PBSD MSTBU Agenda 01/02/2013 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION P -TRME
n I
O
Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit JAN 0 2 2011 v
BY:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 2, 2013
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY,
8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108.
AGENDA
Fiala
The agenda includes, but is not limited: Hiller
Henning
Coyle !,
I.,*
1. Pledge of Allegiance Colette _
2. Roll call
3. Agenda approval
4. Elect new Chairman
5. Recent Board of County Commissioners' decisions involving Pelican Bay Services Division
6. Approval of December 5 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
7. Monthly financial report
8. Cobblestones at San Marino crossing * (John Chandler)
9. Committee reports Misc. Comes:
a. Clam Bay Subcommittee Date: ``i VR'I t
i. Clam Bay transition plan
ii. Clam Bay dredging permit Item#:
b. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee£
Copies to:
10. Setting Priorities (Keith J. Dallas)
11. Changes to Pelican Bay Services Division Ordinance 2002-27 (Keith J. Dallas)
12. Old Business
a. Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes£ (John Chandler)
13. Audience Comments
14. Miscellaneous Correspondence
15. Adjournment
Board vote is anticipated
£ Chairman recommended item is deferred
ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS
THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON
WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR
COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS
BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE,WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT
(239)597-1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET.
12/18/2012 11:33:37 AM
December 17, 2012
Pelican Bay Services Division Board,
I have decided to resign as Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board effective
the January 2, 2013 meeting. It is obvious from recent actions and her total lack of
communication with me that Commissioner Hiller is dissatisfied with my leadership
of the PBSD Board. I have concluded that immediately choosing the new Chair of the
PBSD Board may improve the ability of the PBSD to perform your important
functions. I will continue to serve the remainder of my term as a Board member.
Keith J. Dall s
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 5,2012
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on
Wednesday, December 5, 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 Michael Levy
Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Susan O'Brien
Tom Cravens,Vice Chairman Dave Trecker
John P.Chandler Mary Anne Womble
Geoffrey S.Gibson absent John Baron absent
John Iaizzo Hunter H.Hansen absent
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
Lauren Gibson,Biologist,Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc.
Jim Hoppensteadt,President&CEO,Pelican Bay Foundation
REVISED AGENDA
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. Committee Reports
a. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee Report
i. Approval of recommended approach*
ii. Selection of arborist*
iii. Bicycle lane survey discussion
7. Old Business
a. Cobblestones at San Marino crossing discussion(John Chandler)
8. Report from Commissioner Hiller(Add-on by Dave Trecker)
9. 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
10. Additional Committee Reports
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*
iii. Community outreach
d. Strategic Planning Committee news(Mary Anne Womble)
11. Chairman's Report
a. Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandle
b. PBSD Board terms
c. Announcements
12. New Business
13. Audience Comments
14. Miscellaneous Correspondence
15. Adjournment =s a . -, , ticipated
ihAr-
8577
t
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
December 5, 2012
ROLL CALL
With the exception of Messrs.Baron,Gibson,and Hansen,all members were present.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr.Chandler made a motion,second by Dr.Trecker, to approve the agenda as amended:
Following"Approval of minutes",the Board would proceed with"Pathways"then
"Cobblestones"then Dr. Trecker's addition, "Commissioner Hiller Report': The Board voted
unanimously in favor and the motion passed.
RULES FOR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Dr. Trecker made a motion,second by Vice Chairman Cravens,to amend the`Rules for
Audience Participation at PBSD meetings"by striking"politely"and replacing with"strictly';
The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion passed.
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker, to amend the `Rules for Audience
Participation at PBSD meetings" by inserting after item 3, but before item 4, the sentence,
"After public comments are heard, the Board will proceed to discuss the agenda item and take
appropriate action without interruption." The Board voted unanimously in favor and the
motion was passed.
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr.Levy, to approve the"Rules for Audience
Participation at PBSD meetings"as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the
motion passed.
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 7 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker, to approve the Nov. 7 Regular Session
minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion passed.
PATHWAYS AD-HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDED APPROACH*
IN
Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens, to amend PBSD Path fall
Project Draft 6.4, Step 2 to read, "Conduct a census of trees along the length of Pelic• q. =,
Boulevard to estimate the health of the trees and determine the likely impact of dista _ om
the sidewalk and the street to the trees in question."The Board voted unanimously; or and
the motion passed.
Mr.Chandler made a motion,second by Vice Chairman Cravens,to amend ' . g Path j
Project Draft 6.4,Step 3 to read, `Have staff revisit County and State pra. e ,',es
pathways and bicycle usage. The Board voted unanimously in favor and s E, :1,12...s.
SELECTION OF ARBORIST*
Mr.Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist gave a presentation reg., 4 .: ire of evaluating
existing conditions to develop a plan for the pathways improvem• Or.je e an approach that promotes
tree health,structural integrity,and mitigates potential prop•• s. x$ avo p 'jury and liability.
V ka_n
8578
I
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
December 5, 2012
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Dr. Trecker,to select ISA Certified Arborist
Ian Orlikoff as the Pelican Bay Services Division's arborist. The Board voted unanimously in
favor and the motion passed.
The Board directed staff to schedule a Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee meeting in mid-January to
review Mr.Orlikoffs initial evaluation of trees along Pelican Bay Boulevard.
BICYCLE LANE SURVEY DISCUSSION
The Board discussed developing a community survey and directed staff to assist and to obtain the
County's roadway paving schedule.
OLD BUSINESS
COBBLESTONES AT SAN MARINO DISCUSSION
Based on past complaints about noise when vehicles drive over the cobblestones at the San Marino
crossing,the Board discussed:Decibel readings done at several crosswalk locations(results for crosswalks
without cobblestones showed an insignificant reduction in decibel levels);safety issues;aesthetics;and cost
estimates to replace cobblestones with other materials.Both the Pelican Bay Foundation(PBF)and Pelican
Bay Property Owners Association's(PBPOA)were opposed to removal.Further discussion deferred to
January 2.
REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER HILLER(DAVE TRECKER)
Dr.Trecker conveyed information he received from Commissioner Hiller regarding proposed
amendments to the Pelican Bay Services Division's ordinance under consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners on December 11 and included 1)adding a non-voting member of the Pelican Bay Foundation
Board to this Board; 2)establishing Chairman and Vice Chairman one-year term limits;and 3)reaffirming the
Pelican Bay Services Division's responsibility for managing Clam Bay in its entirety.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
NORTH TRAM PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
Mr.Dorrill reported that the signal components were delivered and work starts next week.
LANDSCAPE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Mr.Dorrill reported that some residents would like to add more color at several intersections
annuals. Finding the balance between landscaping best management practices and maintenance i . ve
plantings was deferred to the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee.
SOUTH BERM RESTORATION
Mr.Dorrill reported that the south berm restoration was done within budget. _ ■mple
PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS CONCERNS&STATUS OF COUNT k a d_
Mr.Dorrill reported the recent Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways overl, esult• ..k.',:."°ra - neven
areas and safety concerns. The County is in the process of grading to a lev• ',I=.-- n an. x ,irs are 75%
complete.
lb .
8579
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
December 5, 2012
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens, to accept the November
financial report into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion passed.
CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE
STORET WATER QUALITY DATA RECOMMENDATION*
Ms.O'Brien made a motion,second by Mr.Iaizzo,to authorize up to$10,000 to have Turrell-
Hall enter Clam Bay water quality data into STORET pending verification that the Clam Bay
WBID is separate from the Naples WBID. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the
motion passed.
LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
The Board discussed locations to monitor nutrients and copper and deferred to the Subcommittee.
Mr.Hoppensteadt presented Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)water quality
data and map indicating Clam Bay was impaired due to high levels of copper sulfate.Mr.Hall's ongoing
nutrient study and flow map would help locate the source,but a resolution still is complicated and costly.
The Board discussed staff's suggestions for alternatives to copper sulfate to control algae including
aeration,bacteria,and aquatic plantings;and plan to test effectiveness in Basin 3.
Dr. Trecker made a motion second by Mr.Levy,to approve the pilot testing of aeration,bacteria
products,and aquatic plantings using solar power in Basin III. The Board voted 6 to 2 in favor,
two opposed(Mr.Chandler and Ms.O'Brien)and the motion passed.
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Ms.Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee met November 8 and discussed the
status of several projects including media infrastructure and community competitiveness. The Committee's
next meetings are December 11 and January 8.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
SCHEDULING MEETING TO DISCUSS BOARD POLICY FOR RECONSIDERATION(IOHN CHANDLER)
:If,:-
The Board discussed briefly whether to schedule a separate meeting to discuss the Board poli ,
reconsideration of votes. Consensus was to defer to January 2 and the Board directed staff to rediszAn. e liti
previous material.
BOARD TERMS
The Board discussed the four terms expiring at once in March and ways to staRtpiw,ms to elan e
for Board continuity and easy recruitment.
Ms. O'Brien made a motion,second by Mr.Chandler, to direct t ,t_, inis > o discuss with
Commissioner Hiller the possibility of changing the length o , 1 ur $•r terms in the
upcoming election whereas the two applicants who recei + p._ s e e appointed for
four years, and applicants placing third and fourth are 7Q7 , A t years. The Board
voted unanimously in favor and the motion passed.
I
8580 "'
i
I
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
December 5, 2012
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings: Landscape Water Management Subcommittee
meets December 10 at 1 p.m.and the Clam Bay Subcommittee follows at 3 p.m.;the next Board Regular
Session is January 2 then February 13;and the Budget Subcommittee meets January 22 at 3 p.m.The Coastal
Advisory Committee meets December 13 and Pelican Bay Foundation meets December 14.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mr.Jerry Moffatt received correspondence regarding rebuilding the pathways away from driveways;
a nearby community established a special taxing unit for landscaping;the sod installed by the County as part
of the pathways overlay is dead;and audience participation does not increase the length of meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Dr. Trecker,to adjourn. The Board voted
unanimously in favor,passing the motion,and the meeting was adjourned at 4:04 p.m.
Keith J.Dallas,Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 12/20/2012 12:32:47 PM
V"ive: ; -- '
1
8581 ")-
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 1 of 16
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
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 2 of 16
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 aetivity(e.g.,sleeping)that
the noise affects.
The sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies is measured by the A-weighted
decibel scale(dBA). A 10-dDA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of
sound level. The smallest change in noise level that a human car 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 arc 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)
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
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 3 of 16
TRAFFIC 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,engines 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):1Voise emitted from 0 to 2 feet above roadway,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 mph at a distance of
50 feet.
• Medium Trucks(MT):Noise emitted from 2 to 5 feet above roadm'au,combined noise from
tire-roadway interface and ermine exhaust noise.This category includes delivery vans,such
as UPS and Federal Express trucks,large sport utility vehicles withknobby tires,large diesel
engine trucks,some 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 arc 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 tow-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 exhaust height of 12 to
15 feet).Typical noise levels for heavy trucks are 84 to 86 dBA at 55 mph at 50 feet°.
Several factors determine how sound levels decrease over distance.Under ideal conditions,a line
noise source(such as constant flowing traffic on a busy highway)decreases lat a rate of approximately
3 dB each time the distance doubles.Under real-Iife 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 distance include existing
structures,topography,foliage,ground cover,and atmospheric conditions such as wind,temperature,
and relative humidity.The following list provides some general information:on the potential affects
each of these factors may have on sound propagation.
• 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 transmission.(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 reflection 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,berms,and other surface features between the
noise source and receiver location.As with structures,topography has the potential to reduce or
increase sound depending on the geometry of the arca.Hills and berms,When placed between the
noise source and receiver,can have a significant effect on noise levels.In many situations,berms
are used as noise mitigation by physically blocking the noise source from the receiver location.In
PDX/TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT.DOC 2
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 4 of 16
TRAFFIC NOISE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
some locations,however,the topography can result in an overall increase 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 levels 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 traveli very well across reflective
surfaces such as water and pavement,but can be attenuated when the ground cover is field grass,
lawns,or even loose soil.
Traffic Noise Mitigation
In theory,there are a number of options that can be used to reduce or mitigate traffic noise.These
include traffic management,highway design,and noise barriers including einrthen 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 are 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. I lowcver,displacing truck
traffic from one roadway to another would only shift noise impacts froin 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 their functional
classification(e.g.,35-45 mph on an arterial),changing speeds for the purpose of noise mitigation
is not common.
• Roadway Design:Roadway design measures include altering the roadway alignment and
depressing roadway cut sections. Alteration of roadway alignment could decrease noise levels by
moving the traffic farther away from the affected receivers. Because there are noise sensitive
receivers along both sides of Sunnyside Road,changing the alignment may benefit one side of
Sunnyside Road,but would increase noise levels on the other.
• Noise Barriers:Construction of noise barriers between the roadways and the affected receivers
would reduce noise levels by physically blocking the transmission of traffic-generated noise.
Barriers can be constructed as walls or earthen berms.Earthen berms require more right-of-way
than walls and are usually constructed with a 3-to-1 slope.Using this requirement,a berm 8 feet
tall would slope 24 feet in each direction,for a total width of 48 feet. For the Sunnyside Road
project,berms are not feasible because of the right-of-way requirement.Noise walls should be
high enough to break the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receiver. 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 the barrier effectiveness.
Because of the frequent driveways and walkways on Sunnyside Road,noise walls would not be
effective in most locations.
PDX/FRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT.DOC 3
c
.CO
0
Co
a)
CO cn
a)
w
ce
12
co
O
m
C
O
Co
>_
0 01
CO C
at y
o N
O
O 0
(1) 0
>-,o
C
c0 /
m 2
c C
0 O
0_ m
CO CO
oc ,,a ., ..a ,.
CO 04 0 us (- to in
N O O Q
N a Lc) � �
cO0 >,cs)
c0 U c0 n pi N a-c
O d Q t-t N tf1 to
N M f
N CO 01
Lel tal 111 V1
I
N II)
w 141 In 10
QtD
N CO
U)
T
A a N tO
w CO � Cl)
H 0
co 1
CO CD CO 10
VI._ 03 tOm N
> n
CD
d
m '
4 N � w
In
i1 n co m
Co N n cD tD
Y ni
_ co c N M Co
M
o w 0-
tJ yt E M OM O O Co HI
0
O _ ' N
• N -
. -
Co In O vl O 3
C 0) rl ai
'5 - ,.y a w s < .1-^-1 N o
W Y > 0 = w. N > 0 a/ N > 47 N V—CC 3 a " 3 Cl) `m a U > 0 a`i n. ,L m `wt 0
.0 Co u i+t cl!01 a u ' Fn C m i u 'O c cc "a c
T., u. m 3 N U, i 3 m 3 cv U S 3 m` 3 v0 = 3 a
c
0 0
Y
0 Y m
Y E d
0
To
O 3 t- u o
—, .c '
(0 y o .C°
:°
m z a v
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 6 of 16
STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION
1E5A SITE PREPARATION
}
CHANGE ORDER REQUEST
Date:June 4,2012
To:Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz
Phone:438-5239
e-mail: kvlelukasz(rDcoliiergov.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 _ 86,940.00
Leo-�l. $at ma4v
LEO M.BATEMAN
3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph(239)482-4826
Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lic.CGC 1506291 Ix(239)482-8177
I
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 7 of 16
STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION
AEA SI"I E PREPARATION
.� � -Cr �
CHANGE ORDER REQUEST
Date:June 4,2012
To: Collier County BOCC Attention:Kyle Lukasz
Phone:438-5239
e-mail: kyfelukaszcolliernov.net
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 $12250.00 $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-Al. Batartuzn
LEO M. BATEMAN
3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED
ph(239)482-4826
Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lic.CGC 1506291 fx(239)482-8177
C
0
.vs
N
u)
up
t0
7
O)
N
x
c g'.'.. ' \ . '' . \.• ;......;:k.7.''''. '• '....-' '': '' ' .;r1.`- ' , ';I:
b >' TN's r, r ,3°m.'' [/yJ� {
: • \ \ ,
Vh of t S ! , . ,y !. f .. '`•
t co O C '� 1 i 'r 'f.�; f
(Ni 1 � �) l� } � ''� ill .� .� {mot
LNI N , 1 T,
� fl
6 . -- ' , - 1 7,.' i \ ,.. ,, V.,. , ,.,,,,i'';'/ 'O.,. •.• " •..•••:.• ...
ivi } i } / r;.j y fhg/ *+ �''' c� 1,
; t d. •r lr ' •. i .5 tit t 'k ),,
ti
} r ya i ''
5,...!:::,,...,••M . f • 1 ' tt1 1.... 'RY'.A '
v Y" - j - i i S{ ,•fir c ~' t/J }F 4 7 1
r 1 / '
' ..la
.. W d �'1,1 o .,i i a, `.. j, •i >• .:y
ti. t,r•• •• y 'fix t .x
,,��qq g r"
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 9 of 16
PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
x: \ " INC.
ra.._. 7-- r
801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 600, •Naples,FL 34108
(239)566-9707• FAX(239)598-9485 • E-Mail PBPOA(a,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,
STAMM T v/'v
Susan M. Boland
President
cc: Jim Hoppensteadt
Ronnie Bellone
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 10 of 16
May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ai.Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Uniform Traffic Standards(Additional Correspondence)No.2
Page 1 of 1
ResnickLisa
From: Kate[kfweath @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday,April 30, 2012 6:52 PM
To: office@pelicanbayservicesdivision.net
Subject: Crosswalks
I am a resident of San Marino and as such, I cross the nearby crosswalk several times daily when in residence at San
Marino. It is becoming more and more hazardous because the traffic generally does not stop for pedestrians.
Something needs to be added to the signage—lights, closer signage, a warning—something. The signs at that crosswalk
are small and very far from the crosswalk. Someone is going to be hurt or killed at the crosswalks due to pedestrians
thinking they are safe to cross and traffic not stopping. I have had cars actually honk at me when I have been crossing in
the middle of a lane and they whiz by. More go by than stop. One suggestion is to put LARGE signs—maybe even
temporary-at each entrance to Pelican Bay announcing that it is Florida Law to stop at crosswalks. And,we definitely
need flashing lights to note the crosswalk. They are not visible until you are in them.
Kate Weathersby
San Marino
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 11 of 16
May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Additional Correspondence No.3
Page 1 of 1
ResnickLisa
Subject: 5ai.Administrator's Report. Crosswalks.Additional Correspondence No. 3
From: Cliff Landers f mailto:clifflanders 2000ftvahoo.coml
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:29 PM
To: officeftDelicanbayservicesdivision.net
Subject: Crosswalk at San Marino
Pelican Bay Services Division
To whoever may be reluctant to reverse the unstudied project of the crosswalk near San Marino, I would say:
Put aside ego,acknowledge the mistake, remove the cobblestones, and fill in and cement over the holes. Done.
The danger and annoyance level of the crosswalk has already been discussed and proven, so let's put an end to
this long and fruitless dialogue.
Sincerely,
Clifford E. Landers
San Marino#305
From: Brendan P. Culligan [mailto:pebblepostftgmail.coml
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:46 PM
To: 21 Lisa Resnick
Subject: STOP FOR PEOPLE video link
Lisa,
Please click www.vimeo.com/41366160 to view my three minute STOP FOR PEOPLE video. Please test it so
you can access it for presentation at the PBSD meeting on Wednesday at 1 PM.
If you have any technical problems,please call me at 239-597-7957 in the morning so I can resolve them before
the meeting.
Thanks for you help.
Brendan Culligan
Pebble Creek at Pelican Bay
17-201
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 12 of 16
May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Additional correspondence no.4
Page 1 of 1
ResnickLisa
From: Ktm140[ktm140 @aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02,2012 12:37 PM
To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net
Subject: RE:The crosswalk located at San Marino
RE: The crosswalk located at San Marino. In my opinion,there are two issues with the crosswalk at San
Marino. Unfortunately, I have a last minute work conflict so I am not able to make the meeting this afternoon.
The issues are—Noise& Safety.
The noise issue-As a resident of San Marino, I walk my dog at least twice a day on Pelican Bay Blvd. & I am
very much aware of the thump-thump as cars cross the cobblestones. When I mentioned this at a Pelican Bay
Foundation meeting,the comment back was that they had a noise gun& it wasn't too loud. It's not so much the
loudness but it's the fact that the noise has become a constant presence. The designers of the crosswalks have
created a source of noise pollution&have taken one of the prettiest areas in Naples and made it sound like an
urban center. I understand that the concept is that the cobblestones would act as a warning&a speed deterrent
to drivers when, in reality, neither of these things occurs. I grew up in Mid-town Manhattan,certainly one of the
busiest areas of NYC, & if there was a loose manhole cover which is a very similar sound to the cars driving
over the cobblestone, one could call the NYC DOT and they would come out to fix it because it was considered
a noise nuisance. It would be great if that were possible in this situation. Again, it's not the loudness it's the fact
that it is a noise that was not part of our community prior to the installation of the crosswalk.
The 2nd issue is even more crucial—Safety.Again, spending as much time on the Blvd as I do both in the
morning and the afternoons I have had the opportunity of seeing many"near misses". I have seen drivers ignore
pedestrians; drivers stop on 1 side but not the other; cars in the right lane stopping but not in the left lane&
even cars speeding up so they don't have to stop. It has actually created an unsafe situation—pedestrians don't
know whether the cars are going to stop or not. The crosswalk definitely needs further signage to make it safe.
I have heard remarks that the only people complaining are the San Marino residents.
It only takes a bit of common sense to realize that the residents of San Marino and Calais are most directly
affected since the crosswalk is closest to those communities&most pedestrian's traffic originates from them. I
think it would be a rare occasion for some one from St Raphael to cross over to the east side of the street.
It is my recommendation that the cobblestones be removed&the crosswalk has better signage.
When a decision is made by the Pelican Bay Services Division is any consideration give to the impact of that
decision to the residents of the Pelican Bay&the communities most affected? It seems like there is very little
regard as to how the design has impacted the area&our concerns seem to be ignored.
Kathy Mahoney
Kathy Mahoney
Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate
8200 Health Center Blvd.#101
Bonita Springs,34135
800-547-3019
239-992-0059(0)
239-404-0677(C)
239-992-0231 (Fax)
MailToekathy.mahoney@floridamoves.com
http:///kathy-mahonev.com
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 13 of 16
May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Additional correspondence.
Page 1 of 1
ResnickLisa
Subject: 5ai. CROSSWALK IN FRONT OF SAN MARINO AND BEACH ACCESS!
From:Dolores E.Stillings Jmailto:westlakecogOcomcast.netl
Sent: Monday,April 30,2012 9:27 AM
To:office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net
Subject:CROSSWALK IN FRONT OF SAN MARINO AND BEACH ACCESS!
LADIES/GENTLEMEN:
I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY MAY 2ND.
THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT I OWN AND RESIDE IN A FIRST FLOOR CONDO WITHIN SAN
MARINO. THE BACK OF MY CONDO (BEDROOMS AND LANAI) FACE PELICAN BAY BLVD. SINCE THE INSTALLATION
OF THE COBBLESTONE CROSSWALK I CAN'T OPEN A WINDOW OR MY LANAI. IN THE MASTER-BATHROOM, THE
VIBRATION IS AWFUL. THIS IS SO VERY DISTRUBING""""i i r r i
I HAVE MY UNIT FOR SALE AND HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MANY LOOKERS THAT THEY FEAR THE NOISE LEVEL WOULD
REALLY BE A CONSTANT DISTURBANCE TO THEM!!!
I HAVE HEARD THAT THE PBSD TESTED THE NOISE LEVEL AND FIND IT ACCEPTABLE THEY SHOULD COME LIVE
IN MY HOME FOR A WEEK. THE NOISE LEVEL MIGHT HAVE BEEN TESTED DURING OUR OFF SEASON! DURING THIS
PAST BUSY SEASON, I HAVE SUFFERED GREATLY.
THIS SITUATION IS NOT ONLY AFFECTING MY PEACEFULNESS, BUT IT HAS IMPACTED MY RE-SALE VALUE! I HAVE
PAID $520K FOR THIS CONDO AND COMPLETELY RENOVATED AT A COST OF$80K.
PLEASE, AT LEAST, CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE COBBLESTONE FROM EACH SIDE OF THE SMOOTH PAVERS. IT
WAS A REALLY AN IDEA THAT HAD NO CONSIDERATION FOR THOSE OF US THAT LIVE RIGHT ON PB BLVD.
THERE ARE A FEW CROSSWALKS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE COBBLESTONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PAVERS, AND IT
DOES MAKE IT MORE ACCEPTABLE.
I WOULD LIKE YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS E-MAIL AFTER YOUR MEETING. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ME
AND MOST OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTS FACING PB BLVD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION TO MY REQUEST.
DOLORES E. STILLINGS
6855 SAN MARINO DRIVE #202
239-513-1410
732-310-2359 CELL
I
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 14 of 16
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
May 2, 2012
APPROVAL OF APRIL 11.2012 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr.Levy to approve the April 11 Regular Session
minutes as amended:1)Page 8546:identify San Marino and North Tram station crossings;and 2)
Page 8549: "...berm..,erosion observed along east and west sides..." The Board voted unanimously
in favor and the motion was passed.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 16,2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
IVice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the April 16 Budget
Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion
was assed
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET(LEVY)
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the Budget
Subcommittee's recommendation to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget as presented by
Budget Subcommittee Chairman Levy. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was
asset!.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
CROSSWALKS
BATEMAN CONTRACT UPDATE -
Mr. Dorrill reported the County Attorney initially opined that the Bateman contract would need Board of
County Commissioners authorization before moving forward with the two additional crosswalk projects planned for
` this summer on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive and Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard.
1
Upon realization that the original Bateman contract approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011 included
these additional locations,the County Attorney determined that no further authorization was necessary
UNIFORM TRAFFIC STANDARDS
Mr. Dorrill introduced two engineers invited to speak about uniform traffic standards and address residents'
concerns about safety and noise that resonated from vehicles driving over cobblestones at the San Marino and North
Tram station mid-block crossings.
Mr. James Carr, P.E. explained the crosswalks constructed along Pelican Bay Boulevard were designed by
Wilson Miller. All mid-block crossings have three feet wide cobblestone bands on each side that was intended to
create a "rumble" sound and have a tactile feel effect. After the initial installation, following complaints that the
cobblestones were uneven and created a tripping hazard,the edges were adjusted to form a more level surface and it
had the added effect of reducing noise.
Traffic engineering expert, Mr. Bill Oliver, P.E. explained at pedestrian crossings, key issues for safety are
speed and advance warning and methods currently in use to alert drivers did not appear to be working.If the intention
of the cobblestones was to cause vehicles to slow down, it was clear the cobblestones were installed too close to the
crossing. If the sound and tactile feel of driving over cobblestones was intended to change drivers' behavior,by the
time the rumble is heard, it is too late to stop.The mid-block crossings include standard signs and pavement markings
required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). The question was whether the methods being
8551
i
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 15 of 16
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
May 2,2012
used to get drivers' attention were producing the intended effect.The answer was no.The solution would be one that
reaches out and grabs drivers' attention. Mr. Oliver recommended progressing to a higher level of driver awareness
that could be achieved by installing a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon light timed to continue flashing until the
pedestrian crossed the intersection.
Mr. Oliver explained the County uses MUTCD standards to determine signage, signals, and pavement
markings; and agreed that installing additional signage that is considered"supplemental"to MUTCD standards could
cause,confusion.Regarding the flashing yellow lights in the roadway on Ridgewood that outline a crossing to the Phil,
Mr.Oliver reasoned the design was likely"emerging technology"that was later determined to be ineffectual.
Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek) presented a video he made showing problems faced by pedestrians
attempting to cross at the North Tram station mid-block crossing and at other locations within Pelican Bay.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Mr. Iaizzo suggested removing the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Chandler made a motion,
second by Ms. O'Brien to recommend to the Foundation Board to remove cobblestones at the San Marino crossing.
Mr. Gibson said he supported removing the cobblestones,but the motion should include replacing cobblestones with
fire-red clay brick pavers. Ms.Womble stressed the importance of uniformity and consistency as a theme established
by the Community Improvement Plan.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Ms. Kathy Mahoney (San Marino), Dr. Ted Raia(St. Raphael), Mr. Dave
Cook(Crescent),Mr.Brendan Culligan(Pebble Creek)and another Pebble Creek resident supported increase
ncreased traffic
enforcement to control speeders,and supported removing cobblestones at the San Marino crossing or at all mid-block
crossings; and agreed that resolving safety issues should not require consulting with the Foundation first and also be
completed promptly.
Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) suggested installing speed bumps, but Mr. Dorrill explained that speed
bumps were not appropriate for Pelican Bay Boulevard,an arterial roadway.
Mr. Jerry Moffatt(L'Ambiance) said the Foundation paid for the construction, but the road is owned by the
County, and Mr. Dorrill added the Services Division permitted the project and is therefore responsible for
maintenance.
Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater)did not agree with Mr. Gibson's idea to replace cobblestones with fire-red
clay brick pavers; and Ms.Mary McLean Johnson(St. Marissa)suggested amending the motion to include replacing
cobblestones with appropriate alternatives that increase visibility and consistency.
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to make a recommendation to the Foundation
Board that they remove the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. The Board voted 9 in favor
(Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and Gibson) and 1 opposed
(Dallas)and the motion was passed
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to make a recommendation to the
Foundation Board that they remove the cobblestones from all mid-block crosswalk locations. The
Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and
Gibson)and 1 opposed(Dallas)and the motion was passed
8552
I
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing
Page 16 of 16
- Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
May 2,2012
Ms. O'Brien made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to not install cobblestones at the North Pointe
Drive crossing that is planned to be done this summer. The Board voted 9 in favor(Chandler, Iaizzo,
O'Brien,Levy, Womble,Cravens, Trecker,Baron,and Gibson)and I opposed(Dallas)and the motion
was 'assed
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. laizzo to install pedestrian-activated flashing lights
that is identical to the crossing on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, at the North Tram station and San Marino mid-
block crossings. The total estimated cost to install a pedestrian-activated light at one location including solar power
and bollards with sensors is$26,000. Mr.Chandler suggested obtaining pedestrian count data. Dr.Trecker suggested
installing the pedestrian-activated light at the North Tram station crossing first to test efficacy.
Mr.Tim Corcoran (Pebble Creek)agreed the North Tram station crossing would be the best location to test
how effective a pedestrian-activated light is. Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek),
and Ms.Mary Jane Culligan(Pebble Creek)supported installation at both the North Tram and San Marino locations.
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion,second by Mr. laizzo to install pedestrian-activated flashing
lights at both the North Tram station and San Marino mid-block crossings similar to the crossing on
Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted S in favor (Dallas, Gibson, Cravens, Baron, and
Womble) and S opposed(Trecker,Levy, O'Brien, Chandler, and laizzo) and resulted in a tie, and the
motion was not assed
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to install a pedestrian-activated
asking light at the North Tram station mid-block crossing similar to the crossing on Myra Janco
Daniels Boulevard The Board voted unanimous! in avor and the motion was s assed
j Mr.Can and Mr.Oliver said the bollards with the sensors would be installed as specified by the MUTCD.,
A short recess was taken then the Board reconvened
NORTH POINTE DRIVE CROSSING(CHANDLER)
Mr.Chandler suggested reconfiguring the North Pointe Drive crossing to improve pedestrian safety.
Mr.Can explained there most likely is a reason the existing crosswalk is located to the west of North Pointe
and recommended prior to making any changes to the design that a traffic-count study is performed and subsequent
changes would require a new permit.
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens that when installing the new brick
crosswalk at North Pointe Drive across Pelican Bay Boulevard that the crossing be located to align
with the eastern sidewalk of North Pointe Drive. The Board voted 3 in favor(Cravens, Trecker, and
Chandler)and 6 opposed(Gibson,Dallas, Womble,Levy,O'Brien,and Iaizzo)and the motion failed
PATHWAYS II I /I
Mr.Dorrill said at the April 11 meeting,the Board affirmed constructing 8-feet wide pathways and directed
staff to obtain a second opinion from an independent certified arborist to determine the impact to existing trees.
Certified arborist, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison visited the site to evaluate the route of the proposed pathways project. Mr.
Jimison concluded it was necessary to remove approximately 5 trees and outlined his recommendations to accomplish
root pruning without causing damage. However Mr. Jimison's findings appeared to contradict with Signature Tree
8553
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9ai. Clam Bay transition comments by Dave Trecker
Page 1 of 1
_ December 15, 2012
One-way communication with PBSD directors:
Since I will be up north and unable to attend the December 27 meeting of the Clam Bay Subcommittee,I want to
pass on the following thoughts.
It is essential the PBSD move quickly to assume its assigned responsibility for managing all facets of the Pelican
Bay Conservation Area,including Clam Bay.It is a responsibility assigned by the Board of County Commissioners.It
is not an option.And at least some of us feel it is an important opportunity for the PBSD.
I have been assured that county staff and the Pelican Bay Foundation will assist in the transfer of those
responsibilities to the PBSD.Everyone appears to be on board.
There are,by my count,four areas of management.Action will be needed,I believe,in three of the four areas.
(1) Clam Pass dredging-how to handle the permitting and how to manage the dredging.
Regarding permitting,there are two obvious possibilities:Withdraw and replace the active application or
revise the active application.Changes to be considered are the permittee,which now should be the PBSD;
width of cut at the mouth,which probably should be changed to"no more than 80 feet;"and triggers for
dredging,which could be specified based on input from Tim Hall and Ken Humiston or left qualitative.Timely
issuance of a permit to deal with the current shoaling is obviously important.
Our agents could be Turrell Hall Associates and Humiston&Moore,the advantage being they know Clam Pass
and are local,or Adkins,the advantage being it prepared the existing dredging permit application.
(2) Water purity-transfer of data and ongoing sampling and monitoring.
Things to be monitored include nutrient levels (dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus),dissolved oxygen,
bacteria and copper.
Transfer of all data from the county and the Foundation should be straightforward,as should assignments of
future sampling by the PBSD.
Adkins could be retained,reporting to the PBSD,for data analysis,or this could be assigned to Tim Hall and the
local folks.
(3) Hydrolytic measurements-tidal flow and bathymetry.
Ken Humiston already does analysis of flow measurements for the PBSD.We should probably have him do
bathymetry as well; he used to do that some years ago.I believe sampling for bathymetric data would have to
be transferred from the county.
(4) Mangrove maintenance
Tim Hall already does a terrific job for the PBSD.
The Seagate lawsuit is another matter,which should be addressed separately.
I personally feel we should involve the Foundation in a constructive partnership,not only during this transition
period but later in proactive management of the conservation area.
I hope these comments are helpful.I have great confidence in Neil Dorrill and in Susan O'Brien and her committee.
Good luck!
Dave Trecker
K -
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9ai. Clam Bay transition comments by Kathy Worley
Page 1 of 2
December 12, 2012
Re: Clam Bay Management Plan
Dear Pelican Bay MSTBU Board Members:
I am writing in response to the responsibility given to you by the County Commission
and the December 11th Commissioner's meeting to develop and implement a
management and monitoring plan for Clam Bay.
The idea to manage Clam Pass and the Bays as a whole is something that I have
advocated for since the early 90's, There is a need for a comprehensive plan to protect the
estuary, which consists of environmental resources that are found in the Pass, Bays,
Tributaries and the landward habitats including the mangrove forests, scrub and dunes.
Given that the Pass is only — 50% functional I think it would behoove you to first
concentrate on getting a dredging permit before the wet season gets here and then take
some time to develop a management and monitoring plan that addresses the concerns of
the entire estuary. I believe you does not have to start from scratch regarding the
dredging permit as the one currently in the hands of FDEP could be tweeked (i.e. the
width of the dredge cut and footprint, etc. if you so desire) to accomplish in the short-
term resolving flow and phase lag issues in the back bays that were illustrated in the
current Humiston and Moore report.
By separating out the dredging permit for the moment and keeping it under the auspices
of the Mangrove Restoration Plan you could get the Pass operating on all cylinders again
and take the time necessary to develop and true management and monitoring plan for the
estuary that would include the dredging permit as a part of the tools needed to alleviate
future pass closures or inefficient estuarine function. I urge you to establish a working
group that includes all of the stakeholders that have worked to preserve this system and
have the scientific expertise necessary to assist in Plan development. In particular those
groups that were a part of the original "working group" in the 90's that dealt with the
mangrove die-off problem (the Conservancy, Audubon, MAG, and Collier County
Natural Resource Department, etc.)not only have a vested interest, but have the expertise
along with Turrell, Hall and Associates, and should have direct input into a new
Management Plan for the area.
"The fundamental objective of mangrove management is to promote conservation,
restoration or rehabilitation and sustainable use of mangrove ecosystems and their
associated habitats, supported where necessary by ecological restoration and
rehabilitation" (World Bank et al., 2004). The original Clam Bay Management Plan was
developed to restore the mangrove forests and was very successful. Moving forward we
need to not only focus on the health and viability of the mangrove forest (though they are
near and dear to my heart!), but the entire ecosystem and its recreational uses. The plan
should have the objective of sustaining the entire estuary, which would include the
mangrove forest, benthic habitats and invertebrates (seagrasses and other organisms that
+t
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9ai. Clam Bay transition comments by Kathy Worley
Page 2 of 2
Kathy B. Worley
Re: Clam Bay Management Plan
December 12, 2012
Page 2
makeup the bottom of the food chain), fish, birds, the dune and waterway systems, water
quality, hydrology, etc. since all of these components are interconnected and vital in
order for the estuary to be "healthy". It is generally recognized by ecologists,
ichthyologists, managers and policy makers that mangroves are tightly linked by adjacent
ecosystems and that managing them in isolation is unsustainable (Ellison, 2008).
Taking the time to fully vet a management plan is the prudent approach that will lessen
the chance of making snap decisions that may be inappropriate in pushing forward a plan
quickly. Thus concentrating first on getting the dredging permit and then taking time later
to develop a management plan seems the most logical route forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathy B. Worley
Director of Science, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
239-403-4223
kathyw(&,,conservancy.org
E
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9aii. 12/18/12 correspondence from Linda Elligott,USAGE to Gary McAlpin,Coastal Zone Management re:permit application SAJ-1996-02789-Clam Pass
Page 1 of 2
Original Message
From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18,2012 11:24 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: FW: SAJ-1996-02789 Clam Pass project - application and management items - status note
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Original Message
From: McAlpinGary [mailto:GaryMcAlpin @colliergov.net]
Sent: Tuesday,December 18, 2012 9:30 AM
To: OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; LorenzWilliam;Neil Dorrill; Neil Dorrill
Subject: FW: SAJ-1996-02789 Clam Pass project - application and management items - status note
(UNCLASSIFIED)
FYI -Received this last night from Linda Elligot-USACE.
Original Message
From: Elligott, Linda A SAJ [mailto:Linda.A.Elligott @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 5:41 PM
To: McAlpinGary
Subject: SAJ-1996-02789 Clam Pass project - application and management items - status note
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Gary,
I received an email from Georgia Hiller (as below) which indicated that this project will be revised. The
email was also sent to USFWS/Howe and NMFS/Sramek. As a result, USFWS has informed the Corps
that the ESA consultation has been suspended and the draft Biological Opinion that you have
reviewed/provided comments for in concert with the ongoing Corps permit review will not be completed
in the previously-stated timeframe.
Due to pending project revisions, the need for revised plan sheets and uncertainty with respect to Collier
County management for a long-term permit of this nature, the Corps intends to withdraw this project. A
formal letter will be sent to you as the on-record point of contact for Collier County; a copy will be
forwarded to Atkins/Tabar as the consultant of record.
The file may be re-activated with provision of an updated application and a complete submittal.
Note that the project, when re-activated, would be subject to review by NMFS-PRD for potential impacts
to swimming sea turtles and the smalltooth sawfish;this type of consultation may take 10-12 months from
the date of consultation package "completion", based on current turnaround times.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks, Linda
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9aii. 12/18/12 correspondence from Linda Elligott,USACE to Gary McAlpin,Coastal Zone Management re:permit application SAJ-1996-02789-Clam Pass
Page 2 of 2
<START COPY>
Please be advised that the Collier Board of County Commissioners voted this week to transfer
management of the Clam Bay System back to the County's Pelican Bay Services Division - Neil Dorrill,
Administrator.
The Board of County Commissioners took further action to direct a revision of the Clam Bay
Management for dredging activities within Clam Pass, and that dredging permits be amended
accordingly. Specific details of changes to this project will be provided to the Corps as soon as they are
available. The dredging plan will be consistent with updates that will be made to the existing Clam Bay
Management Plan.
We believe the changes will remain within the scope of the current application. As such, please continue
the ongoing coordination with the resource agencies.
With thanks-
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, Esq.
Chair,Board of County Commissioners
<END COPY>
Linda A. Elligott
Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Myers Regulatory Office
1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd., Suite 310
Fort Myers, FL 33919
Telephone: 239-334-1975 x 22
email: linda.a.elligottAusace.army.mil
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
10. Setting Priorities(Keith J.Dallas)
Page 1 of 2
Setting PBSD Priorities
By Keith J. Dallas
As I end my term as your Board Chair, I have started to take inventory of the
issues that I feel are outstanding, in order to avoid items being inadvertently
forgotten. That process has highlighted the number of important projects in
which the PBSD is currently involved, and the need to prioritize them so that the
most important ones are accomplished as needed.
The following are my thoughts. They are given to encourage the Board to think
about priorities and develop your own priorities.
1. Clam Bay Dredging - This has to be the number one priority, and needs
immediate attention. The PBSD has to have a seamless transition from the
CZM/Foundation, and do the permitting/dredging project on as fast a track
as possible. Anything else is unsatisfactory.
2. Solving the Copper Sulfate Problem - Although there is some time to fully
solve this problem, it still has to have very high priority. The solution(s)
are probably very complex, and will involve trying various ideas and then
monitoring results. It also involves community communications and
working closely with major abutting landowners. All that will take a huge
effort from staff and the PBSD Board, and will not occur quickly. There is
only 5 years to solve this problem.
3. Taking Over Various CZM/Foundation Functions - The intent is that PBSD
step into roles that have recently been done by either CZM or the
Foundation. Staff and the Board should spend time to make sure nothing
slips through the cracks and consider if there are other additional
functions that are needed. This will take time and effort over the next few
months.
4. Tree Canopy/Pathway/Bike Lane Study- I think the timing of this project
is most debatable. Its urgency has been diminished with the repaving of
the Pelican Bay pathways. Although the study would be useful, it's
immediate importance pales in comparison with the items above. Given it
will take a lot of resources and staff/Board time, should you consider
delaying most of this for a year or two? The pathways probably won't need
work for a couple of years or more, and the County has now delayed the
repaving schedule for the Boulevard to 2019 (and therefore the need to
decide on possible bike paths). Maybe you should merely hire the arborist
to provide status on the current health of the tree canopy and the best
ways to maintain (and possibly enhance) the health of the trees, assuming
no immediate pathway changes. The rest of the project can wait.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
10. Setting Priorities(Keith J.Dallas)
Page 2 of 2
Setting PBSD Priorities
By Keith J. Dallas
Page 2
5. Ongoing Landscape Improvements - This almost falls into the normal
maintenance mode. Each year staff will upgrade further sections of our
landscape, as time and money allows.
6. Crosswalks - Hopefully a decision will be made at the January 2nd meeting
regarding any modifications at the San Marino crosswalk. Hopefully that
will also provide the direction for future crosswalks. Once that is decided,
minimal effort will be needed deciding on when and where future
crosswalks are built.
7. Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard - The County has now said the Boulevard
will not be repaved until Fiscal 2019. The Board will have to decide if that
is acceptable, and if not what can practically be done. Although I agree the
current road condition is cosmetically very poor, I personally would defer
discussions of this until other items have been solved and you are sure of
the PBSD's financial status.
8. Replacing Street Lighting-At some point the PBSD needs to hire an expert
to advise you of the current state of the art of LED lighting, and update the
cost estimates provided by Wilson Miller. The original study said the
fixtures should be replaced in 4 to 7 years from now. However given the
time needed to update the study, decide on a specific technology and look,
and communicate to the community, a couple of years lead time is needed.
Once staff and Board get beyond the current high priority issues, thought
should be given to start the process and maybe do a demonstration project.
It is my hope that the Board will start to discuss priorities at the January 2nd
meeting.Anything that can be lowered in priority will give everyone more time
to work on immediate issues.
Keith
ORDINANCE NO. 2013 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27,
AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT, BY AMENDING SECTION
FOUR, PURPOSE; POWERS; SECTION SEVEN, CREATION OF THE
PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE KNOWN AS THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD; SECTION EIGHT, COMPOSITION, NOMINATION
AND APPOINTMENT; AND SECTION ELEVEN, OFFICERS; QUORUM;
RULES OF PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (Board), adopted
Ordinance No. 2002-27, which superseded, repealed, and consolidated prior ordinances relating
to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit("Unit"); and
WHEREAS, the Board subsequently amended Ordinance No. 2002-27 by adopting
Ordinance No. 2006-05 and Ordinance No. 2009-05; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to further amend Ordinance No. 2002-27, as amended, in
order to clarify that the Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County on dredging and
maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove forest
and will manage such activities for the County; to add a non-voting member recommended by
the Pelican Bay Foundation; and to create a system of rotating officers for the Unit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION FOUR OF ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27,
AS AMENDED.
Section Four is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION FOUR: Purpose; powers.
The Unit is formed for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management,
ambient noise management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including
but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas,
identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas including the
restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only
Words Underlined are added;Words Struck Through are deleted.
Page 1 of 4
that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road in the above-described
taxing and benefit unit and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably
necessary to provide such services. The Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County
on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected
mangrove forest, and will manage such activities for the County.
SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION SEVEN OF ORDINANCE NO.
2002-27,AS AMENDED.
Section Seven is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION SEVEN: Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
Concurrent with the passage of the Ordinance, an 11 member advisory committee to be
known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (PBSD Board) is hereby created. Those
individuals who are members of the PBSD Board pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90-
111, as amended, as of the moment prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, shall continue on
as members of the PBSD Board until March 31st of the year in which their term would have
expired as set forth in the prior ordinances, and shall continue to hold over and serve in that
capacity until their position is filled as provided for in this Ordinance. In addition, there shall be
1 non-voting member nominated by the Pelican Bay Foundation in the manner set forth below.
This non-voting member shall not be subject to the voting requirements set forth below.
SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION EIGHT OF ORDINANCE NO.
2002-27,AS AMENDED.
Section Eight is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION EIGHT: Composition, nomination and appointment.
A) The PBSD Board shall be representative of the residential, business and
commercial interests and landowners in Pelican Bay. To that end, nine of the PBSD Board
members shall be representative of the residential interests within the Unit and two of the PBSD
Board members shall be representative of the commercial and business interests within the Unit.
The non-voting member shall be recommended for appointment by the Pelican Bay Foundation.
The non-voting member should be an individual who is not related to and who is independent of
the other Board members and County employees, with no apparent conflict of interest or
appearance of impropriety.
Members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board
of County Commissioners pursuant to the procedure outlined herein. The nine (9) PBSD Board
members representative of the residential interests within the Unit, and the non-voting member
recommended for appointment by the Pelican Bay Foundation, shall be residents of and qualified
Words Underlined are added;Words Struck Through are deleted.
Page 2 of 4
electors within the Unit. The two PBSD Board members representative of the
commercial/business/other interests shall be residents of and qualified electors in Collier County.
**********
SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO SECTION ELEVEN OF ORDINANCE NO.
2002-27,AS AMENDED.
Section Eleven is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION ELEVEN: Officers; quorum; rules of procedure.
A) At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a
chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers'terms shall be for one year, with no
eligibility for re-election. Officer's terms are to be on a rotating basis, with no member allowed
a second term for the same office unless all members have previously served in that position.
This provision shall be retroactive for one year prior to the adoption of this ordinance, and shall
apply to all current officers and members.
**********
SECTION FIVE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion.
SECTION SIX: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article,"
or any other appropriate word.
SECTION SEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Words Underlined are added;Words Struck Through are deleted.
Page 3 of 4
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a vote of a majority plus one of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of , 2013.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
, Deputy Clerk , CHAIRMAN
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
Words Underlined are added;Words Struck Through are deleted.
Page 4 of 4
1
' January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
11. Changes to Pelican Bay Services Division Ordinance 2002-27(Keith J.Dallas)
Page 1 of 1
• Comments on Proposed PBSD Ordinance
By Keith J. Dallas
The Board of County Commissioner has proposed a new County Ordinance that redefines
the responsibilities and operations of the PBSD. Commissioner Hiller has requested that
individuals who have ideas about how the Ordinance could be improved contact the
County with ideas before the Ordinance is considered in January. The following are areas
on which the PBSD Board may want to consider making comments:
• The proposed ordinance limits Chairman and Vice Chairman terms to one year, and
says, "...with no member allowed a second term for the same office unless all
members have previously served in that position". Given the difficulty the PBSD has
had in filling Board openings, a literal reading of this section could further
discourage individuals to run for the Board.A better approach might be to say, "...
unless all members have been given the opportunity to serve in that position". Thus
individuals not interested in becoming Chair could decline.
• Another way to encourage rotation of the Chair would be to limit a person to one
term as Chair during their 4-year term as member of the Board. In a second term
they could serve another term as Chair.
• I can personally attest to the challenge of serving as Chair, particularly in the first
year. If the BCC is amendable, could the term as Chair be limited to 2 year? This
would give the position more continuity.
• Ideally the terms should coincide with the election of the new Board, i.e. first
meeting in April. Some thought should be given at some point to extend one time a
Chair's term to more than 12 months to put the terms on an April to March time
frame.
• Currently the residential member terms are staggered to have 4 open one year, 3
another, 2 another, none the last year. The County could consider staggering this
year's election appointments so that the pattern will be 2 members in 3 of the years,
with 3 members the 4th year. Details of this approach have been discussed in prior
PBSD meetings.
I would like to have the Board discuss these and other ideas they feel appropriate at our
January 2nd meeting, with the consensus of the Board forwarded to the County for possible
incorporation in the proposed Ordinance.
Keith J. Dallas
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 1 of 18
Possible Rules for PBSD Meetings
The question has been raised about the appropriateness of the current methods
the PBSD is using to conduct meetings, and to what extent Robert's Rules apply.
The purpose of the following is to discuss our current practices, where I see them
not working, and possible ways they could be changed. My intent is to encourage
Board members to begin thinking about possible approaches so that at a future
meeting we jointly can decide which approaches are most desirable.
Community Input
Currently we allow 3-minute comments on each individual subject, as well
general comments at the end of the meeting. Individuals are supposed to speak
only once on each subject (although I have not done a good job policing that rule).
The problem is that especially on controversial matters, comments can take a
huge amount of time, often with the same thoughts being said again and again.
Recent meetings have been long, with topics at the end of the agenda having to be
carried to the next meeting.
Looking at what other area Boards do:
• The Foundation allows 3 minutes at the beginning of the meeting for
general member comments, plus an additional minute before any specific
Board action is taken.
• The BCC allows 3 minutes on any subject, including general topics at the
beginning of a meeting. However individuals must sign up to speak BEFORE
the subject begins to be discussed. Individuals may also cede time to others.
• County committees often function like the BCC.
The issue is how we can speed up our meetings without instituting procedures
the public will feel unduly limits their input?At a minimum I intend to more
strictly enforce our current rules. However I would encourage a Board discussion
of any other ideas.
Amending a Previously Adopted Motion
The situations where Board members want to revisit prior Board votes are
probably the most controversial. Our recent multiple votes on the width of our
pathways are a classic example. How do we allow revisiting prior decisions
without creating chaos and encouraging gamesmanship?
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 2of18
•
Some possibilities are:
• Currently we allegedly use Robert's Rules. It allows motions during the
same meeting to be revisited ("reconsideration") only if a Board member
who voted with the prevailing side of the prior vote makes the motion to
reconsider. The losing members can't bring the motion up again that day.
Motions voted in prior meetings can be brought up by anyone. If they have
been "properly noticed"before the meeting, a simple majority can "amend
something previously adopted". If not properly noticed, a 2/3rd majority
vote is required to change the vote (more on this later).
• We could require, like the BCC, that any motion to reconsider, even in
subsequent meetings, can only be raised by a Board member who voted
with the prevailing side of the prior vote.
• Alternatively we could allow any Board member to make a motion to
amend something previously adopted,with proper notice, but require a
more substantial vote for passage (for example, a super majority or 2/3rd
majority).
The real question is how comfortable the Board is with making it more difficult to
revote previously decided matters, and what are the kind of rules are we should
use?
Prior Notice of Motions To Be Considered
The above discussion highlights an area that has concerned me, to what extent
should the community and other Board members have notice that a particular
motion will be considered at a particular meeting? Some of our more contentious
votes have happened when some member wanted a vote on an item that caught
people by surprise. Not only had other Board members not had a chance to think
about a subject in depth, people in the community who felt one way or another on
the subject often did not even come to the meeting.
Some possibilities:
• Roberts Rules has no requirement for noticing most motions, other than the
above-mentioned motion to amend something previously adopted.
• The Foundation includes any motions to be voted in their agenda. Some
specific items must actually be discussed at 2 consecutive meetings and
then require a super majority vote. (The PBSD only requires a majority
vote, but the Budget must have at least 7 Board members present for the
vote).
• The BCC also includes all motions to be considered in their agenda, and
requires super majority votes on some items.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 3 of 18
I would like a Board discussion regarding your desires for requiring or not prior
notice of motions to be considered at upcoming PBSD meetings.
Other Procedures?
Are there other situations where we want Robert's Rules to be modified? If so,
please think about them and contact Lisa so your thoughts can be distributed in
advance of the meeting where we discuss these matters.
KJD
I
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 4 of 18
4
Ii►
r-
-
By a ORDINANCE NO.2012- 15 . .
e
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF _D
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.75-16,AS __,
AMENDED, IN ORDER TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR 2 ' ' i
RECONSIDERATION OF LAND USE MATTERS; PROVIDING •FOR `_
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION-MN L-7
THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on April 22, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted
Ordinance No. 75-16 which established the time,place and conduct of its meetings;and
WHEREAS, subsequent amendments to Ordinance No. 75-16 reflect the evolving
practices and procedures relating to the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners;and
WHEREAS,the Board desires to amend Ordinance No. 75-16,as amended,as it relates to
a request for reconsideration by a petitioner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION ONE OF ORDINANCE NO. 75-16, AS
AMENDED.
Section One is hereby amended as follows:
7. Reconsideration of land use matters
a. Applicability. Any matter in which the Board of County Commissioners or Board
of Zoning Appeals, as the case may be,has denied a request to change the land use designation of
a parcel of land, a request for site specific rezone initiated by a petitioner or his or her agent,
variance,conditional use, license,permit or other land use-related request.
b Request for Reconsideration by Petitioner. A request for reconsideration may be
made only by the petitioner. The petitioner may request reconsideration of a petition in writing to
the County Manager no later than 15 days from the date of the Board's action denying the original
petition. Except as provided below, Phis request shall be jurisdictional, and no motion for
reconsideration may be made by any member of the Board where such a request was untimely. If
State or Federal submission and/or approval schedules pertaining to the petition are extended
within 6 months following the denial of the original petition,upon Public Petition initiated by the
petitioner,the Board may extendpetitioner's request for reconsideration by majority vote,and on a
second motion made by any Commissioner,place the issue of reconsideration for a date certain on
which the action or petition will be reconsidered,but in no event shall such reconsideration take
place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to reconsider is adopted.
Underlined text is added;Struck-through text is deleted
Page 1 of 3
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 5 of 18
c. Motion for reconsideration by a Board member who voted in the majority. Any
member of the Board who voted with the majority(or in the case of a rezoning or change in land
use designation,voted against)on the original action or petition may move for a reconsideration of
the action or petition at any regular meeting of the Board within 15 days of the date of the request
for reconsideration. If no regular meeting of the Board occurs within 15 days of the request for
reconsideration, the Board member may move for a reconsideration of the action or petition no
later than the first meeting of the Board that follows the County Manager's receipt of the request
for consideration. This motion shall be made during that portion of the Board's agenda entitled
"Board of County Commissioners." If no motion for reconsideration is made during this time
period,the request shall be deemed denied. The motion may specify a date certain on which the
action or petition will be reconsidered, but in no event shall such reconsideration take place less
than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to reconsider is adopted.
* * * * *
SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other
applicable law,the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion.
SECTION THREE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such,and the word"ordinance"may be changed to "section," "article,"or
any other appropriate word.
SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State,and shall apply
to all land use petitions that were denied after December 1,2011.
Underlined text is added;Struele-through text is deleted
Page 2 of 3
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 6 of 18
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida,this 2.-ik4day of ..kc,\,..., ,2012.
4 .(
ATTEST:ti 7.1':';- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGI; E:`3ROCJ,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4Q4).2.d, - w.
e ,.
By
=% clerk FRED W.COYLE,CHAI N
M , as-.to..CN '
Ignseirs on« '.
AT). ov ' : to form
and a -ncy:
—44f
111
Jeffrj 1.Klatzkow
Coun ttomey
This ordinance filed with the
Secretory of
- - day of tote';Otfi�_ (2_,
and acknowledgement of that
fill • rec ived this S 1 doy
of $ Zo/
■i.<1_14 iv;
oapver ckw*
Underlined text is added;&Risk-aireegh text is deleted
Page 3 of 3
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 7 of 18
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
copy of:
ORDINANCE 2012-15
Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
on the 27th day of March, 2012, during Regular Session.
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 29th
day of March, 2012 .
DWIGHT E. BROCK
Clerk of Courts and-C10-k, ';
Ex-officio to
County Commiss±on r-
.
6
:y. Teresa Polaski,
Deputy Clerk
i
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 8 of 18
Sec.2-36.-General provisions.
Sec.2-37.-Addressing the Commission.
Sec.2-38.-Sergeant-at-arms.
Sec.2-39.-Action to be taken by resolution,ordinance or motion.
Sec.2-40.-Adjournment.
Sec.2-41.-Reconsideration of matters generally.
Sec.2-42.-Reconsideration of land use matters.
Sec.2-43-2-65.-Reserved.
Sec. 2-36. -General provisions.
(a) Regular meetings. The Board of County Commissioners shall normally hold its regular
meeting at 9:00 a.m. each second and fourth Tuesday, except on a day designated as a
holiday, interim recess, or as otherwise directed by an affirmative vote of the majority of all
Board members present. Meetings may be postponed or cancelled by an affirmative vote of the
majority of all Board members present. Meetings shall normally be held at the Collier County
Government Center and shall be open to the news media and the public. Meetings may be held
in other locations within the County.
(b) Special meetings. When the Chairman or a majority of the Board calls a special meeting,
the County Manager or his designee shall notify the Clerk, the County Attorney, and issue press
releases advising of the place, date and hour of the meeting and the purpose for which the
meeting is called.
(c) Agenda. There shall be an official agenda for each meeting of the Board, which shall
determine the order of business conducted at the meeting.
(1) The Board shall not take action upon any matter, proposal, report or item of business
not listed upon the official agenda, unless a majority of the Board present consents.
(2) The County Manager shall prepare each agenda in appropriate form approved by the
Board. Matters may be placed on the agenda by the County Manager, any County
Commissioner, the Clerk, the County Attorney, and the constitutional officers. The agenda
shall be prepared and distributed not later than four days preceding the regular meeting.
(3) Prior to the publishing of the agenda, matters placed on the agenda should include as
much supporting documents, information, and materials as is needed to aid the Board in its
preparation and deliberation of the agenda item. Documents, information and materials will
not be accepted by the Board following publication of the agenda. Should additional
documents, information and materials be presented to the Board following publication, the
Board may, by a majority vote of those present, elect to either continue the agenda item to
a future Board meeting, or waive this requirement and hear the matter if it determines that
the agenda item is of significant public importance and should not be postponed.
(4) All requests for a continuance of an agenda item, including matters advertised for a
public hearing, require Board of County Commission approval. No person shall be entitled
to rely for any reason upon any assurances that an agenda item or public hearing will be
continued. A continuance shall only be granted by an affirmative vote of the majority of the
Board Members present.
(d) Presiding officer, election, duties. The presiding Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be
elected by a majority of the members of the Board of County Commissioners and said election
shall occur at the first regularly scheduled Board meeting in January of each year. In the event
that the Chairman and/or the Vice-Chairman are not reelected as Commissioners in any given
year, unless a Special Meeting is called, the Board of County Commissioners shall elect a
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 9 of 18
Chairman and/or Vice-Chairman, as applicable, at the first regularly scheduled Board meeting
on or after the second Tuesday after the election to temporarily serve until the first regularly
scheduled Board meeting in January at which time the scheduled election shall take place.
However, the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The
Vice-Chairman shall preside in the absence of the Chairman. With respect to all matters outside
of meetings (see subsection (e) below), in the absence of both the Chairman and the
Vice-Chairman, the immediate past Chairman shall act as temporary Chairman, and if there is
no immediate past Chairman, then the longest tenured Commissioner shall so act. The
Chairman shall become the presiding officer immediately after his or her election. The Chairman
shall preserve order and decorum at all meetings. He shall state every question and announce
the decision of the commission on each item of business. The majority vote of the members
present shall determine all questions of order not otherwise covered. The Chairman may vote
on any question, his or her name being called last. The Chairman shall sign all ordinances,
resolutions and legally binding documents adopted by the Commission during his or her
presence. In his or her absence, such ordinances, resolutions and legally binding documents
shall be signed by the presiding officer.
(e) Call to Order. At the hour appointed for the meeting, the Chairman shall immediately call
the Commission to order. In the physical absence of the Chairman, and the Vice-Chairman, the
Board members present shall elect a temporary Chairman and a temporary Vice-Chairman by
majority vote, and the Chairman so elected shall then call the meeting to order and shall serve
until arrival of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman.
(f) Quorum. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum. No resolution, legally binding
document or motion shall be adopted by the Board without the affirmative vote of the majority of
all members present. Should no quorum attend within 30 minutes after the hour appointed for
the meeting, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or in their absence, the Clerk or his designee, may
adjourn the meeting.
(g) Super-Majority Exception. Whenever provided by general law, special law, ordinance, or
as specified by resolution adopted by a majority of the full membership of the Board, and
notwithstanding subsection (f), a motion, ordinance, legally binding document or resolution may
be required to be adopted by an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the full membership of the
Board.
(h) Rules of debate. The following rules of debate shall be observed by the Board. Except as
herein provided questions of order and the conduct of business shall be governed by Robert's
Rules of Order.
(1) Motion under consideration. When a motion is presented and seconded, it is under
consideration and no other motion shall be received thereafter, except to adjourn, to lay on
the table, to postpone, or to amend until the question is decided. These countermotions
shall have preference in the order in which they are mentioned, and the first two shall be
decided without debate. Final action upon a pending motion may be deferred until the next
meeting by majority of the members present.
(2) Chairman participation. The presiding Chairman may move, second and debate from
the chair, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Commissioner
by reason of being the presiding Chairman.
(3) Form of address. Each member shall address only the presiding officer for
recognition, shall confine himself to the question under debate, and shall avoid
personalities and indecorous language.
(4) Interruption. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted except by a call to
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 10 of 18
order or as herein otherwise provided. If a member is called to order, he shall stop
speaking until the question is determined by the presiding officer. Any member may appeal
the decision of the Chairman to the Board for decision by majority vote.
(5) Privilege of closing debate. The Commissioner moving for the adoption of an
ordinance, resolution or other act shall have the privilege of closing debate unless
otherwise directed by the Chair.
(6) The question. Upon the closing of debate any member may require a roll call vote.
Any member may give a brief statement or file a written explanation of his or her vote.
(i) Minutes. The minutes of prior meetings approved by a majority of the members present
shall become the official minutes. Each resolution, ordinance and legally binding document shall
be signed by the presiding officer at the meeting and by the Clerk and entered in the minutes.
(Ord. No. 75-16, § 1(1); Ord. No. 85-20, § 1; Ord. No. 87-14, § 1; Ord. No. 89-04, § 1; Ord. No.
90-27, § 1; Ord. No. 2007-02, §§ 1-3; Ord. No. 07-50, § 1; Ord. No. 2009-52, § 1; Ord. No.
2011-01, § 1; Ord. No. 2011-17, § 1)
Sec. 2-37. -Addressing the Commission.
(a) If a subject is not on the agenda for a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners it
may be added by motion and an affirmative vote of a majority of all Board members present that
the subject should not be delayed until the next meeting.
(b) Any person appearing to provide the Board factual information or expert opinion to
consider prior to taking official action shall be governed by the following procedure:
(1) Prior to addressing the Board the speaker shall approach any podium or any other
place otherwise designated by the Board of County Commissioners for this purpose and
clearly state his or her full name, home address, the name of the person or entity that he or
she represents and the subject of his or her address.
(2) Before providing factual information or expert opinion the speaker may ask, and any
Commissioner may require the speaker to be placed under the following oath with right
hand upraised:
"I willfully swear under oath the facts and testimony I furnish this Board to be the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and not inconsistent or contradictory with
other statements made by me under oath."
No person shall be required to take this oath more than once in any given day, but
shall be reminded he is under oath before again addressing the Board. Each
commissioner, shall take the oath one time and be considered under oath during the
term of his office.
Those asking questions or desiring to comment on a matter before the Board shall
not be required to take the oath. Any Commissioner may at any time request such a
speaker to take the above oath.
(3) Each person shall limit his address to three minutes unless granted additional time by
the Chairman or by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Board members present. All
remarks shall be to the Board as a body and not to any individual member. No person
other than a Commissioner shall discuss directly or through a Commissioner, without
authorization of the presiding officer.
(4) Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 11 of 18
shall be instructed to remain silent by the presiding officer, until permission to continue is
granted.
(Ord. No. 75-16, § 1(2); Ord. No. 07-50, § 1)
Sec. 2-38. -Sergeant-at-arms.
The County Sheriff, or his deputy, shall be the sergeant-at-arms at meetings of the Board of
County Commissioners and shall carry out all orders of the Chairman to maintain order and
decorum.
(Ord. No. 75-16, § 1(3); Ord. No. 07-50, § 1)
Sec. 2-39. -Action to be taken by resolution, ordinance or motion.
Each action of the Board of County Commissioners shall be taken by resolution, ordinance or
legally binding document approved as to form by the County Attorney, except approval of
administrative matters may be by motion adopted and recorded in the minutes.
(Ord. No. 75-16, § 1(4); Ord. No. 07-50, § 1)
Sec. 2-40. -Adjournment.
A motion to adjourn shall always be in order and decided without debate.
(Ord. No. 75-16, § 1(5); Ord. No. 07-50, § 1)
Sec. 2-41. -Reconsideration of matters generally.
(a) Any matter which has been voted upon by the Board of County Commissioners may be
reconsidered as follows:
(1) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such
motion is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted
upon. If there were no public speakers on the item, or if all of the public speakers for the
item are still present in the boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the
Board may elect to rehear the matter during that meeting, or direct the County Manager to
place the item on the agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2). If there
were public speakers for the item, and not all of the public speakers are still present in the
boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the County Manager will place the
item on the agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2).
(2) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such
motion is made at a regular meeting following the meeting at which the matter was voted
upon, but only in accordance with the following:
a. Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to reconsider a
matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was voted on, the member
shall deliver to the County Manager a written memorandum stating that the member
intends to introduce a motion to reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of
the regular meeting at which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall
be delivered to the County Manager at least six days prior to such meeting. The
purpose of this requirement is to allow the staff to advise the Board of the legal or
other ramifications of reconsideration.
b. No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular Board
meeting following the Board's vote on the matter sought to be reconsidered.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 12 of 18
c. Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall place the
item on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission meeting following
the meeting at which the motion for reconsideration was adopted.
d. All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms or written
materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County Manager of the date of
reconsideration.
(b) This section shall apply to any matters which may lawfully be reconsidered except those
matters which are covered by Paragraph 7 below.
(Ord. No. 81-54, § 1; Ord. No. 07-50, §2; Ord. No. 2009-52, § 1)
Sec. 2-42. - Reconsideration of land use matters.
(a) Applicability. Any matter in which the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Zoning
Appeals, as the case may be, has denied a request to change the land use designation of a
parcel of land, a request for site specific rezone initiated by a petitioner or his or her agent,
variance, conditional use, license, permit or other land use-related request.
(b) Request for Reconsideration by Petitioner. A request for reconsideration may be made
only by the petitioner. The petitioner may request reconsideration of a petition in writing to the
County Manager no later than 15 days from the date of the Board's action denying the original
petition. Except as provided below, this request shall be jurisdictional, and no motion for
reconsideration may be made by any member of the Board where such a request was untimely.
If State or Federal submission and/or approval schedules pertaining to the petition are extended
within 6 months following the denial of the original petition, upon Public Petition initiated by the
petitioner, the Board may extend petitioner's request for reconsideration by majority vote, and
on a second motion made by any Commissioner, place the issue of reconsideration for a date
certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered, but in no event shall such
reconsideration take place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to
reconsider is adopted.
(c) Motion for reconsideration by a Board member who voted in the majority. Any member of
the Board who voted with the majority (or in the case of a rezoning or change in land use
designation, voted against) on the original action or petition may move for a reconsideration of
the action or petition at any regular meeting of the Board within 15 days of the date of the
request for reconsideration. If no regular meeting of the Board occurs within 15 days of the
request for reconsideration, the Board member may move for a reconsideration of the action or
petition no later than the first meeting of the Board that follows the County Manager's receipt of
the request for consideration. This motion shall be made during that portion of the Board's
agenda entitled "Board of County Commissioners." If no motion for reconsideration is made
during this time period, the request shall be deemed denied. The motion may specify a date
certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered, but in no event shall such
reconsideration take place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to
reconsider is adopted.
(d) Action on motion for reconsideration. The Board shall either act on the motion for
reconsideration at the meeting at which such motion is made or may table the motion for no
longer than the next regular meeting of the Board. If the motion is not finally acted upon by the
adjournment of the next regular meeting of the Board after the motion has been made, it shall
be deemed to have been denied.
(e) Scheduling of petition for reconsideration. If the motion for reconsideration is granted, the
•
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 13 of 18
County Manager shall schedule the petition on the agenda for the regular Board meeting which
was specified in the motion for reconsideration, or if no date is specified then on the second
regular Board meeting following the meeting at which the motion is granted.
(f) No hearing or debate on motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration shall not
require public hearing, and neither the petitioner nor any other person shall have the right to
address the Board considering the merits of such a motion. However, the Board may request
information of the petitioner, the staff or any other person in order to better inform itself prior to
acting upon the motion. The purpose of this provision is to prevent either the petitioner or any
other person from debating the merits of the petition prior to its full consideration at a regularly
scheduled Board meeting where the petition is reconsidered.
(g) [Procedures outlined.]The procedures outlined herein shall not constitute an administrative
remedy, and the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies shall not be raised if a
petitioner declines to utilize these procedures and instead elects to pursue judicial remedies
following the denial of the petition. The time period for seeking judicial relief following denial of
those matters contemplated by subsection (a)(2) of this section shall run from the time the
Board votes on such matter, and a motion hereunder shall not alter such time period.
(h) [Initial vote.] Where the initial vote was made after an advertised public hearing, any
reconsideration of such vote shall comply with all advertisement and notice provisions that were
legally required for the initial public hearing.
(Ord. No. 81-54, §2; Ord. No. 88-41, § 1; Ord. No. 07-50, § 2; Ord. No. 2012-15, 1)
Land Development Code reference—Zoning amendments,§2.7.2.
State law reference— Adoption of rezoning ordinances, F.S.§125.66(5).
Sec. 2-43-2-65. -Reserved.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 14 of 18
COLLIER COUNTY
CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PROCEDURES FOR CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 24,2009
A. General:
1. Meetings: Regular meetings of the advisory board shall be held on such
day,time and place as may be determined by the advisory board, and at a
minimum of once a month,except for one month in the summer.
2. Quorum and Voting: At all regular or special meetings of the advisory
board, a majority of the membership of the advisory board shall constitute
a quorum. Voting shall be by voice unless a member of the advisory
board requests a roll call. The roll shall be in alphabetical order with the
first name called rotating with each motion upon which the vote is called.
The Chairman shall always vote last. A record of the roll call shall be kept
as part of the minutes.
3. Special Meetings: Special meetings may be called by the Chairman at
any time provided adequate notice is given pursuant to Paragraph 4 below.
The chairman may also call a special meeting when requested to do so in
writing by a majority of the members of the advisory board or by a County
staff member. The notice of such a meeting shall specify the purpose of
such a meeting and no other business may be considered except by
unanimous consent of the advisory board. All members of the advisory
board shall be notified in advance of such special meetings by the staff
liaison.
4. Notice and Publication: The staff liaison shall give notice and keep record
of such notice of its meetings and the meeting of the subcommittees
including the date,time, and location of each regular and special meeting.
Notice shall be posted in the county administration building and other
appropriate locations as recommended by the advisory board and to the
County Public Information Department for future distribution.
5. Open Meetings: All meetings of the advisory board or its subcommittees
shall be open to the public and governed by the provisions of Florida's
Government in the Sunshine Law.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 15 of 18
6. Minutes: The minutes of all meetings shall be promptly recorded, and
such records shall be open to public inspection, in accordance with
applicable law.
7. Location: Meetings of the advisory board, or any of its subcommittees,
shall be held in a location accessible to the public.
8. Meeting Agenda: There shall be an agenda for each meeting of the
advisory board which shall determine the order of business conducted.
The board shall not take action on any matter, proposal, report or item of
business not listed upon the official agenda unless a majority of the Board
present consents. Any advisory board member, in the case of an advisory
board or a subcommittee member in the case of a subcommittee, may
place an item on the agenda by submitting it to the Chairman for
forwarding to the staff liaison prior to the deadline for publishing the
notice of such meeting. The Chairman shall determine whether the item
submitted by the board member is relevant to the purposes of the advisory
committee. Upon his/her finding that the item is relevant, it shall be
included in the agenda. Staff-initiated agenda items are not subject to
prior review by the Chairman.
9. Order of Business: The order of business at regular meetings shall be as
follows:
(a) Call to Order
(b) Pledge of Allegiance
(c) Roll Call
(d) Changes and Approval of Agenda
(e) Public Comment
(f) Approval of Minutes
(g) Chairman's Comments
(h) Staff Reports
(i) New Business
(j) Old Business
(k) Announcements
(1) Committee Member Discussion
(m)Next Meeting Time,Date and Location
(n) Adjournment
B. Agenda Items Requiring Action(Old Business and New Business):
General: All members of the public who address the Board shall utilize
the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded, and shall
identify themselves by name and local addresses, if applicable. Further,
any speaker speaking on behalf of an organization or group of individuals
1
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 16 of 18
(exceeding five) shall indicate such and shall cite the source of such
authority whether by request,petition,vote,or otherwise.
2. Speaker Registration: Persons, other than staff wishing to speak on an
agenda item shall, prior to the item being heard, register with the staff
liaison on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the
Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of
view,as proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a
spokesperson. All persons may speak for a maximum of three(3)minutes
each unless otherwise approve by the Chairman.
3. Restrictions on Comments Deemed not Germane to the Item:
Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any board member may interrupt
and/or stop any presentation that discusses matters that need not be
considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration.
At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of
the Board members present, may restrict or terminate presentations which
in the Chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of
order.
C. Order and Subject of Appearance: To the extent possible, the following shall be
the order of the proceeding:
Preliminary Statement: The Chairman shall read the title of the Agenda
item.
2. Initial Presentation by Staff: County staff shall make the initial
presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After
completion of the staff presentation,the Board may make inquiries of staff
at this time.
3. Initial Presentation by Petitioner or Proposer: Petitioner or Proposer shall
make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under
consideration. After completion of the presentation by the Petitioner or
Proposer, the Board may make inquiries of the Petitioner or Proposer at
this time.
4. Speakers: After Board inquiry, speakers shall be allowed to speak based
on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection B
above. During and after a speaker's presentation, the Board shall have an
opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from such
speaker. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions of or
seek clarification from speakers.
5. Restrictions on Testimony or Presentation of Evidence: Notwithstanding
any provisions herein, any board member may interrupt any presentation
I 1
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 17 of 18
that contains matters which need not be considered in deciding the matter
then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the
Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present,
may restrict or terminate presentations which in the Chairman's judgment
are frivolous,unduly repetitive or out of order.
D. Rules of Debate: The following rules of debate shall be observed by the Board.
Except as herein provided questions of order and the conduct of business shall be
governed by Robert's Rules of Order.
1. Motion under consideration: When a motion is presented and seconded,it
is under consideration and no other motion shall be received thereafter,
except to adjourn, to lay on the table, to postpone, or to amend until the
question is decided. These countermotions shall have preference in the
order in which they are mentioned, and the first two shall be decided
without debate. Final action upon a pending motion may be deferred until
the next meeting by majority of the members present.
2. Chairman participation: The presiding chairman may move, second and
debate from the chair, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and
privileges of a committee member by reason of being the presiding
chairman.
3. Form of address: Each member shall address only the presiding officer for
recognition, shall confine himself to the question under debate, and shall
avoid personalities and indecorous language.
4. Interruption: A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted except
by the Chairman if the Chairman determines that the member's
participation is irrelevant, frivolous or out of order. Any member may
appeal the decision of the Chairman to the committee for decision by
majority vote.
5. The question: Upon the closing of debate, any member may require a roll
call vote. Any member may give a brief statement or file a written
explanation of his vote.
E. Public Comment on General Topics: Members of the public may register
to speak on general topics under the Public Comment portion of the CBAC
agenda. The number of speakers permitted to register under public comment on
any given agenda shall be limited to a maximum of five, unless the Chairman
recognizes additional speakers.
1. Speaker Registration: Individuals wishing to speak to the CBAC under
public comment at any regularly scheduled meeting of the CBAC shall
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler)
Page 18 of 18
register to speak in writing on the form provided by the County prior to
the public comment portion of the agenda being called by the Chairman.
F. Conflicts of Interest: Any Member having a potential voting conflict shall
publicly state the nature of the conflict at the Clam Bay Advisory Committee
meeting and complete Form 8B (Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County,
Municipal and Other Local Public Officers) within 15 days of the scheduled
meeting.
41 I
i►
hn Arceri
hairman
I
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-Landscaping Best Management Practices Draft 1.0
Page 1 of 2
LANDSCAPING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DRAFT 1.0
Pelican Bay is facing a severe problem.
Its waterways — inland lakes and Clam Bay— are being polluted by high levels
of fertilizer runoff.
Nutrients from the runoff— dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus — cause algae
bloom, a threat to aquatic plants and wildlife. To deal with algae buildup, a
copper fungicide has been applied over an extended period of time. Through
accumulation, copper— itself a pollutant—has reached alarmingly high levels in
our freshwater lakes.
The maximal acceptable level for dissolved copper is 3.7 milligrams per liter. A
higher reading signifies the water body is impaired. Current levels in our 42
lakes range from 12 to 3870 milligrams per liter, with an average of close to
350. We are badly out of compliance.
Several approaches are being taken to deal with the problem.
(1) The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is exploring alternatives to
copper sulfate as a means of controlling algae. The use of selective
bacteria in combination with aeration and littoral plantings will be tested
in Basin 3, the central section of the freshwater lakes. If this pilot
program is successful, it will be expanded to other basins.
(2) To deal with fertilizer misuse, the heart of the problem, the
PBSD is undertaking a community awareness program— a follow-on to a
recent county ordinance (11-24) which mandates that Best Management
Practices (BMP) be followed throughout Collier County.
Dealing with this problem is everyone's responsibility. If we are to have clean
groundwater and healthy waterways in Pelican Bay, it is essential that fertilizers
be used in accordance with BMP.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-Landscaping Best Management Practices Draft 1.0
Page 2 of 2
Landscaping Best Management Practices Draft 1.0
Page 2
Here is a specific list of things every condominium association, homeowner
association and individual homeowner can and should do.
• Use only landscape maintenance companies whose technicians are
trained and licensed in BMP. During the course of fertilizer application,
be sure there is appropriate on-site supervision.
• Use fertilizer application rates recommended by the Florida-Friendly
Best Management Practices for Protection of Water Resources by the
Green Industries. Those can be accessed at
http:/fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/professionals/GI-BMP publications.htm.
• Limit nitrogen usage to 4-6 lbs./1000 sq. ft./yr.
• Whenever possible, use slow-release fertilizer.
• Do not fertilize during the rainy season (June 1 - September 30) or prior
to forecasted storms
• Be sure no fertilizer is used within 10 feet of groundwater, including
lakes, except to establish new landscape and then for no more than 30
days after planting.
• When installing new landscape, use drought-resistant plants that require
minimal fertilization.
• Be mindful that reclaimed water used for irrigation already contains most
of the nitrogen and phosphorus needed for grass fertilization. Little or no
additional fertilizer may be needed.
The Pelican Bay Services Division, working in concert with the Pelican Bay
Foundation, urges all residents of Pelican Bay to follow these guidelines.
The health of our lakes and our estuary depends upon it.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Revised paving schedule
Page 1 of 1
Original Message
From: John Chandler[mailto:johnchandler2I9 @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19,2012 1:31 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Cc: Neil Dorrill
Subject: Fwd: RM 3948 Hiller/FW: PB Blvd. asphalt rating Pelican Bay
Good news from the County. Please advise all Board members.
John Chandler
From: VlietJohn
Date: December 19,2012 10:59:24 AM EST
To: HillerGeorgia
Cc: CasalanguidaNick,OchsLeo, ChesneyBarbara, MarcellaJeanne, GossardTravis,BlancoAlexander
Subject: FW: RM 3948 Hiller/FW: PB Blvd. asphalt rating Pelican Bay
Commissioner Hiller:
John Vliet, GMD Road Maintenance, has advised that staff has revisited the paving schedule and determined that
Pelican Bay Boulevard will be paved in FY 2014/15 as previously scheduled. This determination was based
upon utilizing the planning methods in place in FY 2010/11.
At present, staff has been working with the Cartegraph(Asset Management System) Pavement View module,
which projected paving Pelican Bay Boulevard in FY 2018/19. This information was provided to Pelican Bay
Services prematurely. As we are still in the early stages of entering data and making adjustments to the asset
management system program, it is too early to use the Pavement View modual at this time for scheduling
purposes.
On behalf of John Vliet
GMD Road Maintenance
Barbara
Original Message
From: OchsLeo
Sent: Monday, December 17,2012 8:56 AM
To: CasalanguidaNick
Subject: FW: \PB Blvd. asphalt rating/paving schedule
Status please
Original Message
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 2:12 PM
To:Josie's IPad; OchsLeo;CasalanguidaNick
Subject: Re: \PB Blvd. asphalt rating/paving schedule
Leo/Nick:
Why was the schedule pushed back?
Please provide the updated schedule and the evidence that has precipitated the change.
With thanks—
Commissioner Georgia Hiller
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13. Miscellaneous correspondence-Pelican Bay Boulevard rating&paving schedule
Original Message Page 1 of 1
From:BlancoAlexander
Sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 3:23 PM
To:ResnickLisa
Cc:GossardTravis;Kevin Carter(kevin @dmefl.com)
Subject:RE:PB Blvd.asphalt rating
Lisa,
Yes we do.The estimated time for rehabilitation on Pelican Bay Blvd is 4/13/2019,about 7 years from
now.Please remember this is only an estimate.It can change.
Thanks
Alexander Blanco
Inspector
Road&Bridge Maintenance Dept.
Growth Management Division
Tel.239-252-8924
Fax 239-774-6406
AlexanderBlaneo@wIliergov.net
Original Message----
From:ResnickLisa
Sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 3:07 PM
To:BlancoAlexander
Cc:GossardTravis;Kevin Carter(kevin c?dm tl.com):ResnickLisa
Subject:RE:PB Blvd.asphalt rating
Iii Alex,
As the rating is below 70%,do you have an estimate as to when Pelican Bay Boulevard will be on the
schedule for milling and paving?
Thanks again,Lisa
Original Message
From:BlancoAlexander
Sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 12:50 PM
To:RcsnickLisa
Cc:Kevin Carter(kevin(n7dmgfl.com);GossardTravis
Subject:RE:PB Blvd.Asphalt Rating?
Lisa,
Per our records Pelican Bay Blvd was rated on 8-15-12 and the rating is 66.5%.
Thanks
Alexander Blanco
Original Message
From:GossardTravis
Sent:Tuesday,November 13,2012 9:41 AM
To: ResnickLisa_BlancoAlexander
Cc: Frank J.Laney(flaney(Thpelicanbay.org)
Subject:RE:Current asphalt rating threshold?
Hi Lisa,Currently we are looking at numbers below 70,that being said we are currently paving roads in
the mid to high 50's.
Regards,
Travis D.Gossard Sr.
Road&Bridge Superintendent
Growth Mgnt.Division
Collier County Government
PH#239-252-8924
Fax#239-774-6406
Trav isgossardeu,col l iergov.net
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Laurel Oak and Ridgewood Pathways
Page 1 of 3
Original Message
From: ChesneyBarbara
Sent:Thursday, December 20,2012 9:58 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Cc: CasalanguidaNick; OchsLeo; VlietJohn; GossardTravis; WrightTodd; VorthermsJonathan; SheffieldMichael;
LukaszKyle; MarcellaJeanne
Subject: FW: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak& Ridgewood)
Lisa:
Todd Wright, Area Supervisor of GMD Road Maintenance, has just advised that his crews have finished work on
the areas that were found to be deficient on 12/14/12. Todd also had them repair a couple of additional areas that
he had deemed necessary, so that they would not become deficient within a month or so because of minor root
damage that has occurred now. All of the work will be completed by COB today 12/20/12.
Please let us know if you have any questions. I am closing this issue out.
Happy holidays!
On behalf of
Todd Wright
Sr. Field Supervisor
GMD Road and Bridge Maintenance Department
Phone#239-252-8924
Barbara
Original Message
From: ResnickLisa
Sent: Wednesday,November 28, 2012 11:01 AM
To: GossardTravis
Cc: VlietJohn; CasalanguidaNick; ChesneyBarbara; WrightTodd; SheffieldMichael; OchsLeo; VorthermsJonathan;
Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle
Subject: RE: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak& Ridgewood)
Hi Travis, I called her back. She's happy. This issue can be closed out! Thanks again, Lisa
Original Message
From: GossardTravis
Sent: Wednesday,November 28,2012 10:52 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Cc: VlietJohn; CasalanguidaNick; ChesneyBarbara; WrightTodd; SheffieldMichael; OchsLeo; VorthermsJonathan;
Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle
Subject: RE: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak& Ridgewood)
Hi Lisa, That area was marked also and will be addressed within thirty days.
Regards,
Travis D. Gossard Sr.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Laurel Oak and Ridgewood Pathways
Page 2 of 3
Original Message
From: ResnickLisa
Sent: Wednesday,November 28, 2012 10:06 AM
To: GossardTravis
Cc: VlietJohn; CasalanguidaNick; ChesneyBarbara; WrightTodd; SheffieldMichael; OchsLeo; VorthermsJonathan;
Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle
Subject: RE: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak& Ridgewood)
Hi Travis,
I spoke with Mrs. Pratt. She noticed the orange markings along the Ridgewood pathways yesterday and she's
extremely pleased that RM is going to address the really bad parts. She asked whether one section on Ridgewood-
on the Phil side -starting from the intersection of PBB to the first parking lot entrance-would also be addressed?
She said that area was also difficult to walk on. Let me know and I'll get back to her.
Thanks very much,
Lisa
Original Message
From: GossardTravis
Sent: Tuesday, November 27,2012 3:13 PM
To: ResnickLisa; LukaszKyle
Cc: VlietJohn; CasalanguidaNick; ChesneyBarbara; WrightTodd; SheffieldMichael; OchsLeo; VorthermsJonathan;
Neil Dorrill
Subject: FW: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak&Ridgewood)
Lisa/Mr. Lukasz:
The area supervisor made a site visit, 11/27/12,and reported that the sidewalk had some root damage that has made
portions of the walkway wavy. These areas have been marked and RM will complete the repairs within a 30 day
period. The walkway is not in that bad of shape that we would need a complete overlay in these areas.
Best Regards,
Travis D. Gossard Sr.
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Laurel Oak and Ridgewood Pathways
Page 3 of 3
Original Message
From: GossardTravis
Sent: Wednesday,November 21,2012 3:15 PM
To: ChesneyBarbara
Cc: VlietJohn; LynchDiane; BlancoAlexander; ResnickLisa; WrightTodd; BlancoAlexander
Subject: RE: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak&Ridgewood)
Sidewalks were inspected on Laurel Oaks and Ridgewood April of 2012 and are scheduled to be re-inspected April
2013. Currently they are not scheduled for overlay. I will have the Area Supervisor go by next week and look at
them to see if there are any immediate issues. We will respond with our findings next week.
Thank you,
Travis D. Gossard Sr.
Road&Bridge Superintendent
Growth Mgmt. Division
Collier County Government
PH#239-252-8924
Fax#239-774-6406
TravisgossardAcolliergov.net
From: ChesneyBarbara
Sent: Wednesday,November 21, 2012 2:43 PM
To: GossardTravis
Cc: VlietJohn; LynchDiane; BlancoAlexander; CasalanguidaNick; ResnickLisa
Subject: RM 3917 Resnick/FW: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak& Ridgewood)
Importance: High
RM 3917 w/response due COB 11/27/12.
Please provide response to forward to Lisa.
Thanks!
Barbie
Original Message
From: ResnickLisa
Sent: Wednesday,November 21, 2012 1:37 PM
To: GossardTravis; BlancoAlexander
Cc: ChesneyBarbara; LukaszKyle
Subject: Pathways behind SunTrust(Laurel Oak&Ridgewood)
Hi Travis and Alex,
I received a call today from a Pelican Bay resident(Di Pratt 239-254-1616) stating that the pathways on Laurel Oak
Drive (to Ridgewood)and Ridgewood Drive(to Pelican Bay Boulevard)were extremely difficult to walk on-
cracked, uneven, etc.. She asked whether these pathways were evaluated recently and/or tentatively scheduled for
an overlay like the ones on Myra Janco Daniels? These paths are located next to Waterside shops and adjacent to
the Philharmonic. Please let me know. I told her we might not have an answer until Mon. or Tues, so she's not
expecting to hear back today.
Thanks and happy Thanksgiving.
Lisa
• January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-Landscape intersection improvements
Page 1 of 1
Original Message
From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14,2012 2:25 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: Fwd: Median Landscaping.
Lisa,
Please include this email for the Board's information in the January agenda package.
Keith
Begin forwarded message:
From: judesterz(aaol.com
Subject: Re: Median Landscaping.
Date: December 11,2012 1:02:57 PM EST
To: keithjdallas( ,gmail.com
Hi Keith,
Thank you so much for your explanation. Still would LOVE to see some color with annuals, but at least
you took the time to let us know the rationale. Look forward to the survey.
Phil and Judy Gutermuth
Original Message
From: Keith Dallas<keithjdallas @gmail.com>
To:judesterz<judesterz@aol.com>
Cc: Lisa Resnick<LResnickAcolliergov.net>
Sent: Sat, Dec 8,2012 3:24 pm
Subject: Median Landscaping.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gutermuth,
Just a note to bring you up to date about the discussions at wednesday's PBSD meeting regarding your
question about adding more color at the noses of the medians at certain Pelican Bay Blvd intersections.
After some discussion the Board decided to wait for more input from the community before taking any
actions. This season we will be distributing a resident survey to all residents which will include questions
about the new landscaping. Depending on those responses,we would then revisit the question.
The issue of our landscaping and its impact on the environment is complex. The rationale of the re-
landscaping approach,besides up dating and freshening our landscape look, was to use materials and
design that would reduce the need for water,fertilizers,and especially as it relates to sod,manpower.
Pelican Bay has an ongoing problem that as a community we use too much water and fertilizers that then
flow into our 42 fresh water ponds and ultimately flow into Clam Bay. The fertilizers then create algae
blooms, which historically we have treated with copper sulfate,the most effective tool,but also a toxic
material. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)recently informed us that we do
have a copper sulfate problem that we must solve in the next 5 years. We are now just starting to explore
other, probably less effective and more expensive ways we can solve this problem.Part of that solution
will involve finding more ways to reduce fertilizer and water usage throughout our community.
As you can see, we have a balancing act to have landscaping we all enjoy and does our community
service, while at the same time not taking any actions that will make our environmental problem bigger.
Please stay interested in our landscaping and continue to give us your input.
Keith
- January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD
4 , Page 1 of 6
s SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENT DISTRICT
y•; �*y District Headquarters:3301 Gun Club Road,West Palm Beach,Florida 33406(561)686-8800 www.sfivmd.gov
..
December 13, 2012
Neil Dorrill, District Manager 1 , ,
Pelican Bay Services Division 1'
Lely Community Development District I t)c(; b '?(11? ' il
Pelican Marsh Community Development District , 1
5672 Strand Court Suite 1
Naples, FL 34110
Subject: Permit Conversion and Transfer to the Operating Entity
Pelican Bay, Permit No. 11-00065-S
Lely Resort, Permit No. 11-00429-S
Pelican Marsh, Permit No. 11-01121-S
Pelican Marsh East, Permit No. 11-01568-P
Dear Mr. Dorrill,
Thank you for discussing the above referenced projects with us on December 10, 2012. A
general summary of our conversation and a plan of action leading up to a meeting in
January follows:
• Your office will provide a list of the recorded Plats, including Book and Page
numbers, to SFWMD staff for each project. Actual copies of the plats are not
necessary if they are available for download from the Collier County Clerk of the
Circuit Court's website.
• Upon additional review of each file, we noted that staff has copies of each
ordinance and boundary map for each CDD, with the exception of Lely CDD.
Please provide a boundary map for Lely CDD.
• Although we did not discuss provision of a list of associations within the respective
CDD boundaries, we request that you or your staff provide a list of associations
within each project area to assist SFWMD staff's research.
• SFWMD staff will provide a list of certified applications within each CDD boundary
that must be converted to operation and transferred to the respective operating
entity(ies) at this time (please see enclosures). Additional information for each
application is located on SFWMD's ePermitting website.
Okeechobee Service Center:3800 N.W. 16th Blvd.,Suite A,Okeechobee,FL 34972(863)462-5385
Lower West Coast Service Center:2301 McGregor Boulevard,,Fort Myers,FL 33901(239)338-2929
Orlando Service Center; 1707 Orlando Central Parkway,Suite 200,Orlando,FL 32809(407)858-6100
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD
4 Page 2 of 6
Pelican Bay, Permit No. 11-00065-S
Pelican Marsh, Permit No. 11-01121-S
Pelican Marsh East, Permit No. 11-01568-P
Lely Resort, Permit No. 11-00429-S
December 13, 2012
Page 2 of 2
As you requested, we scheduled three back-to-back meetings for January 23, 2012 at the
SFWMD Lower West Coast Service Center, located in Ft. Myers. Attendees will include
you, the respective engineering consultants for each project, and appropriate SFWMD
staff. The purpose for each meeting is to review all certified applications for each permit to
determine the entity(ies) responsible for the operation and maintenance of the surface
water management system. This may be the respective CDD, an association, or both a
CDD and association as co-permittees/co-operating entities.
Please provide contact information for the engineering groups that will meet with staff and
the CDD they are associated with, along with specific times for the three meetings, to
assist us in scheduling each group.
We greatly appreciate your willingness to work with us in resolving these matters. Please
provide the above documentation on or before January 2, 2013 to allow staff time to review
it prior to the scheduled meetings.
Should you have questions or comments, please contact me at sgonzale @sfwmd.gov or
561-682-6786.
Sincerely,
0 s
San./a Gonzalez, egulat ry Speci list 1
Regulatory Support Bureau
Regulation Division
sg/
Enclosures:
Pelican Bay Attachment "A"
Lely Resort Attachment"A"
Pelican Marsh Attachment"A"
Pelican Marsh East Attachment"A"
- January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD
f i 3Pelcanboay
F
Environmental Resource Permit History
Pelican Bay
Permit Number: 11-00065-S
Certification
Acceptance
App.No. Project Name Permit Issue Date Date
950511-3 The Biltmore at Bay Colony 27-Jun-95 18-Jun-10
950511-7 Mansion La Palma at Pelican Bay 29-Jun-95 18-Jun-10
950518-3 The Villa La Palma at Pelican Bay 10-Jul-95 18-Jun-10
950313-2 Breakwater 12-Jul-95 28-Jul-10
X000000559 Pelican Bay Improvement District 19-Oct-78 20-Mar-07
940412-6 The Remington 27-May-94 28-Feb-11
940411-2 Neighborhood Park A Portion of Drainage System V 20-Jun-94 24-Mar-11
960116-1 The Windsor at Bay Colony 10-Apr-96 3-May-11
961125-3 The Marbella at Pelican Bay 6-Jan-97 31-Oct-06
970613-8 Toscana at Bay Colony 30-Jul-97 28-Jul-10
961125-5 The Coronado at Pelican Bay 6-Jan-97 31-Oct-06
970924-6 Marbella/Coronado Project 16-Oct-97 14-May-10
980313-11 Salerno at Bay Colony 10-Apr-98 29-Jul-10
970818-15 Toscana at Bay Colony 12-Sep-97 28-Jul-10
981027-10 Pelican Bay/U.S.41 17-Nov-99 14-May-10
990301-4 Montenero at Pelican Bay 19-Apr-99 23-Mar-11
000518-13 The Trieste 28-Jun-00 29-Jul-10
030908-19 Crown Colony at Pelican Bay 17-Sep-03 23-Apr-07
891229-15 Crown Colony at Pelican Bay 4-Jan-90 26-Sep-06
921202-3 Coco Bay at Pelican Bay 28-May-93 18-Jan-11
930329-1 North Bay Plaza 28-Jul-93 23-Aug-10
930609-3 Drainage 1 -Neighborhood Park Pelican Bay 17-Aug-93 24-Mar-11
930402-10 . Pelican Bay Improvement District 12-May-93 21-Nov-11
940420-9 L'Ambiance of Pelican Bay 30-Jun-94 21-Nov-11
951115-6 St. Raphael 14-May-96 15-Jul-10
930702-1 The Marquesa at Bay Colony-Pelican Bay System V 9-Sep-93 7-May-12
Attachment "A"
January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFMD
Lely Reso W
rt
Environmental Resource Permit History
Lely Resort
Permit Number: 11-00429-S
Certification
Acceptance
App. No. Protect Name Permit Issue Date Date
911112-7 Lely Wildflower Way and Lely High School Road 5-Dec-91 11-Jun-96
930520-3 Freedom Square at Lely 17-Jun-93 11-Jun-96
920821-11 Freedom Square at Lely 15-Sep-92 11-Jun-96
920320-8 The Verandas at Lely Flamingo Island Club 2-Apr-92 1-Apr-97
931022-8 The Verandas/Tiger Island Phase I and II 3-Nov-93 1-Apr-97
911216-5 Freedom Square at Lely 14-Jan-93 8-Sep-09
921029-5 Lely Basin B 12-Aug-93 7-Jun-96
940622-7 McDonalds Restaurant/Freedom Square 28-Jun-94 14-Dec-05
940418-11 Palomino Village 13-May-94 11-Jun-96
930428-3 Mustang Plantation Golf Course 10-Feb-94 16-Aug-99
940812-6 Chase Preserve of Lely Resort-Phase I 9-Sep-94 18-Aug-99
900801-20 Lely Resort Community Ph. II 17-Jan-91 7-Jun-96
890210-15 Lely Resort Community- Lake Add 10-May-89 26-May-09
890808-6 Lely Resort Lakes 5, 18, 2, 17 3-Oct-89 26-May-09
890808-7 South Elementary School"C" 9-Nov-89 1-Apr-94
890607-3 Lely Resort Phase I 15-Feb-90 11-Jun-96
960827-3 Mustang Plantation Golf Course 23-Sep-96 17-Aug-99
960513-3 Lely Tract 33(Indian Wells Golf Villas) 3-Jul-96 18-Aug-99
960725-15 The Verandas at Lely, Building#16 13-Aug-96 1-Apr-97
011114-7 Masters Reserve 6-Dec-01 13-Oct-06
020128-8 The Champions 22-Feb-02 28-Jul-04
021028-7 The Majors Phase One 22-Nov-02 21-Oct-04
020917-14 Lely Resort Slaes and Information Center 8-Nov-02 9-Oct-09
030306-4 Lely Resort-Tract 49 7-Apr-03 25-Oct-06
030207-7 Lely Resort-Tract 35 13-Mar-03 8-Nov-05
030625-9 Chase Preserve of Lely Resort 24-Jul-03 14-Nov-07
030818-3 The Majors Phase 2 and 3 23-Sep-03 13-Jul-05
040929-15 Hawthorne at Lely Resort-Phase 1 20-Dec-04 29-Mar-07
050204-18 Legacy 8-Jun-05 28-Sep-06
051103-7 Ashton Place FKA Lely Resort Tract 27 17-Mar-06 14-Jul-08
910802-5 Lely Tracts 31&32 Infrastructure 30-Aug-91 1-Apr-94
921002-6 Lely Resort Dri/Mustang Villas 28-Oct-92 1-Apr-94
921218-3 Classics Clubhouse Phase 1 26-Jan-93 1-Apr-94
041006-15 Amsouth and Carrabas at Lely Freedom Square 12-Apr-05 28-Sep-06
060801-3 Canwick Cove 3-Nov-06 15-Mar-10
100223-15 Mitchell Meadows at Lely Resort Tract 58 31-Mar-10 24-Mar-11
081120-18 Cordoba at Lely Resort 9-Dec-08 6-Mar-09
080321-8 Cordoba at Lely Resort 22-Jul-08 6-Mar-09
081223-25 Cordoba at Lely Resort Front Entrance Improvements 23-Jan-09 6-Mar-09
Attachment A
• January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD
Pelicahh
Environmental Resource Permit History
Pelican Marsh
Permit Number: 11-01121-S
Certification
Acceptance
App. No. Project Name Permit Issue Date Date
950404-6 Pelican Marsh Unit Eight 2-May-95 21-May-97
950613-7 Additional Nine Hole Golf Course-Pelican Marsh 9-Nov-95 21-May-97
950505-4 Pelican Marsh Bay Colony-Additional 9 Holes Golf Course 14-Sep-95 9-Jun-98
940317-1 Pelican Marsh Unit Four 14-Sep-94 21-May-97
950228-4 Clermont at Pelican Marsh Tracts CtD, Unit 6 31-Mar-95 26-Aug-02
940701-4 Pelican Marsh Unit Six 5-Aug-94 21-May-97
940613-5 Pelican Marsh -Egret's Walk 28-Jul-94 21-May-97
931207-13 Pelican Marsh -Culvert Crossing 6-Jan-94 16-Jun-94
960311-4 Ravenna at Pelican Marsh 5-Apr-96 17-Jun-02
951010-3 Bay Colony Additional Nine Golf Course Holes 9-Jan-96 9-Jun-98
960124-2 Pelican Marsh Unit 9 Parcel B 14-Feb-96 21-May-97
941209-4 Unit Nine Pelican Marsh 5-Jan-95 21-May-97
960730-2 Pelican Marsh Unit 8 23-Aug-96 21-May-97
961007-12 Pelican Marsh Unit 10 Phase Two 7-Nov-96 21-May-97
970204-1 Ivy Pointe 6-Mar-97 23-Jul-99
970613-9 Augusta at Pelican Marsh 15-Jul-97 17-Jun-02
980311-9 . Troon Lakes 9-Apr-98 23-Jul-99
980910-2 Pelican Marsh Phase Four Eckerd at Vanderbilt Galleria 24-Dec-98 28-Jan-02
980623-18 Pelican Marsh Cocohatchee Strand 20-Jul-98 19-May-00
980702-17 Bay Laurel Estates-Pelican Marsh Unit 21 23-Jul-98 23-Jul-99
991006-7 Terranova at Pelican Marsh 29-Oct-99 5-Sep-08
Attachment A
• January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD
Pelican MOO East
Environmental Resource Permit History
Pelican Marsh East
Permit Number: 11-01568-P
Certification
Acceptance
App. No. Project Name Permit Issue Date Date
980306-4 Tiburon Golf Club(Pelican Marsh Resort Golf Club ClubhousE 9-Apr-98 22-Feb-11
981016-20 Tiburon The Norman Estates at Pelican Marsh Unit 23 18-Mar-99 7-Jan-02
981211-13 Tiburon Golf Course 15-Apr-99 11-Apr-01
990917-5 Tiburon Entrance Feature and Sales Center 20-Oct-99 22-Feb-11
991227-6 Escada at Tiburon 26-Jan-00 8-May-01
001004-11 Touchstone Parcel Addition to Tiburon 12-Jul-01 3-Jun-04
000815-5 Escada at Tiburon 16-Oct-00 8-May-01
050602-11 Touchstone Golf Course 29-Jun-05 22-Feb-11
050729-2 Marsala at Tiburon 19-Dec-05 23-Jul-07
060214-17 Marquesa Royale at Tiburon 15-Mar-06 6-Aug-08
Attachment A