The URL can be used to link to this page

PBSD MSTBU Agenda 12/05/2012 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 13argnmi 2012 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit JAN 0 2 ✓ • NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBL3;20r2 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Rules for audience participation* 5. Approval of November 7 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 6. Administrator's Report a. North Tram pedestrian crossing signal b. Landscape intersection improvements c. South berm restoration d. Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways safety concerns&status of County's repairs e. Monthly financial report 7. Committee Reports Fiala ✓ a. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee Hiller i. Approval of recommended approach* Henning ii. Selection of arborist * Coyle S-"? iii. Bicycle lane survey discussion — �- b. Clam Bay Subcommittee i. STORET water quality data recommendation* c. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee i. Status of data collection and cost of monitoring inland waterways (Dave Trecker) ii. Alternatives to copper sulfate * ii. Community outreach d. Strategic Planning Committee news (Mary Anne Womble) 8. Chairman's Report a. Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) b. PBSD Board terms c. Announcements 9. Old Business a. Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion (John Chandler) 10. New Business 11. Audience Comments 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. Adjournment *Board vote is anticipated 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 PE LICAN BAYS ER VICESDIVISION.N ET. Misc.Comes: Date: `1 lcil ►3 11/27/2012 4:30:19 PM Copses to: December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Rules for audience participation * It. Page 1 of 3 Rules for Audience Participation at PBSD Meetings ,. The rules for audience participation at PBSD meetings are intended to improve productivity and to manage time efficiently without instituting procedures that unduly limit community input. Any person may participate by commenting on individual agenda items, as well as make general comments at the end of the meeting. The Chairman will politely enforce the following rules: 1. Comments are limited to 3-minutes 2. An individual may speak only once per agenda item 3. Time from one speaker cannot be ceded to another speaker 4. Individuals invited to speak on a subject by the Chairman will be recognized and afforded adequate time to present information and answer questions KJD December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Rules for audience participation * Page 2 of 3 Original Message From: John Chandler[mailto:johnchandler219 n gmail.com] Sent: Friday,November 16, 2012 3:28 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: 12/5 Agenda Requests? Also, "Three minute rule". It should be reiterated after the Pledge of Allegiance. John Chandler Original Message From: John Chandler [mailto:johnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday,November 09, 2012 2:50 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Improving Our Meeting Productivity Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. We had another long meeting, Wednesday, and still did not cover our full agenda. In my opinion,this result has occurred far too often. I find this very frustrating and I suspect that all of us feel the same way. I believe that the main problem for our lack of productivity is that we are not enforcing our three minute rule. The BCC and PBF have this rule and strictly enforce it. As a result,their meetings are much more productive. Perhaps the Foundation will allow us to use their timer to assist in our enforcement of this rule. There may be certain times when a person or group truly needs more than three minutes. However,those situations should only be allowed based on preapproval by the PBSD Chairman. That pre meeting approval should stipulate a time limit and that time limit should be strictly enforced. Putting action items before the Administrator's report would be another way to see that issues that need to be addressed are addressed. John Chandler December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Rules for audience participation Page 3 of 3 Original Message From: david trecker[mailto:djtrecker @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday,November 18,2012 5:29 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Meeting Control Lisa-Please share these thoughts with the other directors, e.g., in the packet for the 12/5 meeting. Thanks, Dave Three things,perhaps more,contribute to the lack of meeting control and,in turn,long PBSD meetings: Length of introductory presentations, length of audience presentations under New Business, and audience comments throughout meetings. Here is a proposal for controlling all three. Presentations by invited speakers should be on noticed agenda topics only. Such presentations should be limited to 15 minutes unless otherwise determined by the chairman. Audience presentations under New Business should be limited to 3 minutes per speaker per topic, strictly enforced. Audience comments during the meeting should be taken after an agenda topic is introduced and before the topic is discussed by the PBSD board. Audience comments should be limited to 3 minutes per speaker per topic, strictly enforced. Strict adherence to these limits should hold down meeting times. Original Message From: david trecker [mailto:djtrecker@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday,November 14,2012 1:03 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Meeting Productivity Lisa- I was unable to attend the last PBSD board meeting, but I share concerns about the length of many of the meetings. Please pass this on to the directors as a one-way communication. I would try the following approach: Limit speakers in the audience to one three-minute comment per agenda topic(after the agenda item has been introduced and before board discussion), measure the three minutes, and strictly enforce the rule. That will be a difficult task for the chairman and will require reinforcing support from the other directors. It may not be workable. If not, we could try what the Foundation board used to do:Audience comments(3 minutes each)on any topic at the beginning of the meeting and again at the end. That too has to be strictly enforced. But that approach has worked in the past,and it does hold down meeting times. Dave f December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Rules for audience participation*Additional information"Obtaining public input during meetings"(John Chandler) Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 13,2011 DRAFT OF PELICAN BAY POST ARTICLE ON PBSD FY 2012 PROPOSED BUDGET Chairman Dallas said Ms. Resnick would incorporate comments received into the draft "PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget"Pelican Bay Post article,then reviewed and submitted to the Pelican Bay Post. OBTAINING PUBLIC INPUT DURING MEETINGS The Board discussed the current policy to obtain public input during meetings and agreed it was too liberal,and contributes to holding less productive meetings and deferring some items to subsequent meetings.The Board agreed to implement the policy suggested by Mr.Chandler that would(1)discontinue soliciting public comments at the beginning of the meeting;(2)solicit public comments prior to each agenda item discussion;(3)limit comments to one per person per item;(4)and limit comments to 3 minutes per person. Following public comments on an item,(5)the Board would proceed to discuss and take appropriate action without interruption;and(6)at the end of the meeting,solicit public comments on non-agenda items. The public was encouraged to email comments to the Board between the time that the agenda is post and the meeting commences. PBSD COMMITTEE STRUCTURE The Board discussed its committees and productivity.There was agreement that the Budget committee is efficient as is. Regarding whether to reconstitute the Clam Bay committee,Chairman Dallas asked the Board to provide input to Ms.Resnick for discussion at the next meeting. Dr.Trecker was appointed to the Landscape committee joining Vice Chairman Cravens(Chairman of the Landscape committee)and Mr. Gibson. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Board of County Commissioners would discuss the Vanderbilt Beach restrooms configuration on June 14 at 2 p.m.and the Clam Bay markers on June 15 at 9 a.m.The Coastal Advisory Committee does not meet in July.The Pelican Bay Foundation meets June 24 at 8:30 a.m. The Strategic Planning Committee meets June 16 at 9 a.m. JULY 6 BOARD MEETING CANCELLED Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr.Iaizzo to cancel the July 6 meeting with the option to reconsider. The Board voted unanimously in favor,passing the motion. COMMUNITY ISSUES None STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Mrs.Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee(SPC)has met several times since the last Services Division Board meeting. Ms.Bellone was elected Committee Chairwoman and the committee has three new members: Frank Butler,Charles Bodo,and Paul Lorenzo replacing Jerry Moffatt and Noreen Murray who were both elected to the Foundation Board.Currently the SPC is discussing whether to eliminate the crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Crayton Road and reestablish at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Glenview;and making a recommendation to the Foundation Board to approve crosswalk projects on Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood,Myra Janco Daniels,Gulf Park,North Pointe,Hammock Oak,and Oakmont.Other projects under discussion are reconfiguration of the Commons, Community Center expansion,restrooms and lighting considerations at the North Tram station,and U.S.41 berm. OLD BUSINESS None 8485 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 7,2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday,November 7,2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples,Florida.The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Susan O'Brien Tom Cravens,Vice Chairman Dave Trecker absent John P.Chandler Mary Anne Womble absent Geoffrey S.Gibson absent John Baron absent John Iaizzo Hunter H.Hansen absent Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W.Neil Dorrill,Administrator Mary McCaughtry,Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz,Operations Manager Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland,President,Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter,Field Manager,Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist&Principal,Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt,President&CEO,Pelican Bay Foundation Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science&Biologist,Conservancy of Southwest Florida 20 in the audience AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. September 5 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. September 24 Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee c. October 9 Clam Bay Subcommittee d. October 18 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. North Tram station visibility improvements ii. North Tram pedestrian crossing signal iii. Myra Janco Daniels crossing b. Landscape intersection improvements c. Berm i. South berm restoration ii. North berm maintenance d. County Transportation Department's Myra Janco Daniels Blvd.pathways and roadway paving e. Monthly financial reports(September and October) 6. Committee Reports a. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee i. Recommended approach* Selecting arborist iii. Resident survey No. b. Clam Bay Subcommittee i. STORET water quality data recommendation* ii. Copper impairment in Clam Bay in Dredging update c. Landscape Water Management Subcommittee i. Copper impairment in upland ponds ii. Alternatives to copper sulfate ii. Community outreach 8572 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes , November 7,2012 7. Chairman's Report a. Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) b. Announcements 8. Old Business a. Cobblestones at San Marino crossing(John Chandler) 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL Six members (Chandler, Cravens, Dallas, Iaizzo, Levy, O'Brien) were present and a quorum was established. Five members(Baron,Gibson,Hansen,Trecker,Womble)were absent. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr. Chandler to approve the agenda as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5 BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the September 5 Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. SEPTEMBER 24 PATHWAYS AD-HOC COMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the September 24 Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. OCTOBER 9 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the October 9 Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed OCTOBER 18 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the October 18 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CROSSWALKS NORTH TRAM STATION VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Mr.Dorrill reported the North Tram crossing line-of-sight landscaping improvements wer- -c, '- e: + NORTH TRAM PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL Mr. Lukasz reported the contractor should receive the pedestrian signal parts ne = ., e inst.'4.31& to be complete by the end of November. , ; MYRA JANCO DANIELS BOULEVARD CROSSING Mr.Lukasz reported the crosswalk was completed,but some of the e4 !.` ge w sit N replaced. LANDSCAPE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS lir �Mr. Dorrill reported landscape intersection improvements .; co ': , Dwarf Asian jasmine was planted as a low ground covering; and yellow-orange bro I, 1 , •.la with cranberry-red colored bromeliads and bougainvilleas to look similar to annuals flowe ti ti 4 8573 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 7,2012 BERM SOUTH BERM RESTORATION Mr. Dorrill reported the contractor is maintaining an accelerated schedule and the south berm restoration project is nearing substantial completion. Due to higher than anticipated water levels and for safety purposes turbidity screen was purchased and installed. Additional fill was also purchased increasing the total cost of the project by approximately$30,000. NORTH BERM MAINTENANCE Mr.Dorrill reported the north berm maintenance work was completed. Staff is in the process of obtaining the required Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit to allow for future restoration. COUNTY'S MYRA JANCO DANIELS BLVD.PATHWAYS AND ROADWAY PAVING Mr. Lukasz reported the County is preparing to overlay Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard pathways and roadway;and work should be complete within a week. The Board directed staff to request the current County Road and Bridge Maintenance Department's Pelican Bay roadway asphalt ratings, paving schedule, and budget; and to re-evaluate the Services Division's pathways ratings to discuss at a future meeting. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS(SEPTEMBER&OCTOBER) Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to accept the September and October financial reports as presented into the record The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. PATHWAYS AD-HOC COMMITTEE Chairman Dallas presented the pathways project recommended approach, "Draft 6.3" and the Board discussed the importance of developing a plan and schedule for future maintenance and improvements and proceeded to amend the document with a series of motions. Mr. Chandler made a motion,second by Mr.Levy to amend the last sentence of the"Public Participation"section to read, "... The final recommendations will only be developed after the community has been given the opportunity for input and the analysis stage is complete."The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed �t Mr. Chandler made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to amend"Step 1:Select Experts"addi f t Expert". r ,n "Traffic Sae The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was s Mr. Chandler made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to amend"Step 2:Experts'Assignrr .. striking the subsections and replace to read, "Conduct a census of trees along " ' < of Bay Boulevard measuring each trunks distance from the sidewalk and the str, , `. ' f c'pe of tree."The Board voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed(laizzo)and the motion was 8 Iw ' al inn r ' Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr. Chandl . . 1 3 :SD Board's Assignment"by striking the subsection, "Restripe with one 12- ,a = f I etermine preferences for marking Blvd.for bicycle lanes:". The Boar, vol.' 'vor ' d I opposed(Dallas) and the motion was passed 8574 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes A November 7,2012 Mr.Iaizzo made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to amend"Step 3:PBSD Board's Assignment"by striking the remaining subsections under"Determine preferences for marking Blvd.for bicycle lanes:" The Board voted 5 in favor and I opposed(Levy)and the motion was passed. Mr.Levy made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to see the amended"PBSD Pathways Project Draft 6.3"and take a Board vote to adopt at the next meeting. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. SELECTING AN ARBORIST Mr.Dorrill and Chairman Dallas would meet with Mr.Ian Orlikoff,certified arborist and owner of a tree service to discuss arborist services and bring back a recommendation. RESIDENT SURVEY Chairman Dallas introduced ideas initial ideas regarding developing a resident survey and requested feedback for compiling at a future Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee meeting. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE STORET WATER QUALITY DATA RECOMMENDATION Mr.Tim Hall explained STORET is the State's water quality storage and retrieval database used to determine water body impairment;and estimated it would cost$10,000 initially to enter data into STORET then $6,000 yearly thereafter. The Board discussed the pros and cons of entering Services Division's data into STORET;but deferred a decision whether to fund the project until Mr.Hall could verify that STORET segregates the Clam Bay Water Body Identification(WBID)data from the Naples WBID data. DREDGING UPDATE Mr.Dorrill presented documents pertaining to the authorization of the 2007 Clam Pass 80-foot wide dredge cut.There is a paper trail to show the permit was modified authorizing the expansion of the Clam Pass dredge cut width from 30 to 80 feet. Dr.Ted Raia,President,Mangrove Action Group and Ms.Marcia Cravens did not agree the 80-foot cut was authorized and requested the Board support a 30-foot wide dredge cut.Ms.Kathy Worley declared that for environmental purposes a 30-foot wide dredge cut was sufficient. Mr.Jim Hoppensteadt pointed out that currently there is no dredging permit and no dredging even scheduled and until one is planned,there is no position to take regarding the width of the cut. The Board decided to defer this issue to the Clam Bay Subcommittee. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE COPPER IMPAIRMENT IN CLAM BAY Chairman Dallas explained due to evidence of copper impairment in Clam Bay they• ., Management Subcommittee is looking into alternatives to using copper sulfate to tm••••• alga,or, • ferred a decision of staff's proposal to the next meeting. " 1114 8575 '�� i 4, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 7,2012 OLD BUSINESS COBBLESTONES AT SAN MARINO CROSSING(JOHN CHANDLER) Chairman Dallas deferred a discussion regarding replacing cobblestones at San Marino until December and January decision. Mr.Chandler said the Board should also determine responsibility or if a co-decision should be made with the Foundation. Mr. Steve Seidel(San Marino)was concerned about safety and urged the Board to make a decision. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Ms. O'Brien to adjourn. The Board voted I unanimously in favor,passing the motion,and the meeting was adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 11/19/2012 3:15:16 PM , ‘,:.:,,, %—14 - ' '- 8576 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Administrator's Report-Landscape intersection improvements Page 1 of 2 Original Message From:judesterz @aol.com [mailto:judesterz @aol.com] Sent: Friday,November 16,2012 12:12 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: Median Landscaping Thank you so much for your quick response and consideration. We will not be here for the Dec. 5th meeting,as we will be back in NJ for the Christmas holidays. However, I will encourage others to attend. Please keep us informed how things progress. Maybe when we return,we will see an array of colors at the intersections. Happy Thanksgiving. Phil and Judy Gutermuth Original Message From: ResnickLisa<LResnick @colliergov.net> To:judesterz<judesterz(aaol.com> Cc: Keith Dallas<keithjdallas @gmail.com>; LukaszKyle<KyleLukasz @colliergov.net> Sent: Fri,Nov 16,2012 10:36 am Subject: RE: Median Landscaping Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gutermuth, Thank you for taking time to stop by the Pelican Bay Services Division's(PBSD)office yesterday to express your disappointment with the median landscaping along Pelican Bay Boulevard at Myra Janco Daniels/West Blvd. and North Pointe intersections, and The Phil. I relayed your comments to our Chairman, Keith Dallas,and Operations Manager,Kyle Lukasz. On behalf of Chairman Dallas,the PBSD Board will discuss landscape intersection/median improvements as an agenda item at its Wednesday, December 5 at 1 p.m. meeting(at the Community Center)and we encourage you to attend. In addition to the intersections you mentioned the Board will also consider additional color/annuals at Crayton Road. To recap the locations along Pelican Bay Boulevard: 1) Philharmonic median; 2) MJD/West; 3)Crayton; 4)North Pointe; and 5) Hammock Oak. Again,thank you for your comments. Please let us know if you have questions/further suggestions. V/R, Lisa Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 lresnick @colliergov.net http://pelicanbayservicesdivision.net December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Administrator's Report-Landscape intersection improvements Page 2 of 2 Original Message From:judesterz @aol.com [mailto judesterz @aol.com) Sent: Monday, October 29,2012 7:17 PM To: office(apelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Median Landscaping Mr. Chairman, We have just returned for the fall and winter. We were VERY DISAPPOINTED in the LACK of annuals planted in the medians. The perennial landscaping is attractive, but the lack of flowers is extremely noticeable at the intersections of PB Blvd. and Myra Daniels,North Pointe and Hammock Oak. There are NO FLOWERS,just the green ground cover which is very dull and way too much. A little of that goes a long way. I would think you would want some color and flowers especially in the area at the Phil. We hope you will reconsider and plant some beautiful flowers as we have had many years in the past at these intersections. Thanks for your consideration. Phil and Judy Gutermuth St. Maarten P.. CO 0 E _ c 0 0 U 0 0 w c I w o m .N coy a a) i. oo II sr....,„...., , ,,,,,4:_., v / 'µ co r` 1 ;' ‘ .,. * . f". ..,.. , °g CO U R� 03 M 9' U p. . Ca I - • - . y-.r.;. a 7• O � 9 , .d r> E a `- a t � y �, r .,4„ wy': , ,,.• . - lt4 ,"' i : •r\ ice- „r ‘,/' ' - ''''Ite.\ . - „, - • -n c e r' { '1%' r. : 'M r '/�Y f , w : p • . ,,:,, .,, , ,,,„,',410:*H,4.1,0, ., ,,,.,.,K,41,4,0,,:,,,,,:1:1.04,, ., ,,,,....:.."'-:".".‘......-""t • �4 ' l ► 7g , , ,, �� .: I_ ' as e a) L ') ` _ c U 1 a e o 'a"' CD U) oo a) n` ' •l Q c •u) 4//A ÷-, N a) cli L CD al L 'c.C ...... ... 0.(7., 0 ,..... .... . •. .., . . ,L. .>_ —= 0 m > `Sr w, ' .{ i! - .,p'st Mfya } ap C U f co 0 /yam a �1� , o % i' ' Obi C : CV cu Lo ".'1 5' , "s„ f� �,;,��. d y 11 as ° k tP " E N ; r �/f,9; i s 1, p ss t• l� a) Q ~ �#ags •. r,,,,,'Ga CI) CO .�► Wit. ea a r y" ✓ -1 A,. t .-:i .. , 0,7', r ' ,aka-1 ,r �'*' / .r ''y "r.V ,, ' a fir$ E r '.. r V r r• . Co co a. N 0 0 0 to O o5 o i it 'C t ''T iii 2 e cc g I -c O- a m> Y. r >`Z- oo , '' a °s a„vim d. 'w., fir. ' at a3 c Ws t U Y In N r pa "t r ' •' ova V �. x • 1• fit '` �`, k4 3 4 a`t� ! i 4 11.' � X ` `f P Ne ,,,,,,-,v ,,,,vs.-,\ , ,,i-it ,..kiii' -„,,‘ •\.-k., .;‘,11fir,."44., ,..,kz,...; Irt:704.,-,....,.. s, .s,.,,j,,.....,t1 .44;11\1., ,,:),.‘..,,,,1,,,,:...:..1.1.:‘.-ct,” U) L a3 Q a) L ,,„,,, ,T. 1.41.47,ii 4. - ,t'1,4 if-.3. 4A,.._‘,—;,,1,.,,c,,l/Flifsiii, W.4 . '',,O\..1 -,..t1 'jit'':"*" 5°',4,...;.° 2.`‘'';', 'C O � wli �F � 4°I1 T 1 � + f�r' �! Y ��• "' r f �r, ter_ ..,.. �; ' - ter• ,, tk h fat '�'...' ><� , +�(j�r, �+ ;tom;. ' ^k'` ,� .f" +r (A Sri s r 4 > a e , •' f i4 re T a ''9,. : 1 a 'Y:..` ,r,t� 4t0�1(' t �� t .+y •• 11`° [� 1'� 2: .3.�s4}� `. ,, s „`/c" �•`f i+ T4, A--�' a ',1O Ox�,�,., n !4 , f { i ' x �5. •; sr'V1taY +al �` } �"�" y'ypR ��1 7 ' i3 y Ict i T , ,mot>t- t I. 1� , III '..- l fi .'y it , ct ca 03 O " . s a . 2 > y �x L.1,.#e Y.`+4 ��'"5 ',,tq,.''wti 44:'4,V a3' !ice 1,Y t _ O Ffir r. co IP a) co > m . O C ) U U >-.713 ma C .E „ O Q O 4) 1 N . L 40 O N t'd , W .� O • E 0 W -0 `v aCO ^ • N as 0 a) U) C 0 U o m '`4 '�. 4,ax, i` ' (` . . (,, ,. :.„7,,.'''AV.:2-,.,7 co iz 0.'j c a x , r. C O .1 i1 , f • `. Nc t. i.r. \ .. - w °� !, to ,4 .Y C",{ ' Of (6 W tfre ∎? a -` 4 ,. ?' f`° II i _ om CD co " cu (A 0 vf N U1 4,' ' E:,O O r N 5-Ei Q i t8 a. w� ' 7r � 1 r j r4�1{{ i r C p j ;-*. ' ,-.",'..kVi';".t. ,,,,1'.: "A'-..I kT17113'''''.;„ t.',.lkT ' '' ... ■ y r 1 .% t..',, '-+S ¢,i rid 1 , .. \ .:a. ' - . -- '4;.-.7#4,4;:tor .,.,t,i vii , I,-- t*. 3 .., vit,... ,. . ,...,, ,,, . , .,. , ,.. .., ,..14.,,,...,..„ ,..0,4 _,..:„.k. .,.t. ,./e.,4,4,,,t, ,,4,4, ,,...„1,,,,. .. .,,, ,,, ...; ,,,.,„ 1,:._ 4 ,_ Y,-.,7 \Alp lifft .)1 �; hr f ^t i`s 8//'8r j�.► . ' r• + K: �' .d Yf't 'st. �? � �` �M,y� k 3 �3' �rik ., s � t E'-. '-'1-.",,4,,,,--,,,n%,' "' i7!r{fq'T c(• ' e . 4 }' 1E � ry f...rr,--.,..7i4,.*:41.4,,,',,-. 7-i-i-4*4`,,#,'-:34,..?"''44%,,,`•Z;4441.711-7,$*i'"''',,,,ti.f?,.-„t11.- ',..40/0„tk4 7- \,;.4"'-4**4 .44'. ':"' 6 \ ke 17.:?°":2t'i;:-I'''''' 4.--T.-11..*'ir''I''.',:::, .'} :',... . '.' - '' j .:, ?,,,,,,,.. ,..' , %,, ,,4 ..,.. gt,,,,,f;',11Argib._„A., _. f Cl) co a a) co S 0 0 O c co y • 3 c e, N ' C W ■ C N C o O ./ (a O C to U _ Cn w (6 (6 W . 7 01 T Ct 3 `m o 0. m a 0 @ o > ._ , . o • 0 m c0im `r 0 (4 U R T N n o a O O +. A 42, E C 0 Ea U Q Dcoa3 ■ - - ` , * r � -s`3g r sew� ''''P:114'3..• r e � co n N L cn .4--, • C co . = ry1 07/44 icy C fB / U ( t /7,: :,- CD e ,. CD 03 .- m 1 L - , o . > N o 0 c U) >, N c4 U m a)• CD t Cl) U >•.TD CD m a C t CU , , U 0 O O 0_ DC N N.- L 0 0 .. N Ili a, . s �tk ti U Q CD i y`4 9 iiit ys, �* `y h» 7 Ir h '1'1 ✓'4f iG i 6 •�'' i� Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-November 30, 2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 1,042,209.08 Interest Receivable 1,273.99 Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 1,085,189.35 Due from Property Appraiser 521.31 Due from Tax Collector 22,234.29 Total Current Assets $ 2,151,428.02 Total Assets $ 2,151,428.02 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 49,109.70 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 9,784.69 Total Liabilities $ 58,894.39 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 900,302.49 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,192,231.14 Total Fund Balance 2,092,533.63 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,151,428.02 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-November 30,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD • Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 951,600.00 $ 951,600.00 $ 951,600.00 $ - Special Assessment-Water Management Admin 695,000.00 83,400.00 89,947.74 6,547.74 Special Assessment-Right of Way Beautification 1,878,800.00 225,456.00 243,117.65 17,661.65 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - - Surplus Property Sales - - Revenue Reserve (128,700.00) - Interest 15,800.00 2,633.33 814.55 (1,818.78) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,414,000.00 $ 1,263,089.33 $ 1,285,479.94 $ 22,390.61 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 42,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 4,367.68 $ 2,132.32 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 200.00 - - - IT Office Automation/Billing Hr. 4,600.00 460.00 400.00 60.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 85,100.00 42,600.00 42,550.00 50.00 Inter Payment/Mnt.Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 29,700.00 5,000.00 4,185.00 815.00 Telephone 3,900.00 700.00 539.60 160.40 Postage and Freight 2,200.00 400.00 - 400.00 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,000.00 2,800.00 2,649.78 150.22 Insurance-General 1,000.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 1,800.00 200.00 10.47 189.53 Clerk's Recording Fees 1,500.00 - - - Advertising 1,500.00 - - - Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Training and Education 1,100.00 100.00 - 100.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,800.00 $ 59,060.00 $ 54,702.53 $ 4,357.47 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 135,800.00 $ 20,900.00 $ 14,981.99 $ 5,918.01 Engineering Fees 10,000.00 1,700.00 - 1,700.00 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 18,000.00 3,000.00 - 3,000.00 Landscape Materials/Replanting Program 8,500.00 400.00 - 400.00 Interdepartmental Payment(Water Quality Lab) 30,100.00 5,000.00 2,382.50 2,617.50 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Temporary Labor 44,900.00 18,700.00 18,449.50 250.50 Telephone 500.00 100.00 36.04 63.96 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 1,400.00 1,993.00 (593.00) Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance-General 2,400.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - - Building Repairs&Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 2,400.00 400.00 496.51 (96.51) Fuel and Lubricants 3,300.00 600.00 379.02 220.98 Tree Triming 36,000.00 6,000.00 2,496.00 3,504.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 300.00 353.00 (53.00) Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 200.00 373.66 (173.66) Page 1of3 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 14,300.00 11,572.55 2,727.45 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,100.00 2,274.10 (1,174.10) Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 400.00 410.22 (10.22) • Total Water Management Field Operating $ 406,800.00 $ 74,700.00 $ 56,198.09 $ 18,501.91 Right of Way Beautification-Operating ' Payroll Expense $ 43,300.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 4,500.05 $ 2,199.95 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 200.00 - - - Office Automation 9,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 37,100.00 6,200.00 4,190.00 2,010.00 Telephone 3,900.00 700.00 539.60 160.40 Postage 2,200.00 400.00 - 400.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 12,200.00 3,100.00 2,871.65 228.35 Insurance General 500.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,600.00 400.00 - 400.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 400.00 - 400.00 Training and Education 1,500.00 600.00 573.22 26.78 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 126,900.00 $ 19,100.00 $ 12,674.52 $ 6,425.48 Right of Way Beautification-Field Payroll Expense $ 797,000.00 $ 122,600.00 $ 82,540.65 $ 40,059.35 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 600.00 809.68 (209.68) Flood Control(Water Use&Swale/Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 16,000.00 15,927.47 72.53 Pest Control 6,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 400.00 7.31 392.69 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 3,600.00 3,291.00 309.00 Temporary Labor 201,400.00 51,600.00 50,562.34 1,037.66 Telephone 3,200.00 500.00 225.79 274.21 Electricity*$2,620 J/E pending to SL Fund 778 3,400.00 600.00 2,808.23 * (2,208.23) Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 3,300.00 2,778.74 521.26 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 1,900.00 2,195.04 (295.04) Motor Pool Rental Charge 500.00 100.00 - 100.00 Insurance-General 9,300.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 10,000.00 - - - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 300.00 300.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 17,600.00 2,900.00 2,812.30 87.70 Fuel and Lubricants 64,600.00 9,800.00 5,964.78 3,835.22 Licenses,Permits,Training 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Tree Triming 64,500.00 3,200.00 - 3,200.00 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 1,200.00 991.22 208.78 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 500.00 403.50 96.50 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 25,500.00 25,585.99 (85.99) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 15,300.00 14,458.50 841.50 Mulch/Landscape Materials 52,000.00 26,000.00 25,752.50 247.50 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 7,500.00 8,187.16 (687.16) Painting Supplies 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,700.00 600.00 599.75 0.25 Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 1,900.00 1,661.98 238.02 Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Operating $ 1,549,600.00 $ 298,600.00 $ 247,563.93 $ 51,036.07 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,293,100.00 $ 451,460.00 $ 371,139.07 $ 80,320.93 Page 2 of 3 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 $ 35,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Capital $ 36,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Expenditures $ 37,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,330,100.00 $ 451,460.00 $ 371,139.07 $ 80,320.93 Non-Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 241,700.00 $ 241,700.00 $ 241,700.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,300.00 7,930.00 6,702.40 1,227.60 Property Appraiser Fees 72,900.00 40,095.00 39,607.92 487.08 Reserves(2 1/2 months for Operations) 533,400.00 550,400.00 550,400.00 - Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Improvement 65,000.00 Reserves for Equipment 107,800.00 107,800.00 107,800.00 - Reserved for Attrition (16,200.00) (16,200.00) (16,200.00) - Revenue Reserve - - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 1,083,900.00 $ 931,725.00 $ 930,010.32 $ 1,714.68 Total Expenditures $ 3,414,000.00 $ 1,383,185.00 $ 1,301,149.39 $ 82,035.61 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ (120,095.67) $ (15,669.45) $ 104,426.22 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-November 30,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 443,921.77 Interest Receivable 388.22 Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 54,386.52 Due from Tax Collector 3,217.01 Total Current Assets $ 501,913.52 Total Assets $ 501,913.52 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 952.53 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd - Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 952.53 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 401,763.99 Excess Revenue (Expenditures) 99,197.00 Total Fund Balance 500,960.99 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 501,913.52 Pelican Bay Services • Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-November 30,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 376,200.00 $ 376,200.00 $ 376,200.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 440,700.00 52,884.00 56,590.47 $ 3,706.47 Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $ - Insurance Claim 1,286.80 $ 1,286.80 Revenue Reserve $ (22,300.00) Interest 6,700.00 670.00 246.55 $ (423.45) Total Operating Revenues 801,300.00 429,754.00 434,323.82 4,569.82 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 42,200.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 4,367.68 $ 2,132.32 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 8,700.00 $ 4,350.00 4,350.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 4,483.33 4,185.00 $ 298.33 Telephone 3,600.00 $ 600.00 461.14 $ 138.86 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 300.00 - $ 300.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 11,800.00 $ 3,000.00 2,790.84 $ 209.16 Insurance-General 300.00 $ - - $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 100.00 - $ 100.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 200.00 - $ 200.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 97,300.00 19,533.33 16,154.66 3,378.67 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 63,900.00 9,800.00 7,316.43 2,483.57 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Telephone 500.00 100.00 36.04 63.96 Electricity 44,200.00 7,400.00 2,780.32 4,619.68 Insurance-General 900.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - - Building Maintenace & Repairs 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 1,500.00 300.00 30.00 270.00 Fuel and Lubricants 900.00 200.00 111.59 88.41 Other Equipment Repairs/Supplies 200.00 - - - Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 - - - Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 Page 1 of 2 Light Bulb Ballast 13,100.00 2,600.00 2,835.13 (235.13) Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,000.00 21,700.00 13,109.51 8,590.49 Total Field Expenditures 243,300.00 41,233.33 29,264.17 11,969.16 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 244,300.00 41,433.33 29,264.17 12,169.16 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,700.00 1,370.00 1,174.66 195.34 Property Appraiser Fees 9,000.00 - - _ Reserve for Future Construction 444,200.00 444,200.00 444,200.00 - Reserves (2 1/2 mos.for Operations) 57,600.00 57,600.00 57,600.00 - Reserves for Equipment 32,500.00 32,500.00 32,500.00 - Revenue Reserve Total Non-Operating Expenditures 557,000.00 535,670.00 535,474.66 195.34 Total Expenditures 801,300.00 577,103.33 564,738.83 12,364.50 Net Profit/(Loss) - (147,349.33) (130,415.01) 16,934.32 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit • Balance Sheet-November 30,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 219,006.13 Interest Receivable 296.68 Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 287,297.40 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 506,600.21 Total Assets $ 506,600.21 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 66,421.75 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd - Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities 66,421.75 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 200,198.08 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 239,980.38 Total Fund Balance 440,178.46 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 506,600.21 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-November 30,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 354,768.43 $ 22,400.00 $ 22,400.00 $ - Special Assessment 134,400.00 16,128.00 17,385.16 1,257.16 Miscellaneous Income Fund 111 32,300.00 - - - Revenue Reserve (6,800.00) - - Interest 800.00 100.00 189.03 89.03 Total Operating Revenues $ 515,468.43 $ 38,628.00 $ 39,974.19 $ 1,346.19 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 164,478.75 $ 5,500.00 $ 4,080.00 $ 1,420.00 Other Contractural Services 10,464.65 - - - Tree Trimming 67,000.00 3,100.00 • 2,496.00 604.00 Other Equipment Repairs 577.77 - - - Aerial Photography 15,000.00 7,500.00 5,449.80 2,050.20 Minor Operating 2,988.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,500.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 262,009.18 $ 16,100.00 $ 12,025.80 $ 4,074.20 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ - $ - $ - $ - Licenses and Permits - _ - Other Contractual Services 212,859.25 63,857.78 63,745.75 112.02 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 212,859.25 $ 63,857.78 $ 63,745.75 $ 112.02 Total Capital Expenditures $ 11,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 485,868.43 $ 79,957.78 $ 75,771.55 $ 4,186.22 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 4,200.00 $ 420.00 $ 335.67 $ 84.33 Property Appraiser Fees 2,700.00 2,160.00 2,015.21 144.79 Reserves for Operations 22,700.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 29,600.00 $ 2,580.00 $ 2,350.88 $ 229.12 Page 1 of 2 Total Expenditures $ 515,468.43 $ 82,537.78 $ 78,122.43 $ 4,415.34 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ (43,909.78) $ (38,148.24) $ 5,761.53 Page 2 of 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-November 30,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,487,506.42 Interest Receivable 2,346.95 Improvements,Vehicles& Equipment 1,213,800.81 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,703,654.18 Total Assets $ 3,703,654.18 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 1,203.15 Goods Received Inv. Received 6,617.25 Total Liabilities 7,820.40 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 2,501,578.47 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,194,255.31 Total Fund Balance 3,695,833.78 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,703,654.18 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-November 30,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 2,618,011.49 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - Transfer from Fund 109 General 241,700.00 241,700.00 241,700.00 - Foundation Payment for Crosswalks - - - - Special Assessment 324,400.00 38,928.00 41,991.26 3,063.26 Transfer from Tax Collector - _ - - Interest 25,700.00 4,283.33 1,480.63 (2,802.70) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,209,811.49 $ 2,838,295.37 $2,838,555.93 $ 260.56 Operating Expenditures: Irrigation&Landscaping Hardscape Project(50066) Engineering Fees $ 125,332.12 $ 20,888.69 $ 3,928.65 $ 16,960.04 Other Contractural Services 2,714,133.64 81,424.01 66,132.73 15,291.28 Sprinkler System Repairs - - - - Landscape material 64,550.01 22,592.50 22,652.25 (59.75) Permits Electrical - - 2,285.67 (2,285.67) Other Operating Supplies(Pavers) - - _ - Other Road Materials - - Traffic Sign Restoration Project(50103) Traffic Signs 78,920.00 - - - Lake Bank Project(51026) Swale&Slope Maintenance 192,775.72 48,193.93 40,725.00 7,468.93 Engineering Fees _ - _ - - Other Contractural Services _ - Total Irrigation& Landscaping Expenditures $ 3,175,711.49 $ 173,099.13 $ 135,724.30 $ 37,374.83 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 10,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 810.77 $ 189.23 Property Appraiser Fees 6,600.00 4,950.00 4,867.45 82.55 Reserve for Contingencies - - - Revenue Reserve 17,500.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures: $ 34,100.00 $ 5,950.00 $ 5,678.22 $ 271.78 Total Expenditures $ 3,209,811.49 $ 179,049.13 $ 141,402.52 $ 37,646.61 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 2,659,246.24 $2,697,153.41 $ 37,907.17 Page 1 of 1 • December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7ai. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Approval of recommended approach Page 1 of 4 PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 6.3 Purpose To provide the basis for an informed PBSD decision for community pathways and long-term tree canopy enhancements along Pelican Bay Blvd. Public Participation The entire project will be designed to encourage public participation.As each phase of analysis is developed,the process and results of analysis will be presented in open town hall type meetings that encourage public questions and comments. The final recommendations will only be developed after the analysis phase is completed, and will be based on the consensus of the community's reactions. Step 1: Select Experts - Engineer; and - Certified Arborist (details regarding possible ways to choose the arborist will be discussed at the September 24 Committee meeting) Step 2: Experts' Assignment - Evaluate selected and representative large trees along length of Pelican Bay Boulevard to determine tree health and remaining lifetime, using 10-15 trees in 2 sections: o The Commons to North Tram Station, and o Northeast of North Tram Station to US 41 - Evaluate impact of various root barriers and pathway widths on selected and representative nearby trees in the above sections, for the following scenarios: o Existing 5-foot pathway o 6-foot pathway o 8-foot pathway - Evaluate impact to selected trees of County's recent asphalt overlay - Evaluate cost and impact to trees of using alternative materials to construct pathways: o Asphalt o Concrete - Produce written analysis documenting the above work that is specific, complete, and that can be understood by the community and PBSD Board Step 3: PBSD Board's Assignment - Conduct a statistically sound resident survey regarding: o Frequency of use of pathways for walking,jogging, and biking o Frequency of use of Blvd. for biking o Determine preference for marking Blvd. for bicycle lanes: • Keep Blvd. as is; or • Restripe with one 12-foot lane for vehicles; and one 12-foot lane dedicated to bicycles; or • Restripe with one 12-foot lane for vehicles only; and one 12-foot lane to be shared by both vehicles and bicycles(Sharrow); or • Restripe with two 10-foot lanes for vehicles; and one 4-foot lane for bicycles - Have staff revisit County practice and codes for pathways and bicycle usage Page 1 of 2 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7ai. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Approval of recommended approach Page 2 of 4 PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 6.3 Step 4: Develop Recommended Approach - Board and staff will recommend a comprehensive approach to be used for pathways and tree canopy along Pelican Bay Blvd, including: o Type of root barriers o Pathway widths o Pathway materials o Recommended changes to the tree canopy - The recommendations will also incorporate estimated cost to implement and general implementation schedule - Report will be broadly disseminated to the community and discussed at public town hall session during season Step 5: Board Makes Final Decision Regarding: - Type, width, and placement of pathways and tree canopy - Bicycle markings for Blvd. - Possible timing - Actual vote to occur in season,after specifics have been broadly disseminated to the community Revised 9/14/2012 3:06:15 PM KID&LRJ Page 2 of 2 • December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7ai. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Approval of recommended approach Page 3 of 4 PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 6,4 (Deleted:3 Purpose To provide the basis for an informed PBSD decision for community pathways and long-term tree canopy enhancements along Pelican Bay Blvd. Public Participation The entire project will be designed to encourage public participation.As each phase of analysis is developed,the process and results of analysis will be presented in open town hall type meetings that encourage public questions and comments.The final recommendations will only be developed after the Deleted:d,and will be based on the consensus of community has been given the opportunity for input and the analysis phase is complete. the community's reactions. Deleted:and Step 1: Select Experts Formatted:Font:Italic - Engineer;, Formatted:Font:Italic Certified Arborist;and Deleted: (details regarding possible ways - Traffic Safety Expert, to choose the arboris[will be discussed at the September 24 Committee meeting) Step 2: Experts'Assignment Deleted:<#>Evaluate selected and representative large trees along length of ,Conduct a census of trees along the length of Pelican Bay Boulevard measuring each trunk's. Pelican Bay Boulevard to determine tree distance dis enlee from the sidewalk and the street noting each type health and remaining lifetime,using tree noting Y'Pe Of tree. trees in 2 sections Step 3: PBSD Board's Assignment <#>The Commons to North Tram Station, and Conduct a statistically sound resident survey regarding: <#>Northeast of North Tram Station to US o Frequency of use of pathways for walking,jogging,and biking 41¶ <#>Evaluate impact of various root barriers o Frequency of use of Blvd.for biking and pathway widths on selected and o Determine preference for marking Blvd.for bicycle lanes: representative nearby trees in the above - ,Have staff revisit County practice and codes for pathways and bicycle usage sections,for the<#>Existing 5-- opat scenarios:¶ f000t t pathway¶ <11>6-foot pathway¶ Step 4: Develop Recommended Approach <#>s-font patnway¶ <#>Evaluate impact to selected trees of - Board and staff will recommend a comprehensive approach to be used for pathways and County's recent asphalt overlay¶ tree canopy along Pelican Bay Blvd,including: <#>Evaluate cost and impact to trees of using alternative materials to construct pathways:¶ o Type of root barriers <#>Asphalt¶ <#>Concrete¶ o Pathway widths <#>Produce written analysis documenting the o Pathway materials above work that is specific,complete,and o Recommended changes to the tree canopy that can be understood by the community and PBSD Board - The recommendations will also incorporate estimated cost to implement and general Formatted:Indent:Left: 1" implementation schedule Deleted: p Blvd.as is;or¶ - Report will be broadly disseminated to the community and discussed at public town hall <#>Restripe with ith o one 12-foot lane for session during season vehicles;and one 12-foot lane dedicated to bicycles;or¶ <#>Restripe with one 12-foot lane for Step 5: Board Makes Final Decision Regarding: vehicles only;and one 12-foot lane to be shared by both vehicles and bicycles - Type,width,and placement of pathways and tree canopy (Sharrow);o¶ - Bicycle markings for Blvd. <#>Restripe with two 10-foot lanes for vehicles;and one 4-foot lane for - Possible timing bicycles¶ - Actual vote to occur in season,after specifics have been broadly disseminated to the Deleted: -Page Break- community PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 631 Deleted:11 11 Revised 11/19/2012 4:34:45 PM by LRJ based on edits made 11/7, 11 11 Revised 9/14/2012 3:06:15 PM KID&LR1 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7ai. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Approval of recommended approach Page 4 of 4 PBSD PATHWAYS PROJECT DRAFT 6.4 Purpose To provide the basis for an informed PBSD decision for community pathways and long-term tree canopy enhancements along Pelican Bay Blvd. Public Participation The entire project will be designed to encourage public participation. As each phase of analysis is developed, the process and results of analysis will be presented in open town hall type meetings that encourage public questions and comments. The final recommendations will only be developed after the community has been given the opportunity for input and the analysis phase is complete. Step 1: Select Experts - Engineer; - Certified Arborist; and - Traffic Safety Expert Step 2: Experts' Assignment Conduct a census of trees along the length of Pelican Bay Boulevard measuring each trunk's distance from the sidewalk and the street noting each type of tree. Step 3: PBSD Board's Assignment - Conduct a statistically sound resident survey regarding: o Frequency of use of pathways for walking,jogging, and biking o Frequency of use of Blvd. for biking o Determine preference for marking Blvd. for bicycle lanes: - Have staff revisit County practice and codes for pathways and bicycle usage Step 4: Develop Recommended Approach - Board and staff will recommend a comprehensive approach to be used for pathways and tree canopy along Pelican Bay Blvd, including: o Type of root barriers o Pathway widths o Pathway materials o Recommended changes to the tree canopy - The recommendations will also incorporate estimated cost to implement and general implementation schedule - Report will be broadly disseminated to the community and discussed at public town hall session during season Step 5: Board Makes Final Decision Regarding: - Type, width, and placement of pathways and tree canopy - Bicycle markings for Blvd. - Possible timing - Actual vote to occur in season, after specifics have been broadly disseminated to the community Revised 11/19/2012 4:34:45 PM by LRJ/based on edits approved 11/7/2012 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selecting an arborist for tree canopy/pathways/bike lane project(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 1 of 7 Selecting an Arborist for Tree Canopy/Pathway/Bike Lane Project As the first step in the PBSD Tree Canopy/ Pathways/ Bike Lane study,the PBSD is hiring an arborist to evaluate selected and representative trees along Pelican Bay Boulevard to determine tree health and remaining lifetime and to recommend methods to maintain and enhance our tree canopy while implementing pathways improvements. Staff consulted several local landscaping experts to provide advice, suggestions, and recommendations to find a local, qualified arborist. All of the landscaping experts consulted endorsed ISA Certified Arborist, Ian Orlikoff, owner and founder of Naples-based Signature Tree Care. Recently staff and I interviewed Ian to discuss his qualifications and experience, and to hear his comments on our proposed Scope of Project. We were impressed with his background and thoughtful approach to maintaining healthy tree canopies and have asked that he attend our December 5th PBSD to introduce himself and possible approaches to the study. Ian Orlikoff is the same arborist who was hired earlier this year by a group of Pelican Bay residents led by Mr. Rick Galli to comment on their concerns that widening our pathways might damage abutting trees.A copy of his initial thoughts from earlier this year is attached and his resume will be distributed before the meeting. I will ask at our Wednesday meeting that PBSD retain Ian Orlikoffs arborist services for this project. I think he will be a valuable resource for us, and add a professional dimension to our analysis that we have not had in the past. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a,. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selecting an arborist for tree canopy/pathways/bike lane project(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 2 of 7 Signature Tree Care,= . 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239)348-1330 • Fax: (239)348-3133 Email: info @signaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist#F1.-1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#H605655 Ian Orlikoff 481 10 Avenue NE,Naples,FL 34120 Office: 239-348-1330,348-1302 Fax:239-348-3133 Email: info signaturetreecare.com,info(i4ecolo2iclandcare.com, Websites:signaturetreecare.com,ecologiclandcare.com Owner and President,Signature Tree Care,LLC and Eco Logic Land Care EDUCATION: September 2002,International Society of Arboriculture(ISA),Certified Arborist, License No.FL-1037A April 2004,Florida Nursery,Growers and Landscape Association(FNGLA),Certified Horticulture Professional (FCHP),Certificate No.H605655 NOFA Accreditation(Northeast Organic Farming Association),Organic Land Care Professional,2010 BMP Instructor(Best Management Practices; Florida Green Industries)#T-RB002190-2 MOT Certification,Intermediate Level,Southwest Florida Safety Council CDL Class A Driver CPR and First Aid Certification,Red Cross EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE: 1991-1995 Navy Corpsmen 1997-2001 Drop Zone Tree Service,sole proprietor,North Carolina 2002 to present Signature Tree Care,LLC,owner and president Work including but not limited to the following: Consultations and estimates for residential and commercial properties Customized pruning programs Lethal Yellowing inoculation program for Collier County Aerated Compost Tea programs Organic Lawn and Landscape Care Preservation Heavy crane operations Technical rigging High angle rescue Work experience with over ten previous hurricanes Removals Stump grinding Biological soil conditioning December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selecting an arborist for tree canopy/pathways/bike lane project(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 3of7 Signature Tree Carec . 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348-1330 • Fax: (239)348-3133 Email: int"o@signaturetreecare.com IAN ORUKOFF ISA Certified Arborist#FL-i 037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#14605655 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE(cont.): Air spade services Eco sensitive fertilizing programs Compost top dressing applications/Vermicompost applications Lethal yellowing inoculation programs for residential/commercial properties Transplanting trees up to 30"trunk diameter/installations Tree and shrub planting Tree standing and bracing Cabling(static and dynamic) Root barrier systems Root Pruning and management Disease and insect management Organic/Biological pest treatments Vegetable garden designs,installations,and monitoring Customized compost systems,compost management Site planning and supervision Code violation remediation Assisted Contractor's Licensing Board with development of Tree Trimming Contractor's Exam Assisted University of Florida with redevelopment of Tree Trimming Contractors Exam VOLUNTEER WORK: donate arborist services on an as needed basis to present Collier County Horticulture Advisory Team—attend quarterly meetings Conservancy of Southwest Florida—bird rescues and placing of fallen birds back into nests. BMP Instructor-Best Management Practices;Florida Green Industries program YMCA of Collier County,tree work YMCA of Bonita Springs,tree work University of Florida;Collier and Lee County extension offices,Instructor as needed 10/07 Collier County Extension Service: Yard and Garden Show,Educational Participant,also completed pruning demonstration with Dr.Doug Caldwell 11/07 Climate Change Trade Show—Educational Participant 3/08 Collier County Extension Office: Pruning demonstration with Dr.Gilman for ISA Seminar 4/08 Arbor Day at Seagate Elementary School—Educational Participant 5/08 Xtreme Yard Makeover—Southwest Florida Water Management project—8 large tree removals 9/08 UF,Lee County Extension Service: Guest Instructor,ISA Certified Arborist Exam Preparation class(2 sections) 10/08 Collier County Extension Service: Yard&Garden Show,guest speaker and pruning demonstration with Dr. Doug Caldwell 11/08 South Naples Farmer's Market—Educational participant regarding organic plant health care December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selecting an arborist for tree canopy/pathways/bike lane project(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 4of7 _ • Signature Tree Careac 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348-1330 • Fax: (239) 348-3133 Email: info@?signaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist#FL-1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#H605655 VOLUNTEER WORK(cont.): 1/09 Collier County Extension Service,Master Gardener Workshop Series,Guest speaker,"Branching Out-Tree and Shrub Care"audio-visual presentation 3/09 Calusa Garden Club of Marco Island Plant&Garden Expo,Guest speaker, `Sustainable and Organic Plant Care' 4/2/09 Up By Roots,ISA,guest speaker,Tree Hazards presentation 4/24/09 Health Care for Senior Trees,ISA seminar,guest speaker on Mature Tree Care, Lightning Protection and Cabling/Bracing sections 6/2/09 Caloosa Rare Fruit Exchange Club,Guest speaker,Organic Plant Care 7/15/09 UF,Collier County Extension Service,"Managing Preserves"seminar,guest speaker on Proper Tree Care 10/19/09 Collier Fruit Grower's Club,Guest speaker, Sustainable and Organic Landscape Care 11/09Farmer's Market—Educational participant regarding organic plant health care 11/14/09 FGCU,Organic Gardening seminar,guest speaker,Aerated Compost Tea 11/30/09 UF,Collier County Extension Service,Tree removal techniques demonstration 1/10 Pelican Marsh school—Consulting services,installation of irrigation for school garden 5/10 UF,Collier County Extension Service—Urban Farm&Garden Workshop—guest speaker,2 presentations: Compost&Soil Amendments,Backyard Vegetable Gardening 6/10 Trees Florida 2010—guest speaker,The Use of Compressed Air in the Rhizosphere 11/13/10 Unitarian Universalist Church,Organic Gardening group,Guest speaker,"Compost Teas and Their Uses" 1/13/11 Collier County Master Gardener workshop,guest speaker Environmentally Friendly Landscapes 2/12/11 Trees Progress Workshop,Lee County Extension Office and Florida Forestry Service,guest speaker, "Urban infrastructure,root interference&root barriers" 3/15/11 UF Collier County,Guest speaker&demonstrator, Subordination pruning video with Dr. Doug Caldwell 4/5/11 University of Florida,Collier County Extension Service,guest presenter on"Tree Pruning for Health and Safety"video with Dr.Caldwell 4/9/11 and 10/15/11 Heartland Garden Club,guest speaker,Compost Teas 4/13/11 University of Florida,Proper Pruning: Roots and Sidewalks,assisted Dr.Ed Gilman,guest speaker and pruning demonstrations 8/31/11 Conservancy of SW Florida: Bat re-nesting documentary video,arborist services 11/18/11 Pelican Marsh school,guest speaker,Soil Food Web audio-visual presentation with microscope demonstration for 2"d and 3rd graders,school organic garden consultation 2/17/12 UF,Collier County Extension Service,Collier County Tree Worker Exam Committee,assist in redesigning questions for testing 7/18/12 Best Management Practices,Instructor for Proper Pruning 11/2/12 University of Florida,Lee County,instructor for ISA Certified Arborist Exam Prep Class:Tree Safety and Climbing and Working in Trees 11/13/12 University of Florida,Assistant instructor to Dr.Edward Gilman,Proper Pruning demonstration,UF seminar at Naples Botanical Garden December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selecting an arborist for tree canopy/pathways/bike lane project(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 5 of 7 Signature Tree Care,LLC 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348-1330 • Fax: (239).348-3133 Email: info @signaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist#FL-1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#H605655 REFERENCES: Doug Caldwell,University of Florida Collier County Extension office,Commercial Landscape Horticulture, (239)353-4244 x 203 Dr.Ed Gilman,Professor,Department of Environmental Horticulture,University of Florida,(352)392-1831 x 373 Mr.Norm Easey,Florida ISA Executive Director,(941)342-0153,Email: Floridaisa @comcast.net Liz Soriano,Collier County,239-252-6081 Mr.Roger Clark,Lee County Roz Katz,Lucerne Condominium Susan Wood,residential client PROFESSIONAL CONTINUING EDUCATION: 9/02 Grades and Standards of Landscape Trees-ISA 10/02 Tree Pruning-ISA 3/03 Hazard Tree Workshop-ISA 3/04 Pruning trees for safety,health and aesthetics-ISA 6/04 Trees Florida 2004 Conference 4/05 Hazard Tree Workshop-ISA 5/05 9th Annual Roots Plus Growers Workshop 9/05 Palm Lethal Yellowing-UFL Extension 6/06 Tree Preservation on Construction Sites-ISA 6/06 Trees Florida 2006 Conference 6/07 Environmentally Sensible Symposium—Forestry Resources 6/07 Best Management Practices—Green Industries 6/07 Pesticide Applicator certification—Green Industries 7/07 Urban Forest: Hurricane Recovery Program—ISA 8/07 Spanish Landscape Maintenance Series: Completed Pruning Demonstration 9/07 Trees in Urban Landscaping: What Hurricanes Teach Us-ISA 9/07 Annual Society of Municipal Arborists Conference 10/07 Theory and Practice:Art and Science of Tree Appraisal -ISA 11/07 Great Southern Tree Conference—FNGLA 3/08 Pest ID and Control—ISA 3/08 Pesticide Applicator Training 3/08 Plant Health Care—ISA 4/08 Pesticide Training 4/08 Arborist Safety and Climbing—ISA 5/08 Palm Management—ISA 9/08 Sustainable Studies Institute—Soil Food Web series(5 days) 11/08 Climbing and Safety—Vermeer December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selecting an arborist for tree canopy/pathways/bike lane project(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 6 of 7 Signature Tree Care,a . 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: (239) 348-1330 • Fax: (239)348-3133 Email: info@signaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist#FL-1 037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#H605655 PROFESSIONAL CONTINUING EDUCATION(cont.): 2/09 MOT Certification,Southwest Florida Safety Council 4/09 Up By Roots,ISA 4/09 Health Care for Senior Trees- ISA 5/09 Best Management Practices(BMP) Green Industries Certification 8/09 Pesticide applicator certification-Limited Commercial Maintenance,University of Florida 12/0917GCU,Organic Vegetable Gardening certification 1/8/10 TPIE Conference classes,FNGLA 02/10 NOFA—Organic Land Care certification 4/10 Introduction to Permaculture,FGCU,Dr.Segal 5/10 Diagnosing Biotic and Abiotic Disorders,Fl. Dept of Agriculture 6/10 Trees Florida 2010—ISA 7/10 Safety&Climbing,ISA 9/10 Tree Risk Assessment Workshop,FNGLA 9//10 BMP recertification,Project Greenscape,City of Naples 1/11 Trees and the Law,ISA 3/11 Bee College,University of Florida 3/11 Urban Pond Management,Project Greenscape,City of Naples 4/11 Proper Pruning: Roots and Sidewalks 11/11 Climbing and Safety,ISA 1/12 Advanced Pruning Practices,ISA 3/12 CPR and First Aid Certification 6/12 Trees Florida,ISA 7/12 Proper Tree,Shrub and Palm pruning,BMP,Florida Green Industries 8/12 ISA National Conference • • C aa i , . �\ //."z�\ r/ e 1� fir .•r /II r !s* ''>iti f -,• � ,! 1.-'" a0 "� \r'6`a�l\/ts'��,,�y y� lr i f r„�t� r r .y -� ..r jj��,'�;�� F i �n ° v.f. S♦ r '. f10 i '"4k it U �t11i+'+�1e,�f rI ,1�riY=•tI �.��r it r't!, ,+ Ir yi•:.•♦ai i/'r�!!.t�1e�4:::,..i'r !I i.e'� ii'r w4::**:::. /t4Sr',s'..1,4',.yt•a♦Y{rifr !!•i:•�♦e rlr�ti'••• ♦♦ + �t e• ♦eseii Q s'e1e�ei`r fit': .�f �1� a:NO It•.,♦ 1i 1'.�{ 11. I� ♦♦ ii. ! 4 !• I ♦ r I i .Jiti !•,� t m ,.�1 ,)1ip I_! Vs',, I,1 -,i:, 1 �tft�.. It �♦ .it;.". ! ♦ I.'♦ I,1 frr��, it Il,♦♦ rilr. tI•1♦ I/ ♦♦ in tj••+♦♦ rss �� F�� 0:16. ; tt ++ta bra �ta� ,: S ,s::ti4.+. i.51 " z� s+::ti+, Iia� m .i,i Iin� +>. Ii t� .1.'S*, <t�� t1+ tea.•;+.--..ii.„.) --i, (1:::.....jai. v 0.::::*cfr,jay � z:«n 1'•• piiti)L ::: j L d- 4...:10 J� � -6 (414.)..-:,,, rl fil .0 14:0y , w 4.4 .C) s (44.0.%...... ... %�'%• ouAd `::•:• CJ G O ui *01 j��+c E:s>0:::51.- _ y a)1 ;.--, _ 'OW< o p ��14ieti�yy w� ^1�/[ 1 11 e:, J �, Ft�, .+y �I 1 l ' +��+ Q yt i 7 (((1♦ d" 'T"1 r. ie Q . \ fib,.i w" C.I o � t#A t; s .I.- t N � ,) +I „_, ...-ti.;.,....„/!....,..!..i.,0, C1212 t3 i:iiitiitif .1•2 8 tosi:, 4.„„e ;....„ 0 I a:: ....44., �� (00...:::".47 '' ,,C1 Ol '"?i:•.l� s 47 lilt 404 .1* = C.4 N N i40%* 34 ^ a.,+ .. r d tts a I it ... Ri♦0' :. - Ell .y.*) Ofilitc. + ti p 1101 y '= O A lii.i4a.a4 .y.. .:J of . � �,- y a1e'aie (0":7‘. Sme r.", oh 4:: -,.."%•..:4.#i A i•0� , : / 1 ,'''i �.rT ji�� is. t,itt. °a ,��V� "r . AAA=ii.�.�,a�. j:::::::: \Y' � �i � ` a , �T � � ;I � „° 70314.2:4:4't ♦?s4°� u�Y s + � *g4�f�a � t r '.L 4 rt ++i e 1♦ +w1 i e l i r i a� ew � q December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 1 of 22 1 Signature Tree Care,L 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Fkxida 34120 Office:1239)348-1330 • Fax:(239)348-3133 Email: inforsignaturetreecare,com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist#FL-1037A 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!s 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 all 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 an 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,Joe 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 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 2 of 22 2 Signature Tree Care,LLC 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Honda 34120 Office: 1239) 348-1330 • Fax:12391 348-313.3 !maiL info'signaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist #R-1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#11605655 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 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.' 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 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 3 of 22 3 Signature Tree Care,uc of vs 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office:t2391 348-1330 • Fax: (2391348-3133 Email: tnfoOsignaturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist #FL-1037A Florida Certified Horticulture Professional 01605655 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://www.natlarb.com/html/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 large 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 decay entering the tree,increases.' Respectfully, Ian Orlikoff Arborist Consultation,Galli Builders,Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project,April 27,2012 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 4 of 22 Kira°KCirti v/ OF Horticulture Sidewalks and Tree Roots: A little flexibility needed Doug Caldwell • • I 4 0 • St- 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: http://collier.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. out and a newDecember slab 5,2012 poured Pelican(longer Bay Servresultsices Division but Board Regular may Session 7an. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 5 of 22 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 term , fall 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 douobugt ufl.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:httpaicollier.ifas.uft.edu December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 6 of 22 Broward Coutly,FL-Tree Service,tree care,tree trimming,tree removal. bttps:,"www.natiarb cotilhtml'broward_cotmty_fl.php r National Arborists Your online resource for local tree service companies&tree care information. .,3111 Btowaati County.FL.Tree Care Connect.* Homeowner Sorry we do not have a tree service or arbonst listed. Please fill out the form below and we can Information help find a local tree care service to help. tf your a tree care service company and would like to have your information displayed on this page, .Find a Tree Service please fit out the form or visit cur'Advertise war,'.is page. MOM What is an ISA First name Gertifled Arborist? Last name Pro*eet_btg Tree* Address Duri Cop etign Zip Org_atic Tree Care City information County State Information for Tree Phone Services&Arborists Ernall Arbortst Training information& Certification Prottrams Advertise your Tree Haw Can We Helps se efealO yo_o_ this site. Bevel Buddy Chip;DK ,ntfe.Shandere T?t J fir. Enter the shown code- ;K {8 sir SuEml InlsmvCn _ miles List Lueai rtsrtrg Oxen soca gatetgs 3 Reviews Fm Converters in vier.49ai#s. >.sue rr:dianet Tree Ser!ncrs hear Reviews S Get Quotes Frce Local Tree Exports Free Sewn y nor r in oetike_` eil B$ionMiF<;:Ti*Revekrosery Fennua cuts Emntoe Tannest weeds.Gwrartwo Tree Roots And Sidewalk Damage is not uncommon for tree roots to cause damage to sidewalks n Broward County.FL The problem of tree roots lifting sidewalks is evident in every major city n Broward County.FL Tree roots damage sidewalks by raising _ individual sidewalk slabs and by cracking sidewalk slabs.The questions that arise are how to 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 wen damaged sidewalks.Obvious tripping hazards put cities at the risk of a lawsuit.but the continued cost of repainng sidewalks puts a strain on city budgets. _ SIDEWALK DAMAGE FROM TREE ROOTS l� The best way to stop tree root damage to sidewalks is through proper planning Atree species that is gang to grow large is also gong to produce a significant root system to support the tree.Planting a large tree species in the narrow strip between the road and sidewalk is asking for future problems with tree roots and sidewalks. _ 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 sidewalk?Although this may be a viable solution,city foresters want to incorporate a variety of tree species in their urban forest and t is nice to see a street lined with large.mature trees Mature trees impart many positive social and economical benefits to a neighborhood.Maybe city foresters could take a different approach needs to the management of trees between the road and sidewalk -- 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 eliinwnated'Sometimes the tree roots near sidewalks are chopped out wth an axe.or the tree roots might be pulled out with a bacldtoe,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 nsk ei two ways.Cutting large tree roots can affect the stabllty of the tree.The next �.. windstorm might cause the tree to be blown over after the root cueing 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 fu 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 • r" Oftentimes.the effects of cutting tree roots are not immediately apparent.Deciduous trees have stored food reserves and will compensate kr damage done to the tree roots.Even though the tree looks heathy it does not I of 2 4/29/2012 4:57 PM December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 7 of 22 • t3roward County,FL-Tree Service,tree care.tree trimming,g,tree removal.. ltttps://www.r ttlarb.com`html/broward county tl.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.or just remove the trees far 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 with city residents even though the overall liability to the city may be reduced by removng 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 cutbng 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 new sidewalk. 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 rt There are several things that could be done to extend the useful life of trees planted between the road and the sidewalk.Root bamers can be installed to prevent or redirect root development near sidewalks.Foam has been used below sidewalks as an undertayrnent for the sidewalk.The foam gives support to the concrete and well compress to accommodate diameter growth of tree roots Altematives.such as rerouting the sidewalk around encroaching tree roots should be used whenever possible.Most other alteratives,such as.adding asphalt to raised edges,grinding down raised edges,cr re-pouring the concrete to create a mounded sidewalk are short , ] term foes The tree roots will continue to increase in diameter and quickly lift the sidewalk again 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 well be done if sidewalk damage starts to occur.Some city residents would be upset,but continually replacing sidewalks.and damaging trees in the process,can 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. rt+trrata Most urban foresters,and city residents,would prefer to not remove mature trees.But at what price should a city adhere to this type of policy'City foresters must either work around the normal growth pattern of the tree or consider removal of the tree.Continually cutting large tree roots will eventually result in a large fallen tree. [Horne][Contact Vs][Terms of Service][Prwacy f olicyl[Abour_,•1('' ,;_, 4 Copyripbt 2010-2012 CrosscutMarkebng Services!LC • • 2 of 2 4/29/2012 4:57 PM December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 8 of 22 Urban Forestry -. It Risk Trees ; .... Prioritizing t in a Community � •.. • By Brian Kane, Dr. H. Dennis P. Ryan and Dr. David V. Bloniorz The weak crotch is all too a s common along our public ` ,- l ree wardens, community ar- streets and in some loca- borists and urban foresters are lions is the No. 1 reason responsible for maintaining park for a tree failing. Early ,, # and street trees that are safe from prob- identification and correc- '. -i lems that could lead to property damage tion is required. or injury.The literature offers a general �"w """ _- , consensus about what makes a tree haz- E., ; ' ardous and how to rectify the risks once .. -s, ,I' . - identified. Without exception,publishedf 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 % ,- r,,, A s are prone to high wind or - > , f° I - wet soils. ' �¢ --F.. . ' s1►i °s.e7_ „a x ,'1,._r ' Another problem that I .t.,.WI; "+.` N ' ' •ft' j Sir ,, tree wardens must consider .,4%;, s ` '-,'' .. when inspecting for risk '"° ,, 11 trees are trees planted too close to street signs,traffic lights, or street lighting, $ because branches obscur- 'R .- ing such signs or lights , could lead to traffic acci- a . dents or personal injury. Trees in urban and subur- t ban areas can also create A large street tree that had the roots cut by the town during a road hazards to pedestrian and widening project.A 15-minute thunderstorm in August toppled the vehicular traffic with low tree and nine others on this Long Island,N.Y.street branches that block side- walks or streets. The minimum street clearance for thorough- find streets and sidewalks without the ing for oxygen,water,and nutrients will fares is 14 feet.This is enough to allow specified clearances. upset concrete sidewalk slabs quite easily. standard-sized tractor-trailers to pass with- Trees can also present a hazard in corn- This is especially obvious when trees are out encumbrance. Sidewalk clearance is munity settings with their roots. Planted planted in the utility strip,where soil con- most often on the order of 10 feet. Never- too close to sidewalks and curbs,trees may ditions are frequently poor. In search of theless, one can walk or drive through grow roots that can interfere with adjacent better growing conditions,tree roots travel many neighborhoods,urban and rural,and physical infrastructure.Tree roots search- under the sidewalk to nearby residential TREE CARE INDUSTRY-JULY 2001 45 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 9 of 22 T— " tems should be considered hazardous. Sometimes root crown investigations 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 a ound them. " . Tltimately responsible for a tree's structural stability,the roots also provide ( water and dissolved minerals from the e q, a soil. Large, woody roots offer support and anchor the tree; tiny root hairs and Basal decay on a street tree.At what point do you remove the tree? mycorrhizae absorb nutrients and water in the soil.Root damage or loss accounts for a large percentage of tree deaths and failures. Through a variety of injuries Smaller defective branches may be of a problem for street trees. Vehicular caused by construction, installations of present,but do not present a hazard risk. contact and vandalism are more likely irrigation systems, improper drainage, Weak branch crotches are also a common causes of wounds on street trees.Again, and soil compaction, roots can sustain defect in street trees. Depending on the certain decay thresholds need to be es- exorbitant amounts of damage. Often, size of the branches involved,the stress tablished,such as the 30 percent strength root injuries are covered with grass,fill, on the crotch can be severe. In a recent loss limit for considering a tree hazard- or concrete and this successfully hides survey of New England arborists and tree ous. With decay, trees can be up to 70 the severity of the damage.This creates wardens, most respondents listed weak percent hollow before they approach the an especially dangerous situation since crotches and decay in the top three most 30 percent strength loss threshold.With a casual tree examination can easily common tree defects. cavities, trees can have an open cavity overlook the root system.Symptoms of Weak crotches are a leading cause of between one-third and one-half of the root damage are manifested in the crown branch and whole tree failure.They can stem circumference before reaching the by poor growth, thinning and chlorosis be found not only between the stem and 30 percent strength loss threshold. of the foliage, as well as a general de- a lateral branch, but also between co- As a tree defect,wood decay has re- cline starting from the top of the tree. dominant leaders in a decurrent tree. ceived close scrutiny.Decay is common Other visible signs of root damage in- Because tight,"V-shaped"crotches with on tree trunks, branches and roots be- elude bleeding wounds on the trunk; included bark have little sound wood cause any time bark ruptures the decay loose,peeling bark around the stem but- holding the branches together, they are process can proceed.Dr.Walter Shortle tress; sunken areas around the lower more likely to fail when subjected to of the USDA Forest Service called de- stem and buttress;girdling roots and ad- wind stress or snow load.In fact,as the cay in living trees the most damaging ventitious roots growing above the root branches continue to increase in girth,if disease for all species around the world. flare,and cracks extending into the stem annual rings cannot envelop both Dr. Thomas Smiley and Dr. Bruce from the soil line. Any time an inspec- branches, the included bark acts like a Fraedrich of the Bartlett Tree Expert tor notices recent roadwork,landscaping, plate preventing the stems from support- Company have published that they con- irrigation system installation,or paving ing one another. Eventually, the sider decay to be the most common near a tree,they should inspect the root respective girths push each other apart hazardous defect of urban trees. Decay system for potential damage. enough to cause cracking or failure.Vi- undermines wood strength properties. A final flaw to look for is the presence sually, included bark appears as a Each tree warden needs to determine just ofa lean.Trees will lean as a result of vari- disappearance of the branch bark ridge how much decay the community is will- ous external forces. Competing for light one normally detects between stem and ing to live with,since there is no national or in reaction to prevailing winds, some branch. It appears as if the branch bark standard at this time. trees naturally lean away from others. ridge has been pulled back into the .,. „In the root zone, the tree warden Leaning trees reacting to natural forces have built up reaction wood to compen- branch/stem union. =° llould look for cut roots, decay on the Stem and branch defects are com- a`oot crown,soil heaving or root plate lift- sate for the lean; this is not a hazardous monly associated with wounds that lead ling, and fruiting bodies in the soil situation.When trees show signs of lean- to decay and open cavities. Cankers ands indicative of root rot fungi. Trees that tog, but have gradually straightened up cracks,common in park settings,are lest" `have lost up to one-half of their root sys- over time this too is usually not a hazard- = TREE CARE INDUSTRY-JULY 2001 47 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 10 of 22 ous situation. These trees leaned due to a ability and small amount of damage and action.Community opposition to remov- past impetus, but by straightening,they 3 indicating a high probability of dam- als will vary,so an urban forester must - have regained apical dominance and, in age and a large amount of damage be willing to explore different options for most cases, will ultimately balance the occurring. When totaled,the numerical hazard reduction. crown.In scenarios where trees are unnatu- values would fall between 3 and 12.lend- Corrective actions depend on what part rally leaning,however,a hazard results. ing an idea of the hazard priority of each of the tree is likely to fail,how likely it is Poor soil conditions.mounding and crack- tree.Using this rating system,a commu- to fail,and what special significance the ing of the soil behind the leaning tree,and nity will have identified problem trees tree might hold.Despite being hazardous, exposed roots protruding from the soil all and have them ranked by number. The certain trees demand preservation efforts manifest an unnatural lean,where the tree tree warden could then start work on the because of their historical, cultural or is in danger of completely falling over. trees highest ranked, reducing a physical significance. An excellent ex- In addition to the structural defects municipality's potential liability. ample is the Balmville Tree in Orange listed above,the tree species is a closing Assessment systems can be as detailed County,New York. Although most con- element to consider when determining a or simple as preferred. Simple systems suiting arborists agreed the tree was tree's hazard potential. Different species that account for fewer variables are less hazardous, residents of the community have different wood characteristics. powerful for analysis and prediction,but expended considerable effort and financial Oaks generally have strong wood,which would require less time and effort on the backing to preserve the tree because of its is less likely to fail than a tree with weak inspector's part.Currently,there are sev- historical significance.In many cases,haz- wood,such as willow. Because of this, eral forms for ranking trees being used and tree correction can be as simple as similar defects on different tree species by arborists. The International Society moving playground equipment. will not necessarily represent similar of Arboriculture has published a refer- risk.Different species also have varying ence book on hazard trees,and the park abilities to compartmentalize wounds. agencies of California and Minnesota Conclusion ��+++ Certain species are prone to forming have been using a system designed for Some communities are under the un- — poor branch attachments,such as silver their parks for many years. pression that if they don't know about a maple and American beech. Some are The Community Tree Evaluation hazard tree,then they are not responsible lesslikely to fail than others.The inspec- Form that is attached to this article was when it fails. Nothing could be further tor must be knowledgeable regarding first developed by Jill Pokomy of the from the truth. In a 1994 court case in local trees and their growth habits. USDA Forest Service St.Paul,Minn. It Connecticut,for example,Judge Anne C. has been modified by the authors over Dranginis ruled that"all property owners Assessment System the last three years with input from the —state and private,city and rural—have y New York State Department of Environ- the legal obligation to inspect their road or Given all the data an inspector would mental Conservation,the Massachusetts streetside trees forage,condition or weak- collect from the defects listed above, it Department of Environmental Manage- ness that might make them a bazard to ,,,, is imperative that a priority rating sys- ment and the Massachusetts Tree passersby." tern be used in order to develop a Wardens and Foresters Association.The The key to a community's tree inspec- risk-management strategy for a intention was to give tree wardens and tion and maintenance program,then,is to community's trees. This way. the in- community foresters an easy-to-use and establish a systematic protocol for assess- Spector can assign numerical rating cost-effective tool designed for the effi- ing the community's trees.The procedure values to each defect and target.For ex- cient evaluation of street trees. should be formalized in writing and should ample, a simple rating system would contain methods for assigning values for rank defects in terms of their likelihood Corrective Action tree defect severity,size of defective part, o to cause failure:a rating of 1 means low target value,and probability of defective failure probability;a rating of 3 means Identifying hazard trees and then ig- part damaging a target.This is the most high failure probability. Next, the in- noring them undermines the original efficient way to manage hazard trees and Spector ranks the size of the defective intent of performing the evaluation. reduce a community's exposure to liabil- part: a rating of 1 indicates a small de- Managers should establish hazard tree ity from a tree failure. fective part (between 2 and 5 inches correction measures based on thresholds diameter);a rating of 3 indicates a large from the rating system. In other words, Brian Kane is a certified arborist and defective part(greater than 10 inches di- numerical or verbal ratings should cor- Ph.D.candidate at the University ofMas- ameter).The inspector then evaluates the respond to a given remedial action to sachusetts researching risk tree analysis. target from two perspectives—the like- mitigate the problem. Corrective treat- Dr.H.Dennis P.Ryan is Professor ofAr- lihood of it being damaged if a failure ments, pruning, cabling, tree removal, boriculture&Community Forestry at the occurred and the amount of damage moving the target, augmenting tree University of Massachusetts,Amherst.Dr. likely to be incurred from a failure. vigor, and excluding visitors from haz- David V. Bloniarz is an Urban Forester Lastly the inspector would take into con- ardous sites are some of the options. and head of the USDA Forest Service sideration the tree species. These Astute tree managers will explore all Northeast Center for Urban and Commu- variables would also be ranked t through possible ramifications of any corrective nity Forestry at Amherst. 3.with 1 indicating a low damage prob- 48 TREE CARE:INDUSTRY-JULY 20111 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 11 of 22 lawns. Over time,the roots grow in diam- is the best defense against negligence.The eter and lift up the sidewalk,creating a trip procedure should detail a rating system that and labor,towns can undertake more in- hazard.Given our culture's current fond- prioritizes trees based on their risk of fail- tensive surveys, spending more ness for litigation,such a trip hazard has ure and potential to cause damage. The inspection time on each tree.It's impor- the potential to result in a large lawsuit. procedure should also provide a standard cant that -at a minimum -•every tree be A final hazard that trees present to timeframe for inspecting,on some level, inspected using the visual windshield communities deals with utility lines, the community's trees. survey method.One exception is trees in above and below ground. Utilities across low priority areas.After undertaking an the country spend over SI million per initial hazard tree inventory, the urban day clearing power lines along road- Inspection Cycle forester can de-prioritize areas of the ways. In spite of this, power failures It is reasonable for a community to in- community where target risk is so low often occur as the result of tree-related specs their street trees annually (park that tree failure is extremely unlikely to damage. Here again, the trees are pre- trees and open space trees are not in- cause damage. If it is reasonable to do senting a problem that is not necessarily eluded here,because their target ratings so, surveying high-risk areas, like a the same as a hazard tree structural fail- are usually less than for street trees).The , downtown business district, should oc- sure,In severe weather,even structurally extent of the inspection will vary,given cur more frequently than undeveloped mound trees are apt to fail.From this in- available resources. but some form of nature areas. This is reasonable priori- troduction,it should be clear that every inspection should occur annually. For tizing,designed to reduce tree risk.This community needs to prioritize its tree type of prioritization has been imple- risk potential in a systematic way. mented for recreation and park areas and is also useful in a community set- ting. Community Tree Management Program Inspection Process It is essential that a community's tree An evaluator must inspect each part risk management program be system- of the tree,crown,stem,and roots,es- atic. This point cannot be pecially if root damage is suspected. overemphasized. In a court of law, a The tree should be viewed from all plaintiff must prove negligence on the sides, although a windshield survey ,., ,defendant's part in order to win a law- { ; !' might miss something on the side of the suit:Negligence arises from: •1 , �",. `�• ,, tree facing away from the road.The in- - , 1. the responsibility to maintain safe spector should proceed in the trees in the community; inspection in the same manner each 2. a subsequent breach of that re- ,,. time in order to achieve a pattern of in- sponsibility,such as when a hazard tree =•"---- vestigation that will help make is not removed; rs II comparisons to other trees and defects. 3. damage or injury resulting from The next section introduces crown, the breach of responsibility. For ex- stem and root defects that are common ample, if the hazard tree failed and to municipal trees. Municipalities that damaged a car. do not have qualified arborists on staff In many instances,it is impossible for who can perform this type of tree in- a municipality to remove all the poten- spection should contract with a tially hazardous trees in its streets and park consulting arborist to do the inspection parks.It therefore must abide by the rea- This large hanger in a sugar maple overa g p booth was on a heavily used public common each year. A list of commercial ar- sonable person standard.The standard is in New England for over three months before borists is available from the National used to judge if an action was reasonable It was removed by the town! Arborist Association at 800-733-2622 and prudent.In other words,would a rea- or ww•w.natlarb.com. sonable person,given the same situation, In the crown,the inspector looks for have behaved similarly?The best way for many cities,this might be purely a wind- problems with the branches. These can a community to obey the reasonable per- shield survey, where the urban forester come in the form of broken, hanging son standard is to develop a written, drives each city street in the course of a branches; cracked branches; branches systematic procedure for locating and year and looks for major and obvious with significant decay or cavities; or evaluating potentially risky trees.Because defects in trees.As long as the procedure dead branches.It is recommended that a it is not feasible fora community with lim- is standardized, systematic, and estab- threshold for defective branch size be es- ited financial and personnel resources to lished in writing, a municipality can tablished,generally around two inches in remove every potentially hazardous tree, justify this inspection system given a diameter(conforming to the ANSI A300 having a systematic procedure,in writing, limited budget. With adequate funding pruning standard for crown cleaning). 46 TREE CARE INDUSTRY-JULY 2001 N O O_ N N O . N s 7, C o U a.Q ¢ o m N 0 c O o U .0 a < r---- = c N N z c d 0 ai ° '-'-*T. a g 3 „ m 0 ce t 3 n N. c a Q B ° A o o ° 4 n 3 d m - u e i g a IA 'N c v co m im S> O o- . E a ° - S E e ° S I S a c N ry E ii C a 2 t ; 0] E O 3 e " 4 r $ co 0 to N 13 m d 0 o - c O Q ~ a ° I w N (n N 4" 4 in A D T N C p > a C °; p ° lf') co ° ° . - °'i I N p E r°P!. , a ; c u �i _p 3 io Nt E i6 U O ..- - ; - E o- A 8 a' D d m U c n $ c Y _ " r m m w n a. s s $ ° 3 0 o E s $ g t o ,s 3 s a g g I en Cg � o R - .. s _ a _ i E v� ' - s _ F. 1g2g .. 3 Eai _ s o $ o I - b s m f 3 a LL N c V . t 3 a c s i 2 i m - i 2 6 m TO ,g J _ g c 3 E £ V? j ' a m t z ° « c S 5 ° n s ti c 41 : -4.t.-? i. " ; s o ;,LL _ s .. '3 r', . u 3 . 2 ® .3 •c a 2 `So e ° ° v' o CD 2 p Y. ` m t ° o S 3 P a°o 8 1, O ,, am „ 1fI aEt3 ' -° oa >v _n' a a° a s y u = m io c o f y $ � . a g o s f o t ' : q R v / `° 4 3 0 i < ” n 1 a _ c. c., .. JEg - 3i' . , : Y °o N ¢ O Sc W a • 1 u 1 £ O 0., m I ! < li u`�i �`$ ° J 4� 0 ¢, m TREE CARE INDUSTRY-JULY 2091 49 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 13 of 22 PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION BOARD: BILL CARPENTER ` c RONNIE BELLONE RGCE`V GD BOB UEK 't 0 2012 JERRY MOFFATT NOREEN MURRAY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MARY JOHNSON ROBERT PENDERGRASS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CHAIR: KEITH DALLAS 8' PATHWAY PROJECT This follows up on my previous, March 16 memo regarding the un-anticipated immediate and long term damage that I expect would result from this project. I have not received any direct reply to that memo so a group of Owners selected and retained an experienced, certified, local Arborist, Signature Tree Care, of Naples, to look at the proposed project and provide their independent assessment of tree damage potential; to have something concrete for the scheduled April 11,PBSD meeting.Their report is attached for your information and use. On Friday,April 5,we reviewed the June 2011, Agnoli Barber& Brundage, 15 Page Plans that I used for my survey and together walked the project area to physically observe the field situations, tree sizes, tree conditions and proposed changes that the construction would impose on the tree roots. They told me that it is common for trees that are weakened from root cutting by nearby sidewalk projects to fall over and gave me the attached University of Florida root cutting Guidelines. They confirmed my concerns and more clearly define the expected resulting damage that would occur with the proposed 8' widening plan. With this additional credible information,I ask you to reconsider going back to your earlier decision of a 6' or less width. My concerns are not only from the safety hazard from falling trees, but also the hazard of mixing pedestrians and cyclists on the same sidewalk, when a clear, safer alternate is adjacent and nearby. The attached color chart illustrates my suggestion is that you reconsider doing a test section in the same area of Pelican Bay Blvd. of a temporary street bike lane, similar to what exists on Crayton Road. In that case the open carriage way is 8'9" wide with opposing traffic. On PBBIvd. We would have a 10' carriage way with parallel traffic which is 1'3" wider than Crayton. This would put all high speed wheeled traffic on the same hardscape and improve walker safety, minimize tree damage/loss and save considerable construction money by keeping the 5' width. Furthermore,these recommendations would better align with the intent of the SPC Master Plan-Priority II SAFETY & SECURITY: #2 Convert asphalt paths along one side of the main streets (how about in the streets?)to dedicated multi use paths... (by providing a safer and flatter dedicated biking surface). and begin following Priority III OUR ENVIRONMENT — NATURAL & BUILT: #3 Develop a complete "Streetscape", (by utilizing the attached, or another professional Arborist, in dealing with the Blvd. Streetscape this"Recommended Action"would be achieved) Thank you for your consideration. RICK GALLI,ST.MAARTEN APRIL 9,2012 N O N a Ita ci ` N ; A 1 P, 4 ri 6. ci o � , ,, " r,'/, l (, 7 . eNckt. r f..aso � ,6 l ii - J � O HC* 6'd--,1 __ic U �' 2e 3` ice` f • L a) a) CO CD - -- - A .L.} vti.s Sri E.Lv a E U U O a j $ \N In- ccs U ._ p D 1— d x g4. 4 I-4, 4 ,aI ... , . a- . - , 46 GAG �� 'g„. ,, „, , Q ii Ir 1 ;:,:- At , , ,,,,,, r f / I E l0` 3`' 43` December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 15 of 22 Signature Tree Care,roc 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, florui.i t4 120 Office. (239) 348-1330 • fax: t239i 3483133 Email:into sil naturetreecare.com IAN ORLIKOFF 14A (rrfitie<I Arborict #11.103,74 flori+la Certified horticulture Profec4ional#11(10163.; April 6,2012 Attention: Rick Galli,Galli Builders Re: Pelican Bay Services Division, Pelican Bay Blvd. Pathway Project from Westside-Commons to North Tram Station Arborist consultation completed this date regarding tree and root related issues in proposed pathway project. Client requested an arborist site visit along with report concerning tree health and safety issues relating to current proposed redesign which would require the severing of roots for a pathway/bike path, Area of concern would include but not limited to,as per plan given to me this date,the right of way trees on West side of South bound lanes of Pelican Bay Boulevard on either side of alk and bike pathway. Pathway is proposed to be widened with various distances between it and the trunks of multiple trees of various sizes and species. Pathway level of use would be considered high with day to day ingress and egress of pedestrian, bicycle and residential and commercial vehicular traffic.The targets and liabilities of any future tree failures would be considered high.Targets include pedestrians,bicyclists and vehicles.These tree failures could also impact(but are not limited to)structures such as the pathway itself, irrigation lines, utilities, landscaping,hardscape and lights. Emergency services and evacuation routes would also be impaired with failure of right of way trees. Benefits of trees along a road include but are not limited to: *Realtor studies show communities with a mature tree canopy have increased property values *Privacy screen of traffic, poles, buildings,etc. *A collective canopy produces a wind buffer reducing wind damage to property when compared to wide open areas in the community *Shade creates a cooling effect for people who use pathway and increases pavement life by 40 to 60 1 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders,Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project,April 2012 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 16 of 22 Signature Tree Care,u 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: '239)348-1330 • Fax:(239) 348-3133 Email: in foPsignaturetreecare.c::om IAN ORUKOFF /Sri C=ertified Arborist NFL•10;74 Florrcla Certified Horticulture Prote,,ional#116056 Benefits of trees along a road include but are not limited to(continued): *Sound buffer qualities reduce traffic noise *Safety:studies show tree lined streets reduce accidents/injuries by 5-20% *Speed reduction: multiple studies show drivers naturally slow down with speed differentials between 3 and 15 mph when traveling streets lined with trees *Storm water runoff remediation,in their given area.Trees absorb the first 30%of rainfall through their foliage and another 30%with their roots. *Trees create a greater sense of community having a reduced rate of crime and fewer incidences of road rage The benefits of trees increase as the canopy matures.Many of the statistics above are based on a mature canopy.A majority of trees are not considered to be productive trees until they reach maturity. Some of the trees on Pelican Bay Blvd are considered to be mature trees. In order to retain a mature and productive urban canopy tree roots vs.their nearby structures is a very significant consideration when dealing with development/design as well as pre and post construction.Tree roots and the surrounding urban structures are typically not considered during the early stages of development.It is not until tree health declines or tree failure occurs that the true causes are identified. Considerations during the design phase should include but are not limited to: Design factors,site conditions,soil compaction,media utilized,level of accuracy that specifications are carried out,contractor knowledge and quality of work are some of the considerations when dealing with a successful tree retention program for urban development.Other factors include: *Size of roots to be cut,how many,what percentage of root zone affected,distance to trunk,area of distribution,past history of root loss, *Soil conditions 2 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders,Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project,April 2012 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 17 of 22 Signature Tree Care,) 481 10th Avenue NI. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office: 239i 348-1330 • Fax:(239; 148-11"1 1 Email: tnfoftMgnaturetreecare.z om IAN ORLIXOFF /SA (:ertiiiecl Arborist#F1-10374 F1o6c1r Certified Horticulture Profesional#1-lee5i=1 Considerations during the design phase should include but are not limited to(continued): *Tree species characteristics,condition,age,tolerance to root cutting,stability(lean,root to crown ratio) * Right of Way frequency and targets * Future tree maintenance costs * Potential targets if tree fails and corresponding liability It is not recommended in any situation to remove any roots as they collectively provide support. Removal of buttress or stabilizing roots is not an accepted arboricultural practice as this may impact tree health and will certainly increase risk potential for catastrophic failure. Buttress roots or stabilizing roots have a poor ability to seal,which may provide an open door for decay/disease rendering the tree more unstable in the future.Decay/root rot may traverse unseen into the tree(basal flare)or base.This increases the risk for tree failure and is multiplied as the canopy develops.Trees that may appear to be stable after root zone integrity has been compromised may in the future have an increased risk of failure.This is in part due to size of roots removed,decay issues,as well as percentage of root zone relative to canopy size.This is known as root to crown ratio. The main stabilizing roots(or buttress roots)support the tree under the forces of compression and tension.Compression occurs when a tree leans on roots. Roots act as a brace or buttress on the leeward side of the tree.Tension occurs when the tree pulls and the roots act as an anchor on the windward side of the tree.During a wind event any rain increases the impact of that wind.The weight of the tree increases(weight of the rain on the leaves)with rain as well as reduced root tension from wet soils. Increased weight on canopy set in motion by wind creates a wind throw effect. Decreased root tension coupled with reduced root surface area exponentially increases risk of failure.When dealing with structural conflicts and roots,removing any roots as a short term or temporary solution to one issue only lends to a far greater problem in the future. If root removal occurs managing crown size and density through a proper pruning program can help alleviate wind throw effect. However,a pruning program is not a tool to compensate for root loss.Rather it is a last resort to help decrease future canopy losses. Removing roots can result in tree stress.Stressed trees have a 3 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders,Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project,April 2012 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 18 of 22 0 Signature Tree Care,uz 481 10th Avenue N.E. • Naples, Florida 34120 Office:(239) 348-1330 • Fax:(239)348-3113 Email: infoesignaturetreec$re,com IAN ORLIKOFF ISA Certified Arborist #Ft-1037. Florida Certified Horticulture Professional#H6056SS reduced ability to heal injured root zones and removing foliage further increases the effect of stress weakening the tree. Options to Root cutting: 1.Curve pathway:curve far enough away for a stable root zone to remain intact.This may require cooperation with individual or multiple properties if they are open to preserving the present tree canopy.This is the highest standard for community involvement. 2.Flexible permeable pavement:allows roots to remain in place while providing a quality surface for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3.Bridging:a structure that is built over roots for pedestrian and bike access. Tool to determine existing roots to be impacted: Signature Tree Care would be able to perform a diagnostic root zone inspection,if requested,by carefully excavating soil from individual root zones using an Airspade(use of compressed air)to identify what roots would be impacted if root cutting was to occur during the project. Decisions could then be made by Pelican Bay Services Division if and how tree roots should be managed for the pathway project. Follow up: 1. Due to possible defects or canopy developmental concerns within an individual tree,it is recommended that each candidate for preservation be evaluated to compare the cost of preservation to the cost of replanting a better option. Example:sheet 12 of 15 in plan,tree second from left,top row,#5 on Mr.Galli's plan(Shows x8.27 on tree image).Arborist recommendation would be for removal due to poor wound closure and poor structure(see picture attached of wound). 4 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders,Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project,April 2012 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 19 of 22 0 Signature Tree Care,Lic 481 10th Avenue NI. • Naples. Florida 14120 Office:t239i 348-1330 • Fax. '2191348-3133 Email: infoosignaturetreecare.com IAN ORL1KOFF /SA Certified Arborist #11 1017A Florida Certified 1lortiiculture Professional#11605635 2. Specifications must be written to avoid and monitor any tree damage during construction. Example:sheet 11 of 15,bottom row,first tree on the right,(shows x8.73 on tree image).Tree has poor wound closure and is leaning towards road. Arborist note:Any impact to the root zone of this tree is extremely detrimental(see picture attached of tree). As an ISA Certified Arborist I discover on a daily basis that trees are not able to develop into productive mature trees due to design in-considerations. Often,it is the upfront costs of an engineering design and cost to build that push the trees into unsustainable growing conditions/environments. As a result, future maintenance costs increase associated with tree development, vigor, health, structure, tree value and loss of function. Ultimately,trees do not become productive trees in the urban landscape as intended if not properly planned for in the design phase of any project. Regards, Ian Orlikoff ,...----- ....:::,,,, --- ,.... //a 7 1 .,----„---ly„, „),,,-; ,r.,- ,7,..',':"_.l --5,:t,.�e `i 5 Arborist Consultation for Galli Builders,Pelican Bay Services Division Pathway Project,April 2012 0 ye h J'k C s ni Z. sp t ,-.„..„.„,..,_ ,,„,„„,..„0 -,,,,,,,,,.,, ,` , kta{o 1 , t s. f} ♦"� n mft t !fn p , .:,..,71,.,„ '(,,,s,:: y , c, , orif?, ,i,,,,-,s,;:",,or. k ..",:,', '-, ' ' _.- --,,,„-',,f-xf,, , cu 13, co on E EL 2 CV -83 O �i w- N a N N .� f6 S 't { g' • s ,� ". et Af 4 ;g S h�A �3 A � " ^� ' 4 f � � � ;Y!IIU:' f i� ' . 4 4,47- - 1 , a r k R x � � A 4., ,,,„ .44,:iiiir . ',, 1, 'Alik.7. ' December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Page 21 of 22 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports 1 , ,._ r tY' .,, ,,,, .. vtto . ,to " Yf" 4� '4 a t� r ys s t>�:-. - r;1 . ? �� 1°� v „ ). �k 11, 3,::',.''''',..v4' k y A ' �t� e � ,, tee, • e "'ai AY " December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aii.Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Selection of arborist-Ian Orlikoff, ISA Certified Arborist,April 2012 reports Page 22 of 22 Cutting roots-Maintenance-Landscape plants-Edward F.Gilman-UF/IFAS Page 1 of 1 teittiarit y Landscape - OF Plants 4, Cutting roots See:removing_stem girdling roots See:root pronging guidelines Cutting roots for any reason under existing trees can severely damage the tree(see right photo).Many roots are located just below the surface of the soil. Adjust the location of the utility lines,driveways, buildings,and planting holes to avoid cutting roots under the canopy.Even cutting small(less than one- half inch)roots under or outside the edge of the canopy for long stretches can cut off water supply to the tree.This can cause the tree to decline or die y. during the next several years. r The rare spruce pine tree shown at right was cut on two sides of the trunk about ten feet from the trunk.Older trees treated like this can decline and die over a 10 to 15 year period.Make root pruning cuts only with sharp pruning tools,not tractors and trenching devices,Cutting roots close to the trunk as shown below right can cause tree failure a decade or more later.The roots of this tree were cut to construct a driveway about 15 years ago. Driving vehicles under the canopy compacts soil.Even lawn mowers can compact soil.Severely compacted soil can cause severe tree health issues.Vehicles also damage and break surface roots as they turn on the soil. If mature tree health is important to you,do not allow ANY vehicles to operate underneath trees.If there appears to be no option,then consider the preventive solutions listed below. Preventive solutions • Hire a consulting arborist. • Construct a fence at the edge of the tree canopy to '' � ± prevent ALL vehicles from operating there;establish 4 fines for violations. • A 12-inch thick layer of coarse bark mulch can be spread under the canopy and mulch can be covered with steel plates.Vehicles drive on the plates.This system has been successfully used on many sites to ; � preserve mature trees. -> " .r ' .Sr , • Do not use the area under the canopy as a parking zone or materials storage area. • Restrict ALL vehicles to fenced-off transportation corridors and materials storage areas. • Tunnel under the roots using a trenchless technology device which installs utilities without cutting a trench. Copyright 20111 University of Flori:Lel $Rg Fegacck I Last Modified:December 12,2011 http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/disturbing.shtml 4/10/2012 `o a Q U E N 4_, et M (N (n ,L Q '(H N .N ca C Q 4- � : to v Cl- 12 I� L V ° cu ca v .'_' ' CD O.cs z �, c y x �. 2 03 E ca E o o c 0 .MIN TD i aQ l U .,, y N C _. 6 a. j 3 co N LL N -c O .fl Ear- i a t- o_ CU 6 lia= 61.1 a, . •.: ,....... . ,,.. .„,_______,-. ...- .1.1 „4,,ili — , _ ' ,_ = >II U CO a) L tif II I= al L1 Q 1112 alli Ei U U CJ ICE I ME IL- t0 C CO OM cn N i O N L tuo A Q O 0 0 Q a a) c c o U mm C O .u) U) - .1-I U 0�L N L o N +' CU 0 `� �) 0_ N `*- C- o s > C •— ate-+ O, v) i +-1 Cam. 4-- C) tJ o E E v O � � — E Q N N O O2 O CO a--+ 0 c 0- 0 O V) � N U V) • _ ,` c/_ N s_ U U • N Q N -0 C) CU CB 0 N V -0 > m CO U U d) •L = I)E L - L ) .- _1 cc a _0 E▪ a N \ a) 0 a) ._ G) ova Qi In O i...,„. N - CU 0 • E bp c In C O N I . c M U -0 U CU N U L- CB CU a--+ O -0 _0 = 5- c -0 U .0 ., D U v �' E ate-+ = C C CD 4-1 O _O I . CU cc cn p U `o Q D _a) c N U a) Q a) N. (n N = _O ° 0 4--i ""w=as Li 0 CO ai N c: II o L- (/� i CD CD C 0 N U N ClA � = f� N N = 0 co " Q Q _c � _ R, C E — 0 CD .c@ Ln D 2 iL CC Q > > C iJ p . •_,co .CO� ` li Ca 0 Q a) c a) °— 0 (0 < a) u) U) — a3 o � - aai w O m • T O 9 f0 O O / .5 "-c' ( i) • a) V O Q) O • Q) • C ( ) co E Z U 0 • 0 • O • T.) N 'O Z O L)• 4- ' C a) E •-- Ln as c) • /Y • A V L "- • +-' U 0 a--J -vi v a z, O Ci.) 4- J L... CZ C b.0 " bA .i -I-3 a) 4.) •a a z ..J Ca O 4� LL Q., v) 2 E ro 1...... 4..., 4--- -1-+ 4.) 1 4) co Q a) F c . ° U � s- CD CO >` 0o o = N oY C o E o c o �. _ It . ° Q C a o . o 0 .� C a) 0 D Q) ca o •— 0 � a V) C U N — o U ell � � coE V) C CO N > N C m o co a) .Q 0 Q o U U V) e- > >` N .g 0 a z V) — Q _ o v) Q o N f6 co •0 V = U W O E V) Lri T •� ^1 E .c o M = I CD L a/ O 8a0 Ca o co O o cn J > U Q _, Fr t , ,.L:. , ,...41„,. , 7..,,,,t,,,.: ,,,, ,. - ,....,,,,,.. ova . ` Immi 4 O ''' n , �;. '/~ v no .o Q -o a) CD (/) 1 - In — r �P m ' t (B• T 0 y..CE 0 _q Q N i. _. y �y�. A r CO ` _ ' U• 0- ealialftraut 2 22 co : asi E Co M x co O ,, U O , To 0 U � ,4 O N N a #°a. M " Lo- CI5 O W ' , 0 0 •+, 7ftes ., tc a E , v . .4 ,,.... ,.. ..,,. .. w -,,- , ,, „.. ... ., cc , .., , .„ ,,.,„ . . . .: .,... ... :.,. _...t YO:, ... .....„ . . .. . ,.. . ., _. . . ., ... . ... .... , ... .. ., .. .._ .,, .. 0 Q m c N J •� _CD co 0 �' o v �,_ U `c6 O v 7 Y T �"'1/� co t✓ O O _Y O CU CU �a � -o O 0 � .—' •ca >Li) � a) CO_ t c6 5 " Q O, as E a = N . 1-- O .Q DC O• vi 3M N N L T I Q U .= o) N a, . a 0 0 tnI t L ` 4 iAt if 41.117 0 Q a) L,= f C a) o u 0 ) Q a) co m o • =E- LI) O -a m • o - • m c • • ° • ( m >• c • N N O CL a) o ca E m $ - , b.13 0 . •— � _ V 0 a) L a) 'gyp a) 0 ,:- ' A,, '4:2,f . ', :' XI 6t� e „,, ' I > , ' Z 0 Q m C Q) o 0 N Q N (n 3 O Cn Y • .... 4-0 m 12 . N CD i .0 (z) O O c m •� O W T� V C Li 0 CU - a) a) 484•J 0 E co . as U Co CU co E o Cl.) N O N N O O — 01 CS c ..� aJ O O Ica , f L. X . , ''' " .' ! x O � { ♦ .;_ W 1:11) W - ` . ' I O �`i q♦'k a • `' N N . 4 , ... -, . , . ... , . L .r a ,,. (t3 (/) alliPir 0 L) - VS- N M U V) `O Q 0 . c (1) .° U 0 a) 1-- L ' s_ — Q) 0 4) o a) •i CLA c N L_ CD C co T2 0 N O 4—' _0 +-1 (0• T m 0 - 0 V) C O O O y co (0 O .1-,aj,o a 4--1 Q a) - -1••••1 U O —0 -0 u)• ' � v, ca L. m.g - .I Q) _ O ' E ate.) Q ri —0 iii cx CU o• Q V C N TM C o `� O E � CU 0 0 i"ti „7( CO W t v to C�(J _c _c CU .. tT ' t W` .. d 1 4-J L O N 4 co a) CD n 8 C -5 2 N st A C6 C .� L "� —_ co co = L •O U m .% U CD .O •E •SD_ .{..) g a U -0 i O Q U •CD CO O CO CO CC w E co Q. a..J —0 0 E i +., O N ca CC O - = z • • • • ) `0 Q 0 a) f c a) oU uu)iQ a3 o Y a:-.= C Q -O C (i5 0• > O CO C C O O (Oct 0 u) u) a) U .o• (1) W co 0 m E m E COC O as U \ U O d = /.... L N W c ,, 3 � � f E a t U ra ._ O) .,. N . dr O CIA .2 O ,+ • 0 Q tan .ks CD minim CO `o D .; # a) o a) i U vi Q ou) m t we U- ) N• O -O C " a) co -• 0 ii p (1/1) . :. a) r Al m m E 03 E CI: ' c Is f O N T CO L6 RS N 111.11 IMP ' a`) E 0- `– 0 O O) O r— ' $ ', L ..F. µ N'_..... I V� Cill) ' W M E a MIMI o °� RIP (A o I b.0 COCA ' 4A CU 4A •L._ N L- '7 C N CAA � rn CU O_ CAA , _0 ". C co •� •N (6 c a--� � � � � U co co � CAA U W • • • . ... / ,,,,, - • ., •E ' ' , „;,.--•:4,-.4,-.:...„:71,„... ,, ,.. •-•. ,, , ,,,,,,„.._,,, ,.,. .- , ',-, ,,-;„„--z.„,,.. ••••,/,',0' *t''`,41 i 10=';*4' ----* ' - i /ie 1 ;#'''---: --,' ;- ', , i• -9. fc,-':.,:*\,....,--':. \,-,1i,,;• -,-,,,,,,-, ,,,---. , ...,,, 4' < i '1!+t.'4,4., ,:t.°',.....''' .1. . tt° i,44, 4*.,.. 40:'.:' .414 ././ . - , ,!,.., ...--"r7 '. 7',-'..,, ' .- •;,..-,...v --,:---- v zi -'-.:,.. ,,,, ,,,,, .., ...,,,i k.-.„,.i.... -.. ,,.• /4 ,1,.-t,:4•,*.,,4,4,'44, 4.,, ,... C a) V r *,,,,z,z‘,, .. (.„ 7) (,) < " i 4,,,, ,,,,-,••;.„1,;•;,,,,,,:iti, .. lf/ ,it:.,.`:,..t.tr ':...1,i1,;-,„fr ''''' u) - "./ ,714;ir;'!;'5:1''''; 31-.',/ L'-,.-- co 0 \\. ;.;"'",-"--,---=71":::!` ii5/-.1177;;/7":4.-.1 ...---"... ' -- '-'.-' ' ' — -10. -.'.' 42,,,,4t,,,, .4"',.■“,-' - 1-'-.14. ,- ta)= ct T2 2 1 . - ,............... ...),.. . • - if.,1,f A ' .• ,.,,,,-,..--.,-,----,,- --•:' , • , ,,,, ,,,,,, ..- 0 >` co -° t-,--..:. 0,--4if ,:3?!..., ,!,, ,›, 4 %-, ,, ,,,,,.., ...;;; , ;;--;;. ; • ...... _ .4,, .;__--i. __,.. .. , ,:!..1., ,-- ,r,-,---,;,,„-i-,,,,„.,:_i .,,./ 7 ,,,, ,, ,,:.•,,- , _._ .„-- .o .2 -----,t . / , ti„.«.;44..‘ - -,/...!.,;...0.4''', /..,. ,,,,,,I, ; --' '-- ,"i; t' i 4 ,....., -----.......... .,-,5 -rd 5 -'-c' . ,. . ..., ...,,,„_,, _ * • a.,• 6 a-) u) U) 0 'N'' ": -- . . 1 i„.\* ci 0- , i,., ., -.--1. ,,1 , ,.1,, 1 cl , , .: i -/.."..-;','/Zi .. 1 =',..r.' -...:4=-0...4'1.4. - ,.. .,-„ ., , , ‘... --;.:1„„-- >,-- :›4! = co E ..„,„„,„,...--.Ar......,„-,,,,t--,, —4="!"-"" k....„.„,.. .1,-.,„„„,,,, ,7,,-.-..... ! 1.:. !"::".• '',"'-', „ :". 03 E +7!!:"'' '' --"*''' ' ' '''''''''' -11..x ''' „ ' ,--",',..........• ,• ' ) c o I ' IM '-‘, as CD ' ' Nyiamt0406•:..',,,;• , ,'• -4.-,.;A . • . "., ....',.. _—,.... -3 ; j• , I •!/. • ., •I,!,- -.,• i ? if 4 t ,.'; ,T) 0 ''' T....;...c,.. -;-;--------e." '' ' - •- < .! 't,Ivik,„.., :_ ---- , ,,. CD ', ' 114 ...,,.,.„ I ,,, . , .• , N W - >t ol '.'- Lc: -I -c ° 11t. ,t4.- i 1 ,t -- 0 115 CO 1.1. i 4 4 lk.,1"-;',;;.:.- a.) a) ,.. 4' 4,4.,"..:.■.... .- . , '4"4 .44" 4'. . ., , „,, 0 •-, 0) ,,..,:".1 ' :t:).° i` -7 \ ,., , '.., --,... 0 1---- 0- ' ;\.:- _ 1 V",;,:,,,;,-,,-,e.N.1.0-.,•'/-' ,„,,;'\ --*-i--,,/7,...„);,,i • ... - .... • , , 1„:,,,...,,,..',. .., i.$'' ' - .,'.t!',':IN'....;1:;v• \\%,:.;';'-it'-'4' ' - 'A'.'' ; ' L,;. 'i;; i ' l'.,''L.1141.1 -4-.6064.. ' l 11 A •W''''. ' - -?1,,genjok „ . N.11111111111.11111°6.. ' * . -t.:7,;.-', '1-, ' ',.. 00.4t, , , 1 , I..: ■ ' ly. Sktittew -.--- „, ts, - ttitt,- : e.)-%;'t - -.'-`• inie , . .':4`..,..•', 1 .° '',."';!”, i , 4."' -- 1‘i 4' "- 7'!'44,'-1,1 '' 1., iY,'.- „,, , i, ,1,, ., , _,, , ° f,;):: °.t';,1°, . '' t: '-' ''''':.:'-4 S:''. z."" 1 C ::(:.- , , . A- 4,.; .',.: / ) ...t' „,. , t i ii ) . ' .S- ........... 42 Q O O .. «y £ 4 A co 46 111111immo 7 `1 , it- O 0 ct N cz �> r v..„ „.„.. E c . ,, . . . \_,_.4...,, ,. ... 5... Q,, -4. -,.., A " 7 1 ciii E U (1) O(,) d o f ».... ,__ O . . .., Q 3 N L >,M , _,..,,.„,,,,i,,..,,t,,,,,o,,,4,,,,,,, ..,,,, / T yrO O Milliem.0 is V N O 1 O .O (6 0t-- d •fir W Imalmili ., : - ‘.., `,„("1 LINN 4; • • i` •" Jt"F$ 4 ¢ 4 . - .., ,. .. .4 ,..,, - _...... * N O Q _N f C N o U T' a)(7) < ^ ' Om , E .1" ' 0 Q)) CO W (./) — ., . .. .. ,, .,...:,. ... .. ..., . . ... w 0 . ....:. .., _,,, , c, ii, (T., = a)o I m E 0 v o ..„....,;,,, •••„,,, .4',,,, .: '''''„..::.!4,''''°'''',',$..1,..;',.',.,°0'.:...,f.,, W N N co E C O U • �. U O fl 2 N < t11:1 (t3 N TM r D O •...._.Q B to a J ova CO - -41,4 • ir.-- s ; =�i '''••'...''',..:''' ' : ;r , .: ' °".a 'yen Y 5 ' 1 is 'C-" ","y.z .east., t, a 'o Q a) . w o U sa F < c0 1 co p . 4 c rn a) O -a o c. M -• a i-',* .,.. .41 ,..„..,.., -E_ (71 •5 c b a) i (n mw. coE m E 0.a v• U O N -O Q o T M L6 aSN -,, CD •=M= E a D d ._,mss 9,404 "" t+— ,_ 4 co ;: ; U • r w, f , / it., . • - „ , _N.,..., .. .,,,,_ ... _ ,...... . . ,. . i . , , ,,, . ,,,,,L .... . . . . • ....... . , . ,•„ v. -,,, itt. •,:„.4.„„.„ im-- 4, ft_ O.,:ft , : „Al., , , •• `o Q a) 5c -, F may- a co .- V c c c -- a o aii ° C , tt co E U U r O 0_ 2 .;�! 2 N "O O N >,CO 3 N m L 0 E a — .axe . ..pit -.t :::;.:1 w' �2'K ,o , It► lir tai � zt,, : --..„t.:1.2,,' 'v.:. : - * ' x ,y Imo' l J}}S , $ 4y+� (tom 9� .k 4 y� alit ice ^ ,. n µ 'ms YH¢f , '2;..4,.. ,.. , .,... , ,,5 40 t' ' s o bp'P -y'.sf > 0 -n Q il Y o '' ' aw. " '" m cn = _ CO — �r cu o 5 1 ,w ". i+- - a m c . ` t3 C O 'C Thsi �$w 14 "f't+ '.. AF, t CO V �'t U T:�..; psi s TD 0 - 'fi " N "O , N. s ,—CV cf) N 0 la Iii 03 N `d. _. e. lir " .a" , 4 •F tott I. t d 4 y A *55 - ap i... ry sfxr)t A r t a ,.s.J !;1.t , , ''.s - • '0,1.14rf •••.' ' P) `o Q D _c f c N oV `i <S W(^I)' a) 7• Y E Cn— •� O a) C t6 O -1 - m C 0 O� ._ U . -L' ° g' C U n_ . . 0 N C •� 0 mE C vU .� U E 0 N U >“",) - L rt3 N II •■• d 0 U 03 a1 W ova � +-1 U __ N C CO • > L- > aA CO III U CD = (1.) U . . OW Co 4 L tp s_ V CA - CO 0 C 8 D — > OZS c 0 co tan 0 v) cu -i-) _ , - a) U -' .0 U 'U L- M CD CO a) C 0 CAA C/7 v) = aA LL Q (1)Q c./) 0 • • • • • • • .o e Q N f o U N (¢!) CU ct5 cu V) V)° L/ a 4)• o L L. 4—) c}— C w.J `° co O c6 •_ v)o a m � -}-� Q. 4U .. N -o � p •— N �— V 1 co 0 g > O 0 C6 c6 c mE 'L. 0 ." " -o N O Q CD N TM CD � 3 N •- E = °' C5 V 0 4-- � � N N O O O .0 � C .0 a CD (13 03 c > OA tl1 > •— 4—, 0 :::2 cn .o " o v, co CU 4— c6 ICU> cn CD E C v) CU -0 I— 0 0 co co A A , ,. .,°,'„,,:"..;,* „a(1.)uQi m � l� 4 ,.•# ,.-,##•”,• ,:::4.,,:..,.:1•11 , d 2 $ ° � ` ; .,�. � �i - «r , �. �•F ue, ,g+ y, . �,. � LO N v r"aa s i ,[ a., s,"'44t xl,'', = 'fir '. ,, ''. .''- '4',.‘4',,'-''' -.,0 '2,° -0'''. .iic::\:„."4`. = 'l''' ''': . •� '� .. elks' +z ,. ' �`fi$. :,r..*,,„J..,"N ate . rc '' +."4 r df; f.A.a `„ t: - .,,-:”"':r,..,.,,j.,:,....:,,,,,,,i......:,...*:.,;,.1..ti,.,;.'t::,:.:,..::4.1';'-'',,,,,,":,,,.,-1,..s,':',,i;,,,: ,,,,...„'.....4� ism 0 W. { ..;''4". < R ,asa 14f x ' .,* ." ,ai 5 '8awa t,^ ',,t,-.7f-S;71, r „`,,,,,,..,,,„,. ',...-'.1..,„ ,,.,.,-•,.,,i....,,,,'.. 4.:#4,A i, Imo _ w ,. .is*' ,, .4' * A =.are 1, Litsm #a ti 4'77 pii,V4v',,,11440.11p " ' ' 44,,p4pow '` �, i;. ; ;fi a � x t 0 .0 < ,..- D . ,. Ca) ?) 0 itiN\ -, 0) a) c/) W — W \ LIMI (13 0 ='* W -2 2 43 O >" 021 -° C UNA C 0 .0 ..-, Fli 43 .5 E •1 allO 0 ‘ p 0 1) '- 1 ....1. U) S.) [<1) 4) t 1 0 0- . ' T , I a) a) u) B (...E 1 0) ' co E c o o 0 O c., t 0 sEi ... o_ 1 cs, P 4 : o 0, 111 ,--'-. '.. .....,, I i z . • ,...,, ser-o• ,I 0 AV iiw ;!-;... -1; - 1 ,...,,, ... S , . a ' *' -. ''. .'' , .4■ .::t'l is gi . ..„ . . ,() 1111: ' It flit k ' t, lb lttalle*:1 - , t 1 . ,. i$i 4 ' : ::11 - ',, tr,,:--1,• -4,1- .rpg-.„, - ---....;ty,.,.. 0,7 ' 77. ,.i•4 I ''''Pi, 1 0 Q V U) w c a) °- 0 (0 < N (n • In N .O C � f6 O• T m C O O .2 (0 N C to U) U C (It J c a = o J O o a v0i iii -c o N � N 0 !o .o a ova I/I Ci) 0 Y_ V +TS CD CD 0 3 U = -� a 13 N IN • •— C L a) V LL V December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aiii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Bicycle lane survey discussion Page 1 of 3 PBSD Resident Survey Pathways/Bike Lanes by Keith J. Dallas Overall Objectives • Survey a statistically selected group of residents (or all) regarding their usage and views on pathways and potential bike lanes. • Chairman and staff outline possible survey, to be reviewed by Ad Hoc Pathway Subcommittee. • Then work with professional firm to finalize and administer survey. • Survey should be specific enough that all responders are working with the same facts, • But short enough that residents will complete the survey. Specifically • Questions should be designed to avoid begging the question. • Should the survey be mailed (?) to all (?) residents? • Pathways o Ask about current usage of pathways, and bike riding on pathways versus Boulevard. o Ask if people are comfortable with current pathways, and if not, why. o When conflicts occur between trees and pathway maintenance, which is more important? Maybe describe alternative approaches and ask if they agree/disagree. o Should the PBSD be spending money maintaining pathways if County does not? • Bike Lanes o Describe different approaches to bike lanes on PBB and have residents rank their preferences: • No Bike Lanes • Dedicate one 12 foot lane to bikes. • Reduce vehicular lanes to 10 foot each, and add 4 foot bike lane. • Sharrow M December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aiii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Bicycle lane survey discussion Page 2 of 3 PBSD Resident Survey Pathways/Bike Lanes by Keith J. Dallas • Repaving PBB Earlier o Describe option of loaning County funds to resurface PBB o County would repay PBSD at future date. o Should PBSD consider loaning the money? • Landscaping o Ask if people like new landscaping? o Leave space for comments. o Should we be considering changes at our 3 entrances off US41? • Landscaping? • Brick Pavers? • Lighting o Describe need to replace lighting, and current funding plan. o Describe approach of new LED lighting on extensions to afford better lighting. o Describe schedule for replacement originally envisioned. o Should we be accelerating that schedule? o Should we be also considering replacing poles when replacing fixtures? KJD 11/6/12 A December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7aiii. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee-Bicycle lane survey discussion Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Blvd Bike Path Survey By John Chandler Background Survey participants will need to be provided with facts as regards the: • The planned timeframe for resurfacing Pelican Bay Blvd • Government laws/recommendations re bicycle paths and shared or multi- use pathways. Make clear as to whether they are laws or recommendations. • The current width of the traffic lanes on PBB • The proposed width of the traffic lanes with a four foot bicycle lane • Government recommended widths for traffic lanes based on various speed limits • Examples of nearby roads with ten foot wide traffic lanes Survey Questions • Do you ever ride a bike in Pelican Bay? • Do you primarily ride on the streets? • Do you primarily ride on the sidewalks? • Do you primarily ride on the berm? • Do you ever ride a bicycle on or along Pelican Bay Boulevard? • If you currently ride on the sidewalk, would you ride in the street if there were a bike lane? • If you currently ride in the street, would you feel safer if there was a bike lane? • If you currently ride on the boulevard but the sidewalk was expanded from its present five foot width to a width of eight feet, would you ride on the sidewalk? • If the boulevard had a four foot wide bike lane and the sidewalk was eight foot wide, would you ride in the bike lane? • Do you feel that the addition of a bike lane would increase the "packs" of bikers that use Pelican Bay Blvd? • Do you favor revising the striping of Pelican Bay Blvd so that there will be two ten foot traffic lanes and one four foot bike path? a) D U) 0 . ) Q ( (0 C o N 0 o ) U N � Q C c = CO 0 N O = t ta •� 0 0 0 0 0 Q ro c Q � /� a°'i vl C N S cII d' N NN > m cc 0 co O +� N I N 111 cn O O a0 M d • 3 o_ o O N D cn L-I . N V U O U Co -47, 4-1 > C vii LO c N N O -0 m m ( ) CD C 4 C Co = O m m 03 / '� N C O 4../ 03 M VI d • +' CO c-i r-I N (0 N �, L -0 N N O C U 01 fh O +-� N N m N co ate-+ = ate.+ W in. -(J ih U) U) Utl) N CO Q L tri• o CO E s- a E 3 — V) ate-+ Cl) U U U ._ rn Q� C O •\ CD 4- � 'D 5 bA - O o r� a 4- m O -0 i > Q U) U N •s c a, c C }, ~ co CU >' :�' Q � ca C s CO CO d) S U N O O N ~ +� 0 41 +� >.1.13 CY L _ CD 0 vl W w 3 CD Q- O N v� _ of (� CO C C3 N U - U) C N L �) 0 E C a s .� ' vi C :1 C a) O N cn a-, m co C C m CD 06 _. O CU CO O O 'v � '� aA +-q 4:3 O O �..r Q Cl)C i C N .� •CO Q1 C a ' U Y Q 4–+ C CCO L co .0 O .- O O s N C cu 2 Y L N cu 03 J C S 4.. Q N > O O 03 cB C �+- N cD .0 }' vi C w �Oj I . N LI- A n a p C 6 a Co E O Q = aJ C N }' •N D Q a Q F- cr c co .n O Q W CO +_ 0 CO ca tu0 WI -0 lD v .> ii • • • „. �. a s = 3 a 0 t �,.,, gym,, cc 0 "� -,z,,. � t� fir .. j CO "•' W +E n � ;Ake°. 1 Z 71 ..y l', # y�9Z s', E ... .. ,v. , 03 ' ,�as ^^ ,, pc I g o d-wa, (1) -I k s aa m co #I�/� o � � Iy., ,1,,:, v :„ co 2 ,..., _v , ., .. v , .......v , . , ,. .,,„ „ , v , .. „v„...„..,,,„,,,, „,„,„s3-•ra, -• t •"3'3 46046 ,W �,;� e. t�e4° oe\ zC.\'` oa., a F t r -- Mey i e ......tit e3• �A �1 e s .'� � \a o �C r„ k *� � v ,� � �k'`' � �*.�: yup T'''''�, fit \ t \,,,,,Ai \ ': y s3 t¢�"€t' a�.m , ,Cvt • I F`: +� °�°P� f # * t. ,.�...+•dPStlx�. :#� au...),Zl1uozs + i s owad ;so,��sw'I�a l N dsd s sezot d n un Jib 4' !# t„,,,10,1,1.., r iW r r,+a.r,• 1 r e r..,f "� At • A r�_:1,. t' ,=fir r'�$. • t, 44 411)[ ,' ” ��t4 4 1 " :411 '. ;A i 0, k 5 Y �`,:j` ' N �' JtZ ! }i?l.I >A,# :c t • wis.-4 4 4+ a 'tti r ,fit r,9u. f "=.' .31,aJ,1 , t '. . 4 A.i ,•e -r,; ' �`/• `•i _si .,.w.,n Jn. . E ii t ,•3•/ • �1�A �s1 J ice'f 410 g'.iot w'lo °a 0 ^k" r r i j....4.,,,,,,,,'a °a,- 4 a-. ��:P .t - •^ a,mot,` j?c �"bhlk4k" ?` .1} J.'r• t+T*'q '� #$ v.a .,S s y T t ` _ u h ,t o x r - a o a f/ I/2 SC E 5:14 4,,'..-(.."D .1;ii.-1,1 � " � �' '�" 7{C 9N)lf9C:: \11 '... ' :il'' ''''',1'.',.1 IIIIER 141'. ';,.."...''''c*..4,5,.... .) .('1 -7----T' ''' :":'-7. -.'''''''''' .......:1°'?'"C s'al. ' •� '� t 3+: !� 7�;4P ,4'r'4 r.e4.1 •t 4 'i�' ++ I "j --w-._.��•'i' e4 e, 'S v. J 4tot' '_'fir + 1,4, '•iX v, 1 r • }y'ri.. �' i? a . _ 'r\ r'�"• *'•^ °) .`+IS, ,r�(.+'S P' J uy� p�I[.�yw.. ."a N 0 vy :�� S ....40k/�Q '`' 1,,, , ` 1"� ,{tY, �'}t"'%'^/ �' i S •a4 'T. •µJ '•f'tn^ 7' 1'' V. t - a a ,1. �i -"4s i�+R i `:•+ 1iijs * �:=h tr r 1.+11-+ " . " 1 �! .'y/ . , ,yam 4-ra, f• ,,, {.. - : t+ T r.. "5 .•, g /(iiii 44. ' •ref?;?;- .41.1. 1.- .r.., r A., ,iiito 0 .l� BASIN 4 -$ -1 >; rJ `S)) v , ;y' III �•s Y1 wr a' ' �.w �, r ? • ' ' f f r�, ?qi'' , 1 ',v" o c . . L r+l x :� swary. .- +( (_• w 4 -' wit" E) -J 4- '.t "`tom ,•'. t • ,�' �t ' -a l y, 34' a -wR.S ;,„,,:? `_"rte . s �>x r^/ `` 1 A. •+y( �. M,'. 'jl ; ? `.,C) -r$•'-•. ''`}Z, L, a 1-+,�';t a 3.: _, x•.-*,`' , ✓ 0411; 1 ! : qtr sw+ ,•. .r s; 16. .. ''I t1 •,r `* .. • t� 1 a /y. ` •`� .?t'[ , .,..,IF hr4. $..Mcy' , '4".' *" ,e4 * ;teat '1 �' 2 i 41,.•`t �,o,.a t• % SO 1' it ire.. Mtn , t 4 S ' 4 0`.y a =*y R .! 1 „a.•i, t�=,I 1,:,, iilli} ;r •-•r 'ate• 4' ,1; t 1 �yy�. � s,erg, .. '" 'I R} i { ,,�s f x �+t* •i; 'ant, :. l r � .t' s 'j `, ~'' ci* Jr,: ', 7 tç&j± . 1'a , . aA-. ` ,. , y, j �„yr A� � , ?t\ u al - A\ J .. , i E r { r w o ;' ;.,. :";00 - . -.. , . r 1. s'�' 711_ a\� at ` � i , ' v ■ .'•� • • • i 1,..,..„ ,Rf� �J41,+q 4 4 T °► , i ' y, I/ vat,'„ • ,,..,-.4..,,,„ , .4 :70,:::::).i.,, ,-„1,, .. A, :.,. ‘,. ,.,, ;.i."-z. s 4 _ fir( '• :A:2.;A°R IE z.4- q "i.� ;'t. � [, .•Kij , N �( Y t1' l ' `. j)P t ^1 R 4. .a�t'!" 3 `f .F • .' • _• a✓•q, _ by ,- rr•.•�;-=t x'2 ,•o ' . „•L v ' , .# • s, d 41A ;O ., J � �a ilii... , . F� AA j itr.. r ••M, :.� i • - "i iV t! •(q .• 'c. _ t .ID, Y ..- r^' fY ,4 F w t ' ,. ,„ F eY '%"f �t• U . ' , t ” 7" • Q r — . 1 t ,p;4,,,, , , 4 {i , ,73.3 P't A. 11+ _ -' • � .",. :4 . 1� x � '''I' . J.4 .1-1: 4 t" �► ` '1' +e i Ia ..* + . { 6d tI,M' Lt 1wi� t .1 n ( �rF.�yt. r `* i, � .: ,E,, w -r' ' �n it •- i.} \- if,‘y, R4 'n 4t y � oa .rl r '1 J • t'"y• '.14 • e , pR� .• tJAM mw' `-.1. ` FR r v 4 ! �.•16. it, r "1Fs Y Nh a �t f tf w.aA r*.aaaw r r iii z a1i • 1,�, xl i t i ; L r > � A r r hA rFC , ,. ` 3. ,a J t 1 ii)ok ` int. '" a 1C I ' I/h, -■ y l't`•,'tt- ;'n'" i .,/'t 'd-' F' f t. � ..' = \4 � S . h .a�� FZs V.,` " X+R •4? � 1- 1�4ACr � � ��t�, = r {$ tA-� N .,y, f .� , : t ;r " *:, i 1�aM� • pPAWN BT. ,//�® „„,,,„,,e,. PEN M.REV BY: DATE CNrc BY CHANGED EDaT r`4J —�� — T ! CLAM BAY NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT WS P°,E°* 0235.6 Marine&Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave.Suite B. I SHEET 1 Naples,Fl.34104-3732 TEST POINT LOCATIONS ®'I.�Q-12 ° Phone:(239)643-0166 Fax:(239)643-6632 uY 01TESTPaNt1 AflONS email:tuna@aturrell-associates.com 12 --- -.-.-----___._._..--...__-...—_.-._____.______._--..—___-__---__--- _ ---1 I Copper(ug/L) 1 I NJ W . Di rn V co o 0 00 00 00 00 0o O 0 00 0I I I I ' I I I i 52 1 352 102 � 18.1 110 ` 1 '.' ion 30.7 ` I 1 i i X37.5 1 i I w t ..«.. 17 3571 I I I j i I I I 1 I I 134 86 .ice [ 240 I I i 331570 I i I ? ` ( I �� 6t. I i I j I C61 16 7 I ' 212 1 I I N 159, 442 I N I 1 1010 F J 1 1711193 I 1 I 1 , I N I 393 ` w - ' I ; 220 } 1280 { 3870 I A ! ■ , 758! 847 1 I 183 1 , 111111 ' 202 316 263 i I 1 i I I I I I r' 17.4 I O1 43.9 133 f 1 1 i 1 w .molown 7 .1 I I 'L, 1 - 181 249 1 I 1 _ 1 1 1 w rows 35 2 >:.- 225 ^' ! 493 1 1 3 W 158 ,,, i i I 3 r 3 6 i f 1 ! 8561 I a' ' 233?S613I I I I I I n w !.,:, 26.6 I 1 I i i 0 v, ;: 46 82.1 I I 1 I 1 w ) -- .' ' 135 i I I 1 O . rn �■491.8 I ' 245 1 1 1 f j I i Z , O i3 I I o V 2Vg I i ;c 1� 1 '' € H it a� 195 � 2179 • I 1 G I- '" I 1 500 ! _ i I 1 �k 16 + ( 1 I , 725 I 238 I i ' 1 0 1 NJ I i N .i, Lualva 16 i 1 ii ■ w 46 581 { I 1 CU I K .1' :was* 35.6 1 1 f 1, �. - . 525 I I I-, 1 ' 626 1 I dr NJ Ln 413 711 1 13 I =NEI 235 261 i 1 r O' �� 66.8 j ( I ' FD i 1 , i I r 1 p ' 344 I I 1 I I O t f 1 554 661 1 I A I , I CV I ' 206 235 1291 I I I 1 !; 1 I I tD 2 42.6 80.7 1 I I i l f 1 � � 0 1 8 i1 I 1320 ` ,, I...ossom ,.r. 126 I 1 1 I 1 I-, imosalmom 111 } 1 I u, %arlarr 37.8 I 1 ' i ` I , T 141 i I 1 1 I I I '� I T58 1 I I I u, 141 i1 1 1 I i N I, 324 377 t I I I [ 1 I fi W , C I l2vo 1 4591 I I 1 i 1 a 1 495818 139 I 1 I 1 1 I 4 1 • ! I 2 I . I I ul I i , =47 1 I �in 51.6 .4.9 i f 1 1 1 1 t, �� 60.5 , 149 ! I 1 I 1 '• I� 31.9 • I V 1 , • 1 c I I Y'13 114�,$ 1 1 i °° 19/ I i I 1 I I i v, 63. I I ! 1 �° 27.5 143 1 i I I 1 1 u, !'-- 22.2 j I 1 1 1 I 1..: I 1 1 , o N..■ 59/1 i 1 I 1 I I I I I i I 1 I • ' CP 14 I I I 1 I 1 I I N 11.7 ( I I I 1 'i 1 { �. III}� 19.2 ' ! 1 I 1 I i I�-� J� 6.2 "� r 1 1 ( I 7581 1 1 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8b. Chairman's Report-PBSD Board Terms(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 1 of 3 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, Obrien 2015 laizzo, 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 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8b. Chairman's Report-PBSD Board Terms(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 2 of 3 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. KID December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8b. Chairman's Report-PBSD Board Terms(Keith J.Dallas,Chairman) Page 3 of 3 Changing PBSD Terms Year Current Proposed # Up for Election # Up for Election 2013 _ 4 4 2014 2 2 2015 _ 3 3 2016 None 2 2017 4 2 2018 2 2 2019 3 3 2020 None 2 Assumes that of the 4 Board members appointed in 2013, two are appointed for 4 year term and the other two for 3 year term. Thereafter all terms would be for 4 years. December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 1 of 9 Crosswalk Decibel Readings Decibel readings were taken from several different types of crosswalks to determine what extent the cobble bands installed at the mid-block crosswalks impacted the amount of sound generated. These readings were taken from the Beach Walkway and the North Tram Station crosswalks that both have the cobbles/brick pavers installed. Readings were also collected from the crosswalk at Pelican Bay Blvd. and Gulf Park Dr. which only has brick pavers installed. Readings were also collected at the painted Crayton Rd. crosswalk for comparison purposes. Readings listed were collected from 15', 50' and 75' feet from the edge of road. The 50' and 75' distances are more representative of the distances that some condo buildings are located from the roadway. When comparing between cobble/brick paver crosswalks and brick paver only crosswalks at the two distances most representative of the buildings located adjacent to the roadway there was a 1-6 decibel higher reading at a cobble/brick paver crosswalk vs. a brick paver only crosswalk at 50'.At 75'there was a 4-5 decibel higher reading at a cobble/brick paver crosswalk vs. brick paver only crosswalk. These readings can be impacted by differences in vegetation, wind velocity /direction and exterior noises, which when detected as noticeable readings were discarded. When this latest set of readings was collected the wind was approximately 10-14MPH from the SW. The reading collection point for the Beach Walkway was on the east side of the road and for the North Tram was from the west side of the road. This may have contributed to higher readings at the Beach Walkway, but because of structural walls they had to be collected from those sides to reach the distances of 50'and 75'. Attached is some information related to traffic noise, in the second paragraph it states the "A 10-dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of sound level. The smallest change in noise level that the human ear can perceive is about 3-dBA. Increases of 5-dBA or more are clearly noticeable. " Decibel readings from the various locations and distances are listed below. Distance from Roadway Locations 15' 50' 75' Beach Walkway 76 63 57 North Tram Station 73 58 58 Pelican Bay Blvd. &Gulf Park Drive 68 57 53 Pelican Bay Blvd. &Crayton Road 63 55 53 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 2 of 9 Traffic Noise Background Information Introduction to Noise Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that can influence individual response include the loudness,frequency,and time pattern;the amount of background noise present before an intruding noise;and the nature of the activity(e.g.,sleeping)that the noise affects. The sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies is measn red by the A-weighted decibel scale(dBA). A 10-dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of sound level. The smallest change in noise level that a human ear can perceive is about 3-dBA. Increases of 5-dBA or more are clearly noticeable. Normal conversation ranges between 44 and 65 dBA when the people speaking are 3 to 6 feet apart. Table 1 shows sound levels for some common noise sources and compares their relative loudness to that of an 80-dBA source such as a garbage disposal or food blender.Noise levels in a quiet rural area at night are typically between 32 and 35 dBA. Quiet urban nighttime noise levels range from 40 to 50 dBA. Noise levels during the day in a noisy urban area are frequently as high as 70 to 80 dBA. Noise levels above 110 dBA become intolerable and then painful;levels higher than 80 dBA over continuous periods can result in hearing loss. Constant noises tend to be less noticeable than irregular or periodic noises. Table 1 Sound Levels and Relative Loudness of Typical Noise Sources Sound Subjective Relative Loudness Noise Source or Activity Level Impression (human judgment of (dBA) different sound levels) Jet aircraft takeoff from carrier(50 ft) 140 Threshold of pain 64 times as loud 50-hp siren(100 ft) 130 32 times as loud Loud rock concert near stage,Jet takeoff 120 Uncomfortably loud 16 times as loud (200 ft) Float plane takeoff(100 ft) 110 8 times as loud Jet takeoff(2,000 ft) 100 Very loud ? 4 times as loud Heavy truck or motorcycle(25 ft) 90 2 times as loud Garbage disposal,food blender(2 ft), 80 Moderately loud Reference loudness Pneumatic drill(50 ft) Vacuum cleaner(10 ft),Passenger car at 65 70 1/2 as loud mph(25 ft) f Large store air-conditioning unit(20 ft) 60 1/4 as loud Light auto traffic(100 ft) 50 Quiet 1/8 as loud Bedroom or quiet living room,Bird calls 40 1/16 as loud Quiet library,soft whisper(15 ft) 30 Very quiet High quality recording studio 20 Acoustic Test Chamber 10 Just audible 0 Threshold of hearing Sources: Beranek(1988)and EPA(1971) PDX/TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT DOC 1 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 3 of 9 TRkFFIC NOISE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Traffic Noise Sources and Propagation Noise sources associated with transportation projects can include passenger vehicles,medium trucks, heavy trucks and buses.Each of these vehicles produces noise:however,the source and magnitude of the noise can vary greatly depending on vehicle type.For example,while the noise from passenger vehicles occurs mainly from the tire-roadway interface and is therefore located at ground level,noise from heavy trucks is produced by a combination of noise from tires,engine,and exhaust,resulting in a noise source that is approximately 8 feet above the ground.The following list provides information on the types of transportation noise sources that will be part of a roadway project,and describes the type of noise each produces. • Passenger Vehicles(cars):Noise emitted from 0 to 2 feet above rJadway,primarily from tire-roadway interface. This category includes normal passenger vehicles,small and regular pickup trucks,small to mid-size sport utility vehicles,mini-and full-size passenger vans. Typical noise levels for passenger vehicles are 72 to 74 dBA at 55 iiph at a distance of 50 feet. • Medium Trucks(11T):Noise emitted from 2 to 5 feet above roadtiVay, combined noise from tire-roadway interface and engine exhaust noise.This category includes delivery vans,such as UPS and Federal Express trucks,large sport utility vehicles with'knobby tires,large diesel engine trucks,sonic tow-trucks,city transit and school buses with under vehicle exhaust, moving vans(U-haul-type trucks),small to medium recreational motor homes and other larger trucks with the exhaust located under the vehicle.Typical noise levels for medium trucks are 80 to 82 dBA at 55 mph at 50 feet. • Heavy Trucks(HT):Noise emitted from 6 to 8 feet above the roadway surface,combined noise sources includes tire-roadway interface,engine noise,and exhaust stack noise.This category includes all log-haul tractor-trailers(semi-trucks),large to{v trucks,dump trucks, cement mixers,large transit buses,motor homes with exhaust located at top of vehicle,and other vehicles with the exhaust located above the vehicle(typical ehaust height of 12 to 15 feet).Typical noise levels for heavy trucks am 84 to 86 dBA at 55 mph at 50 feet-. Several factors determine how sound levels decrease over distance.Under i eau conditions,a line noise source(such as constant flowing traffic on a busy highway)decreases at a rate of approximately 3 dB each time the distance doubles.Under real-life conditions,however,interactions of the sound waves with the ground often results in attenuation that is slightly greater than the ideal reduction factors given above.Other factors that affect the attenuation of sound with dhstattce include existing structures,topography,foliage,ground cover,and atmospheric conditions such as wind,temperature, and relative humidity.The following list provides some general informationon the potential affects each of these factors may have on sound propagation. k • Existing Structures.Existing structures can have a substantial effect on noise levels in any given area.Structures can reduce noise by physically blocking the sound transnission.(Under special circumstances,structures may cause an increase in noise levels if the sound is reflected off the structure and transmitted to a nearby receiver location.)Measurements have shown that a single- story house has the potential,through shielding,to reduce noise levels by as much as 10 dB or greater.The actual noise reduction will depend greatly on the geometry of the noise source, receiver,and location of the structure. Increases in noise caused by retie Lion are normally 3 dB or less,which is the minimum change in noise levels that can be noticed by the human ear. • Topography.Topography includes existing hills,bcrnms,and other surf! e features between the noise source and receiver location. As with structures,topography has th potential to reduce or increase sound depending on the geometry of the area.Hills and berms, when placed between the noise source and receiver,can have a significant effect on noise levels.I many situations,berms are used as noise mitigation by physically blocking the noise source froth i the receiver location.In i PDX/TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT.DOC 2 I 1 I December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 4 of 9 1 TRAFFIC NOISE BACKGROUND INFORMATION some locations,however,the topography can result in an overall increajse in sound levels by either reflecting or channeling the noise towards a sensitive receiver location. • Foliage.Foliage,if dense,can provide slight reductions in noise levelsi FHWA provides for up to a 5 dBA reduction in traffic noise for locations with at least a 30 feet depth of dense evergreen foliage. • Ground Cover.The ground cover between the receiver and the noise source can have a significant effect on noise transmission.For example,sound will travel`very well across reflective surfaces such as water and pavement,but can be attenuated when the ground cover is field grass, Iawns,or even loose soil. Traffic Noise Mitigation In theory,there are a number of options that can be used to reduce or mitig4te traffic noise.These include traffic management,highway design,and noise barriers including earthen berms. In reality, noise mitigation is often infeasible due to space requirements,aesthetic issues and financial costs,or because the costs outweigh the benefits. Any specific mitigation measure recommended as part of a project must be feasible and have a reasonable cost in relation to the benefit. Potential mitigation measures arc described below. • Traffic Management: Traffic management measures include modification of speed limits and restricting or prohibiting truck traffic.Restricting truck use on a given roadway would reduce noise levels at nearby receivers since trucks are louder than cars. However,displacing truck traffic from one roadway to another would only shift noise impacts from one area to another and may conflict with the planned function of the roadway(e.g.,an arterial generally carries truck traffic). The level of truck traffic on Sunnyside Road is too low for truck restrictions to result in a significant reduction in overall noise in the area.While reducing speeds,may reduce noise,a reduction of at least 10 mph is needed for a noticeable difference in noise to result.Also,because roadways are planned and designed to support speeds consistent with th' it functional classification(e.g.,35-45 mph on an arterial),changing speeds for the p rpose of noise mitigation is not common. • Roadway Design:Roadway design measures include altering the roads ay alignment and depressing roadway cut sections. Alteration of roadway alignment coul. decrease noise levels by moving the traffic farther away from the affected receivers. Because th re are noise sensitive receivers along both sides of Sunnyside Road.changing the alignment n ay benefit one side of Sunnyside Road,but would increase noise levels on the other. • Noise Barriers:Construction of noise barriers between the roadways a d the affected receivers would reduce noise levels by physically blocking the transmission of tr ' ic-generated noise. Barriers can be constructed as walls or earthen berms.Earthen berms re uire more right-of-way than walls and are usually constructed with a 3-to-I slope. Using this re uirement,a berm 8 feet tall would slope 24 feet in each direction,for a total width of 48 feet. Fo the Sunnyside Road project,berms are not feasible because of the right-of-way requirement. oise walls should be high enough to break the line-of-sight between the noise source and the eceiver. They must also be long enough to prevent significant flanking of noise around the ends of the walls.Openings in the wall,such as for driveways and walkways,can significantly reduce t_ie barrier effectiveness. Because of the frequent driveways and walkways on Sunnyside Road,noise walls would not be effective in most locations. PDX/TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT.DOC I 3 c co 0 c c t 0 0 w In m c (0 o CC N _ f0 y U O y N cy a c 0.6 O O c U O .N C O b ✓ N N in sn aI.T•.7:"::. :.m..x;,".,i- ,:.m.'-Yr .:. co c IA in in WI • W Q • C N N n co si in i!1 act os Li) in in ill N a) in to m in ', ^ in U) V) Li) , .u.',-5:.-',..,x.,....'..,,,,:-.S•,','.... '.....<-4.-.... .. a s . 0o) d Q to N co l0 in 3 op Lrl to in in in °n .-1 0 co in 4.0 in in ,r) W 0 03 03 N 03 Q N m Q N N in ri N N no In N N t0 .Y 19 . . ..;ors..a a t ra7'...co' 1: F> si,., ` .,a,u. ,'a7a"'"'';s" o- #''..::,,.: , 1;` 'p N N N N a s m m m m o a ° ° 0 v m m mm w i _ _ _ la co VI y O N O In O C iu ci a! r1 0) r-'1 _ N ta ay '-.{ N '--1 O ` .0 x L L x L x O Q' 01 15 N U :O aa, , N U 7 +c+ N > N U Cl_ �7 0. L w d i Q) -C N -4� O• •U •O x C. N -p •U L •p X C o -p .v "2 O m "2 .:t- 0 u m 3 N U; S 3 m 3 N U Z 3 m s u z S o_ c 0 0 C `a,° YLA CO E r- Co 7 cc to c F= C7 c G - .c 015 2 co U _, m u co 0 Co Lo s m 2 a 0 • December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 6 of 9 • STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION tri SITE PREPARATION vt ° CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date: June 4,2012 To: Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz Phone: 438-5239 e-mail: kylelukaszt7colliergov.net Project: Remove/Replace curb in median at North Tram ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION GENERAL Remove and replace curb,including traffic control and bond LS 1.0 $6,940.00 $6,940.00 TOTAL $6,940.00 Leo-Mt 13at mats LEO M. BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph(239)482-4826 Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lic.CGC 1506291 fx(239)482-8177 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 7 of 9 STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION SITE PREPARATION • CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date: June 4,2012 To: Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz Phone: 438-5239 e-mail: kvielukaszAcolliergov.not Project: Replace Cobblers with brick pavers at 4 intersections ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION GENERAL Hammock Oak LS 1.0 $12,900.00 $12,900.00 North Tram Station LS 1.0 $12,250.00 $12,250.00 Beachwalk LS 1.0 $11,600.00 $11,600.00 Glenview LS 1.0 $9,650.00 $9,650.00 TOTAL $46,400.00 Price includes removal of cobblers, replace with pavers(pavers furnished by Pelican Bay),maintenance of traffic and bond Leo*. &3at&tnan. LEO M. BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph(239)482-4826 Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lic.CGC 1506291 fx(239)482-8177 a) m L C / \ .ti 0 0 , fay r " " + k r 1 '4 / q r g m OJ f0i7 Y aE ,' y � .rye 7 1 /y i, ,, 4 '' " r o i3 , it q ° o " rx E dx ' .> m � `' i } 3 J< / 0 2 ts. " { f ) m •:, " 4 - - i V, - " ' f =� ` in ti " P l � �� ExY m c g y f'1 ‘It c ,,.. o r, - �� 1 j'' 3:. .a- o , # 1k acs �r ' � N 4) .... V $ Rp ' s� L2 .� C) { ww :w 4 mK' , a W .,. JO o Q a# d e g t a) ,i m 0) E 1 k t ' ' k , J ' b Srr {i N 2 g a f i w *' e a ` ' x x.....' a. n #y >f � � )RAY $ i i q ",-k` . re` x ` 3 ,.,. �' F 4 r� s .ri , r. a December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a.Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler) Page 9 of 9 PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, \ INC. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 600, •Naples, FL 34108 (239) 566-9707 • FAX (239) 598-9485 • E-Mail PBPOA@pbpropertyowners.org October 16, 2012 Keith J. Dallas, President PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 Laurel Oak Blvd. Suite 605 Naples FL 34108 Dear President Dallas, The Board of the PBPOA wishes to register its strong objection to the PBSD's decision to research the possibility of removing the cobblestones at key crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard, and to not complete the remaining new crosswalk as recommended by the Joint Strategic Planning Committee and the PBSD. This joint group worked with traffic and safety engineers to develop design and material recommendations consistent with both FDOT requirements and the need to improve pedestrian safety. The crosswalk design recommendations, including materials, were reviewed multiple times in community forums. Additionally , at the September meeting, it was noticed that new decibel readings were again insignificant. We believe it would be fiscally irresponsible for the PBSD to rework any of the paving that has been installed, and would be contrary to public safety and to the overall continuity of the community upgrades to not complete all of the crosswalks as originally planned. Sincerely, 51Y /50E Susan M. Boland President cc: Jim Hoppensteadt Ronnie Bellone December 5,2012 Pelica Bay Service Division Board Regular Session 9a. Old Business-Cobblestones at San Marino cros ing discussion Alternatives to cobbles at Beach Walk crossing Page 1 of 1 Alternatives to Cobbles at Beach Walkway Crosswalk Clay Pavers-Although there are contrasting clay pavers like those used in Bay Colony in conjunction with red brick paver used on PBB nothing very closely matches the cobbles. Estimated Cost:$13'100 Concrete Paver—There is a concrete paver(sample provided)in the same charcoal black as the cobble but without the black beauty that gives the granite appearance. $12,300 Cutting Existing Cobbles—Cobbles cannot be effectively cut in-place without probable damage to concrete header and pavers. Removal,cleaning and reinstallation with the smooth surface up is not practical or cost effective vs. new material of pavers or granite.Also,the flip side of the cobble is different from the tumbled side,intended finished side,because of the way it is manufactured. Smooth Granite—Three samples of smooth granite provided with varying shades similar to the existing cobbles.All can be purchased with the same top dimensions as the existing cobbles. Estimated Cost:$15,000 Filling w/Concrete—Filling the existing 3'wide cobble area with concrete(next to the 1'wide concrete header)would create a 4'wide concrete band on each side of the brick payers, Estimated Cost$8,700 Decibel Readings at Various Crosswalk Configurations Attached are decibel readings recorded at various configured crosswalks on Pelican Bay Blvd. Readings at close range(5 ft.)didn't vary significantly at the various surfaces. However,at a further distance away the decibel readings were up to 10 dB higher at the cobble crosswalks vs. smoother surfaces of just pavers and painted asphalt crosswalk.Although the readings at the paver crosswalk and painted crosswalks were similar at both distances you do recognize the different sound as the vehicle pass's over the pavers. I have no way to determine for sure but it would seem that if the cobble area was smooth that it would have similar readings to the crosswalks that are painted or have just pavers. 1 December 5,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a. Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion-Comments by Cathy and Joe Stenza Page 1 of 1 Original Message From:Keith Dallas[mailto:keithjdallas@ gmail.com] Sent: Monday,December 03,2012 8:00 PM To: stenza @comcast.net Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: December 5th PBSD Meeting Thanks, I'll forward your comments. Keith On Dec 3,2012, at 6:34 PM, stenza@comcast.net wrote: Hi Keith: Don't wish to speak at the meeting but please register our comments: To spend this amount of money to pull up existing granite cobbles is totally outrageous especially in view of the fact that other places have not complained about having the cobbles and sound tests have not proved a significant decibel noise. Cathy and Joe Stenza From: "Keith Dallas" <keithjdallas @gmail.com> To: "joe stenza" <stenza @comcast.net> Sent: Monday,December 3,2012 4:25:52 PM Subject: December 5th PBSD Meeting Cathy and Joe, 1 know you are particularly concerned about the 2nd item listed below. We will be discussing it in December but waiting until our January 2nd meeting to decide if we will take any action. The PBSD is meeting Wednesday at fpm for its monthly meeting.A couple of agenda items might be of interest to Pelican Bay residents: * Tree Canopy/Pathway/Bike Lane Study-We will discuss a proposed approach, and hiring an independent arborist(we will be proposing Ian Orlikoff,the arborist used earlier this year to voice concerns of a group of residents led by Rick Galli).Although this started as a discussion of widening pathways, it has now come full circle to our current emphasis as to how we can keep our trees healthy, and coexisting with our pathways.Depending on analysis,and what we think feasible to maintain the current pathway,we then will discuss if there is any desire to long term widen pathways, and if so, what is feasible. I'm hoping this project brings the entire community, including me,up to speed on the issues and possible solutions on our tree canopy and it's maintenance. We will approach this project in a series of workshops spread over the next few months,probably ending in April. Then we will summarize our conclusions, and revisit them with the community in the 2013-2014 season. Most actions,other than maintenance activities, will probably not occur for years to come. * The Cobbles at San Marino Crosswalk-This is the first of two discussions about the possibility of removing/replacing the granite cobbles in the San Marino crosswalk. Some abutters have objected to the noise caused by the cobbles. However sound tests have shown that removing the cobbles would probably have minimal impact on decibel levels,and would cost$12,000 to$15,000. Identically designed crosswalks at 3 other locations have not created similar reactions from abutters. If you are interested in speaking, please attend. Keith