2010 meeting
due to increased hours. Annual contract amount currently is $75,360.00.
Field Management Services were added to FY 2012 purchase order for the south
berm restoration permitting work in the amount of $3,000.00.
Contract up for renewal for the 4th and final year July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6a. Chairman's Report Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal
Page 2 of 2
A G R E E M E N T 09-5174
for
Management Services for Pelican Bay Services
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this 23rd day of June, 2009, by and between
Dorrill Management, authorized to do busine, s in the State of Florida, whose business
address is 5672 Strand Ct. Suite 1, Naples Florid 134110, hereinafter called the "Consultant"
and Collier County, a political subdivision of tl to State of Florida, Collier County, Naples,
hereinafter called the "County ":
WITNES.SETH:
COMMENCEMENT. The Consultant shall commence the work upon execution of this
agreement. The contract shall be for a peri 1d of (12) months. Additionally, by mutual
agreement and funding availability, the contract may be renewed for three (3) terms of
twelve (12) months each. In no event, including renewal options, shall the contract
exceed four (4) years. The County shall rive the Consultant written notice of the
County's intention to extend the Agreemen term not less than ten (10) days prior to the
end of the Agreement term then in effect.
2. STATEMENT OF WORK. The Consult. nt shall provide Management Services in
accordance with the terms and conditioi s of RFP #09 -5174 and the Consultant's
proposal referred to herein and made to integral part of this agreement. This
Agreement contains the entire unders . anding between the parties and any
modifications to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the
Consultant and the County Contract Manager or his designee, in compliance with the
County Purchasing Policy and Administri;tive Procedures in effect at the time such
services are authorized.
3. THE CONTRACT SUM. The County shall pay the Consultant for the performance of
the Agreement the sum of ($42,300.00) (for!y two thousand three hundred dollars) for
the period of time commencing on July 1, 2109 and ending on June 30, 2010, payable at
the rate of (three thousand five hundred thi ty three dollars) ($3,533) per month, subject
to Change orders as approved in advance 1 y the County. This price shall be fixed and
firm for the first year duration but will inch !ase to ($56, 400.00) (fifty six thousand four
hundred dollars) for subsequent years of thc contract and any approved travel expenses
shall be paid at actual costs with no markup for any travel outside of Lee and Collier
County. Payment will be made upon receip, of a proper invoice and in compliance with
Section 218.70, Fla. Stats., otherwise known is the "Local Government Prompt Payment
Act ".
Page 1 of 9
March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
7bii. Clam Bay Subcommittee Recommendation for Board Consideration (Clam Pass /Bay Dredging Permit Collaborative Workshop)
Page 1 of 1
2/21/2012 PBSD CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MOTION:
Submitted by Tom Cravens
The Clam Bay Subcommittee recommends to the full
Board that:
The PBSD /MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and
endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of
Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit
Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies
that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club,
Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier
Audubon Society lo review and propose remedies of
deficiencies in permit pplication materials.
Dt,gJ dIhe, -.5
EMPLOYEE
BAEAKAMA
Dt
NEW wxtu
WAUWN COQIi
TAKE
0
-- - --------- - -------- 6u-rDO OR C AA
F L 6 x
NEW AM WAAWD
ILO wrcwwt_ -- , 7 — ; ; TRAMB
TOM To
am
.
... ...... ......
CERvicc I ......
............... ......... JIM-ND willmk
— -------------- ------- .................
m
Ila 0 will 0
.0
1 0 NUN
p semNfAeaN i'A ac 4w4 III III
III I II
III II
-Al
A-
54-6 AA-�
tV A O
------------------
Nx,
NOMM,
I LY OLA�.S 86
F1pC)f-05ED FLOOR PLAN
Eam
INS
111 ■ w11
w
BE:Q�9
`` " `4^~�
Ca /-, w..L4,1�e,
g�8��c6o
p.
C]
I I aCH 1 UNV
L______J =11NO PROPOSED El NEW EXERSIZE AREA
ODTOODROPATNG IDS 10+
zmRO POE
D FLOOR PLAN OWDWOI NWO af s ax REVISED RESTROOM
IwtePSD
UARDPnTIND x3
IW 4I
IOININO xx on NEW RAIL SEATING
TOTAL .01 M.
I L
�Fojl
. , , ,
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Pelican Bay Services Division
801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502
February 24, 2012
The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303
Naples, FL 34112 -5746
Dear Commissioner Hiller,
The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is studying ways to maintain the Pelican Bay community and
keep it appealing to current and future residents. In this process, we have looked at the current condition
of our roadways and pathways. As you are well aware, Collier County is responsible for maintaining both.
In 2006, Pelican Bay Boulevard was unfortunately resurfaced using an experimental and low cost
method called Micro - Surfacing, a mixture of slurry seal and emulsified aggregate of asphalt, water and
mineral fillers or "gravel' applied overtop of the existing roadway surface and intended to preserve and
extend the life of the pavement an additional 5 - 8 years. However this process was unsuccessful and
within a year the new surface revealed significant wear. The attached photograph shows the current
condition of a section of Pelican Bay Blvd, in front of the Philharmonic. We have been told that the County
is scheduled to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. no sooner than 2016.
Similarly, the County is deficient in maintaining Pelican Bay's pathways. The County uses the "patch"
method to repair our pathways. However many of our pathways have been patched to the extent that
they are now hazardous for walling, particularly by some of our older residents. The attached photos
illustrate the problem. We have been told there is no money in the County budget to rebuild the
pathways in the foreseeable future.
Hence, the PBSD Board is faced with the dilemma of either waiting indeterminately for the County to
make repairs or use our Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit ( MSTBU) monies collected for other
purposes. It is difficult to explain to residents the current conditions of the roadways and pathways, but
it is even more challenging to rationalize using MSTBU monies for maintenance items that we have
already paid through our County property taxes. Also, we understand that to the extent MSTBU monies
are used for these items, we would have to defer other projects for which the monies were originally
intended.
Clearly, staff can only provide as much maintenance work as has been funded, and the County has
experienced a significant decline in revenue. Nonetheless, the County should recognize its responsibility
to maintain its essential infrastructure, On behalf of the PBSD Board, we implore you advocate strongly
to provide adequate countywide funds to maintain roadways and pathways.
Regards,
/5� txg�z�
Keith j. Dall , Chairman
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
14V
14
. Mf;
o- L
z - O-A.
m
r y �y- t
4r _1
s ;:
f , 4� `..
d
y
/ 1 °
� (r '" "i'.r.V'� i',ifJ� s w .xa.. jai✓,/ as 'a.'�ni''y�'.. Y
i@ ijt �•r�"71y'l�4'~`., �.,'t� t f ,aifd�"' ,.z"3rydf �" +, t r , yt-r'µr` �' df..
} • •1����: ���� s.. �:l � �' +��".. «r."rttYr' � "' yr. .•.
l
.y. } wl/y1 yes
.
Ansim-
.
Ansim-