The URL can be used to link to this page

PBSD MSTBU Agenda 05/02/2012A: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit D NOWY3 X1,1 y I BY....... ......... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, MAY 2 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA Fiala The agenda includes, but is not limited: Hiller Henning 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle Coletta -� 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 16, 2012 Budget Subcommittee 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Uniform Traffic Standards Misc. ones: ii. Bateman Contract Update Date: '1I2 -1 b. Pathways �ll2, i. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation Item #: ii. County's plans to "overlay' Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways c. Berm v �nies to: i. South berm restoration permitting ii. North berm maintenance d. Landscaping (Phase II) update e. Monthly financial report 6. Chairman's Report a. Board summer schedule b. Board member terms c. Announcements 7. Committee Reports a. Budget Subcommittee recommendation that full Board review; and vote to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Levy) b. Strategic Planning Committee (Womble) 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 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 PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISIONMET. 4/27/2012 3:35:00 PM T ' )1k' PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 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 John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Any Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation *Re- elected for one-year terms expiring 411012013 REVISED AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Audience Comments 7. Administrator's Report a. Pathways b. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive (Chandler) c. Beach Renourishment d. South Berm Restoration Permit e. Monthly Financial Report 8. Chairman's Report a. Letter to Commissioner Hiller and response regarding resurfacing Pelican B b. Letter to Army Corps of Engineers and response regarding dredging worksh C. Announcements 9. Committee Reports 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. Adjournment 8545 MINUTES dar Session on Hammock Oak 2B kd X � r Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron and Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda moving audience comments after approval of meeting minutes. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimousIv in favor and the motion was passed ELECT CHAIRMAN Mr. Gibson nominated Chairman Dallas to continue to serve as Chairman of the Pelic n Bay Services Division Board and the nomination was seconded by several members in unison. The nomination was closed by Vice Chairman Cravens and seconded by Dr. Trecker. The Board voted unanimously in favor and Chairman Dallas was elected to continue to serve as Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board for a one -year term expiring April 10. 2013. ELECT VICE CHAIRMAN Dr. Trecker nominated Vice Chairman Cravens to continue as Vice Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the nomination was seconded by Mr. Chandler. The nomination was closed by Dr. Trecker and seconded by Ms. Womble. The Board voted unanimously in favor and Vice Chairman Cravens was elected to continue to serve as Vice Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board for a one -year term expiring April 10. 2013. 1 Nce Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board meeting minutes as amended by Ms. Womble, page 6, to read, `... that due to malfunctioning...': The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed APPROVAL OF MARCH 7, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as amended by Ms. Womble, page 8540, to read, '... Beadle (past member...': The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was missed AUDIENCE COMMENTS CROSSWALKS On behalf of San Marino's Board of Directors, Mr. Steve Seidel read a letter to the pNe esidents' discontent with the new midblock crossing on Pelican Bay Boulevard that is adjacent to the com that included deterioration of safety conditions and loud noise that resonated from vehicles drill er th one s that affected property values. Ms. Womble requested the names of residents most affected by n Mr. Jim Higgins (San Marino), Mr. John D'Aquanno (Pebble Creek), s. Rita Seidel agreed the crossing was unsafe. Solutions suggested were to install flags, a pedestri -a lighted rossing, other lighting for better visibility at night, and a barrier to not allow vehicles to crossov e i Y Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) disagreed. Cobblestones were alerting drivers that a pedestri in crossing is ahead, but it is also necessary that all crossings are uniform. Mr. Gerald Moffat suggested implementing a driver's educational program about yielding to pedestrians. Ms. Annice Gregerson observed that overgrown vegetation in the medi ins hindered visibility. Mr. Hoppensteadt said that the Foundation Board did not make any formal recommendatio s to San Marino residents, but petitioned the Sheriff s department to patrol the area and pointed out conduits were installed at all Inew crossings. Mr. Dorrill said the cobblestones were intended to provide a tactile surface to alert drivers that they are approaching a pedestrian crosswalk. Thermoplastic striping was installed at all crossings, is reflective at night, d the preferred method recognized by experts. The Board discussed what could be done at pedestrian crossings to increase safety and driver awareness. Mr. Iazzo made a motion to install a motion - activated lighted crossing, but with no second, he withdrew the motion. Mr. Dorrill recommended deferring traffic safety solutions decisions to traffic engineering experts. The Board a eed to discuss further at a future meeting with experts in attendance. PATHWAYS Mr. Rick Galli (St. Maarten) supported preserving and protecting the trees in Pelican Bay. According to a certified arborist's report, he said that the pathways widening project could cause many trees within the project area to die -off and suggested installing bicycle lanes in the roadway instead. The Board discussed Mr. Galli's pathways evaluation and arborist reports. Based on preliminary observations by a different certified arborist from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florid (IFAS -UFL), Mr. Dorrill recommended that the Board get a second opinion and advice from a certified arborist as to what uld be done to minimize tree -root damage and he would obtain names of qualified arborists from the Board's Landscape Arch:ct, Ms. Ellin Goetz. Mr. Dorrill added that the Board was on record agreeing to replace any trees that might a removed as part of the pathways widening project because root upheaval is already a problem and the number one complai within the community is that the pathways are in poor condition. The majority of the Board agreed. As far as timing, the project was on track to be complete by the end of December. Mr. Chandler requested that Mr. Lukasz start documenting calls made to the County for pathway repairs. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to authorize the Administrators to obtain a opinion from an independent certified arborist to investigate and report the impact trees of w pathways to six feet and widening pathways to eight feet. The Board voted unanimo sly in favor motion was passed 4 ADDITIONAL CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that based on prior Board direction, staff is preparing to do two additio al NO cts this summer. Bateman Contracting, the firm that constructed the recently completed crossings was c owever the Board of County Commissioners must first authorize a change order to approve of Bate on, the beveled or chamfer- edged fire -red clay brick pavers used to construct the recently com leted not currently available and on back - order. The wait could be as long as one year. The flat -e d cl ck pavers are slightly different, but are currently in -stock and available. Staff would take photographs a differences between the chamfer -edged and flat -edged pavers. 8547 ti Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 BEACH RENOURISHMENT Mr. Dorrill reported that the Board of County Commissioners voted on April 10 to move forward with a massive beach renourishment project that is estimated to cost $30 million. Chairman Dallas said in 2006, the Services Division contributed more than $1 million for beach renourishment starting at the Contessa (Bay Colony) south to approximately 1,500 feet of the Sandpiper beach facility. The Board agreed that currently the beach in Pelican Bay was in fine shape, and to avoid an appearance of impropriety that the Services Division should not use public funds for any beach renourishment projects and instead, suggested using Foundation funds for beach renourishment projects. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that Wilson Miller understands clearly now that the south berni restoration project is a maintenance project requiring an Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit, a relatively short fo -type process; and a South Florida Water Management District Letter of Modification to the original construction permit. The project bid specifications would include a contingency plan outlining the organization responsible for funding and repairing damaged facilities. Mr. Dorrill would coordinate mobilization with the Foundation continue to provide permitting and project status on a monthly basis. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported the financial report month - ending March, 2012. About 95% of assessment revenue was received; and due to seasonal landscaping services, total operating expenses were about $160,000 below budget. Staff would continue to adjust the formatting to show seasonal year -to -date expenditures better. Mn Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy, to approve the March 2012 Monthly Fj nancial Report into the record The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. COBBLESTONES AT NORTH POINTE DRIVE (CHANDLER) Mr. Chandler reported that the Board is considering installing cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing. Cobblestones were installed at mid -block crossings to calm traffic by producing a tactile feel and unusual sound. However they are not serving their intended purpose, aggravating residents, and he made a recommendation to not install cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing. Mr. Dorrill would look into having an engineer make a presentatlion about uniform traffic standards and the rationale and science behind the original recommendation for further discussion at the May 2 meeting. � CHAIRMAN'S REPORT BOULEVARD Chairman Dallas acknowledged the Board's letter to Commissioner Hiller regarding the "Microsurfacing" experiment and the County's plans for future resurfacing of this roadway. Chairman Dallas acknowledged the Board's letter to the Army Corps of Engineers reg 's port for the Corps to hold a Clam Bay dredging permit workshop and the Corps responded they did not ha d upport one. Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings. The April 12 Coastal ry tte canceled; Foundation Board meets April 12 at 9 to discuss priorities and April 20 at 8:30; the Budget Su M411111FINIIIJIMPSLpril 16 at 3; and the Services Division's next meeting is May 2 at 1. MM F • Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 COMMITTEE REPORTS BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the Budget Subcommittee met March 26 to review the initial A revised proposed budget would be presented at the April 16 meeting. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE (TRECKER) Dr. Trecker reported that Mr. Humiston completed his annual Clam Bay tidal analysis that for dredging at this time. Mr. Hall reported that the borer beetles infesting susceptible white mangy local species and monitoring would continue. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens gave a presentation about the purpose of the berm and erosion obs Fiscal Year 2013 budget. there is no basis were identified as a along the west side of from the Commons to North Tram Station 8. The berm was built to provide a storm water retention a a or spreader -swale that removes nutrients from the water before it crosses the weirs and into Clam Bay. Erosion, along with o ergrowth, and duckweed have caused the spreader -swale to fill -in and it cannot clean or spread the water effectively, and suggested the Board have an engineer do an evaluation and make a recommendation to repair the erosion. Mr. Hall confirmed that the current operational permit allows removal of mangroves and clearing of other material from the spreader - swale. Mr. Dorrill agreed that this is maintenance work and would do a survey and obtain proposals from backhoe contractors to clean out the spreader -swale during the rainy season. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Ms. Womble reported that Ms. Mary Johnson is the new Chairman and Ms. Noreen Murray i the new Vice Chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee; and Ms. Ronnie Bellone is the new Chairman, and Mr. Bob Uek is the new Vice Chairman of the Foundation Board. ADJOURNMENT Dice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn. Tile Board voted unanimousty in [favor, the motion was passed, and the meetink was ad'ourned at 3:07 .m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick Ak BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISIO1 BOARD APRIL 16, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, FL. The following members were present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman John Chandler Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Susan O'Brien Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Approval of March 26, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Staff presentation and discussion of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Budget 4. Audience Comments 5. Vote to approve Proposed FY 2013 Budget 6. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. APPROVAL OF MARCH 26.2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the March 26, 2 I2 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented The Subcommittee voted unanimo ly in favor and the motion was nassed Ms. McCaughtry explained that the Proposed FY 2013 Budget to be presented today would change slightly because it was prepared using the County's FY 2012 indirect cost rates. The County's FY 2013 indirect cost rates became available today, April 16 and increased modestly. Mr. Lukasz presented the Proposed FY 2013 Budget that was prepared as the Budget Su bco directed on March 26 to hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $398.13 and ad- valorem millag rate at 0 Oor FY 2012 levels, providing approximately an additional $188,000 to Capital Projects Fund 322 d a ft, im an additional $154,000 to Street Lighting Fund 778. It was noted that estimated revenue nd ated expenditures were determined by the County and based on expected usage, i.e. fuel; and in ext re taff would adjust the formatting so that carry forward is not shown as a negative number, er the appropriate fund, i.e., Capital or reserves. The Subcommittee and staff also discussed 1) the Capital Project Fun ecti mary sheet that showed estimated revenue and identified CIP project expenditures over ar 2 until 2016; 2) Chairman Levy's Pelican Bay Pathways summary sheet that showed the pat a dition rating, project parameters, and that current cost estimates are higher than cost e ' i ously y Wilson Miller; 3) 1131 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 16, 2012 how to determine which projects are priorities; and 4) how to obtain effective community feedback. However the Subcommittee did not make any recommendations to bring any of these items to the full Board. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience to make comments. VOTE TO APPROVE PROPOSED FY 2013 BUDGET Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to make a recommendation o the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget as resented with the following changes: 1) adjust formatting of the budget summary to show revenue reserves at the top o the page under "Revenue" as a negative number, 2) to include the County 's FY 2013 indirect cost rates. The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Michael Levy, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 4 27/201211:38:33 AM May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 1 of 6 ResnickLisa From: San Marino Communications [earl ross@prod igy. net] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:37 PM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Crosswalk discussion at May 2nd meeting We are sorry not to be able to attend the May 2nd meeting. I wish to support our San Marino Association feeling that the crosswalk installed in front of our development is much less safe than what we have had for the past 21 years. It is much less safe because in past years you had to watch for no traffic before you crossed the street. Now the folks assume that cars will stop and they rarely do. We have had several near accidents. Even though I am aware of the rules have been guilty of driving over the crosswalks when pedestrians are starting to cross. It is very easy to miss the pedestrians when you trying to avoid the bikers who own the right lane and trying to move over to the right when safe because of faster moving cars and trucks. I found our crosswalk to be much nosier because of the rocks that are on each of the pavers. The ones set in concrete are much quieter. Even though we live on facing the golf course anytime we are outside the noise sounds like a bunch of trucks are going by. Thank you for your attention to this matter Earl Ross 6865 San Marino Drive #312 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 2 of 6 ResnickLisa From: sunny beaulieu [slb1632 @gmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:33 PM To: office@pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: San Marino /Crosswalk My name is Sunny Beaulieu. I live at 6860 San Marino Dr. #408. I use the crosswalk on a daily basis. Vehicles are not obeying the Stop even though a car has stopped in one of the lanes. Some have slowed down with the sheriffs sign in place and others continue to fly by. I think it might help to have a sign saying it is a state law to stop for someone in the crosswalk. It has become more dangerous to cross when one vehicle stops and the next lane to it does not stop. The cobblestones make a loud noise as each set of wheels go over them. Could you please take those out and restore our peaceful neighborhood. Thanks, Sunny May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 3 of 6 ResnickLisa Subject: New Cross Walk Adjacent to San Marino Association From: Don and Suzanne Scheu [mailto:oointabino @ hotmail.com Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:39 PM To: office C.@oelicanbayservicesdivision .net Subject: New Cross Walk Adjacent to San Marino Association Dear Service Division Board Members, As I will not be able to attend the next Services Divisions Board meeting on May 2nd, I am writing to express my concerns. Like those San Marino residents who have spoken the past few months to the Services Division and Foundation about the new cross walk adjacent to San Marino, as an owner I am writing to request that the noisy gray cobblestones be removed from the new cross walk and be replaced with cement. As I understand it, the cobblestones were installed as a sort of speed bump to slow vehicles down on Pelican Bay Blvd. I can attest that they do NOT slow traffic! They also produce noise that I consider to be noise pollution and may reduce the value of San Marino condominiums that are nearest to the cross walk. The new cross walks at Gulf Park Drive that have cement are not as noisy. Additionally, the safety of pedestrians using the new cross walk is in jeopardy! Both my wife and I use the crosswalk on almost a daily basis and we have experienced many instances when we are clearly within the cross walk and vehicles do NOT stop as per Florida law. As a quick and relatively inexpensive solution, I suggest installing the bright yellow signs that are often seen at Florida cross walks. These signs read: Florida Law, Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks. These signs should be placed at each lane on the Pelican Bay Blvd road surface. You may recall these signs were placed at the cross walk at the North Station over a year ago and worked well for the benefit of pedestrians and also helped to slow traffic. I do NOT understand why those signs were removed. I believe this type of sign will indicate what Florida law requires stopping for pedestrians for those out of state drivers who may not be aware of the law. These type of signs will also be easily seen, no matter which lane a vehicle is driving in. These type of signs will be more effective than flags or the present signs that are off to each side of Pelican Bay Blvd. This type of sign may be more effective during day light hours when crosswalk lights may not be easily seen due to bright sunshine. In closing I would ask the Board two questions: 1) Will it take a severe injury or a fatality before action is taken? 2) Would you want your children or grand - children using the crosswalk adjacent to San Marino? Thank you for voting to resolve these situations as soon as possible. Don Scheu San Marino Owner and Board Member May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 4 of 6 ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:34 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Traffic speed indicator Lisa, See this is distributed to the Board, neil and kyle. Thanks. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: "Henry Bachman" <h.bachman(@_ieee.orq> Subject: Traffic speed indicator Date: April 18, 2012 5:47:55 PM EDT To: <keithdallas(@_comcast.net> Keith, a follow -up to our brief discussion at Tuesdays coffee. I mentioned the traffic speed indicator signs that I saw when I visited Boynton Beach. These are the same technology that we have on Pelican Bay Blvd which the Sherriff puts out on occasion when there are enough complaints about speeding. What I saw were similar speed indicator signs which were about the same size as the speed limit sign and mounted on the same pole under the signs. These seem like a very effective way to keep reminding drivers of the speed limit and I would welcome the PBSD looking into it Henry Bachman h.bachmankieee.org 239 - 325 -9234 Telephone & FAX 207 - 776 -8418 (c) f May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 5 of 6 Quote No: 062211.01dgc Project: Illuminated Cross Walk Location: Pelican Bay - North Tram Station County: Collier Btd Letting : Estimator. James T Coleman Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Procurement: Construction Days: Comments: TOTAL OF 6 COMMENTS BELOW Contract- ham DN�ipt%in 1 Installation of Illuminated Cross Walk Price includes the following: • Labor & Equipment • Solar Powered Cross Walk Control Unit • Four (4) Flashing Beacons • Four (4) Ballards • Signs Price does NOT include: • Poles & Permit Directional bore will be additional at $20.00 per LF with a minimum charge of $500.00 per location. At"MAVAN$AMra saerrsr P.O. Box 6142, Hudson, FL 34674 Ph : 727-619 -2061 Fx : 727 - 667.4097 LS 1.00 $26,260.00 $ 26,260.00 GRAND TOTAL: $ 26,260.00 COMMENTS: 1.) ABOVE QUOTE AS PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, 2.) FPL IMPACT FEES, PERMIT FEES, PERMITTING AND SURVEYING NOT INCLUDED. 3.) IF AWARDED, SSL REQUEST TO ATTEND THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. 4.) ABOVE QUOTE IS VALID FOR 30 CID. ;5.) ANY BOND REQUIREMENTS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR I OWNER 6.) PLEASE CALL JAMES COLEMAN AT 727 - 919 -5508 WITH ANY QUESTIONS. Naples Branch 3884 Prospect Ave.. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.331 -8438 Fax 239 - 331 -8439 a May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Uniform Traffic Standards Page 6 of 6 Community Improvement Plan March 31, 2010 Joint Workshop Meeting Minutes Pathway Light Bollards Gardco bollard, bevel top, 36" height with LED light source Review /straw poll of body colors (color chips provided) o Sandstone = 0 yes votes o Bronze = 11 yes votes o Dark green = 3 yes votes Clay brick crosswalk pavement summary /materials review - Compression strengths for both meet vehicular strength standards - Concrete paver color will fade over time due to wear of integral concrete color revealing non- colored larger aggregate - Opinion of Probable Cost is based on present day cost • Material and installation cost • Future cost may vary - Straw poll of material and installation method • Concrete pavers = 0 yes votes • Clay pavers =15 yes votes • Square side up = 0 yes votes • Chamfer side up= 15 yes votes - Straw poll of 3' wide cobble paver strips to both sides of crosswalk pavers at mid -block crosswalks (additive to safety /traffic calming through repetitive driver awareness through change of tactical surface to sounds/feel of road) o Add cobble pavers = 11 yes votes o Do not add cobble pavers = 4 yes votes North Tram Station median curb cut relocation versus infill review - Relocation less expensive primarily because of additional landscape and irrigation - Places turn maneuver closer to curve in Pelican Bay Boulevard but landscape revisions are included to improve corridor site visibility in both directions - Straw poll o Relocate median curb cut = 13 yes votes o Infill median curb cut = 2 yes votes The Commons - Option 3 (physical separation between south service area and north operations) comparison with Option 4 o Review of shared design elements (PBB mid -block crosswalk, pedestrian sidewalks, tram station relocation, physical separation of community berm, slight realignment of vehicular movement at north entry) o Discussion of parking counts • Concern over loss of spaces 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 WilsonMiller.com ResnickLisa May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional correspondence. Page 1 of 1 Subject: 5ai. CROSSWALK IN FRONT OF SAN MARINO AND BEACH ACCESS! From: Dolores E. Stillings [ma i Ito: westlakecog0bcomcast.netl Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:27 AM To: officeftel ican bayservicesd ivision. net Subject: CROSSWALK IN FRONT OF SAN MARINO AND BEACH ACCESS! LADIES /GENTLEMEN: I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY MAY 2ND. THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT I OWN AND RESIDE IN A FIRST FLOOR CONDO WITHIN SAN MARINO. THE BACK OF MY CONDO (BEDROOMS AND LANAI) FACE PELICAN BAY BLVD. SINCE THE INSTALLATION OF THE COBBLESTONE CROSSWALK I CAN'T OPEN A WINDOW OR MY LANAI. IN THE MASTER - BATHROOM, THE VIBRATION IS AWFUL. THIS IS SO VERY DISTRUBING!!HHH! I HAVE MY UNIT FOR SALE AND HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MANY LOOKERS THAT THEY FEAR THE NOISE LEVEL WOULD REALLY BE A CONSTANT DISTURBANCE TO THEM!!! I HAVE HEARD THAT THE PBSD TESTED THE NOISE LEVEL AND FIND IT ACCEPTABLE ...... THEY SHOULD COME LIVE IN MY HOME FOR A WEEK. THE NOISE LEVEL MIGHT HAVE BEEN TESTED DURING OUR OFF SEASON! DURING THIS PAST BUSY SEASON, I HAVE SUFFERED GREATLY. THIS SITUATION IS NOT ONLY AFFECTING MY PEACEFULNESS, BUT IT HAS IMPACTED MY RE -SALE VALUE! I HAVE PAID $520K FOR THIS CONDO AND COMPLETELY RENOVATED AT A COST OF $80K. PLEASE, AT LEAST, CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE COBBLESTONE FROM EACH SIDE OF THE SMOOTH PAVERS. IT WAS A REALLY AN IDEA THAT HAD NO CONSIDERATION FOR THOSE OF US THAT LIVE RIGHT ON PB BLVD. THERE ARE A FEW CROSSWALKS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE COBBLESTONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PAVERS, AND IT DOES MAKE IT MORE ACCEPTABLE. I WOULD LIKE YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS E -MAIL AFTER YOUR MEETING. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ME AND MOST OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTS FACING PB BLVD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION TO MY REQUEST. DOLORES E. STILLINGS 6855 SAN MARINO DRIVE #202 239 - 513 -1410 732 - 310 -2359 CELL May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards (Additional Correspondence) No. 2 Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: Kate [kfweath @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:52 PM To: office@pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Crosswalks I am a resident of San Marino and as such, I cross the nearby crosswalk several times daily when in residence at San Marino. It is becoming more and more hazardous because the traffic generally does not stop for pedestrians. Something needs to be added to the signage — lights, closer signage, a warning — something. The signs at that crosswalk are small and very far from the crosswalk. Someone is going to be hurt or killed at the crosswalks due to pedestrians thinking they are safe to cross and traffic not stopping. I have had cars actually honk at me when I have been crossing in the middle of a lane and they whiz by. More go by than stop. One suggestion is to put LARGE signs — maybe even temporary - at each entrance to Pelican Bay announcing that it is Florida Law to stop at crosswalks. And, we definitely need flashing lights to note the crosswalk. They are not visible until you are in them. Kate Weathersby San Marino May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional Correspondence No. 3 Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa Subject: 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional Correspondence No. 3 From: Cliff Landers fmailto:clifflanders 2000(a)vahoo coml Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:29 PM To: office() oelicanbayservicesdivision net Subject: Crosswalk at San Marino Pelican Bay Services Division To whoever may be reluctant to reverse the unstudied project of the crosswalk near San Marino, I would say: Put aside ego, acknowledge the mistake, remove the cobblestones, and fill in and cement over the holes. Done. The danger and annoyance level of the crosswalk has already been discussed and proven, so let's put an end to this long and fruitless dialogue. Sincerely, Clifford E. Landers San Marino #305 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brendan P. Culligan fmailto:pebblepost(a)gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:46 PM To: 21 Lisa Resnick Subject: STOP FOR PEOPLE video link Lisa, Please click www.vimeo.com /41366160 to view my three minute STOP FOR PEOPLE video. Please test it so you can access it for presentation at the PBSD meeting on Wednesday at 1 PM. If you have any technical problems, please call me at 239 -597 -7957 in the morning so I can resolve them before the meeting. Thanks for you help. Brendan Culligan Pebble Creek at Pelican Bay 17 -201 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Additional correspondence no. 4 Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: Ktm140 [ktml40 @aol.com) Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:37 PM To: office@pel ican bayservicesd ivis ion. net Subject: RE: The crosswalk located at San Marino RE: The crosswalk located at San Marino. In my opinion, there are two issues with the crosswalk at San Marino. Unfortunately, I have a last minute work conflict so I am not able to make the meeting this afternoon. The issues are — Noise & Safety. The noise issue -As a resident of San Marino, I walk my dog at least twice a day on Pelican Bay Blvd. & I am very much aware of the thump- thump as cars cross the cobblestones. When I mentioned this at a Pelican Bay Foundation meeting, the comment back was that they had a noise gun & it wasn't too loud. It's not so much the loudness but it's the fact that the noise has become a constant presence. The designers of the crosswalks have created a source of noise pollution & have taken one of the prettiest areas in Naples and made it sound like an urban center. I understand that the concept is that the cobblestones would act as a warning & a speed deterrent to drivers when, in reality, neither of these things occurs. I grew up in Mid -town Manhattan, certainly one of the busiest areas of NYC, & if there was a loose manhole cover which is a very similar sound to the cars driving over the cobblestone, one could call the NYC DOT and they would come out to fix it because it was considered a noise nuisance. It would be great if that were possible in this situation. Again, it's not the loudness it's the fact that it is a noise that was not part of our community prior to the installation of the crosswalk. The 2 °d issue is even more crucial — Safety. Again, spending as much time on the Blvd as I do both in the morning and the afternoons I have had the opportunity of seeing many "near misses ". I have seen drivers ignore pedestrians; drivers stop on 1 side but not the other; cars in the right lane stopping but not in the left lane & even cars speeding up so they don't have to stop. It has actually created an unsafe situation — pedestrians don't know whether the cars are going to stop or not. The crosswalk definitely needs further signage to make it safe. I have heard remarks that the only people complaining are the San Marino residents. It only takes a bit of common sense to realize that the residents of San Marino and Calais are most directly affected since the crosswalk is closest to those communities & most pedestrian's traffic originates from them. I think it would be a rare occasion for some one from St Raphael to cross over to the east side of the street. It is my recommendation that the cobblestones be removed & the crosswalk has better signage. When a decision is made by the Pelican Bay Services Division is any consideration give to the impact of that decision to the residents of the Pelican Bay & the communities most affected? It seems like there is very little regard as to how the design has impacted the area & our concerns seem to be ignored. Kathy Mahoney Kathy Mahoney Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate 8200 Health Center Blvd. #101 Bonita Springs, 34135 800 - 547 -3019 239 - 992 -0059 (0) 239 -404 -0677 (C) 239 - 992 -0231 (Fax) MailTo :kathv.mahonevCa�floridamoves com http: / / /kathv -ma h onev. com May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Board Correspondence (Chandler) Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa From: John Chandler Dohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:30 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: North Pointe Crosswalk Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. At our May 2 meeting, we will be discussing whether or not to include cobblestones as part of the new crosswalk across Pelican Bay Blvd at North Pointe. Another issue that I believe we should discuss is whether or not to move the location of that crosswalk. The current crosswalk runs from the west sidewalk of North Pointe. I'm thinking that the new crosswalk should run from the east sidewalk of North Pointe. I believe that this will improve pedestrian safety. My observation is that there are a significant number of left turns from eastbound PBB onto northbound North Pointe. Conversely, I believe that most vehicular turns from North Pointe onto PBB are right turns. If the crosswalk across PBB originated from the east sidewalk of North Pointe, none of these turning vehicles would go through the crosswalk. John Chandler May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation Page 1 of 1 GOETZ +STROPES ELLIN GOETZ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. FELLOW, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS April 30, 2012 TO: Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican Bay Services Division FROM: Ellin Goetz, FASLA RE: INSPECTION OF TREES ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD We engaged the services of Ralph B. Jimison, a Certified Arborist based in Naples, to review the site conditions on Pelican Bay Boulevard along the route of the proposed pathway widening improvements to ascertain the effects of path construction on existing trees. The pathway construction will impact most frequently the root system of established live oak trees. The trees are already in suppressed conditions due to the root system being impeded by both roadway and curbing, and in many cases by shade from adjacent trees. This is positive for the tree root system being able to withstand root pruning. The trees are also in a fully irrigated location, which is conducive for successful root pruning activity. We are of the opinion that root pruning to allow for pathway construction can be accomplished without causing damage to the trees. The recommended actions are: • Make individual assessments of affected trees based on species, growing conditions, proximity, overall tree habit and size. • Maintain a minimum distance of 24" to tree trunk of any root pruning or excavation. • Assessment of individual trees may determine that optimum distance of root pruning must exceed 24" due to specific site conditions. For example, if a tree caliper exceeds 26" DBH, consideration should be taken to adjust distance of root pruning to 30 " -36" from the trunk. • Vary pathway widths in specific locations to maximize distance of root pruning from tree trunk. Width of pathway will not affect the tree, but the distance of the root pruning to a tree trunk is the determining factor. • Reduce the canopy mass of affected trees based on the area of root disruption to lessen impact. • Prune dead wood and lesser branches of affected trees prior to root pruning, with a maximum reduction of 30% of the overall canopy mass. • Install a solid root barrier at 18" depth along the edge of the affected tree roots no closer than 24" to tree trunk. • Maintain correct irrigation during all construction phases to ensure new root establishment and lessen shock on tree. 185 1 OTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 T 239.643.0077 GOETZLAND @aol.com EGOETZ@GSNAPLES.COM LA #1152 LC #26000378 WWW.GSNAPLES.COM fta, April 30, 2012 RECEIVED PIP PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MR. KEITH DALLAS, Chair PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 Dear Mr.Dallas, CC: Ronnie Bellone, Chair, PB Foundation Board 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd. Unit 1205 Naples, FL 34108 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi . Administrator's Report. Pathways (R. Galli, 4/30/12) This letter seeks to reaffirm my March 16 and April 9 written cautions that I delivered to you and my presentation at the April 11 PBSD meeting, seeking to point out the massive damage that I and a professional Florida Arborist expect will occur if you proceed with the currently designed 8 foot pathway widening project on Pelican Bay Blvd. I also speak for a number of Owners who express what we believe represents the common largely held sentiment of Pelican Bay Owners in general, that preserving our existing Natural Streetscape is eminently more important than converting the existing sidewalk to a dual use bike path. Furthermore Owners and Professionals also point out that you will be creating multiple hazards by increasing injury potential from: combining foot and wheeled traffic; encouraging more and higher speed cycle traffic on the sidewalk; and from weakened trees falling. The attached April 27 clarification from Signature Tree Care, further supports my previous warnings and is enclosed for your consideration. The Arborist, Ian Orlikoff points out the proposed root cutting will create a liability and includes several references for your review. As I mentioned before the excavation cut specified in your March 30 AB &B construction plans is 10 feet wide to accommodate the 8 foot pathway I have not received any reply yet from the PBSD so I ask that you give me the courtesy of a written response to my requests which are restated below: 1. RECONSIDER GOING BACK TO A 6 OR 5 FOOT PATHWAY WIDTH 2. KEEP THE SIDEWALK AT 5 FEET AND CONSIDER A DEDICATED BIKE PATH ON THE STREET (My revised sketch shows a 4' bike path which Collier Co. requires) 3. ENGAGE A LICENSED FL ARBORIST TO MONITOR AND DIRECT SIDEWALK REPAIRS SO THAT TREE DAMAGE IS PREVENTED OR MINIMIZED 4. ENGAGE AN ARBORIST TO DEVELOP A "MASTER STREETSAPE PLAN" AS SUGGESTED IN THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION SPC PRIORITIES Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, RICHARD GALLI a , I IJA f7 tj --q 99% -T! 1-27—IZ— I P, #leg ilk ell f7 tj --q 99% -T! 1-27—IZ— I P, #leg 1 iftSignature Tree Carew _ 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348 -1330 • Fax: (239) 348 -3133 Email: info @signaturetreecare.com IAN 0RLIK6FF 15A Certified Arborist #FL- 10.37A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional #H605655 April 27, 2012 Attention: Rick Galli, Galli Builders Re: Pelican Bay Services Division, Pelican Bay Blvd, Pathway Project from Westside- Commons to North Tram Station This is my second letter regarding the great concerns of cutting tree roots for this proposed project: As an ISA Certified arborist it is my responsibility to make known the hazards whether existing or potential which will be created. I again stress the importance of not cutting tree roots. It is in my professional opinion that this project which will involve the cutting of tree roots will indeed create a liability whether a wind event takes place or not; even if the trees receive pruning / support after said project is completed. I strongly urge ail members involved in this project to reread my report from April 6, 2012 and carefully read the below professional references for your review. 1. Email response from Joe Samnik to Ian Orlikoff, Signature Tree Care; Joe Samnik < joesamnik @experttreeconsultants.com> Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM To: Ian Orlikoff <ian @signaturetreecare.com> "The committee which you reference is ill advised in ignoring the dangers of cutting structural roots close to trees. I would go on record as having someone instruct them on the biology of tree roots and the extreme high risk and result in hazard that will occur if structural roots are cut..... I do reiterate my professional concern that cutting roots close to trees is cutting structural integrity and the result can be catastrophic. if you are involved in the decision- making process regarding this matter please make sure that you go on record as having voiced your opinion against such actions. At the very least somebody should get an air knife on the job to excavate dirt and demonstrate what type of root would be cut." -Joe Samnik, President, Samnik & Associates, LLC, Expert Tree Consultants (Joe Samnik is a certified and consulting arborist, State of Florida. He is entering his 43rd year of practice and was awarded the Edward W. Bok lifetime achievement award for excellence in arboriculture. He has been named as an expert witness in over 500 litigation matters involving trees and tree disputes. toe is entering his 43rd year of practice encompassing tree issues, arboreal and horticultural consulting, dispute resolution, permitting and compliance with tree ordinances. ) Arborist Consultation, Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 27,2012 2 Signature 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348 -1330 • Fax: (239) 348 -3133 Email: info@signaturetreecare.com Tree Care, uc IAN ORLIKOFF 15A C:ertifiecl Arborist #FL -1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional #1160.5655 2. 'Sidewalks and tree roots: cracked up the way it shouldn't have been', By DOUG CALDWELL, Posted September 4, 2009. at 4:02 p.m. on Naples News.com: (see also attached article) 'We tell people to avoid cutting large roots. Ed Gilman, the University of Florida tree guru, says roots greater than one or two inches in diameter within five times the trunk diameter should not be removed (well maybe just one is 00): For example, say the trunk diameter is 15 inches, then large roots could be cut but only 75 inches out from the trunk. There are horror stories of municipalities doing sidewalk repairs by using the "cut the roots out" technique and trees blowing over and crushing occupants in cars.' 3. Tree Roots in the Built Environment' By John Roberts, Nick Jackson, Mark Smith, page 259, Section 8.3.4: "In addition to their role in taking up essential resources for growth from soil, roots provide anchorage for trees, ensuring that they remain upright. There is a danger that root cutting can compromise the support function of roots and increase the risk from trees falling during periods of strong wind. Particularly in an urban environment, this would pose an unacceptable danger to life and property." 4. as per website: http:// shadetreeexpert .com /sidewalks.html 'Cutting Roots: An additional problem with root pruning is the loss of tree stability. Trees have stability against wind throw because of the lateral roots. Tap roots are rare and quite small in most broadleaf trees and provide virtually no support. When the important lateral roots are pruned, tree stability can be reduced. Research at the Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories has demonstrated that cutting large lateral roots within the root plate which is a distance from the trunk of three times the trunk diameter, can destabilize a tree. For example a 20 -inch diameter tree should not have roots cut closer than 60 inches from the tree (3 X 20 = 60). In a 6 -foot wide swale with a growing tree, that does not allow space to root prune at the edge of the sidewalk. So root pruning should only be done as a last resort when all other methods have been judged as not feasible. And those ordering cutting of major lateral roots should be aware of the liability for tree failure that root cutting creates.' 5. As quoted from 'Urban And Community Forestry in the Northeast' By John E. Kuser, page 280, Section on Sidewalk Interference: 'Great care must be taken in any root - cutting operation used to correct sidewalk problems so that the tree retains its structural support system." Arborist Consultation, Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 27,2012 0 Siiznature Tree Careuc _ 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348 -1330 * Fax: (239) 348 -3133 Email: info @signaturetreecare.com IAN ORILIKOFF 15A Certified Arborist #FL- 1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional #14605655 6. See attached article from Tree Care Industry Magazine, July 2001, "Prioritizing Risk Trees in a Community" by Brian Kane, certified arborist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Massachusetts researching tree risk analysis, Dr. H. Dennis P. Ryan, Professor of Arboriculture & Community Forestry at University of Massachusetts, and Dr. David V. Bloniarz, head of USDA Forest Service Northeast Center for Urban and Community Forestry at Amherst. 'Ultimately responsible for a tree's structural stability, the roots also provide water and dissolved minerals from the soil...Root damage or loss accounts for a large percentage of tree deaths and failures.' Last section of article titled Conclusion: "Some communities are under the assumption that if they don't know about a hazard tree then they are not responsible when it fails Nothing could be further from the truth. In a 1994 court case in Connecticut, for example, Judge Anne C. Dranginis ruled that "all property owners -state and private, city and rural -have the legal obligation to inspect their road or streetside trees for age, condition or weaknesses that might make them a hazard to passersby." 7. See excerpt from National Arborists website: (article attached) https:awww.natlarb.com/htmi/`broward county fl.php 'The current philosophy in most cities in Broward County, FL is to not remove the tree, but to just eliminate the tree roots damaging the sidewalk. How are offending tree roots eliminated? Sometimes the tree roots near sidewalks are chopped out with an axe, or the tree roots might be pulled out with a backhoe, or the city might use a stump grinder to grind out the offending tree roots near a sidewalk. All of these methods place the tree, and city residents at risk in two ways Cutting lame tree roots can affect the stability of the tree The next windstorm might cause the tree to be blown over after the root cutting has been done Cutting large tree roots near a sidewalk might also lead to decay fungi entering the tree The end result of this will also be a fallen tree at some point in the future. Cutting large tree roots is usually a temporary fix to the problem The roots will be cut a new sidewalk will be put in and then the tree will grow new roots to damage the new sidewalk Every time root cutting is done the chances of the tree being blown over, or decd entering the tree, increases.' Respectfully, Ian Orlikoff Arborist Consultation, Galli Builders, Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project, April 27,2012 - UNIVURSITV Of U j FLORIDA - IFASF,tvlli!0ax Horticulture l collier C omit% Sidewalks and Tree Roots: A little flexibility needed Doug Caldwell Left, these two oaks are not only in a tiny spot, but also planted by the utility and water lines in a new north Naples community. Choosing one smaller tree species such as a fiddlewood, Simpson stopper or pigeon plum would have been more appropriate. Right, this cracked up sidewalk is an extreme case in New Orleans, but again, proper placement and species selection would have avoided this situation. We have major irregular sidewalk problems in too many Naples communities which should have been avoided. But like the Sunday morning "quarterbacks ", it is always easier to criticize after the fact. Twelve to fifteen years ago or more, southern live oaks (Quercus virginiana) were selected as the native canopy tree to meet County landscape. requirements in many communities, perhaps I should say 98% of the communities. Even though there are 21 large tree species and 15 medium to small tree species (see list at: hUp: /Icollier.ifas.ufl.edu/ and type, `collier county extension plant selection' in the search box) that could have been selected from the County approved list. OK, so live oak is a large species (eventually reaching 70 feet tall by 90 feet wide), with a moderately rapid growth rate. I like to say it is a pasture tree. Let's plant them about 3 to 5 feet from sidewalks or 5 feet from utility boxes and lines. Now the sidewalks are lifting. It's not like when i was a kid back in Indiana and the roots of the huge sugar maples along the sidewalks created much sought after skateboard ramps ... lots of fun! No, here and now, I should add, sidewalk irregularities are viewed as a possible law suit when a person fails to navigate the sudden elevation of a projected slab in our concrete jungle. If one stumbles and sprains or breaks an ankle or wrist, we are talking some creature discomforts and litigious actions. Communities are looking for solutions. Oh, and this 1963 homemade- skateboard pro wannabe sees another wrinkle, the ADA Americans with Disabilities Act issued in 1991 guidelines states "surfaces must be stable, firm and slip- resistant." What to do? Surprisingly, tree roots find the area beneath a sidewalk a favored environment to collect the right combination of both water and air, so they tend to congregate there. Generally, the protruding slab, which is being lifted by the increasing girth of the tree roots, is either ground down (short term results) or the slab is broken up and the offending roots cut out and a new slab poured (longer term results, but tree may fall over in high wind events). We tell people to avoid cutting large roots. Dr. Ed Gilman, the University of Florida tree guru, says roots greater than one or two inches in diameter within 5 times the trunk diameter should not be removed (well maybe just one is OK ?): For example, say the trunk diameter is 15 inches, then large roots could be cut but only 75 inches out from the trunk.- There are horror stories of municipalities doing sidewalk repairs by using the "cut the roots out' technique and trees blowing over and crushing occupants in cars. There are some 10 or so approaches: 1. remove trees and replace with smaller species; 2. remove slab add fill soil , then re -pour; 3. root prune and re -pour; 4. root barriers; 5. re -route sidewalk; 6. alternative sub - base /reinforce; 7. bridging; 8. alternate surface materials; 9. slab - jacking and 10. prune shade trees (maintain their natural shape, no round -overs or lollypops) to keep them maintained at a shorter stature so the roots will be less likely to grow as large as well. If you are interested in exploring various approaches to mitigate tree roots and sidewalk conflict, the University of Florida, Collier County Extension Office is holding a free class on Friday August 21 from 9:00 to 11:00 at our office at 14700 Immokalee Rd. to discuss various treatment options. Call 353 -4244 to register. Seating is limited. ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) CEUs are pending. Reference text Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots: A compendium of strategies By Laurence R. Costello and Katharine S. Jones. 2003; $17 for non- members. http://wcisa.net/Publications/ChapterOnly.asp . Doug Caldwell, Ph.D., is the commercial landscape horticulture extension agent and landscape entomologist with the University of Florida Collier County Extension Service. The Cooperative Extension Service is an off - campus branch of the University of Florida, institute of the Food and Agricultural Sciences and a department of the Public Services Division of Collier County government. E -mail dougbug�a uf1, edu ; phone, 353 -4244 x203. Extension programs are open to all persons without regard to race, color, creed, sex, handicap or national origin. For updates on Southwest Florida Horticulture visit: htto:llcollierJfas.ufl.edu Broward County, FL -Tree Service, tree care, tree trimming tree removal, ... 1 of 2 https: /.tw-Nvw.mtlarb.coni/htnVbroward courity_fl.php Nationa r iorists Youronline resource for local tree service companies & tree care information. WON Broward County, FL Tree Care Connect W on Goog Homeowner Sorry we do not have a tree service or arbodst listed. Please fill out the form below and we can Information help find a local tree care service to help. If your a tree care service company and would tike to have your information displayed on this page, it!(.j_a 7re� Ser•,mice please fill out the form or visit our' ,a: =ri !.y?th Us" page. Ydhat isan IS�1 First name Certified Arboris;0 Last name ..... ...... ..... Protect,,sn.q Trees Address Dun "n� Ggnsfrucfinn Zip prganic Tree Care City ir3gtmation County State Information for Tree Phone Services &Arborists E-mail inraarist Train =n� fnf�mtatixmh Certification Pro _qrarns How Can We Help? advertise your Tree Service Companvon this site. Bevel Buddy Chips Knife Shacnenin Toi is Enter the shwin code: ti,nmanrs�t� . Anaie's List Local Rating Read Local Rat:rgs & Rt 16ws Fm Corracto; == in `!o+rAreai e Tree Services Read Re iees ° Get Gun;es From Local Trea rxpr''s. Frye Search --s-1 = +4—i GrtWD Weed 8 Gon Me Tha RevolubOrFry Forrua KiAs c,sr: the Tout =t vveeda, GLerar. e =d _ . a i Tree Roots And Sidewalk Damage It's not uncommon for tree roots to cause damage to sidewalks in Broward County, FL. The problem of tree roots lifting sidewalks is evident in every major city in Broward County, Fl— Tree roots damage sidewalks by raising individual sidevralk slabs and by cracking sidewalk slabs. The questions that arise are howto stop tree roots from damaging sidewalks, and what to do when tree roots have already damaged a sidewalk, Cities in Broward County, FL, and throughout the country, are sensitive to tree roots that damage sidewalks because of potential liability issues that go along with damaged sidewalks. Obvious tripping hazards put cities at the risk ofa lawsuit, but the continued cost of repairing sidewalks puts astrain on city budgets. SIDEWALK DAMAGE FROM TREE ROOTS The best way to stop tree root damage to sidewalks is through proper planning. Atree species that is going to . grow large is also going to produce a significant root system to support the tree. Planting a large tree species in is for future with tree roots and sidewalks. the narrov-vstrip between the road and sidewalk asking problems Cities in Broward County, FL know this because they spend thousands of dollars fining sidewalks damaged by tree roots. So, should cities in Broward County, FL only plant small tree species between the road and sidewralk? although this may be a viable solution, city foresters \,rant to incorporate a variety of tree species in their urban forest and it is nice to see a street lined with large, mature trees. Mature trees impart many positive social and economical benefits to a neighborhood. Maybe cihyforesters could take a different approach needs to the management of trees between the road and sidewralk. The current philosophy in most cities in Brovard County, FL is to not remove the tree, but tojust eliminate the _.....- tree roots damaging the sidewalk. How are offending tree roots eliminated? Sometimes the tree roots near sidewalks are chopped out Wirth an axe, or the tree roots might be pulled out with a backhoe, orthe city might use a stump grinder to grind out the offending tree roots near a sidewalk. At of these methods place the tree, & and city residents, at risk in tvvo ways. Cutting large tree roots can affect the stability of the tree. The next the tree to be btowm over after the root cutting has been done. Cutting large tree roots windstorm might cause near a sidewalk might also lead to decay fungi entering the tree. The end result of this will also be a fallen tree at some point in the future. Cutting large tree roots is usually a temporary fox to the problem. The roots will be cut, a new sidewalk will be put in, and then the tree will grow new roots to damage the new sidewalk. Every time �.. root cutting is done the chances of the tree being blown over, or decay entering the tree, increases. Oltentimes, the effects of cutting tree roots are not immediately apparent. Deciduous trees have stored food for damage done to the tree roots. Even though the tree looks healthy it does not reserves and will compensate 4/29/2012 4:57 PM froward County, FL-Tree Service, tree care, tree trirrmtiM, tree removal, ... 2 of? KVs://u.-ww.nattarb.com/htmlibroward-Couityfl.php mean significant structural damage has not been done to the tree. Just as it can take years for a tree to become • large, it can take years for the effects of root damage to become evident. Should a city create potentially hazardous trees by cutting large tree roots, orjust remove the trees for the safety of city residents? This choice can put a city forester in a no win situation. Removing a mature tree can be an unpopular option wth city residents even though the overall liability to the city may be reduced by removing the tree instead of cutting larger roots. The city forester must consider if the liability of the trip hazard caused by a , raised sidewalk may be outweighed by the damaged caused by cutting large tree roots. cutting large tree roots away from sidewalks now may cause future problems greater than the current liability if the entire tree falls over. The fallen tree may damage property, injure or kill a city resident, and will likely damage the newside�valk Instead of continually damaging and weakening a mature tree by cutting large roots the tree could be removed and a new tree planted to replace ft. There are several things that could be done to extend the useful life of trees planted between the road and the sidevialk. Root barriers can be installed to prevent or redirect root development near sidewalks. foam has been used below sidewalks as an underiayment for the sidewalk The foam gives support to the concrete and will compress to accommodate diameter growth of tree roots. Alternatives, such as rerouting the sidewalk around encroaching tree roots should be used tfienever possible. Most other altematives, such as, adding asphalt to raised edges, grinding down raised edges, or re- pouring the concrete to create a mounded sidewalk are short term fixes. The tree roots will continue to increase in diameter and quickly lift the sidewalk again i vF Pa ilrU Another alternative would be to view the urban forest with a crop rotation approach. If large tree species are going to be planted it can be done with the knowledge that removal and replacement of the trees will be done if -" sidewalk damage starts to occur. Some city residents would be upset, but continually replacing sidewalks, and damaging trees in the process, be a strain on any city budget. Although most urban foresters would be able to relate to this long term view, convincing some city residents that this is the right approach could be difficult. PWVPW = _veR�FtEO :: _ Most urban foresters, and city residents. would prefer to not remove mature trees. But at what price should a ciq rmal growth pattern of the tree or adhere to this type of policy? City foresters must either vrork around the no consider removal of the tree. Continually cutting large tree roots wfll eventually result in a large fallen tree. [Here] [Ca,?act till [ !ms oT v ce] [ tact_Pelis ] k�nu`,,. sI EiL apJ Copyright 20142012 Crosscut_ 3Swrs is f LC 4/29/2012 4:57 Plvi Prioritizing Risk Trees in a Community By Brian Kane, Dr. H. Dennis P. Ryan and Dr. David V. Bloniarz Tree wardens, community ar- borists and urban foresters are responsible for maintaining park and street trees that are safe from prob- lems that could lead to property damage or injury. The literature offers a general consensus about what makes a tree haz- ardous and how to rectify the risks once identified. Without exception, published references agree that a hazard tree must contain both a structural flaw — which could cause the tree, or part thereof, to fail — and a target of some value. In ad- dition, a tree may be a hazard if it stands in an environment that might contribute to the potential for failure. Ex- amples would be sites that are prone to high wind or wet soils. Another problem that tree wardens must consider when inspecting for risk trees are trees planted too close to street signs, traffic lights, or street lighting, because branches obscur- ing such signs or lights could lead to traffic acci- dents or personal injury. Trees in urban and subur- ban areas can also create hazards to pedestrian and vehicular traffic with low branches that block side- walks or streets. The minimum street clearance for thorough- fares is 14 feet. This is enough to allow standard -sized tractor- trailers to pass with- out encumbrance. Sidewalk clearance is most often on the order of 10 feet. Never- theless, one can walls or drive through many neighborhoods, urban and rural, and The weak crotch is all too . f ' s common along our public , streets and in some loca- tions is the No. 1 reason for a tree failing. Early identification and correc tion is required. t A large street tree that had the roots cut oy u"C wrr . v.+••••� - widening project. A 15- minute thunderstorm in August toppled the tree and nine others on this Long Island, N.Y. street find streets and sidewalks without the specified clearances. Trees can also present a hazard in com- munity settings with their roots. Planted too close to sidewalks and curbs, trees may grow roots that can interfere with adjacent physical infrastructure. Tree roots search- TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 ing for oxygen, water, and nutrients will upset concrete sidewalk slabs quite easily. This is especially obvious when trees are planted in the utility strip, where soil con- ditions are frequently poor. In search of better growing conditions, tree roots travel under the sidewalk to nearby residential 45 Basal decay on a street tree. At what point ao you remove use u ee go Smaller defective branches may be of a problem for street trees. Vehicular present, but do not present a hazard risk. contact and vandalism are more likely Weak branch crotches are also a common causes of wounds on street trees. Again, defect in street trees. Depending on the certain decay thresholds need to be es- size of the branches involved, the stress tablished, such as the 30 percent strength on the crotch can be severe. In a recent loss limit for considering a tree hazard - survey of New England arborists and tree ous. With decay, trees can be up to 70 wardens, most respondents listed weak percent hollow before they approach the crotches and decay in the top three most 30 percent strength loss threshold. With common tree defects. cavities, trees can have an open cavity Weak crotches are a leading cause of between one -third and one -half of the branch and whole tree failure. They can stem circumference before reaching the be found not only between the stem and 30 percent strength loss threshold. a lateral branch, but also between co- As a tree defect; wood decay has re- dominant leaders in a decurrent tree. ceived close scrutiny. Decay is common Because tight, "V- shaped" crotches with on tree trunks, branches and roots be- included bark have little sound wood cause any time bark ruptures the decay holding the branches together, they are process can proceed. Dr. Waiter Shortle more likely to fail when subjected to of the USDA Forest Service called de- wind stress or snow load. In fact, as the cay in living trees the most damaging branches continue to increase in girth, if disease for all species around the world. annual rings cannot envelop both Dr. Thomas Smiley and Dr. Bruce branches, the included bark acts like a Fraedrich of the Bartlett Tree Expert plate preventing the stems from support- Company have published that they con- ing one another. Eventually, the cider decay to be the most common respective girths push each other apart hazardous defect of urban trees. Decay enough to cause cracking or failure. Vi- undermines wood strength properties. sually, included bark appears as a Each tree warden needs to determine just disappearance of the branch bark ridge how much decay the community is will - one normally detects between stem and ing to live with, since there is no national branch. It appears as if the branch bark standard at this time. ridge has been pulled back into the J In the root zone, the tree warden branch /stem union. should look for cut roots, decay on the Stem and branch defects are com- '� oot crown, soil heaving or rootplate lift- monly associated with wounds that lead; Wing, and fruiting bodies in the soil to decay and open cavities. Cankers andt ;indicative of root rot fungi. Trees that cracks, common in park settings, are les- have lost up to one -half of their root sys- TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 tems should be considered hazardous. Sometimes root crown investigatiohs are insufficient, and the inspector must ex- cavate around the root crown to look more closely at the buttress roots. Trees without a root flare (they appear to go into the ground like a telephone pole) must be carefully evaluated below the ground, since root flare defects might have been hidden by the excess soil piled around them. Ultimately responsible for a tree's structural stability, the roots also provide water and dissolved minerals from the soil. Large, woody roots offer support and anchor the tree; tiny root hairs and mycorrhizae absorb nutrients and water i in the soil. Root damage or loss accounts for a large percentage of tree deaths and failures. Through a variety of injuries caused by construction, installations of irrigation systems, improper drainage, and soil compaction, roots can sustain exorbitant amounts of damage. Often, root injuries are covered with grass, fill, or concrete and this successfully hides the severity of the damage. This creates an especially dangerous situation since a casual tree examination can easily overlook the root system. Symptoms of root damage are manifested in the crown by poor growth, thinning and chlorosis of the foliage, as well as a general de- cline starting from the top of the tree. Other visible signs of root damage in- clude bleeding wounds on the trunk; loose, peeling bark around the stem but- tress; sunken areas around the lower stem and buttress; girdling roots and ad- ventitious roots growing above the root flare, and cracks extending into the stem from the soil line. Anytime an inspec- tor notices recent roadwork, landscaping, irrigation system installation, or paving near a tree, they should inspect the root system for potential damage. A final flaw to look for is the presence of a lean. Trees will lean as a result of vari- ous external forces. Competing for light or in reaction to prevailing winds, some trees naturally lean away from others. Leaning trees reacting to natural forces have built up reaction wood to compen- sate for the lean; this is not a hazardous situation. When trees show signs of lean- ing, but have gradually straightened up over time, this too is usually not a hazard- 47 ous situation. These trees leaned due to a past impetus, but by straightening, they have regained apical dominance and, in most cases, will ultimately balance the crown. In scenarios where trees are unnatu- rally leaning, however, a hazard results. Poor soil conditions, mounding and crack- ing of the soil behind the leaning tree, and exposed roots protruding from the soil all manifest an unnatural lean, where the tree is in danger of completely falling over. In addition to the structural defects listed above, the tree species is a closing element to consider when determining a tree's hazard potential. Different species have different wood characteristics. Oaks generally have strong wood, which is less likely to fail than a tree with weak wood, such as willow. Because of this, similar defects on different tree species will not necessarily represent similar risk. Different species also have varying abilities to compartmentalize wounds. Certain species are prone to forming poor branch attachments, such as silver maple and American beech. Some are less'likely to fail than others. The inspec- tor must be knowledgeable regarding local trees and their growth habits. Assessment System Given all the data an inspector would . collect from the defects listed above, it is imperative that a priority rating sys- tem be used in order to develop a risk - management strategy for a community's trees. This way, the in- spector can assign numerical rating values to each defect and target. For ex- ample, a simple rating system would rank defects in terms of their likelihood to cause failure: a rating of 1 means low failure probability; a rating of 3 means high failure probability. Next, the in- spector ranks the size of the defective part: a rating of 1 indicates a small de- fective part (between 2 and 5 inches diameter); a rating of 3 indicates a large defective part (greater than 10 inches di- ameter). The inspector then evaluates the target from two perspectives — the like- lihood of it being damaged if a failure occurred and the amount of damage likely to be incurred from a failure. Lastly the inspector would take into con- sideration the tree species. These variables would also be ranked 1 through 3, with 1 indicating a low damage prob- ability and small amount of damage and 3 indicating a high probability of dam- age and a large amount of damage occurring. When totaled, the numerical values would fall between 3 and 12, lend- ing an idea of the hazard priority of each tree. Using this rating system, a commu- nity will have identified problem trees and have them ranked by number. The tree warden could then start work on the trees highest ranked, reducing a municipality's potential liability. Assessment systems can be as detailed or simple as preferred. Simple systems that account for fewer variables are less powerful for analysis and prediction, but would require less time and effort on the inspector's part. Currently, there are sev- eral forms for ranking trees being used by arborists. The International Society of Arboriculture has published a refer- ence book on hazard trees, and the park agencies of California and Minnesota have been using a system designed for their parks for many years. The Community Tree Evaluation Form that is attached to this article was first developed by Jill Pokomy of the USDA Forest Service St. Paul, Minn. It has been modified by the authors over the last three years with input from the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Manage- ment and the Massachusetts Tree Wardens and Foresters Association. The intention was to give tree wardens and community foresters an easy -to -use and cost - effective tool designed for the effi- cient evaluation of street trees. Corrective Action Identifying hazard trees and then ig- noring them undermines the original intent of performing the evaluation. Managers should establish hazard tree correction measures based on thresholds from the rating system. In other words, numerical or verbal ratings should cor- respond to a given remedial action to mitigate the problem. Corrective treat- ments, pruning, cabling, tree removal, moving the target, augmenting tree vigor, and excluding visitors from haz- ardous sites are some of the options. Astute tree managers will explore all possible ramifications of any corrective 48 TREE CARE INDUSTRY - JULY 2001 action. Community opposition to remov- als will vary, so an urban forester must be willing to explore different options for hazard reduction. Corrective actions depend on what part of the tree is likely to fail, how likely it is to fail, and what special significance the tree might hold. Despite being hazardous, certain trees demand preservation efforts because of their historical, cultural or physical significance. An excellent ex- ample is the Balmville Tree in Orange County, New York. Although most con- sulting arborists agreed the tree was hazardous, residents of the community expended considerable effort and financial backing to preserve the tree because of its historical significance_ In many cases, haz- ard tree correction can be as simple as moving playground equipment. Conclusion Some communities are under the im- pression that if they don't know about a hazard tree, then they are not responsible when it fails. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a 1994 court case in Connecticut, for example, Judge Anne C. Dranginis ruled that "all property owners — state and private, city and rural — have the legal obligation to inspect their road or streetside trees for age, condition or weak- ness that might make them a hazard to passersby." The key to a community's tree inspec- tion and maintenance program, then, is to establish a systematic protocol for assess- ing the community's trees. The procedure should be formalized in writing and should contain methods for assigning values for tree defect severity, size of defective part, target value, and probability of defective part damaging a target. This is the most efficient way to manage hazard trees and reduce a community's exposure to liabil- ity from a tree failure. Brian Kane is a certified arborist and Ph.D. candidate at the University ofrl'las- sachusetts researching risk tree analysis. Dr. FL Dennis P. Ryan is Professor ofAr- boriculture & Community Forestry at the University ofblassachusetts, Amherst. Dr. David Y. Bloniarz is an Urban Forester and head of the USDA Forest Service Northeast Center for Urban and Commu- nity Forestry at Amherst. lawns. Over time, the roots grow in diam- eter and lift up the sidewalk, creating a trip hazard. Given our culture's current fond- ness for litigation, such a trip hazard has the potential to result in a large lawsuit. A final hazard that trees present to communities deals with utility lines, above and below ground. Utilities across the country spend over $1 million per day clearing power lines along road- ways. In spite of this, power failures often occur as the result of tree - related damage. Here again, the trees are pre- senting a problem that is not necessarily the same as a hazard tree structural fail - ure. In severe weather, even structurally sound trees are apt to fail. From this in- troduction, it should be clear that every community needs to prioritize its tree risk potential in a systematic way. Community Tree Management Program It is essential that a community's tree risk management program be system- atic. This point cannot be overemphasized. In a court of law, a plaintiff must prove negligence on the defendant's part in order to win a law - suit: Negligence arises from: 1. the responsibility to maintain safe trees in the community; 2. a subsequent breach of that re- sponsibility, such as when a hazard tree is not removed; 3. damage or injury resulting from the breach of responsibility. For ex- ample, if the hazard tree failed and damaged a car. In many instances, it is impossible for a municipality to remove all the poten- tially hazardous trees in its streets and parks. It therefore must abide by the rea- sonable person standard. The standard is used to judge if an action was reasonable and prudent. In other words, would a rea- sonable person, given the same situation, have behaved similarly? The best way for a community to obey the reasonable per- son standard is to develop a written, systematic procedure for locating and evaluating potentially risky trees. Because it is not feasible for a community with lim- ited financial and personnel resources to remove every potentially hazardous tree, having a systematic procedure, in writing, is the best defense against negligence. The procedure should detail a rating system that prioritizes trees based on their risk of fail- ure and potential to cause damage. The procedure should also provide a standard timefiame for inspecting, on some level, the community's trees. Inspection Cycle It is reasonable for a community to in- spect their street trees annually (park trees and open space trees are not in- cluded here, because their target ratings are usually less than for street trees). The extent of the inspection will vary, given available resources, but some form of inspection should occur annually.. For This large hanger in a sugar maple over a parK bench was on a heavily used public common in New England for over three months before it was removed by the towns many cities, this might be purely a wind- shield survey, where the urban forester drives each city street in the course of a year and looks for major and obvious defects in trees. As long as the procedure is standardized, systematic, and estab- lished in writing, a municipality can justify this inspection system given a limited budget. With adequate funding 46 TREE CARE Iti'DUSTRY - JULY 2001 and labor, towns can undertake more in- tensive surveys, spending more inspection time on each tree. It's impor- tant that — at a minimum — every tree be inspected using the visual windshield survey method. One exception is trees in low priority areas. After undertaking an initial hazard tree inventory, the urban forester can de- prioritize areas of the community where target risk is so low that tree failure is extremely unlikely to cause damage. If it is reasonable to do so, surveying high -risk areas, like a downtown business district, should oc- cur more frequently than undeveloped nature areas. This is reasonable priori- tizing, designed to reduce tree risk. This type of prioritization has been imple- mented for recreation and park areas and is also useful in a community set- ting. Inspection Process An evaluator must inspect each part of the tree, crown, stem, and roots, es- pecially if root damage is suspected. The tree should be viewed from all sides, although a windshield survey might miss something on the side of the tree facing away from the road. The in- spector should proceed in the inspection in the same manner each time in order to achieve a pattern of in- vestigation that will help make comparisons to other trees and defects. The next section introduces crown, stem and root defects that are common to municipal trees. Municipalities that do not have qualified arborists on staff who can perform this type of tree in- spection should contract with a consulting arborist to do the inspection each year. A list of commercial ar- borists is available from the National Arborist Association at 800 - 733 -2622 or www.natlarb.com. In the crown, the inspector looks for problems with the branches. These can cone in the form of broken, hanging branches; cracked branches; branches with significant decay or cavities; or dead branches. It is recommended that a threshold for defective branch size be es- tablished, generally around two inches in diameter (conforming to the ANSI A300 pruning standard for crown cleaning). c—' i O LL O w^ m m i T (1 G f2 N 1_ Q +Z C O 3 y D qS x m c D T w 3 0 A P R C R O O O V C3 OO J O - C D L O E ° P L -p C P m O � ti _ N Y _P O` o — � c � P O U U N P (Gl � U R UD C D ¢ ° m P ¢ U ° N O O © Y 3 m E N T G � O m N y v O J ° V O m m 4 � a m P _ o a c � m p c � C ca y ¢ U O O L C O L CJ t'1 C �`p c D 5 m m t O D � D P m L L C 4 © o C O N q r a O Y c P C C3 P r L m °' D = am m a nD a'R Flo x c u `D 2 ci vi 4 K •O °- F 7 h > O U tu W J ❑ Q O m O N C 6 EL TREE CARE INDUSTRY - TULY 2001 2 m D O 0 m v 0 O a D D 9 C O U O � C C D E c � O U U C V W 0 E 'O ` c 3 y U0 G G D N U `O � s ° Ip U p mm C j X 3 Q m � o c c � X � V m L m 3 3 0 c ^c m ^ C m � D D C A W O 0 L � T O m D 9 O O O E m ° r N O *E v - - 0 Q 00 O R W O }r © G U C 3 m o m 3 m ; a v s v m R J m q c m c P R V r O E5 m\ Z o c z E° a E o m m m a m m m C U C 3 j 0 ui 3° o m m m m o a T o .W1 2 q 4 w m0 U w R EL fil i N O E o a v m a LL C O 0 0 h Q a m C C w c O n t m O C C 0 C W ❑ O m Y 0 Y E F 3 N n c O z N m 0 m ° r Q N c � x � 0 am o v � N m a� � D 4 N a 49 FE 0 V al C O O Q U rt � t M O 3 N A $ G m ID CL � � 4 ` N ~� Lu co O Q v _ m N Q ? = yw 0 {( "da j No � yN El m k0^ a R. E a w O r Q. cn U Q �- O r Q ui E O o �j a V CO S Ci Li fn O O F O 3 y D qS x m c D T w 3 0 A P R C R O O O V C3 OO J O - C D L O E ° P L -p C P m O � ti _ N Y _P O` o — � c � P O U U N P (Gl � U R UD C D ¢ ° m P ¢ U ° N O O © Y 3 m E N T G � O m N y v O J ° V O m m 4 � a m P _ o a c � m p c � C ca y ¢ U O O L C O L CJ t'1 C �`p c D 5 m m t O D � D P m L L C 4 © o C O N q r a O Y c P C C3 P r L m °' D = am m a nD a'R Flo x c u `D 2 ci vi 4 K •O °- F 7 h > O U tu W J ❑ Q O m O N C 6 EL TREE CARE INDUSTRY - TULY 2001 2 m D O 0 m v 0 O a D D 9 C O U O � C C D E c � O U U C V W 0 E 'O ` c 3 y U0 G G D N U `O � s ° Ip U p mm C j X 3 Q m � o c c � X � V m L m 3 3 0 c ^c m ^ C m � D D C A W O 0 L � T O m D 9 O O O E m ° r N O *E v - - 0 Q 00 O R W O }r © G U C 3 m o m 3 m ; a v s v m R J m q c m c P R V r O E5 m\ Z o c z E° a E o m m m a m m m C U C 3 j 0 ui 3° o m m m m o a T o .W1 2 q 4 w m0 U w R EL fil i N O E o a v m a LL C O 0 0 h Q a m C C w c O n t m O C C 0 C W ❑ O m Y 0 Y E F 3 N n c O z N m 0 m ° r Q N c � x � 0 am o v � N m a� � D 4 N a 49 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Arborist report and recommendatic n (D. Trecker, 5/2/12) Page 1 of 1 TREEIS IN JEOPARDY FROM SIDEWALK WIDFNINC The Goetz/Jimison Report (4/30/12) gave mcoralliwadations t.41 mill inlizing root damage to trees that might be impacted by sidewalk Widening' Ahic. 411 I the recommendations was "'Maintain a minunum dUstailice of 24- to Iter trunk of any root pruning or excavation.- On 5/1112,1 walked the sidewalk on the west side of 11clicalit Bay 111vil, trt*m the Commons to the North Tram Station and measurcd dkilaiwes fmin tree trunks to where the sidewalk could be widened to 6 or A feet_ I ignored shrubbery and hedges. some of which wtmtd be have it) be, removed, and I assumed that some back-and-forth cut%_,jjjgof the widened sidewalk was acceptable, If you agree with Goetz/Jimison that 24 inches frtini titre Mink to the 'start of excavation is acceptable (I'm not sure I (k)) areal' using m) mher criteria. thell the following applies: 0 48 trees would be unaffected by widening to 8 fee, 23 trees might be affected by widening to 8 feet • 4 trees might be affected by widening to 6 feet The impact is area specific, with the trees in fn of the Monteriero. St. Lucia-Commons and the Sandpiper parking lot affected the ino%t. Sidewalks along the rest of the road could be widened to 8 feet with only,-,' few 11ecs affected. Dive Trwker 5/7112 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bii. Administrator's Report. County's plans to "overlay" all Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Page 1 of 3 ResnickLisa Subject: RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US-41 S to US-41 N) From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:30 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Lisa, For distribution to the Board. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Neil Dorrill <NeilCa@dmgfl.com> Subject: RE: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Date: April 26, 2012 9:48:33 AM EDT To: GossarclTravis <TravisGossard @colliergov.net> Cc: Keith Dallas <keithidallas @gmail.com> Thanks. I will get back in touch if we want to cost share in a larger project to widen these paths. Neil From: GossarclTravis [mailto :TravisGossard @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:52 PM To: Neil Dorrill; CasalanguidaNick Cc: VlietJohn; BlancoAlexander; MarcellaJeanne; ChesserEddie; WrightTodd Subject: RE: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Hi Neil, yes the sidewalks are scheduled for this year. We have not issued the Notice to Proceed to Better Roads yet, but it will be issued in approximately two weeks and they will have till about July 31, 2012 to have the sidewalks completed. Regards, Travis D. Gossard Sr. Road & Bridge Superintendent Growth Mgmt. Division Collier County Government PH# 239 - 252 -8924 Fax# 239- 774 -6406 Travisaossard0collieraov. net From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com) Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:38 PM To: CasalanguidaNick; GossarclTravis Subject: FW: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Nick/Travis: Can you confirm the scheduling of the overlay? We are in the process of preparing bids for the expansion of these paths to 8' and would desire the project be complete before the end of the calendar year. Neil From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 3:57 PM To: Neil Dorrill; Kyle Lukasz Cc: Lisa Resnick Subject: Fwd: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bii. Administrator's Report. County's plans to "overlay" all Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Page 2 of 3 My first question does this mean they are intending overlaying all the Pelican Bay Blvd pathways, both sides, this summer (before end of September)? If so, this might solve our short term problem with the condition of the pathways, although I suspect will not solve the long term problem because this project will do nothing with root barriers. I'd like to hear both your thoughts. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: ResnickLisa <LResnick @colliergov.net> Subject: FYI - Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Date: April 17, 2012 3:23:30 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithidallas @gmail.com >, Neil Dorrill <Neil @dmgfl.com> This work is (tentatively) scheduled for this FY 2011 -2012 From: BlancoAlexander Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:07 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: GossarclTravis Subject: RE: Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Lisa, It's both sides of sidewalk on Pelican Bay Blvd. Thanks Alexander Blanco Supervisor of Contracts & Projects Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Growth Management Division Tel. 239 - 252 -8924 Fax 239 - 774 -6406 AlexanderBioncot@collierciov.net From: ResnickLisa Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 1:36 PM To: BlancoAlexander Cc: GossardTravis Subject: Question RE: Sidewalk Overlay on Pelican Bay Blvd. (US -41 S to US -41 N) Hi Alexander, One question re: Pelican Bay Blvd (Sidewalk Overlay) (US 41 to US 41 South & North Sides Pelican Bay Is this sidewalk overlay for the (east) side or (west) side or (both) sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard? Thanks, Lisa *&1 k May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bii. Administrator's Report. County's plans to "overlay" all Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Page 3 of 3 Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnick @colliereov.net http:/ /Pelicanbayservicesdivision.net From: BlancoAlexander Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:32 AM To: AbbottAlicia; AhmadJay; AhmadVicky; Archibald George; ArnoldMichelle; AtkinsonDayne; AuclairClaudine; BarlowGreg; BathonDale; BealsNathan; Beard Laurie; BetancurNatali; BishopMargaret; BlancoAlexander; BuchheitDavid; CalvertEugene; CamposKristin; CampSkip; CarterGlama; ChesneyBarbara; ChesserEddie; ChmelikTom; CoxShane; DeaneConnie; DelateJoseph; DelgadoTania; DennieShannon; Mike Dolan; DuganKevin; FarrisDaniel; FaulknerSue; FederNorman; FlaggDiane; French.lames; GammellJim; GossarclTravis; HallDaniel; HallErin; HapkeMargie; HendricksKevin; Hendrickson Lisa; Jackson David; JarviReed; Joe Boscaglia; Johnsonlrene; KhawajaAnthony; KomornyJesse; KrumbineMarcy; KurtzGerald; Lantz Lorraine; LehnhardPat; LibbyPamela; LorenzWilliam; LukaszKyle; LulichPamela; LynchDiane; MagsumbolRamon; MartinezOscar; MattauschPaul; McAlpinGary; McCaughtryMary; McKennaJack; MessamMarlene; MottToni; MuckelBradley; NagySteve; OrdonezJulio; PajerCraig; PhillippiPenny; PodczerwinskyJohn; PonceRamiro; PutaansuuGary; RamirezTrudi; RamosMargaret; RamseyMarla; RodriguezDan; SmithRay; SorianoLiz; Sridhar5andy; StoneMichael; SunyakMark; VlietJohn; VorthermsJonathan; WalkerShawn; WattsTom; WeaverDenise; WidesTom; WilliamsBarry; WrightTodd; XueYuejin; YilmazGeorge Cc: GossarclTravis Subject: Review Overlay tentative overlay list #4 Good morning to all, Please review the upcoming tentative overlay list #4 that Road Maintenance is going to do. Please email me if you have any concerns. Thanks Alexander Blanco Supervisor of Contracts & Projects Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Growth Management Division Tel. 239 - 252 -8924 Fax 239 - 774 -6406 AlexanderBianco( collieraov.net Pelican Pelican Bay Blvd (Sidewalk Overlay) (US 41 to US 41 South & North Sides Bay Pelican King Bird Ct. (Buttonbush Ln. to Dead End) Bay Pelican Whimbrel Ct. (Buttonbush Ln. to Dead End) ...Not in Road survey (looking into) Bay Pelican Tramore (Greentree to Dead End) Bay Alexander Blanco Supervisor of Contracts & Projects Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept. Growth Management Division Tel. 239 - 252 -8924 Fax 239 - 774 -6406 AlexanderBianco( collieraov.net 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 - April 30, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 2,051,204.44 96,538.00 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Se. Monthly Financial Report $ 2,147,742.44 $ 2,147,742.44 Liabilities and Fund Balance 40,947.75 12,926.94 $ 53,874.69 1,292,615.54 801,252.21 2,093,867.75 $ 2,147,742.44 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 76,600.00 $ 70,615.06 $ 5,984.94 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 7,000.00 Pelican Bay Services 4,787.50 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 4,100.00 812.65 3,287.35 Municipal Services Taxing Unit 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2012 7,500.00 7,187.50 312.50 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 600.00 (Unaudited) 313.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 27,400.00 28,688.00 (1,288.00) Annual YTD 300.00 YTD 83.76 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 Budget Budget 60.13 Actual 100.00 Variance Operating Revenues: - Insurance - General 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,700.00 Special Assessment- Water Management Admin 666,300.00 622,990.50 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 624,023.58 3,200.00 1,033.08 Special Assessment- Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,783,793.00 5,200.00 1,786,576.40 3,606.99 2,783.40 Special Assessment Past Due 17,500.00 14,976.00 2,524.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 - Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - Surplus Property Sales - 20,418.00 20,418.00 Miscellaneous 701.48 701.48 Interest 15,300.00 8,923.00 6,098.99 (2,824.01) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,538,006.50 $ 3,560,118.45 $ 22,111.95 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 21,954.21 $ 1,945.79 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 300.00 300.00 - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 200.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 - Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 10,100.00 10,050.00 50.00 Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 15,700.00 14,396.00 1,304.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,300.00 1,633.80 666.20 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 6,600.00 7,060.68 (460.68) 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 1,200.00 314.61 885.39 Training and Education 1,100.00 600.00 85.00 515.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 149,100.00 $ 143,201.99 $ 5,898.01 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 76,600.00 $ 70,615.06 $ 5,984.94 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 7,000.00 2,212.50 4,787.50 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 4,100.00 812.65 3,287.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 7,500.00 7,187.50 312.50 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 600.00 286.42 313.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 27,400.00 28,688.00 (1,288.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 216.24 83.76 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,600.00 3,539.87 60.13 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 3,200.00 1,162.59 2,037.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 5,200.00 1,593.01 3,606.99 Tree Triming 30,000.00 17,500.00 14,976.00 2,524.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 700.00 792.38 (92.38) Page 1 of 3 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 1,423.60 (923.60) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 45,700.00 36,737.11 8,962.89 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 900.00 388.11 511.89 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 3,000.00 3,405.53 (405.53) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 205,700.00 $ 175,636.57 $ 30,063.43 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 6,924.80 2,500.00 1,500.00 1,132.57 Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 24,600.00 $ 22,618.32 $ 1,981.68 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance' 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 300.00 300.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 10,600.00 7,000.00 3,600.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 20,000.00 16,963.00 3,037.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,300.00 1,633.80 666.20 Postage 3,000.00 600.00 (92.28) 692.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 7,300.00 7,673.91 (373.91) Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 33.00 167.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 1,500.00 494.90 1,005.10 Training and Education 1,500.00 900.00 105.00 795.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 68,950.00 $ 56,979.65 $ 11,970.35 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 $ 807,300.00 $ 465,800.00 $ 383,629.37 3,300.00 - - 89,900.00 52,300.00 50,427.76 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 2,500.00 1,500.00 526.74 29,500.00 20,500.00 19,223.00 190,100.00 145, 600.00 146,19 2.78 3,200.00 1,900.00 1,347.55 3,400.00 2,000.00 1,177.93 17,000.00 7,400.00 6,924.80 2,500.00 1,500.00 1,132.57 300.00 200.00 76.93 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,700.00 700.00 - 25,100.00 17,100.00 17, 063.45 67,300.00 35,800.00 21,635.86 800.00 500.00 101.94 63,600.00 67,100.00 60,715.50 9,400.00 3,700.00 3,490.72 3,000.00 1,800.00 1,576.60 62,000.00 39,500.00 39,497.71 46,000.00 38,800.00 38,716.65 53,100.00 37,200.00 23,259.40 6,000.00 3,500.00 - 30,000.00 12,800.00 4,914.68 800.00 500.00 28.66 3,000.00 1,800.00 - 3,000.00 1,800.00 1,664.00 9,000.00 5,300.00 3,641.16 $ 1,556,600.00 $ 981,000.00 $ 844,690.76 $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,404,750.00 $ 1,220,508.97 Page 2 of 3 R 82,170.63 1,872.24 (3,325.00) 973.26 1,277.00 (592.78) 552.45 822.07 475.20 367.43 123.07 700.00 36.55 14,164.14 398.06 6,384.50 209.28 223.40 2.29 83.35 13,940.60 3,500.00 7,885.32 471.34 1,800.00 136.00 1,658.84 136,309.24 184,241.03 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ $ - $ - General Improvements - - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,501,350.00 $ 1,317,046.97 $ 184,303.03 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 48,212.00 1,140.00 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 - Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,126,826.56 $ 2,740.44 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,630,917.00 $ 2,443,873.53 $ 187,043.47 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 907,089.50 $ 1,116,244.92 $ 209,155.42 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 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 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 500,266.87 Liabilities and Fund Balance 2,592.56 194,157.20 303,517.11 $ 500,266.87 $ 500,266.87 $ 2,592.56 497,674.31 $ 500,266.87 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast $ 157,600.00 436,800.00 4,500.00 $ 157,600.00 414,960.00 1,440.00 $ 157,600.00 416,820.89 18,330.25 996.96 $ $ $ $ - 1,860.89 18,330.25 (443.04) 598,900.00 - 574,000.00 593,748.10 - 19,748.10 $ 41,400.00 $ 23,900.00 $ 21,954.10 $ 1,945.90 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 15,691.67 14,396.00 $ 1,295.67 3,900.00 $ 2,300.00 1,207.11 $ 1,092.89 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 12,100.00 $ 7,100.00 7,441.74 $ (341.74) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 500.00 15.36 $ 484.64 1,000.00 $ 600.00 - $ 600.00 93,700.00 55,841.67 50,572.00 5,269.67 62,500.00 36,100.00 33,419.18 2,680.82 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 400.00 200.00 227.55 (27.55) 44,200.00 25,800.00 19,806.65 5,993.35 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 2,500.00 1,215.52 1,284.48 1,200.00 700.00 324.65 375.35 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 4,300.00 3,899.00 401.00 12,400.00 5,800.00 3,282.17 2,517.83 Page 1 of 2 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 77,150.00 63,089.12 14,060.88 Total Field Expenditures 240,500.00 132,991.67 113,661.12 19,330.55 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 133,191.67 113,661.12 19,530.55 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,379.21 395.79 Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 Reserve for Future Construction 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 - Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - Reserves for Equipment 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - Revenue Reserve 22,000.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,379.21 5,290.79 Total Expenditures 598,900.00 459,861.67 435,040.33 24,821.34 Net Profit /(Loss) - 114,138.33 158,707.77 44,569.44 Page 2 of 2 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 - April 30, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 424,930.84 424,930.84 $ 424,930.84 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 5,092.20 15,468.75 303,213.58 101,156.31 20,560.95 404,369.89 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 424,930.84 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 -April 30, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - 127,100.00 119,474.00 121,125.20 1,651.20 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 - 700.00 700.00 1,207.60 507.60 $ 451,311.88 $ 443,685.88 $ 445,844.68 $ 2,158.80 $ 163,368.75 $ 33,900.00 $ 33,126.50 $ 773.50 70,151.60 16,900.00 15,717.95 1,182.05 29,000.00 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 349.77 - - - 7, 500.00 19,804.87 - - 588.01 - - - 1,000.00 - - - $ 271,958.13 $ 65,300.00 $ 48,844.45 $ 16,455.55 $ 7,253.75 $ 4,200.00 $ 2,018.25 $ 2,181.75 143,000.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) Total Non - Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) $ 3,900.00 $ 2,600.00 6,700.00 15,900.00 $ 29,100.00 $ $ 451,311.88 $ 5,400.00 $ 2,018.25 $ 3,381.75 70,700.00 $ 50,862.70 $ 19,837.30 2,730.00 $ 2,422.50 $ 307.50 1,818.00 1,482.37 335.63 15,900.00 15,900.00 - 20,448.00 $ 19,804.87 $ 643.13 91,148.00 $ 70,667.57 $ 20,480.43 352,537.88 $ 375,177.11 $ 22,639.23 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets $ 2,641,799.46 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 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 6,918.00 2,582,848.52 52,032.94 2,641,799.46 $ 2,641,799.46 6,918.00 2,634,881.46 $ 2,641,799.46 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 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 53,487.00 331,900.00 311,986.00 316,255.37 4,269.37 19,500.00 11,373.00 8,630.63 (2,742.37) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,313,243.04 $ 3,368,257.04 $ 55,014.00 $ 131,654.37 $ 23,697.79 $ 19,481.60 $ 4,216.19 2,956,362.25 532,145.21 429,605.74 102,539.47 9,370.03 (9,370.03) 75,615.50 (75,615.50) 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 $ 595,411.69 $ 587,306.61 $ 8,105.08 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,325.21 $ 60.79 6,800.00 4,216.00 3,896.51 319.49 17,500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,221.72 $ 380.28 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 606,013.69 $ 597,528.33 $ 8,485.36 $ - $ 2,707,229.35 $ 2,770,728.71 $ 63,499.36 Page 1 of 1 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. PBSD Board Member Terms Page 1 of 2 PBSD Board Member Terms The terms of the current 9 residential Board Members expire unevenly, 4 one year, 3 another, 2 another, and no one this last year. In a more ideal world, 2 slots would be up for election every year except every 4th year when 3 positions would be open. The purpose of this write up is to explore whether or not we should change our procedures, and if so, how. The current terms are as follows: Year Term Expires Current Incumbents 2013 Cravens, Dallas, Gibson, Womble 2014 Chandler, O'Brien 2015 Iaizzo, Levy, Trecker 2016 No one Why would it be better to have more even terms? More even terms would: • Produce more continuity with the Board. Having as many as 4 members change in a year could leave a Board with less understanding of prior decisions than would be desirable. • Make it easier to recruit Board members. The PBSD has had problems at times filling open positions (last year it took multiple tries to fill all open positions). The fewer positions open in a given year, the easier to fill them. If we wanted to change, how would we implement the change? At this writing I am not sure of actual mechanics. I've asked staff to look into how we could legally make such a change. I don't know if it would require change in our charter, or whether the BCC could merely appoint May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. PBSD Board Member Terms Page 2 of 2 new members using new rules. That will have to be determined if the Board decides to explore the concept. The actual changes could logically happen in 2013. At that point if 2 members were appointed for 4 years and 2 members for 3 years, we would be on a 2/3/2/2 pattern. Assuming we decide to do this, the 2top vote getters could be appointed for 4 years, and the next 2 vote getters for 3 years. If 4 or less people ran for election, we could draw names randomly to decide terms. If we decide this is a good idea, we should explore the logistics and make the decisions this year before we know who is running in the 2013 election. It is a lot easier to make decisions in a vacuum, without knowing specific people that will be impacted. What next? I would like us to discuss this issue at our May 2nd meeting and decide if the Board wants to go forward to explore the concept. KJD May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 1 of 6 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Chapter 122 - SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI. - PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 1. — GENERALLY Sec. 122 -1651. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Sec. 122 -1652. - Boundaries of the unit. Sec. 122 -1653. - Governing body. Sec. 122 -1654. - Purpose; powers. Sec. 122 -1655. - Annual estimates of expenses; taxation and assessment rate. Sec. 122 -1656. - Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Secs. 122 - 1657 - 122 -1660. - Reserved. Sec. 122 -1651. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 88 -23, the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit (hereinafter "Unit ") is hereby created for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. While repealing prior ordinances pertaining to the unit, the purpose of this article is to adopt a new ordinance that consolidates said preexisting ordinances into one easily read and understood article, with some modifications that express the will of the property owners within the unit. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 1, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 1) Sec. 122 -1652. - Boundaries of the unit. The Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit is comprised of and includes those lands as described on the attached Exhibit "A"* and as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B ". (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 2, 5- 28 -02) * Note— Exhibit A is not set out herein, but available as an attachment to Ord. No. 02 -27. Sec. 122 -1653. - Governing body. The governing body of the unit shall be ex- officio the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 3, 5- 28 -02) Sec. 122 -1654. - Purpose; powers. The unit is formed for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, ambient noise management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road in the above - described taxing and benefit unit and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably necessary to provide such services. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 4, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 2) Sec. 122 -1655. - Annual estimates of expenses; taxation and assessment rate. For the purpose of carrying into effect and the administration of this article, the Board of County Commissioners shall annually, at the time required by general budgetary law, review and adopt an itemized estimate of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year, which shall be from October 1 to and including September 30 following (the "budget "). The proposed budget shall be prepared and reviewed by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board prior to its consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and after review by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, the budget shall be heard, considered and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as provided for herein. The proposed budget shall describe the purpose or purposes for which the moneys are required and the amount necessary to be raised by taxation and special assessment within the unit. At the time and place for establishing the annual rate of taxation for county purposes, the Board of County Commissioners shall fix and cause to be May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 2 of 6 levied on all property within the unit subject to taxation or assessment a millage and assessment sufficient to meet the requirements of the budget; provided, however, the total millage shall not exceed the millage authorized by law for municipal service, taxing and benefit units. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 5, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 3) Sec. 122 -1656. - Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Taxes and assessments herein provided for shall be levied and assessed, imposed and collected in the same manner and form as provided for the levy and assessment and collection of general county taxes subject to the same fees for assessing and collecting as general county taxes in accordance with general law. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 6, 5- 28 -02) Secs. 122 - 1657 - 122 -1660. - Reserved. DIVISION 2. - ADMINISTRATION Sec. 122 -1661 - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec. 122 -1662. - Composition, nomination and appointment. Sec. 122 -1663. - Terms of office of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec. 122 -1664. - Removal from office: failure to attend meetings. Sec. 122 -1665. - Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. Sec. 122 -1666. - Reimbursement of expenses. Sec 122 -1667 - Functions, powers and duties of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec. 122 -1668. - Duties of the county manager. Sec. 122 -1669. - Review process. Sec 122 -1670. - Opportunity to comment prior to initial implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. Secs. 122 - 1671 - 122 -1700. - Reserved. Sec. 122 -1661. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Concurrent with the passage of the article, an 11 member advisory committee to be known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (PBSD Board) is hereby created. Those individuals who are members of the PBSD Board pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -111, as amended, as of the moment prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue on as members of the PBSD Board until March 31st of the year in which their term would have expired as set forth in the prior ordinances, and shall continue to hold over and serve in that capacity until their position is filled as provided for in this article. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 7, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 4) Sec. 122 -1662. - Composition, nomination and appointment. (a) The PBSD Board shall be representative of the residential, business and commercial interests and landowners in Pelican Bay. To that end, nine of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the residential interests within the unit and two of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the commercial and business interests within the unit. Members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the procedure outlined herein. The nine PBSD Board members representative of the residential interests within the unit shall be residents of and qualified electors within the unit. The two PBSD Board members representative of the commercial /business /other interests shall be residents of and qualified electors in Collier County. Appointment of members to the PBSD Board shall be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, which resolution shall set forth the date of appointment and the term of office. Any member of the PBSD Board who ceases to meet the requisite qualifications during his or her term of office shall immediately advise the Board of County Commissioners in writing of such change in status. Upon the Board of County Commissioners receiving such notice, otherwise becoming aware of such vacancy, or if a vacancy occurs by any other process, the Board of County Commissioners shall declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly consider filling the vacant position with a person from among the unsuccessful candidate(s) vying for the position from the immediately May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 3 of 6 preceding recommendatory balloting that receives recommendation from the PBSD Board. In the event the PBSD Board should fail to provide its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners within 20 days of the Board of County Commissioners being informed of "member's change in status ", the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the recent unsuccessful candidate that received the greatest number of votes among those unsuccessful candidates. In the event that there are no prior unsuccessful candidates available for appointment to the PBSD Board as provided herein, the vacant position shall be filled pursuant to the procedures of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, including as may be amended or its successor ordinance. (b) The terms and provisions of section six of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, titled "Process of Appointment ", shall not be applicable to appointment of members to the unit. (c) Upon adoption of the ordinance from which this section derives, all of the members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by, and all vacancies shall be filled by, the Board of County Commissioners, in the manner outlined herein, beginning with appointment to the PBSD Board of members to fill expiring memberships. All appointments of members to the PBSD Board shall be at the sole and complete discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Provided however, that the Board of County Commissioners will take into consideration and give great weight to the recommendations of the property owners within the unit, utilizing the process outlined herein. Beginning with the second Tuesday in December, 2002, and each second Tuesday in December thereafter, the Board of County Commissioners shall publicly announce and advertise all current vacancy(ies) on the PBSD Board as of that date and shall request that applications be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners to fill the expiring term(s). All such applications shall be submitted in writing to the Board of County Commissioners no later than 28 days after said announcement as determined by the postmark on mailed applications and the time stamp on hand delivered applications. The name(s) of all appropriately qualified individuals timely submitted to the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered nominees for appointment to fill said expiring term(s). The Board of County Commissioners shall then publish said list of nominees and the positions on the PBSD Board for which they have been nominated (i.e., for the "residential interests" or for the "commercial /business /other interests ") and deliver a conformed copy thereof to the clerk of courts (the "clerk "). The clerk shall cause the name of each nominee as reported and published by the Board of County Commissioners to be included on the mail ballot, which ballot shall be mailed to all of the nongovernmental property owners of the class (i.e. "residential or commercial /business /other ") corresponding with the class for which the balloting is occurring ( "residential or commercial /business /other ") within the unit no less than 30 days prior to the balloting date. Said balloting date being set by the Board of County Commissioners. (d) (1) One indivisible vote may be cast for each parcel in the unit regardless of the number of persons who have an ownership interest in the property or the manner in which title is held by them, with each discrete parcel being those as listed by the property appraiser of Collier County and as approved by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. Commercial /business /other owners cast ballots only for "commercial/ business /other interest" positions and residential owners cast ballots only for "residential interest" positions. Only one ballot shall be counted for each parcel. If multiple ballots are cast for the same parcel by owners of record, all ballots for that parcel will be deemed invalid. It is not the responsibility of the clerk or the county attorney to determine or select the ballot to be counted wherein multiple ballots for a parcel are cast as described herein. (2) For purposes of determining record title owners of property entitled to cast ballots, the listed record title owners of property as evidenced by the Collier County Property Appraiser's tax rolls as of 60 days prior to the balloting date shall be utilized and deemed conclusive. Not less than 45 days prior to the balloting date, the property appraiser shall provide the clerk and the Board of County Commissioners with the list of all parcels within the unit, each parcel's identification number, the names of the property owners and their addresses, with said list designating each parcel as either residential /commercial /other (based upon the property appraiser's classification system). (3) The mail ballots shall be cast directly with the clerk. At the place and time stated in the notice of the balloting published by the Board of County Commissioners, the clerk, with the assistance of the county attorney's office, shall open and count the ballots, which have been returned to the clerk as of the date and time stated in such notice of balloting, in a manner which the clerk deems advisable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section. Any member of the public shall be entitled to attend and observe. The determination of the clerk and the county attorney of validity of any ballot shall be final. (4) The nominee(s) receiving a plurality of the ballots cast in each category of membership shall be deemed the successful nominee(s) and their name(s) shall be reported and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall then, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, make the necessary appointments to fill said positions. (e) The cost of the nomination and balloting process shall be borne by the Board of County Commissioners. May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 4 of 6 (f) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the number of nominees for the position which they have been nominated (i.e., for the "residential interests" or for the "commercial /business /other interests ") does not exceed the number of open members for that position, then there shall be no balloting for such position. Instead, the list of nominees for the position shall simply be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, who, following public hearing on the matter, will make the necessary appointments to fill said positions. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 8, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 5; Ord. No. 2009 -05, § 1) Sec. 122 -1663. - Terms of office of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. In 2002, of the four terms which are expiring: i) two positions shall be filled with persons representative of the residential interests who shall each be appointed for a four -year term; and ii) two positions shall be filled with persons representative of the commercial /business /other interests, wherein one person will be appointed for a four -year term and one person appointed for a two -year term. Thereafter, each appointment or reappointment shall be for a term of four years. Each new term of appointment will begin on the date of appointment and expire on March 31st. A member of the PBSD Board may be reappointed by the Board of County Commissioners without limitations. Appointments to fill any vacancies on the PBSD Board shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 9, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 6) Sec. 122 -1664. - Removal from office; failure to attend meetings. (a) Any member of the PBSD Board may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55 as to attendance, if any member of the PBSD Board fails to attend two consecutive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, as determined by the PBSD Board, or if a member is absent from more than one -half of the PBSD Board's meetings in a given fiscal year, the PBSD Board shall declare the member's seat to be vacant and the vacancy shall be filled by the Board of County Commissioners in conformance with this article. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 10, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 7) Sec. 122 -1665. - Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. (a) At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers' terms shall be for one year, with eligibility for re- election. (b) The presence of six or more members shall constitute a quorum of the PBSD Board necessary to take action and transact business. In addition, an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary in order to take action, except that an affirmative vote of seven or more members present shall be required to recommend the budget for the unit to the Board of County Commissioners. (c) The PBSD Board shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business of the PBSD Board and shall keep a detailed record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 11, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 8) Sec. 122 -1666. - Reimbursement of expenses. Members of the PBSD Board shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties upon prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners after approval by the PBSD Board. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 12, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 9) Sec. 122 -1667. - Functions, powers and duties of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. The functions, powers and duties of the PBSD Board shall be as follows, and shall be carried out consistent with the provisions of the memorandum of understanding /letter of understanding referenced herein: (1) With the assistance of the county manager, provide input to the Board of County Commissioners in carrying out the purposes of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit as set forth in this article. May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 5 of 6 (2) Upon any decision by the Board of County Commissioners to dissolve, merge or otherwise change or discontinue the functions or services provided by the Pelican Bay MSTBU, the PBSD Board shall be prepared to and shall aid, assist and provide input to the county manager and the Board of County Commissioners, within the time frame requested, in effectuating a smooth and expeditious transfer of street lighting, water management and beautification services, responsibilities and obligations to the unit. (3) With the assistance of the county manager, to prepare and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners an itemized budget of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year. (4) The PBSD Board shall recommend work programs and priorities to the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted budget or budget amendments which may be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with law. The execution of work programs shall be under the direct supervision and responsibility of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to be executed by the Pelican Bay Services Division staff with the assistance of any additional county staff needed in accordance with the memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding. Said work may be performed under contract (in accordance with law and county policy) or by county forces. (5) To enter into a memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding with the Board of County Commissioners, and with the county manager, wherein the parties outline that the intent in the operation of the unit is to allow the PBSD Board to exercise decision and control of the day to day operational affairs of the unit to the maximum extent allowed by law, unless and except when there is some overriding governmental reason to do otherwise. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 13, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 10) Sec. 122 -1668. - Duties of the county manager. The duties of the county manager or his designee shall be: (1) To participate in the administration of the activities of the unit in accordance with the memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding, and the established policies of the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the terms of this article. (2) To assist the PBSD Board performing its functions as defined by this article including the preparation of the proposed annual budget. (3) To require any contract manager or employee manager of the unit to report directly to the county manager (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 14, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 11) Sec. 122 -1669. - Review process. This article shall be reviewed once every four years, in accordance with the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 15, 5- 28 -02) Sec. 122 -1670. - Opportunity to comment prior to initial implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. Prior to adopting the budget for the unit and implementing any taxing or assessment authority under this unit, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing upon reasonable notice in a local newspaper of general circulation. At such public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider the budget recommended by the PBSD Board and provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed budget and the implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 16, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 12) May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Chairman's Report. Code of Ordinances re: board member terms of office Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A The Pelican Bay Services District is comprised of and includes those lands described as follows: A tract of land being in portions of Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East; together with portions of Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being one and the same as the lands encompassed by the Pelican Bay Improvement District, the perimeter boundary of same more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West along the South line of Section 33 a distance of 150.02 feet to a point on the West right -of -way line of U.S. 41 (State Road 45), said point also being the Point of Beginning; thence Southerly along the West right -of -way line of said U. S. 41 (State Road 45) the following courses: South 00 degrees 58 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 2.49 feet; thence South 00 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 3218.29 feet; thence South 01 degrees 00 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 3218.56 feet; thence South 00 degrees 59 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 2626.21 feet; thence South 01 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 2555.75 feet to a point on the North right -of -way line of Pine Road as recorded in D.B. 50, Page 490, among the Public Records of said Collier County; thence departing said U.S. 41 (State Road 45) South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West along said North right -of -way line a distance of 2662.61 feet; thence South 00 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 70.00 feet to a point on the North line of Seagate Unit 1 as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 85 among said Public Records; thence South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West along said North line of Seagate Unit 1 and the South line of said Section 9 a distance of 2496.67 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 9; thence continue South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 225 feet more or less to a point on the mean high water line established May 15, 1968; thence a Northwesterly direction along said mean high water line a distance 15716 feet more or less; thence departing said mean high water line South 80 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds East and along the Southerly line of Vanderbilt Beach Road (State Road 862) as recorded in D.B. 15, Page 121 among said Public Records a distance of 7385 feet more or less to a point on said West right -of -way line of U. S. 41 (State Road 45); thence South 00 degrees 58 minutes 36 seconds East along said West right -of -way line a distance of 2574.36 feet to the Point of Beginning. Secs. 122 - 1671 - 122 -1700. - Reserved. Pelican Bay — Exhibit B Bxhthk B t C� O V U �O N N M C� �I U U O a .N U a al MI O N rl O N M O N N rl O N a� ca r+ O O N O M O O O O) r 0 0 O N O O O kn kn N 00 O .--i N N 6R 69 69 .N-i 6R M C le O GO" �O 6R N O �y N N 69 ono 69 69 6R 6S 69 69 0 CD N O O 0 O O O O 64 V) 6M4 66 O vi vi O �O kn 69 O U N69 64 00 6R kn 6R 6O4 � N o cc O l .. 64 M O 0 0 69 6R Z o e uO N M e4 0 O O 0 N bzox`� N o� C) P, Z r� Q Cd '4 6R 64 N 6R °' E -d ,d Ln w 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O �; O U cam- 00 U .. M —O 69 M o) N � 6q? M 'C 64 69 'r3 0 Cd U p U a c� w Y O U U a l U al C> O F N ° 609 Cn w pool w O Cd ° Cd w o 42 rA O U H S ¢ AOII NII �I rl O N MI O N N O N L a� w O U eq c w P, May 2, 2012 Regular Session of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 7a. Budget Subcommittee Report 00 O O 00 M Eog 6R 69 en 69 O O O O O N O O O O O O 0 0 O ^� O O O kn kn N 00 O .--i N N 6R 69 69 bpi 69 6R to C 0 O o o O G O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 69 6R 6N4 to C 0 O O �O N O �y N N 69 ono 69 69 6R 6S 69 69 0 CD N O O 0 O O O O 00 V) O vi vi O �O kn 69 U N69 64 00 6R kn 6R 6O4 6R o cc O o o O G O O DD O r+ C M r 69 69 6R 6N4 N rl N 69 N rl kn kn bi4 N 'dam M r 69 O O N O M 6F3 O C O C 6o!) rwe 0 0 Cj Cj U o cc O .. 0 0 Z o e uO M 0 0 0 bzox`� o� C) P, Z r� Q Cd P, 1 rA °' E -d ,d Ln w a a U x U U cam- U .. 3 o) 3 .� o w waaa�a,C7C7Z0 0 Cd U p U a c� w v1 O Revenue Canyforward Interest Income Plan Review Fee Income Interfimd Transfers Revenue Reserve Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy Total Revenue Appropriations Projections Personal Services Administration: Indirect Cost Reimbursements Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & Ups Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment Fees Information Tech Automation Allocation Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors Legal Advertising Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. Office Supplies - General Other Training & Educational Exp. Other Operating Supplies Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Field Services: Engineering Plan Review Fees Electrical Contractors Other Contractual Services Landscape Incidentals Pest Control Tree Trimming Temporary Labor Berm & Swale Maintenance Water Use Charges Landscape Materials Celluar Telephones/Radios Trash & Dumpster Fees Water Quality Testing Insurance - Vehicles Insurance - General Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. Electricity Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem Sprinkler System Maint Mulch Equipment Rental Licenses and Permits Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel Road and Bike Path Repairs Photo Processing (Aerial) Minor Operating Supplies Employee Uniforms Other Operating Supplies Light, Bulb and Ballast Personal Safety Equipment Paint supplies Traffic Signs Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Capital Outlay Rolled Capital Projects/Programs, & Reserves Clam Bay Projects Hardscape Imp. Project Lake Bank Imp. Project Reserves for Operations Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Imp. Equipment Reserve Other Charges, Fees & Transfers Tax Collector Property Appraiser Total Appropriations Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Budget Proposed Budget $174,600 $810,700 $104,200 $85,100 General Funds $8,700 Capital Projects Funds $37,100 Water Community Street OR Clam Bay Capital Total Management Beautification Lights System Projects All Funds $282,070 757,430 $373,830 11MI $85,370 $2,089,609 $3,488,309 $4,800 $11,000 $6,700 "" $800 $25,700 $49,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 ($39,000) ($191,700) $0 $32,300 $230,700 $32,300 ($34,700) ($93,600) ($22,100) ( ($7,100) ($17,100) ($174,600) $174,600 $810,700 $104,200 $85,100 $0 $8,700 $29,700 $37,100 $26,900 $0 $800 $800 $400 $400 $400 $3,500 $3,500 $3,200 $2,200 $2,200 $2,000 $9,500 $9,800 $9,500 $1,500 $1,600 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $300 $13,400 $0 $0 $4,800 $9,600 $0 $1,800 $2,600 $0 $1,500 $2,000 $0 $1,500 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,500 $800 $1,100 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $8,800 $7,400 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,300 $1,000 $29,500 $800 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $36,000 $64,500 $0 $44,900 $201,400 $0 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $89,900 $0 $8,500 $52,000 $0 $500 $3,200 $500 $5,700 $17,000 $0 $30,100 $0 $0 $900 $10,000 $900 $2,300 $9,300 $900 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $0 $3,400 $44,200 $98,400 $62,000 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $46,000 $0 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $800 $0 $7,400 $82,700 $2,600 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,700 $0 $1,100 $9,400 $0 $2,500 $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $13,100 $500 $3,000 $500 $0 $800 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $3,300 $9,600 $1,000 $36,000 $1,000 $139,045 $409,980 $59,730 $65,000 $0 $438,300 $45,325 $62,550 $32,500 $24,000 $55,300 $13,500 $73,600 $20,000 $38,000 $500 $7,500 $2,400 $500 $11,000 $64,020 $21,350 $4,200 $1,089,500 $93,800 $93,700 $1,600 $1,200 $10,200 $6,400 $28,800 $4,600 $1,800 $13,400 $14,400 $4,400 $3,500 $3,500 $5,300 $2,600 $1,000 $16,200 $50,000 $133,600 $1,500 $7,300 $214,000 $265,300 $2,500 $6,000 $138,500 $246,300 $85,000 $103,000 $89,900 $225,000 $285,500 $4,200 $22,700 $30,100 $11,800 $12,500 $5,100 $47,600 $160,400 $30,000 $46,000 $2,500 $800 $93,200 $6,000 $7,500 $6,100 $10,500 $12,000 $13,100 $4,000 $800 $50,000 $53,000 $12,900 $49,000 $64,020 $2,013,330 $2,013,330 $0 $0 $0 $630,105 $503,300 $140,375 $10,100 $107,100 ,quivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.2'. 'rojected Rate: ERU or Millage $91.241 $246.565 0.0858 $17.642 $42.676 'rojected Total Rate: ERU or Millage $337.805 0.0858 60.318 $398.12 tctual Rate (FY 2012) $337.88 0.0858 $60.25 $398.13 Lctual Dollar /Millage Change ($0.07) 0.0000 $0.07 ($0.01 -0.02% 100.00% 0.11% 0.00% E Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Revenue Reserve Interfund Transfers Interest Income Developer Plan Reviews Miscellaneous Income Prior Year Expenditures Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries and Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Information Tech Automation Insurance- General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance/Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative: A $8,200 $8,100 $5,200 $2,400 $2,800 $5,200 $4,800 $1,300 $1,300 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,000 F( $14,600 $14,600 $13,400 $6,700 $6,700 $13,400 $13,400 $2,500 $1,240 $1,800 $431 $669 $1,100 $1,500 $2,300 $595 $2,300 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,800 $2,000 $677 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $1,500 $2,500 $453 $2,000 $233 $367 $600 $2,000 $1,100 $143 $1,100 $85 $515 $600 $1,100 $195,700 $176,379 $158,800 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $159,000 $8,800 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $204,500 $176,379 $167,600 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $167,800 $245,700 $216,815 $209,000 $82,817 $109,883 $192,700 V08,800 Received A Anticipated T Total P Proposed FY 2011 F FY 2011 F FY 2012 E Expended M Mar. /Sept. R Received F FY 2013 Budget A Actual B Budget Y Year -To -Date 2 2012 E Expended B Budget $728,400 $ $702,260 $ $666,300 $ $607,709 $ $31,891 $ $639,600 $ $695,100 _ - - - - - - - - - - ( ($34,700) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ( ($39,000) $3,500 $ $4,460 $ $4,600 $ $1,185 $ $3,415 $ $4,600 $ $4,800 $1,500 $ $0 $ $1,500 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $1,500 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $188,831 $ $0 $ $187,527 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $282,070 $922,231 $ $706,720 $ $859,927 $ $608,894 $ $35,306 $ $644,200 $ $909,770 $28,000 $ $28,106 $ $28,000 $ $10,294 $ $17,706 $ $28,000 $ $28,000 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $74 $ $0 $ $1,000 $ $0 $ $1,000 $ $1,000 $ $100 $2,142 $ $2,096 $ $2,200 $ $754 $ $1,446 $ $2,200 $ $2,100 $3,304 $ $2,554 $ $1,600 $ $502 $ $1,098 $ $1,600 $ $1,900 $7,504 $ $7,504 $ $8,400 $ $4,206 $ $4,194 $ $8,400 $ $8,800 $76 $ $76 $ $100 $ $39 $ $61 $ $100 $ $100 $100 $ $100 $ $100 $ $50 $ $50 $ $100 $ $0 $41,200 $ $40,436 $ $41,400 $ $15,845 $ $25,555 $ $41,400 $ $41,000 $108,200 $ $108,200 $ $84,500 $ $42,250 $ $42,250 $ $84,500 $ $85,100 $30,800 $ $28,011 $ $26,900 $ $8,216 $ $18,684 $ $26,900 $ $29,700 $600 $ $336 $ $400 $ $160 $ $240 $ $400 $ $400 $3,500 $ $2,417 $ $3,500 $ $1,037 $ $1,763 $ $2,800 $ $3,500 $3,000 $ $14 $ $3,000 $ $108 $ $2,492 $ $2,600 $ $2,200 $11,100 $ $10,293 $ $9,500 $ $4,752 $ $4,748 $ $9,500 $ $9,500 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual I Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Ruduet Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Reserve For Salary Adjustment Reserve For Salary Attrition Overtime Social Security Matching Regular Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: $79,400 $665 $59 $0 $15,500 $7,300 $11,300 $17,400 $217 $2,500 $134,341 $79,655 $165 $0 $0 $15,587 $6,886 $8,896 $17,396 $217 $2,500 $131,302 $79,400 $700 $2,600 ($9,500) $15,400 $7,500 $5,300 $19,500 $200 $2,200 $29,155 $39 $0 $0 $5,576 $2,481 $1,650 $9,750 $110 $1,100 $50,245 $661 $2,600 $0 $9,824 $5,019 $3,650 $9,750 $90 $1,100 $79,400 $700 $2,600 $0 $15,400 $7,500 $5,300 $19,500 $200 $2,200 $79,400 $700 $200 $0 $15,400 $7,300 $7,400 $20,300 $200 $2,700 $123,300 $49,861 $82,939 $132,800 $133,600 Engineering Fees $16,400 $7,706 $12,000 $200 $14,000 $14,200 $10,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $0 $1,000 $286 $714 $1,000 $1,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $29,952 $30,000 $7,488 $22,512 $30,000 $36,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $53,077 $42,400 $22,120 $20,280 $42,400 $44,900 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,745 $14,000 $813 $13,187 $14,000 $18,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $22,600 $29,198 $22,600 $2,528 $20,072 $22,600 $30,100 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $500 $432 $500 $144 $256 $400 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $8,300 $4,519 $5,700 $2,511 $3,189 $5,700 $5,700 Insurance - General $2,400 $2,400 $2,300 $1,150 $1,150 $2,300 $2,300 Insurance - Auto $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Autos Trucks RM $900 $0 $900 $0 $900 $900 $900 Motor Pool $200 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 Labor - FleetMaint. (ISF) $1,000 $996 $1,900 $632 $1,268 $1,900 $200 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $329 $1,600 $174 $1,426 $1,600 $400 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $1,500 $0 $500 $41 $459 $500 $500 Boat R &M $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 Other Equip. R&M $1,500 $3,821 $1,500 $381 $1,119 $1,500 $1,500 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,100 $913 $1,100 $720 $980 $1,700 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $80,693 $98,400 $30,074 $60,326 $90,400 $98,400 Replanting Program $8,500 $11,141 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,200 $2,525 $8,900 $1,061 $3,839 $4,900 $3,300 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $2,870 $2,500 $2,880 $1,920 $4,800 $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $500 $500 $500 $0 $500 $500 Sub - total: $260,400 $245,71711 $261,500 $74,153 $178,847 $253,000 $271,000 3 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay Building Improvements FY 2011 Budget $13,200 FY 2011 Actual $0 FY 2012 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2012 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2013 Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Improvements General (Mnt. Fa $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Other /Off. Mach. & Equip. /Truc $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Sub - total: $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $39,000 Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements Total Field Services: $408,941 $377,019 $385,800 113124,014 $261,786 $385,800 $405,600 Reserves Improvements $65,000 Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements - - $139,045 Reserved for Operations (2 1/2 ] - - - - - - $65,000 Reserved for Operating Fund C - - - - - - $45,325 Reserved Capital Outlay - E ui - - - - $249,370 Other Fees, Charges & Transfers $24,750 $15,425 $23,900 $14,085 $1,015 $15,100 $24,000 Tax Collector Property Appraiser $22,600 $13,395 $22,000 $11,440 $1,560 $13,000 $22,000 Revenue Reserve (Prior Years) Total Other Fees & Charges: $42,100 $89,450 $0 $28,820 $38,800 $84,700 $0 $25,525 $0 $2,575 $0 $28,100 $0 $46,000 Total Appropriations: $744,091 $622,654 $679,500 $232,356 $374,244 $606,60011 $909,770 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $37,600 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $380,670 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $136,200 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $282,070 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations $243,045 Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $39,000 Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements $65,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $139,045 Improvements $65,000 Funding Reserve for South Berm Improvements Sub -total for South Berm Improvements: $65,000 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $39,025 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $6,300 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $45,325 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $249,370 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Miscellaneous Reimburse P/Y Expend. Revenue Reserve Interfund Transfers Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: IT Automation Allocation & Cap Other Contractual Serv. Storage Contractor Telephone- Service Contract Telephone- Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance- General Eq. R &M Printing & Binding Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Training & Education Sub - total: Emergency Mntc./Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative 5 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2012 Expended Budget $1,938,600 $1,869,030 $1,907,800 $1,739,869 $91,631 $1,831,500 $1,878,400 $8,200 $10,400 $10,700 $7,945 $21755 $10,700 $11,000 $0 $9,977 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 _ _ - ($93,600) _ - ($191,700) $495,070 $0 $498,338 $0 $0 $0 $657,430 $2,441,870 $1,889,407 $2,416,838 $1,747,814 $94,386 $1,842,200 $2,261,530 $28,850 $28,959 $28,900 $10,606 $18,294 $28,900 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $100 $2,200 $2,160 $2,300 $776 $1,524 $2,300 $2,200 $3,400 $2,631 $1,600 $517 $1,083 $1,600 $1,900 $7,740 $7,732 $8,700 $4,334 $4,366 $8,700 $9,000 $78 $78 $100 $41 $59 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $42,400 $41,660 $42,700 $16,324 $26,376 $42,700 $42,300 it $7,000 $4,200 $14,500 $7,200 $7,300 $14,500 $9,600 $37,500 $21,784 $34,300 $12,283 $22,017 $34,300 $37,100 $0 $0 $800 $243 $557 $800 $800 $400 $392 $400 $161 $239 $400 $400 $3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $1,037 $1,863 $2,900 $3,500 $3,000 $40 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,200 $11,400 $11,877 $9,800 $4,896 $4,904 $9,800 $9,800 $2,600 $2,187 $1,900 $462 $1,438 $1,900 $1,600 $500 $500 $500 $250 $250 $500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $1,219 $2,600 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,600 $2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $2,000 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $2,639 $2,500 $371 $1,229 $1,600 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $105 $695 $800 $1,500 $79,000 $47,737 $79,300 $27,008 $45,992 $73,000 $76,100 $7,400 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $0 $7,400 $86,400 $47,737 $86,700 $27,008 $45,992 $73,000 $83,500 : $128,800 $89,397 $129,400 $43,332 $72,368 $115,70011 $125,800 5 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Field Services: Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2012 Expended Budget Regular Salaries $442,400 $382,516 $430,700 $137,800 $251,800 $389,600 $426,300 ER 457 Contributions $2,200 $1,170 $1,700 $590 $1,110 $1,700 $1,700 Overtime $103,000 $82,227 $99,200 $32,240 $54,960 $87,200 $97,900 Reserve For Salary Adjust. $100 $0 $15,300 $0 $15,300 $15,300 $1,600 Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $0 ($22,200) $0 $0 $0 $0 Social Security $41,900 $33,105 $41,900 $12,200 $25,700 $37,900 $40,400 Retirement - Regular $64,600 $42,100 $29,200 $8,481 $13,019 $21,500 $33,700 Health Insurance $133,500 $133,500 $149,600 $74,819 $74,781 $149,600 $142,600 Life Insurance $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $601 $599 $1,200 $1,200 Worker's Compensation $38,800 $38,800 $38,500 $19,250 $19,250 $38,500 $23,000 Sub - total: $827,700 $714,618 $785,100 $285,981 $456,519 $742,500 $768,400 Water Use Charges $83,800 $78,415 $89,900 $36,600 $51,300 $87,900 $89,900 Landscape Materials $53,100 $40,406 $53,100 $22,500 $31,100 $53,600 $52,000 Other Contractual Services $29,500 $35,890 $29,500 $15,800 $13,700 $29,500 $29,500 Tree Trimming $35,900 $48,713 $63,600 $57,759 $13,841 $71,600 $64,500 Pest Control $5,000 $4,475 $5,000 $2,325 $4,275 $6,600 $6,000 Temporary Labor $204,500 $197,787 $190,100 $100,488 $119,812 $220,300 $201,400 Motor Pool Rental $700 $480 $300 $77 $123 $200 $500 Cellular Telephone $3,200 $3,026 $3,200 $897 $1,503 $2,400 $3,200 Electricity/Utilities $3,400 $2,502 $3,400 $905 $1,595 $2,500 $3,400 Trash & Garbage $24,900 $7,960 $17,000 $5,400 $11,500 $16,900 $17,000 Rent - Equipment $5,500 $1,000 $2,500 $1,115 $1,285 $2,400 $2,500 Insurance - General $9,000 $9,000 $8,800 $4,400 $4,400 $8,800 $9,300 Insurance - Vehicle $9,900 $9,900 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Sprinkler System Maint. $30,000 $31,318 $30,000 $3,688 $24,312 $28,000 $30,000 Landscaping Maint. $60,200 $53,273 $46,000 $31,300 $15,500 $46,800 $46,000 Auto & Truck R &M $100 $1,811 $100 $270 $130 $400 $100 Fleet Maint ISF Labor $8,500 $8,496 $10,600 $3,532 $7,068 $10,600 $7,200 Fleet Maint ISF Parts $9,600 $7,661 $11,400 $3,520 $7,880 $11,400 $7,200 Fleet Maint Non-ISF Parts $1,000 $1,038 $1,000 $150 $850 $1,000 $1,100 Other Equip. R &M $2,000 $16,572 $2,000 $4,281 $219 $4,500 $2,000 Licenses & Permits $800 $0 $800 $30 $770 $800 $800 Uniform Purchases & Rental $9,400 $7,084 $9,400 $2,943 $6,057 $9,000 $9,400 Fert. Herbicides & Chem. $62,000 $62,782 $62,000 $22,900 $37,200 $60,100 $62,000 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $100 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 Fuel & Lubricants - ISF $44,100 $46,403 $67,200 $11,042 $24,058 $35,100 $64,500 Road & Bike Path Repairs $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Minor Operating Equip. $3,000 $6,023 $3,000 $1,334 $1,666 $3,000 $3,700 Other Operating Supplies $11,500 $8,898 $9,000 $2,713 $6,387 $9,100 $9,000 Landscape Incidentals $0 $0 $2,500 $500 $2,200 $2,700 $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $3,000 $793 $3,000 $644 $2,156 $2,800 $3,000 Paint Supplies $800 $0 $800 $30 $570 $600 $800 Traffic Signs $3,000 $3,620 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Sub - total: $717,500 $695,326 $746,000 $342,143 $407,257 $749,400 $749,300 Emergency Mntc. /Repair 0 0 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 Sub - total: $717,500 $695,326 $749,300 $342,143 $407,257 $749,400 $752,600 Total Field Services: $1,545,200 $1,409,944 $1,534,400 $628,124 $863,776 $1,491 900 $1,521,000 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements General Autos & Trucks Other Mach. & Equip. Total Capital Outlay: Reserves Reserved for Operations (2 1/2 P Reserved for Operating Fund C� Reserved Capital Outlay - Equil Other Fees, Charges & Transfer Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $69,500 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $657,430 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $601,680 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $191,700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $409,980 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $55,750 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $6,800 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $472,530 7 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Datt 2012 Expended Budget $13,600 $355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $23,597 $102,000 $96,538 $0 $96,500 $35,000 $17,000 $12,200 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $58,600 $36,15211 $103,000 $96,538 $0 $96,500 $36,000 - - - - - - $409,980 - - - - - - $0 - - - - - - $62,550 $472,530 s $52,700 $31,255 $51,300 $26,694 $6,206 $32,900 $0 $57,750 $35,994 $55,700 $32,865 $2,835 $35,700 $0 $98,000 $0 $90,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,450 $67,24911 $197,700 $59,559 $9,041 $68,600 11 $0 $1,941,050 $1,602,742 11 $1,964,500 $827,553 $945,185 $1,772,700 $2,155,330 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $69,500 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $657,430 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $601,680 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $191,700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $409,980 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $55,750 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $6,800 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $472,530 7 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Current Ad valorem Taxes Revenue Reserve Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Matching PBSD Retirement Worker's Compensation Health Insurance Life Insurance Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimb. Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Rent - Equipment Reimburse P/Y Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation All Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Emergency Mntc./Repairs Sub - total: Total Administrative: o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $55,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $55,100 $90,215 $86,762 $93,700 $35,304 $57,096 $9L,400J $96,200 Received A Anticipated T Total P Proposed FY 2011 F FY 2011 F FY 2012 E Expended M Mar. /Sept. R Received 2 2013 Budget A Actual B Budget Y Year -To -Date 2 2012 E Expended B Budget $273,200 $ $275,688 $ $436,800 $ $396,200 $ $23,200 $ $419,400 $ $436,900 - - - - - - - - - - - ( ($22,100) $1,200 $ $1,623 $ $4,500 $ $600 $ $3,900 $ $4,500 $ $6,700 $0 $ $6,578 $ $0 $ $18,330 $ $0 $ $18,330 $ $0 $0 $ $0 $ $157,684 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $373,830 $274,400 $ $283,889 $ $598,984 $ $415,130 $ $27,100 $ $442,230 $ $795,330 $28,000 $ $28,107 $ $28,000 $ $10,294 $ $17,706 $ $28,000 $ $28,000 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $75 $ $0 $ $1,000 $ $0 $ $1,000 $ $1,000 $ $100 $2,140 $ $2,096 $ $2,300 $ $754 $ $1,546 $ $2,300 $ $2,200 $3,300 $ $2,554 $ $1,500 $ $502 $ $998 $ $1,500 $ $1,800 $100 $ $100 $ $100 $ $50 $ $50 $ $100 $ $100 $7,500 $ $7,504 $ $8,400 $ $4,206 $ $4,194 $ $8,400 $ $8,800 $100 $ $76 $ $100 $ $39 $ $61 $ $100 $ $100 $41,215 $ $40,437 $ $41,400 $ $15,845 $ $25,555 $ $41,400 $ $41,100 $6,300 $ $6,300 $ $5,300 $ $2,650 $ $2,650 $ $5,300 $ $8,700 $20,800 $ $25,654 $ $26,900 $ $10,216 $ $16,684 $ $26,900 $ $26,900 $0 $ $0 $ $800 $ $243 $ $557 $ $800 $ $800 $600 $ $325 $ $400 $ $159 $ $241 $ $400 $ $400 $3,500 $ $1,663 $ $3,500 $ $735 $ $2,065 $ $2,800 $ $3,200 $2,000 $ $15 $ $2,000 $ $108 $ $1,892 $ $2,000 $ $2,000 $11,100 $ $10,010 $ $9,500 $ $4,752 $ $4,748 $ $9,500 $ $9,500 $2,500 $ $1,958 $ $1,800 $ $431 $ $1,069 $ $1,500 $ $1,500 $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $15 ( ($15) $ $0 $ $0 $400 $ $400 $ $300 $ $150 $ $150 $ $300 $ $300 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve for Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Vehicle Allowance Sub - total: Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance - General Bldg. Repairs/Mntc. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Emergency Electricl Repair SerN Sub - total: Total Field Services Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub - total: Total Capital Outlay Reserves Reserved for Operations (2 1/2 N Reserved for Operating Fund Ca Reserved Capital Outlay - Equip Other Fees, Charges & Transfer. Tax Collector Property Appraiser Transfers Revenue Reserve (Prior Years) Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended $40,400 $40,585 $40,500 $14,856 $25,644 $40,500 -Budget $40,500 $165 $165 $200 $39 $161 $200 $200 $4,000 $3,745 $4,000 $1,640 $2,360 $4,000 $4,000 $100 $0 $1,400 $0 $1,400 $1,400 $200 $3,400 $3,200 $3,500 $1,178 $2,322 $3,500 $3,400 $5,300 $4,270 $2,600 $758 $1,842 $2,600 $4,000 $8,300 $8,300 $9,300 $4,652 $4,648 $9,300 $9,700 $100 $110 $100 $56 $44 $100 $100 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $450 $450 $900 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,865 $61,475 $62,500 $23,629 $38,871 $62,500 $63,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $500 $432 $400 $144 $256 $400 $500 $44,200 $35,100 $44,200 $14,452 $29,548 $44,000 $44,200 $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $800 $800 $800 $400 $400 $800 $900 $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,500 $1,011 $5,700 $1,076 $4,624 $5,700 $2,600 $7,300 $13,567 $7,300 $3,900 $3,100 $7,000 $7,300 $12,400 $9,950 $12,400 $2,145 $8,655 $10,800 $13,100 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $68,900 $61,760 $74,700 $22,567 $49,733 $72,300 $72,500 ,ic $9,600 $0 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $78,500 $61,760 $84,300 $22,567 $49,733 $72,300 $82,100 $141,365 $123,235 $146,800 $46,196 $88,604 $134,800 $145,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 - $59,730 $438,300 r - - - - - - $32,500 s: $530,530 $8,400 $5,295 $13,500 $7,967 $1,533 $9,500 $13,500 $5,500 $0 $8,900 $0 $8,900 $8,900 $8,900 $14,400 $0 $22,000 $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0 $28,300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,433 $18,400 $22,400 $28,300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,433 $18,400 122,400 $274,080 $215,292 $285,900 $89,467 $156,133 $245,600 IF F $795,330 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $196,630 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $177,200 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $373,830 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $115,730 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Transfer to SL Capital Reserve $56,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $59,730 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement - Carryforward (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2012) $228,100 Transfer from SL Operations $56,000 Additions to Reserves $154,200 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $438,300 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance - Carryforward 10/01/12) $30,000 Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement $2,500 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $32,500 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $530,530 10 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Carryforward Interest Income Interfund Tansfer (Fund 111) Revenue Reserve Assessment Levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511001) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Capital Outlay Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) Engineering Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Reserves & Rolled Projects Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Projects Other Fees, Charges & Transfers: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Transfers $85,370 $800 $32,300 ($7,100) $134,400 Total Available Funds: $245,770 $73,600 $20,000 $7,500 $38,000 $500 $2,400 $500 Sub Total Operating Expenditures $142,500 $11,000 Total Operating Expenditures $153,500 $0 $0 Total Ecosystem Enhancements $0 $21,350 $64,020 $85,370 $4,200 $2,700 $0 Total Other Fees & Charges: $6,900 Total Appropriations: $245,770 11 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Carryforward Assessment Levy Revenue Reserve Transfer from Fund 322 Interest Income TDC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) Carryforward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Capital Outlay Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual (Amended Budget) Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Reserves & Rolled Projects Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Projects Other Fees, Charges & Transfers Tax Collector Property Appraiser Transfer 'Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 12 Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar./Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $209,458.00 $0.00 $301,300 $85,370 $35,000 $33,744 $127,100 $115,900 $6,200 $122,100 $134,400 - - - - - - ($7,100) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300 $3,200 $700 $832 $268 $1,100 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $34,000 $0 $34,000 $34,000 $32,300 $0 11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,758 $71,944 r $463,100 $116,732 $40,468 $1-5-7-,2-0011 $245,770 $102,944 $51,175 $163,369 $12,900 $111,600 $124,500 $73,600 $137,390 $67,238 $70,151 $0 $45,000 $45,000 $20,000 $0 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $29,000 $7,488 $21,512 $29,000 $38,000 $485 $842. $350 $0 $350 $350 $500 $4,800 $4,005 $580 $0 $580 $580 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $246,619 $123,260 $271,950 $20,388 $187,542 $207,930 1 $153,500 $11,300 $4,046 $7,254 $4,800 $48,500 $53,300 $0 $143,000 $0 $143,000 $0 $96,700 $96,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,300 $4,046 $150,254 $4,800 $145,200 $150,000 $0 - - - - - - $21,350 - - - - - - $64,020 $85,370 $1,100 $675 $3,900 $2,318 $1,582 $3,900 $4,200 $700 $0 $2,600 $1,482 $1,118 $2,600 $2,700 - - - - - - $0 $1,800 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 - �3,60 ;��$675_ $8,300 $3,800 $2,700 $6,500 L $6,900 $4 04,519) $127,981 $430,504 $28,988 $335,442 $364,430 $245,770 12 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations ($207,230) Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $292,600 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $85,370 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) $85,370 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $64,020 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Canyforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $21,350 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $21,350 13 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carryforward $2,089,609 Interest Income $25,700 Interfund Transfer $230,700 Revenue Reserve ($17,100) Assessment Levy $325,121 Total Available Funds: $2,654,030 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering $50,000 Other Contractual Services $214,000 Landscape Materials $225,000 Mulch Requirements $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements $489,000 Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) Engineering $0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements $85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Traffic Signs $50,000 Total Improvements $50,000 Reserves Reserved for Operations $0 Reserved for Rolled Projects $2,013,330 $2,013,330 Other Fees, Charges & Transfers Tax Collector $10,100 Property Appraiser $6,600 Transfers $0 Total Other Fees & Charges: $16,700 Total Appropriations: $2,654,030 Equivalent Residential Units 7618.29 Projected ERU Rate: $42.68 14 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue: Assessment Levy Interest Income Revenue Reserve Interfund Transfer Miscellaneous Income Carryforward Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape 1 Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Mulch Requirements Road Materials Licenses and Permits Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies Lake Bank Enhancemen Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service Sprinkler System Mainten Swale Maintenance Landscape Materials Other Operating Supplies Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Traffic Signs Total Operating Expenses Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 15 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $331,900 $331,900 $276,575 $42,000 $318,575 $325,121 $19,500 $19,500 $5,925 $13,575 $19,500 $25,700 - - - - - ($17,100) - - - - - $230,700 $0 $0 $53,487 $0 $53,487 $0 $442,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,089,609 $794,300 $351,400 $335,987 $55,575 $391,562 $2,654,030 Renovations (50066.1) $75,000 $131,654 $12,346 $48,000 $60,346 $50,000 $549,700 $2,956,362 $426,540 $400,000 $826,540 $214,000 $5,570 $6,000 $11,570 $0 $0 $69,365 $100,000 $169,365 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $21,323 $16,500 $16,500 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $7,004 $2,500 $9,504 $0 $39,569 $38,553 $1,200 $39,753 $0 $624,700 $3,148,908 $560,378 $575,200 $1,135,578 $489,000 is (51026.1) $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $0 $0 $22,275 $0 $22,275 $22,275 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $107,775 $0 $107,775 $107,775 $85,000 Renovation (50103.1) $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $759,700 $3,306,683 $560,378 $732,975 $1,293,353 15 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Reserves Reserved for Operations Reserved for Rolled Proj Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Chgs. Total Appropriations Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Transfers from Funds 109 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) ($918,891) $2,572,000 $436,500 $2,089,609 $2,089,609 $230,700 $2,013,330 $306,979 $0 $0 16 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget - - - - $0 - - - - $2,013,330 $2,013,330 $10,300 $5,532 $4,768 $10,300 $10,100 $6,800 $3,897 $2,903 $6,800 $6,600 $17,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,600 $9,429 $7,671 $17,100 $16,700 $794,300 $569,807 $740,646 $1,310,453 $2,654,030 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance - Carryforward (10/01/12) Transfers from Funds 109 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) ($918,891) $2,572,000 $436,500 $2,089,609 $2,089,609 $230,700 $2,013,330 $306,979 $0 $0 16 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Capital Projects - Irrigation Sytem, Community Landscaping Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering (322-183825-631400-50066) These fees are being budgeted for engineering services as may be required for the implementation of the proposed community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Other Contractual Services (322- 183825 - 634999 - 50066) These fees are for contractor services that would be required for the construction services required for the implementation of community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Westside PBB Pathway (Est. Total Cost $557,000) $174,500 Myra Janco Daniels Pathway (Concrete) $39,500 $214,000 Landscape Materials (322-183825-646320-50066) Landscape Improvements $200,000 Littoral Plantings $25,000 $225,000 Mulch Requirements (322 - 183825- 646314 - 50066) Other Operating Supplies (322- 183825- 652990 - 50066) $50,000 $214,000 $225,000 $0 $0 17 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) These fees are for contractor services required for the installation of Erosion Barrier Tube for the enhancement of the water management system lake banks. Engineering (322-183825-631400-510261) $0 Berm and Swale (322- 183825- 634251 - 510261) $85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Funds are being budgeted for the renovation of the community enhanced ornamental traffic signage to be completed over a three year program.. Traffic Signs (322- 183825- 653710 - 50103.1) $50,000 Reserves Reserved for Operations $0 Reserved for Rolled Projects $2,013,330 Total $2,013,330 Other Fees, Charges & Transfers: Tax Collector: (322- 959050- 930700) $10,100 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2013 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three percent (3 %) of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (322- 959050- 930600) $6,600 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two percent (2 %) of the amount levied. Transfers Transfers to other funds. $0 Total Other Fees & Charges: $16,700 Total Appropriations: $2,654,030 18 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from/to Other Funds Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to /from Other Funds /Cap. Reserv. for Prev. Budgeted Program/Projects Sub -Total Reserve for Capital Improvements - Fiscal Year 2013 Opening Balance (10/01/12) Additions to Capital Improvement Reserves Sub -Total Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/11) Equipment Amortization Funding Requirement Sub -Total Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) Net Increase/Decrease Table "A" Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Fiscal Year 2013 Summary of Reserves - All Funds Water Mgt. Operating Funds Fund 109 Com. Beaut. Sub -Total Fund 778 Street Lights Capital Projects Funds Fund 320 Fund 322 Clam Bay Others Total All Funds & Departments $37,600 $136,200 $380,670 $69,500 $107,100 $300,300 $436,5.00 $888,230 $1,268,900 $196,630 $0 $177,200 ($207,230) $0 $292,600 ($918,891) $436,500 $2,572,000 ($822,391) $0 $4,310,700 $282,070 $657,430 $939,500 $373,830 $85,370 $2,089,609 $3,488,309 $243,045 $601,680 $844,725 $115,730 $85,370 $2,089,609 $3,135,434 $39,000 $191,700 $230,700 $0 $56,000 $0 $0 $306,979 $230,700 $306,979 ($56,000) $64,020 $2,013,330 $2,077,350 $139,045 $409,980 $549,025 $59,730 $21,350 $0 $630,105 $0 $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $228,100 $210,200 $228,100 $275,200 $503,300 $65,000 $0 $65,000 $438,300 $0 $0 $39,025 $6,300 $45,325 $55,750 $94,775 $6,800 $13,100 $62,550 $107,875 $30,0 $2,500 $32,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,775 $15,600 $140,375 $249,370 $472,530 $721,900 $530,530 $21,350 $0 $1,273,780 ($32,700) ($184,900) ($217,600) $156,700 ($64,020) ($2,089,609 ($2,214,529) Table "A" , . A May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session hr),41). 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards it Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. 0}... ..-w•-• Page 1 of 10 a a ,t..., BY ;,.:,:„ . * , 0 ,,,.,,,,,,,„, ,,,., a Stakeholder Videoconference IMay 11,2011 F sem STRATEGY PRESENTATIONS: ENGINEERING .; G Flay "Appropriate Design encourages Appropriate Behavior" Speed Matters • Drivers' field of vision & ability to see pedestrians • Drivers' ability to react and avoid a crash • Crash Severity T isc. orres: Fiala .�v Date: Hiller a-, Henning item*: Coyle Colette V CDpies to: May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 2 of 10 MIN MS IMMill IRS IMMI IF EC i J �, SIM_ 1 : _A:, 4 V-4 MI 111 II f orfil4 Ili/ •', if y Alit 1 a ,.. ir 1 n ..i _ . . _ _ .„ i �._ • .... [I ... As speed increases, driver focuses less on surroundings i . — _ —R MOM 1•117•111111111•111•11,-, /ISM MI/IMO MIR• --Mil...711—., c -r----■NMI=El OMNI,OE _—_MOM.= ■S�wa:Y∎t�7YJ•es11dai—■� m gm_—■ —= his:SiKIii -'• _=11*SM■— -- - = 1s1:/01_VI :V./.. a.1 'V...gip.►I M- ■ X17111 AINE•r er V y:-71111 4/.I'■SISrIIIIIIIII■•■••••••••••11.=IMF MUM MINIM■ �_�■■—l-511- /// �•moaaw�— —� M_I—\I II II_i .111•111•■ /■■•••■••111111111•11111•CME f-•• • . •••ragIMM/—.11■11■11-- —I M.1 IIIII■7: 1111•■•/••■••■ - MEMWMIIM--MI•11••■I• — ��∎i Ia1 �' IMI I ,MMI- M 1_I — As speed increases, driver focuses less on surroundings May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 3 of 10 High speeds equate to greater reaction and stopping distance and more severe injuries (mph) 55 50 . 40 mph 45 I I I i 85`,death 15%injured 40 I I 35 I I 30 mph 30 I 45 death 50%injured 5%uninjured 25 I 20 1 I 20 mph 15 I I 5%death 65%injured 30%uninjurec 0 100ft 200ft 300ft 400ft 500ft • • 3 .' 4 a - x'Af; mot ' i' .> i#, .,,,.,sn.,�.a ..,, .,..... .. ». ,sue._ Pedestrians will cross where it' s most convenient May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E., P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 4 of 10 Once the engineer decides to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk must be visible to the DRIVER What the pedestrian sees May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 5 of 10 � *a What the driver sees Crosswalk Visibility IATERAL 12"$TRPE CROSSWALK 0.002° 300' LONGITUDINAL MAR1S NG CROSSWA,.K 0421° .01111 taN_.- -I 10' I_ t ! 300' Longitudinal markings are more visible to driver from afar May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 6 of 10 4 0 - - ..'-., ki, A „ Old •\/\ --' - . . AHEAD ..Pla ern lit New mil. ,K _ 777,-........,_. t r t l giL aw l t -waP r.. Advanced yield line (shark' s teeth) & sign May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 7 of 10 Mid-Block Crossing — Signing •, , N I STOP liFr HERE STOP I HERE HERE • Tp HERE • heliFilll'OR WI i PEDESTRIANS 1OR i PEDESTRIANS R1-5 R1-5a R1-5b R1-5c Both versions can be used in Florida—law passed in 2008 requires drivers to stop if signs with "STOP" are posted ., STATE STATE _:� �-.` LAW ' LAW t� 1 � ...-��. V STOP - STATE LAW " �..:. ,' uin , TO FOR • ∎ •■ I A 1 �'• WITHIN WITHIN ;CROSSWALK �CROSSWALKJ r UTCD'signs ie1d,or Stop .0. In-street pedestrian crossing signs increase yield rates, on slow-speed streets May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 8 of 10 Rectangular Rapid Flash LED Beacon Not in MUTCD - received Interim approval from FHWA in July 2008 ,I Studies indicate motorist yield rates increased from about 20% to 80% I - Beacon is yellow, rectangular, and has a rapid "wig-wag" flash Beacon located between the warning sign - —, ; and the arrow plaque Must be pedestrian activated (pushbutton or passive) Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon ` l f_i _--''_._._ -- 1 , `"" , . 1, ilk. May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by BID Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 9 of 10 Pedestrian crossing sign with flashing beacon 4 INNa Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon aka "HAWK" aoss "^•.,,,�� ' jt- (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk) May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver,P.E.,P.T.O.E.,Sr.Vice President,Tindale-Oliver&Associates,Inc. Page 10 of 10 HAWK Sequence I -ill Li - Blank for # -1 Steady r 'r - ... drivers Li red , Li. 2 r - r . Flashing 5 iff yellow Wig-Wag ` J 3 r Return Li Steady .'� to 1 yellow i„ , A