The URL can be used to link to this page

PBSD MSTBU Agenda 01/02/2013 Revised Final 161 2 1 A PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 0 NOREy Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit JAN p 4 2012 O BY:.... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 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. qGcNYA 4fj 12 FIIV4 3 The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Pledge of Allegiance 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) Fiala 9. Committee reports Hiller a. Clam Bay Subcommittee Henning i. Clam Bay transition plan Coyle ✓ ii. Clam Bay dredging permit b. Pathways Ad-Hoc Committee£ 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)5974749 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. Misc. Corres: Date: Item#: 12/18/2012 11:33:37 AM Copies to: 161 2At * 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 . r P 161 2A 14/ 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, •y� ticipated 8577 s 161 2 /W . r 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 IMr. 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* Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens, to amend PBSD Path J Project Draft 6.4, Step 2 to read, "Conduct a census of trees along the length of Pelic' =t Boulevard to estimate the health of the trees and determine the likely impact of dist, • om the sidewalk and the street to the trees in question."The Board voted unanimously"al ,,•or and the motion passed. Mr.Chandler made a motion,second by Vice Chairman Cravens,to amender' _ S Pathm Project Draft 6.4,Step 3 to read, "Have staff revisit County and State pra r 6 B e!es r pathways and bicycle usage. The Board voted unanimously in favor and • :1:.;.;., /. SELECTION OF ARBORIST* x__ Mr.Ian Orlikoff,ISA Certified Arborist gave a presentation reg s+ $ .' a of evaluating existing conditions to develop a plan for the pathways improvem•q o_sle ^.an approach that promotes tree health,structural integrity,and mitigates potential prop op. .:• '•.ay.&a jury and liability. 8578 161 2A 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 E PELI AN BA : 1 LEVARD PAT WAY 1 N ERN & T'T IF C Mr.Dorrill reported the recent Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways overl, esult• ra neven areas and safety concerns. The County is in the process of grading to a lev ' a n an. ��a irs are 75% complete. fi 8579 i . . y 16 I 2 A tk-, . r . Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes December 5, 2012 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT IMr. 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.laizzo,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 Ill. 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(JOHN CHANDLER1 The Board discussed briefly whether to schedule a separate meeting to discuss the Board poli x+ : reconsideration of votes. Consensus was to defer to January 2 and the Board directed staff to redi ®, e :h * previous material. BOARD TERMS The Board discussed the four terms expiring at once in March and ways to stap m° ms to +fie for Board continuity and easy recruitment. Ms.O'Brien made a motion,second by Mr.Chandler,to direct t 4,g, finis , +, o discuss with Commissioner Hiller the possibility of changing the length o + + ,ur ..Q:P;'r terms in the upcoming election whereas the two applicants who rece"i.,14601,,,...,.±, •s ' e appointed for four years, and applicants placing third and fourth are + + _, + .`years. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion passed. -1-4442§-s; 8580 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1 December 5, 2012 ' a 111 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 Vice 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 a 410,w F eta 8581 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Divisio Board Regular Session 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing 6 1 2 A 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 2 4 ict Traffic Noise Background Information Introduction to Noise Human response to noise is subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that can influence individual response include the loudness,frequency,and time pattern;the amount of background noise present before an intruding noise;and the nature of the activity(e.g.,sleeping)that the noise affects. The sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies is measured by the A-weighted decibel scale(dBA). A 10-dBA change in noise levels is judged by most people as a doubling of sound level. The smallest change in noise level that a human 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 are 3 to 6 feet apart. Table 1 shows sound levels for some common noise sources and compares their relative loudness to that of an 80-dBA source such as a garbage disposal or food blender.Noiso 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) 60 114 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 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing Page 3of16 161 2 Nil 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,engine,and exhaust,resulting in a noise source that is approximately 8 feet above the ground.The following list provides information on the types of transportation noise sources that will be part of a roadway project,and describes the type of noise each produces. • Passenger Vehicles(cars):Noise emitted from 0 to 2 feet above roadwav,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 i iph at a distance of SO feet. • Medium Trucks(MT):Noise emitted from 2 to 5 feet above roadi$'av,combined noise from tire-roadway interface and eneine exhaust noise.This category includes delivery vans,such as UPS and Federal Express trucks,large sport utility vehicles with knobby tires,large diesel engine trucks,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 o haust 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'.at a rate of approximately 3 dB each time the distance doubles.Under real-life conditions,however,interactions of the sound waves with the ground often results in attenuation that is slightly greater than the ideal reduction factors given above.Other factors that affect the attenuation of sound with 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 sotind 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 b} 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 area.Hills and berms,when placed between the noise source and receiver,can have a significant effect on noise levels.In many situations,berms arc used as noise mitigation by physically blocking the noise source froth the receiver location.In PDXRRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT DOC 2 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing ' Page 4of16 161 2 A 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 travel;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 earthen berms. In reality, noise mitigation is often infeasible due to space requirements,aesthetic issues and financial costs,or because the costs outweigh the benefits. Any specific mitigation measure recommended as part of a project must be feasible and have a reasonable cost in relation to the benefit.Potential mitigation measures 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. Flowdver,displacing truck traffic from one roadway to another would only shift noise impacts front 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 tnacE 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 niph 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 trraffic-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-I 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. 1 PDX/TRAFFIC NOISE HANDOUT.DOC 3 ,.. 161 2A v O � . Cl) _ m co o) Ce Co 0 tn C O C .> N c 8 Cl) N •2 o O U (n O >.C co N Do c c f0 (0 U g N a m cm 0 O .�.war ty S' Y`' ::<'''','.. :.tr2.. .a ...,.w. a,, C . ,-'` N n N N N N Nw > O Q CI 9 N C 7 O N C V A N. In N .-4 OS a3--3 m d Q N. !fl V1 in n WI LO CO VI n n m y r, v00i un an a to N co uo an } R N tO Lft 3 co an Q 0 an ko so Ul LO Mli > n up Q . m 3 n in "∎ r N co m N N LD us.2 9 N N N N Sim t m m V H £ 0 0 0 0 V. O m U N 0 o o 0 3 c a p a, L K a) t X W X NO fl _ V' — > O .0 i N > 0 •D ea N > C1 N U 1p U Y CO Y -0 N I C._--o Ym 4,37 2 U : x L % c ON J V c 2 C U Co- 3NU. x 3 m 3NUx 3 msUx3 d G c 0 T f0 Y N (0 YE o O co III D 7 ac 0 F— (.9 C 0 Y U .. ol co ra S w z a U m January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing ( i Page 6 of 16 16 2 A STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION SITE PREPARATION CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date:June 4,2012 To:Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz Phone:438-5239 e-mail: kvlelukaszacolliergov.net Project: Remove/Replace curb in median at North Tram ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION GENERAL Remove and replace curb,including traffic control and bond LS 1.0 $6,940.00 $6,940.00 TOTAL _ $6,940.00 Leo-M. Bate-maw LEO M.BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph(239)482-4826 Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lie.CGC 1506291 Ix(239)482-8177 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session I 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing L Page 7 of 16 161 2 . . .. STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION culositC. .3 SITE PREPARATION CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date:June 4,2012 To: Collier County BOCC Attention:Kyle Lukasz Phone:438-5239 e-mail: kylelukasz(cD_colliergov.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 $12,250.00 $12,250.00 Beachwalk LS 1.0 $11,600.00 $11,600.00 Glenview LS 1.0 $9,650.00 $9,650.00 TOTAL $46,400.00 Price includes removal of cobblers,replace with pavers(pavers furnished by Pelican Bay),maintenance of traffic and bond Leo-M. Scar e-pnan' LEO M. BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph(239)482-4826 Ft.Myers,FL 33916 Lic.CGC 1506291 fx(239)482-8177 161 2At� . . O t/, _ J/, . . f6 7 D1 CO •C13 ..iti•g ..i4:7.!.,i,ri-.,,,11.',14:1- • • •• ". •••': 1.:3,,•A 4.f/1f\/ :'', . . : .. . , . . • , .,,.• • , ',' ' •, CO � '# 41,: Y' 5 i 1 {{f yy U y t i' t f fjr t .j/ M c N y + T c Os / ' i •i' a� CS U m • ,AX { , t 4 c6 a_ - f � per.• t ' _ . ) f• JJJ f. .'.;-..1" ' ,' , - ‘, ''.. '` ‘; ' 1 .' \. ..,. ,.. . l{{{ V` 1 % (' 2 111 i. + — ' ,. , s s• tit; - f :} 1(. - � {;.i a7Y• •a • 3 ta . f� ' �t F ',7-'...4,-•,11, s •'l , fi } •+ k*wf [ +al . f T .a [ y ' '. s.. M s sss:.i..•)' 'E a �'y,i';�. u. ��,9 pp, i ,zry � 4 . • I.'•7,7..74,1:,...Xi.'''i i b January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing Page 9 of 16 1 6 1 2 A °$< `� PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ajx \° INC. 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, S i i vie/ 1;1-0) 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 16 I w'G) A 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 l`f Page 11 of 16 161 2 A May 2,2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report.Crosswalks.Additional Correspondence No.3 Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa Subject: 5ai.Administrator's Report. Crosswalks.Additional Correspondence No. 3 From: Cliff Landers fmailto:clifflanders 20000yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 5:29 PM To: office©Delicanbayservicesdivision.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:DebbleDostOgmail.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 1 6 1 2 A 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 2°d issue is even more crucial—Safety.Again, spending as much time on the Blvd as I do both in the morning and the afternoons I have had the opportunity of seeing many"near misses". I have seen drivers ignore pedestrians; drivers stop on 1 side but not the other;cars in the right lane stopping but not in the left lane& even cars speeding up so they don't have to stop. It has actually created an unsafe situation—pedestrians don't know whether the cars are going to stop or not. The crosswalk definitely needs further signage to make it safe. I have heard remarks that the only people complaining are the San Marino residents. It only takes a bit of common sense to realize that the residents of San Marino and Calais are most directly affected since the crosswalk is closest to those communities&most pedestrian's traffic originates from them. I think it would be a rare occasion for some one from St Raphael to cross over to the east side of the street. It is my recommendation that the cobblestones be removed&the crosswalk has better signage. When a decision is made by the Pelican Bay Services Division is any consideration give to the impact of that decision to the residents of the Pelican Bay&the communities most affected? It seems like there is very little regard as to how the design has impacted the area&our concerns seem to be ignored. Kathy Mahoney Kathy Mahoney Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate 8200 Health Center Blvd.#101 Bonita Springs,34135 800-547-3019 239-992-0059(0) 239-404-0677(C) 239-992-0231 (Fax) MailTo:kathv.mahonevafloridamoves.com http:///kathv-mahonev.com January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing Page 13 of 16 16 I aA \ A 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 f mailto:westlakecoegcomcast.netl Sent: Monday,April 30,2012 9:27 AM To:office('aelicanbayservicesdivision.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 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 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 1 b I 2 A \c. 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 avor and the motion was ,assed. APPROVAL OF APRIL 16,2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMtI°1TEE 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 passed 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 assed 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. ' r 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 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8.Cobblestones at San Marino crossing 'il ,„ Page 15 of 16 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 6 1 G 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 increased 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 . , 9 completed promptly. , i 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 alias and the motion was assed. 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 / January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ses ion ILi 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 1 Drive crossing that is planned to be done this summer. The Board voted 9 in favor(Chandler,laizzo, 1 O'Brien,Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker,Baron,and Gibson)and 1 opposed(Dallas)and the motion was 'asset 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. Iaizzo 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 5 opposed(Trecker,Levy, O'Brien, Chandler, and laizzo) and resulted in a tie, and the motion was not asset. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to install a pedestrian-activated ashing 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 'asset 1 Mr.Carr and Mr.Oliver said the bollards with the sensors would be installed as specified by the MUTCP., 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 Ley,O'Brien,and laizzo)and the motion ailed PATHWAYS 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 Baylrvi6 Dilsion Boaae ii r 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 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessio( 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 1 1th 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 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Se ces 6vision Board Regular Session 9ai. Clam Bay transition comments by Kathy Worley . Page2of2 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 kathvw(a�conservancy.org January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11 ? AA correspondence from Linda Elliott USAGE to Gary McAlpin,Coastal Zone Management re:per niepatio�SAJ-19x69'-Clam Pass 9aii. 12/18/12 correspo g rY P 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:GaryMcAlpinAcolliergov.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.ElligottAusace.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 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 6 1 2 A January 2,20 3 y 9 9aii. 12/18/12 correspondence from Linda Elligott,USACE to Gary McAlpin,Coastal Zone Management re:permit application SAJ-1996-02789-Clam ass 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.elligott(ausace.army.mil Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE R l' 2A_ 1bi � � 1}!} d.,1 , „.., , ., ,,!i � � w ,I' t''' ,''''''14g.'.. -,-5' ' { f NN s i8`+ 'i. )\ it,/1 1 x .. . t ' , _'' . ,,''.„' Gt ° 4 V ' P is -' � Z `; -4--, g i, C) y �$�, w V 0 e€, zs lit a.■ Z M 0 t11 uml N w N e6w a. 2Z > V u _j O w c7; a 161 a A ._ d 1N3WW3S a) 8 1N3101O3S c, 0 1N31103S o o U Q CI CC4 N N 7 a A co co co O O O N N N n -o -o 0 ,A N N N u1 \� Z 4 O O o to to O p O F�1 -N p -0 1 N N U 0 I)on W p to p o _o —p O N N N o V O - :" ' ...I/I I - N 0 N , _N II I p e N ♦? N +� N Z O0 O 4) 0 _O _O q O II—' N N N U ,, W O o o p O -o rn O N O N N/ 04 L C t• t Q3 co a, „ a+ co cn LIJ U co o O O O O O O O Q O O O O O Q O O Q O (() O O O O O O c0 In V• M N Q C Q O O O O c0 l!7 V M N O p O q O O O tG 1[I V M N O c_x ^m ( 13) V3aa NO1103S SSO80 JJ ]W , o Wm 0) J U 1r61 2A ■t\ . ,.._,, . , , . ... , , . , ,,,,,,,, , ,..,, ,...,,, `*.dt- , r r s 3 I ti V'iv,le< cl''' , . ,;', ' ' ', '. a e 3, r e.,...,« .p', , a � F Mi 4 R\ \.).2.11‘ '1:1.1 +�{i a ¢ y Ma �1 N p ,';''.-- 1-'"',..,,e-'' :,-7,..1 , _Et.--.,i,,.,-, E'4. 4; -,!' 4.7-,:--_i' '-,044-1:;4:-.',.. *' ....., U CID tn�,,..M4.Px W �I ,.. .. y i p f°B: • - r "r IN zI 113(1)L- LU 4. o wow II- Ua W Z. 1- 0 ,, � ,.'.. ' t,-e»? -- 161 2 A \ tl 1N3W03S Qf 0 j 0 N C. co 4,. ` nSr+` `r` N \ - CSI613 y:c e 4tI)s0 ,v N S"""'''��^ m `4, M W N ,,,fit mow, y Fr ,. I N . , ,,, , . .4 4\ O . N O a.a? a„ as- . `,:?n v ` z - (n „ o N 1 L g O / _ , U N Z w r.4 N (/) .. . o _0 _ o co q 05 o tp d M N O U (Z.LJ) v38b NOI103S SS0eID 161 2 . tL-t rr .. . , ........ ,:_ . . , , ....,...r.,, . s� I- C.] • • CD \ , 0 W — Li I W ° x I c7 – J z W In N 0`I o m 1 O Q ~ I M+ 0 r Ce I (5 li ■ U /11 <X —r,, z V) - o 7 W 6.1 1,-1 0 W W L9 .O 0 c , I I I A �C O O l''.1.-- C.'''. —K) p i 11■ m o ca , .n I Z Q7 N N p i- IW "".. ",. J �-' O 0 O = J P)O tV^ I UD co r'4 o i 1.0 CO 0 N I (qA`)U) `133. N011'dA3�3 I I o 2 ..1 F----1 0 x, 161 )kt\ 3E „..,_. .. , . . , , . ......„.• .. , ,„, .. . g,zi.;,-.,,,,,,,,,,,„..,-„, ,........,.L'i,/r.,'r r..r.'.'r'1,'i 't ti / a 1 W _-- LA=IST C) 47 I Z W It? (17 =1) in 0 Q • I 0 m N " —N - 'v z 0 Q 0 Li N in 0 a U Ln Z N Q I- t o - v_� v � Z W Ti ! - p 0, O O _ z N N-0 \ \ \ .n v I J I 0 0 0 ± ,- t- (i) } - 1) 7 C CO CO, I I I 3 a } I h I h ! ' I ' I ' " N M sr to I to I ( ) ` 33i N© ±YA313 I I I o riO ts W 2 E U - 161 2A `•( ., , e, ... ...„,,,,,:, :,..: .,,,, 1 ,, • ,‘ ;if! ,. ,„,........,:: „„_,:„.,...,. ,.....,„,„„:„:„:,... . L.,„,.,,, , --- , / 1„, i , ,: ,,i,,,,„,,„:..,,,,,„ ; I i i, I 7777{{{{ (' f I 14 (�1, /a x _ q f I, t '� t a , t /I ills 1 x �, -..,_ ._„--,,,,--,7' ' ,'0-,(., ' a 4v { r 4) w � �#�� V 1 ,x z x'` Z M * , I w .-� z w :i.ii,:iii,,z,,e c.!8,„ ci. 2 z Ct Ij O w 1 d 161 2A ,(2. w ii P 0 0 0 E l'z :,.,,,,..,...,,":";FiS,`f".:":::;!... :tfr"\4,4,0,,,,:fiktr,' '''''' ''',,,',.'q":.::...',""."`"A-Va'', 7#y 161 2 ,,,...,,7,,,,,,,,.:„r„:„....„:.„..,,„,(7,,,,,,,..„...„, . ,,,,,,..,,,,,„,...„..„.„.....„„„,„,„,,„ 0 .,,,A4,..„..„,.....„.„....„,,„t.„„,,„.„,,,,,,.,„ C‘I t' F- , n _ O N i O dd i; v r ,-:; via -,,, n a La LLI * V O m o O Q LL V) Lai O U —� 1 Q Z" - n o O W W W O A C7 C7 C7 0 Cl GI W W W v I I I w F- c O A a o a _� 0_ d1 N h ul° o v o I- N�VJ o O O .A \ \ .J O i I i l i I l l " I I I I N 0 00 (D vt N 0 N -ct (D 00 O 1 1 1 1 i - cz (aAON) `1333 NOIIVA313 0 lia 1 .,„.„.„. „.. AM 16I 2A 1,q: El IN31^103S cr, 0 0 N 03 0 0 N y ^O o § ., N co 0 —N Mti ', , 4 $ " Ili YQ.l' O � 1� 'O �Y N .V2�CI) I) Y -O 0 N _O 7 t, N >e +' V „ N M,=xw, aks. ,±xgm'.. tt y M 0 N o N Z Q v w cn _ 0 o ,m5 co • .4..I I I I __ O O 0 O O 0 /I 00 in M N O IC`I r (aL) t3dY N0103S SS083 U '4 .. . ... .,..,„ . t r, ' , =t..sus„3 . . .,,.......,...„..,„„. .,,,„,..,.. .. , . ._ _ .......... .......,......,.........._____..... ._...,.............__. 161 2A t (--( 3 1N3W9 S 01 O O N CO O N po S p O n II t I0048 0 0 N O M� . \ . ',r,','.,'„..7,- CNI - G. CD CO N 4 a 8 co ,o 0 w N o" od i L o 11. 1 Z V a) • Q. O O M N s, f 3 S sso83(44) v3817. NoLL d 0 $1fH-7- r- itt January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 V 1 2 A 9aii.Clam Bay dredging permit-Turrell Hall WO Clam Pass dredging permitting&management plan update Page 3 of 3 WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER# CONTRACT# 10-5571 CLAM PASS JOINT COASTAL PERMIT AND INLET&BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE January 2,2013 Turrell, Hall &Associates,Inc. (THA)is pleased to provide this scope of work to Collier County via the Pelican Bays Services Division (PBSD). The purpose of this scope is to outline professional environmental permitting services to the PBSD for the dredging of Clam Pass. The work proposed will be conducted under Contract Number 10-5571 by THA and our subcontractor, Humiston and Moore Engineers. Based on recent telephone conversations with the federal permitting agencies (USACE and FWS), our understanding is that a new permit application will need to be submitted to the USACE with updated project conditions and further permit coordination may be required with FWS to complete the Biological Opinion for the project. Scope of Work TASK I: PERMITTING a) Permit Drawings: H&M and THA will prepare updated design and permit drawings at the direction of the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) for the dredging of Clam Pass. The plans will be based on updated hydrographic and beach profile data to be collected in January 2013 and on the most recent benthic resources surveys conducted in August 2012. b) DEP Permitting: H&M will coordinate with the staff of the DEP to update the existing DEP JCP permit (no. 0296087-001-JC) as needed for the updated plans. This will include filing new plans on behalf of Collier County and meeting with the DEP staff. c) DEP Mixing Zone Variance: H&M will prepare and submit a mixing zone variance request to DEP for the proposed dredging activity. d) USACE Permitting: THA and H&M will coordinate with the staff of the USACE to complete their review of the project (No. 0296087-001-JC) as needed based on the updated plans. This will include filing a new permit application on behalf of Collier County, meetings with the USACE staff, and responses to commenting parties as a result of the new application. e) USFWS and NMFS Coordination: THA will provide information to and coordinate with these agencies relative to their species and habitat guidelines.We will provide a technical review of the draft Biological Opinion from the FWS including an engineering evaluation by H&M of the project design. Attendance at two meetings with these agencies is included in the scope. Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. 1 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session i f I 2 A 9aii.Clam Bay dredging permit-Turrell Hall WO Clam Pass dredging permitting&management plan update Page 1 of 3 The scope does not include provisions for production of detailed environmental documents such as mitigation plans,Environmental Impact Statements, or Biological Assessments that could be requested by the reviewing agencies based on the updated application. We do not anticipate these documents being requested now since they were not requested as part of the previous applications but will still need to verify this once the revised application has been submitted. TASK II: INLET AND BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE Inlet and Bay Management Plan Update: THA and H&M will prepare the framework for an updated management plan for the Clam Pass and Bay system. • H&M will prepare exhibits and supporting documentation relative to the design configuration of Clam Pass dredging for inclusion into the Plan. • THA will coordinate stakeholder input into the plan through three efforts. An initial call for written input from stakeholders and interested parties will be used to determine goals and objectives for the Plan. A workshop will be held once the framework for the plan has been completed to collect written and oral comments. A final workshop will be held once the Plan has been drafted and prior to being finalized. • THA will prepare documentation necessary for stakeholder input including initial invitation letter to participate,Plan outline,and Plan Draft. • THA will coordinate with the State and Federal permitting and review agencies as needed during the formulation of the Plan. Baseline information already available will be incorporated into Plan elements however; additional field data collection(such as fish and bird surveys) is not included in this scope. This scope does not include services for responding to legal objections,preparing for expert testimony,or preparing for litigation associated with the project. If necessary,these services will be provided under a separate agreement with the County. Schedule The above scope is based on a 75 day schedule. Creation of the permit exhibits and submittal of the updated application to the DEP and USACE will take place within 10 days of approval to proceed. Subsequent coordination with the permitting agencies will be done as quickly as possible based on the agency's review times and comment periods. Coordination of the Management Plan will be done concurrently with the permitting. The initial invitation to participate will be sent out within 7 days of the notice to proceed. Management Plan outline and preliminary exhibits will be available for the first stakeholder workshop within 35 days of the invitation. Draft Plan will be available for the second stakeholder meeting within 35 days of the first stakeholder meeting. Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessions V I 2 9aii.Clam Bay dredging permit-Turrell Hall WO Clam Pass dredging permitting&management plan update Page 2 of 3 Budget Compensation for the above scope of work will be based on charges as described in Exhibit"A"and will not exceed the amount listed without approval from PBSD. $34,000.00 Accepted By: Timothy C.Hall,Vice President Date Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. Approved By: Neil Dorrill,Administrator Date Pelican Bay Services Division Turrell,Hall&Associates,Inc. January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Seles6isil Board Fal " ession 1 v 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. e1 ulFi 6e Ib January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Servic iw Bard Reg s n 1( 10. Setting Priorities(KeithiJ.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 161 2Ac 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 4 161' 2A iu 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 4 161 2A 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 4 161 2A iq 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 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division B d ulai Session 2 A 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 y 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 ci January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 I 2A 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? 1 6 I 2A January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session l 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) • Page 2 of 18 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 1 6 I 2 A 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 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsider n o ote (John C I ) a_ Page 4 of 18 Za p� ; By c ORDINANCE NO. - 15 •a • AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ,`; _ �. COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.75-16,AS AMENDED, IN ORDER TO REVISE PROCEDURES r•FOR ' a RECONSIDERATION OF LAND USE MATTERS; PROVIDING ;FOR -� CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSIO1-_;IN 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, Tthis 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 orjetition 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 Services Division Board Regular Session £ U I I' January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Se 9 Y 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;Struck threagh text is deleted Page 2 of 3 A January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session , K r policy for reco sideratio v I hn Chan) 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board p y n Page 6 of 18 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this 2.--1k4lay of ,2012. ATTEST-- L^'. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGI;' '.E:`3kOCI4iCLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By ?' 1Ctt Jerk FRED W.COYLE,CHAI N as..to .CsI signs , 'et4Ai '_ Ap. ov • : to form and a ..r� i •-ncy: 1LI Jeffr .Klatzkow Coun ttorney This ordinance filed with the Secretory of State's.Office the ..edgy of and acknowledgement ,o,, 1 that rec ived this S'"l day of Zo/ 9 o.w,er clerk Underlined text is added;Sreugh 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 reconsiderat of es John Cha er 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 .CQ'rk, Ex-officio to Board of ' County Commissioners • ' ■ 106 '4" :y. Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk _ f A January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 1 �+ • ` Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) 12a.Old Business g g P Y 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 fI A January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for recosideratio v (J hn Chan 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 Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6 1 2 A January 2,2013 Pelican y 9 1 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) f 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 2 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 1 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 1 6 1 2 A 11) 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 1 6 1 2 A I 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 1 6 1 c A , tt 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 e 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideratio v (J n Chan / 1� 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): 1. 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 • 161 2 A January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 2Ai 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler _ a 0 g g p y ( 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: 1. 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 ii seek clarification from speakers. 5. Restrictions on Testimony or Presentation of Evidence: Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any board member may interrupt any presentation ' 1 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 6 1 2 A Y 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 1 6 1 2 A 12a.Old Business-Scheduling meeting to discuss Board policy for reconsideration of votes(John Chandler) It 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. 4 6111t/t hn Arceri hairman January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-Landscaping Best M nagement Practices Draft 1.0 Page 1 of 2 L 1 2 A Q 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 16 I 2 A 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 1 6 1 Y Ta From:John Chandler [mailto:johnchandler219 @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 �t,} From:BlancoAlexander Sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 3:23 PM 1 6 a A To:ResnickLisa Cc:GossardTravis;Kevin Carter(kevin gdmgf1.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 A lexanderBlaneo@coll iergov.net Original Message From:ResnickLisa Sent:Thursday,December 06,2012 3:07 PM • To:BlancoAlexander Cc:GossardTravis:Kevin Carter(kevinrc)dmgfl.com);ResnickLisa Subject:RE:PB Blvd.asphalt rating I ti 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:ResnickLisa Cc:Kevin Carter(kevinc dmgfl.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(flanev @pelicanbay.ors) 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 Mgmt.Division Collier County Government PH#239-252-8924 Pax#239-774-6406 Travisgossard cr,colliergov.net January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Laurel Oak and Ridgewood Pathways Page 1 of 3 161 2 A tit 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 Pathwa s Page2of3 161 A 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 Ri gew d P thways �( Page 3 of 3 j gew 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 Travisgossard(a,colliergov.net From: ChesneyBarbara Sent: Wednesday,November 21,2012 2:43 PM To: GossardTravis Cc: VIietJohn; 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 improvement Page 1of1 1 6 I 2 A 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(a,aol.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(c igmail.com> To:judesterz<judesterz @aol.com> Cc: Lisa Resnick<LResnick @colliergov.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 Page 1 of 6 .% 16 s 0, SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENT DISTRICT '? District Headquarters:3301 Gun Club Road,West Palm Beach,Florida 33406(561)686-8800 www.sfwmd.gov • ? / 'y `f December 13, 2012 Neil Dorrill, District Manager Pelican Bay Services Division '.< Lely Community Development District Dv(s ' �1 ` Pelican Marsh Community Development District 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 2 I P Lt age 2 of 6 "J A r Pelican Bay, Permit No. 11-00065-S L 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 ! San•ta 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 'Wf' 13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD 1 Pelicn3gay A i 1 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-SFWMD f 'I' • Lely resort 1 6 ' 2 A Environmental Resource Permit History Lely Resort . Permit Number: 11-00429-S Certification Acceptance App. No. Project 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 Goff 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 ((f 13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFVVMD �{ Pelica M sh 16 I A I 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 C/D, 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 B d f5larr ession 13.Miscellaneous Correspondence-SFWMD • Pelican Mast 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 161 2A 6 .GNOLI BARBER & BRIJNDAGE, INC 7,490 Trail ,s,a ri(r Suite 200 Na Oes, FL 34108 9 C (23 9) 997-31.11 Fax (2 39) 66"220 i December 20, 2012 Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican bay Services Re: Clam Pass Annual Monitoring, Collier County, Florida ABB PN 12-1000-GPA/106 Dear Kyle: We are pleased to submit the following proposal for Professional Surveying Services on the above referenced project. Clam Pass Annual Monitoring: 1) We shall perform bathymetric monitoring of Cut 4 at Clam Pass from profile station 0+00 thru 18+00 forty two (42) cross sections. 2) We shall perform bathymetric monitoring of Cut 4 at Clam Pass from profile station 18+27 thru 36+00 twenty (20) cross sections. 3)We will survey beach profiles extending from 100 feet landward of the vegetation line seaward to wading depth at the four(4)DNR monuments north of the inlet and three (3) monuments south of the inlet, plus one (1) intermediate beach profile. This would include DNR reference monuments R-38 through R-44 a total of eight (8) profiles. The profiles will be taken along the same azimuth as the State DEP profiles. 4)We shall obtain profile elevations at 10'intervals±,along Stations 0+00 through 3+64.5, from the vegetation line, south through the Staging area.This will include profile elevations at Station 3+30. (See attached drawing.) 5)We shall obtain profile elevations seaward from Sta 0+00, on 50'stations, at 10' intervals, to a depth of -5.0' NAVD. (See attached drawing.) Our final deliverable will be an ASCII file containing raw x, y, and z profile data points to Humiston and Moore. Elevations will be based on MGVD29 Vertical Datum. 161 2A Our final deliverable will be an ASCII file containing raw x, y, and z profile data points. Coordinates will be based on Florida State Plane 83/90 East Zone Datum. Elevations will be based on NAVD88 Datum. Our fee for providing the above services shall be a lump sum in the amount of $18,400.00. All services will be performed under the terms and conditions specified in the "County- Wide Engineering" Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida and Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Contract #09-5262-S. Sincerely, AGNOU, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. -l-o`Z rte. 3lade car, uy P. Adams, P.S.M. Vice President of Surveying I WORK ORDER 1 2 A V I • Agreement for "County Wide Engineering Services" Contract #09-5262-SSM BCC App 3/9/2010 10.0 - This Work Order is for professional engineering services for work known as Clam Pass Annual Survey The work is specified in the proposal dated December 20,2012, 2012 which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above this Work Order is assigned to Agnoli Barber and Brundage,Inc. Scope of Work: Task I 1. Perform bathmetric monitoring of Cut #4 at Clam Pass at profile stations 04-00 thru 18+00, forty two cross sections. 2. Perform bathmetric monitoring of Cut #4 at Clam Pass at profile stations 18+27 thru 36+00, twenty cross sections. 3. Survey beach profiles extending from 100 feet landward of the vegetation line seaward to wading depth at the four (4) DNR monuments north of the inlet and three (3) monuments south of the inlet, plus one (1) intermediate beach profile. This would include DNR reference monuments R-38 through R-44 a total of eight (8) profiles. 4. Obtain profile elevation at 10' intervals =1-, along Stations 0+00 through 3 4 64.5, from the vegetation line , south through the staging area. This shall include profile elevations at Station 3+30. 5. Obtain profile elevations seaward from Station 0-00, on 50' stations, at 10" intervals, to a depth of-5.0'NAVD. Schedule of Work: Complete work within 90 days from date of the Notice to Proceed authorizing start of work. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with the negotiated lump sum or time and material amount provided in the schedule below (if a task is time and material, so indicate and use the established hourly rate(s) as enumerated in Schedule "A" of the Agreement). (List all Tasks) Task I $ 18,400.00 (Lump Sum) TOTAL FEE $ 18,400.00 Any change within monetary authority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will a considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of a Agreement. AUTHORIZED BY: l,/1iTi /044.77 �1 � 7i/�Kyle Lukasz, Operatanager Date ACCEPTED BY: Agnoli Barber and Brundage, Inc. Author' ed Company Officer aG Date t e r W Akeift2eft,.__L'l Typeor Print Name and Title January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Rules for Audience Participation,Pelican Bay Services Division hoard amen ed 12/5/2012 P P Y Page 1 of 1 Rules for Audience Participation at PBSD Meetings The rules for audience participation at PBSD meetings are intended to improve productivity and to manage time efficiently without instituting procedures that unduly limit community input. Any person may participate by commenting on individual agenda items, as well as make general comments at the end of the meeting. The Chairman will strictly enforce the following rules: 1. Comments are limited to 3-minutes 2. An individual may speak only once per agenda item 3. Time from one speaker cannot be ceded to another speaker After public comments are heard, the Board will proceed to discuss the agenda item and take appropriate action without interruption. 4. Individuals invited to speak on a subject by the Chairman will be recognized and afforded adequate time to present information and answer questions Amended 12/5/2012 by Pelican Bay Services Division Board by three separate motions,seconds,and unanimous votes as recorded on page 8578 of the 12/5/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session draft meeting minutes—LRJ 12/26/2012 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161 2A IA 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley Page 1 of 9 Development of a Management Plan We need to take the time to develop an ecosystem wide management plan that protects the estuary as best we can given limited resources. This will involve looking at other estuary management plans and find out what worked and more importantly what didn't so we don't repeat the mistakes that others have learned. It is also important to understand that once we have a management plan it is not set in stone. It is an adaptive plan that should be re-evaluated periodically and adjusted to reflect new science and how the estuary responds to management. Management plans should be adjusted in accordance with new data- it is a fluid working document and is not set in stone. Estuaries are a focal point for a wide range of human activities of increasing social and economic importance. Strategic management and planning within estuaries often is aimed at identifying a framework to attain estuarine sustainability by accounting for long-term change; physical, chemical and biological interactions and system response (including socio-economic interactions). Given the highly non-linear and complex adaptive nature of estuary systems, managing them is tricky and is often a process of trial and error. Estuaries are ruled by a complex interplay of physical, chemical and biological processes, all of which are influenced by the marine environment and the surrounding freshwater inputs. Estuarine processes are inextricably linked with often no obvious dependent and independent variables, or clear cause—effect hierarchies. For example, although the size and shape of an estuary channel is a response to tidal processes, the tidal discharge is itself dependent on the morphology of the channel, since this determines the tidal prism. This interdependence means that changes in one part of the system can cause responses elsewhere in the estuary. Consequently, the central question for management is whether imposed changes will alter particular estuary features, that we value, in a way that we consider unacceptable? Another thing to consider is what are you managing for? It follows that a strategic approach to estuary management must consider the estuary as a whole, managed within the spatial context of not just the estuary, but all its inputs and outputs as well. The usual goal of current environmental management plans is to preserve or return areas to a good ecological status. To accomplish this goal the area should be assessed at the ecosystem level, using several biological elements, together with physical, chemical and pollution elements present in the system. This type of holistic approach aims to be more effective in the assessment of the ecological status of the estuary than just managing water quality or for a specific species. Therefore, there is a major challenge to develop simple, but scientifically sound methodologies capable of assessing the ecological status of estuarine ecosystems, which is relevant to managers and policy makers and understandable by the public. Indicators of changes and response to those changes can be used to give an early warning so that measures can be taken to alleviate problems at an early stage. There have been recent substantial scientific advances in the development of indices to measure the condition of biological ecosystem elements in coastal and estuarine waters. However, the actual challenge is not only to integrate indicators for single ecosystem elements like water quality, but also to include measures of biological structure, function and process. January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 I 2 A 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley • - Page 2 of 9 Examples of Questions that should be asked and other things to consider prior to developing management plans and objectives: A. What are the known factors that affect this estuary? 1) Climate 2) Salinity 3) Hydrology 4)Turbidity 5) Substrate 6)Available Nutrients 7) ETC. B Basic Path taken when developing objectives: 1) Historical Review of Studies to see what biological work has been done to date and what insights these historic documents can reveal. 2) Identify external and anthropogenic drivers of the natural system. 3) Have biological and physical characterizations been conducted? If so what do they tell us? 4) Develop Performance Measures C. What do you hope to discover(examples): 1) Identify key areas of scientific uncertainty and plan and conduct actions to test uncertainties 2) Recommend improvements based on the results of field experiments to guide management strategies. 3) Establish adequate long-term key biological and water benchmarks to ensure a healthy environment. 4) Employ science-based management strategies to conserve natural biodiversity along with recreational goals. D. Identify Areas of Importance or Concerns: (Examples) 1) Mangroves 2) Seagrass 3) Benthic Communities 4) Avifauna 5) Fish 6) Water Quality 7) Tidal Flow 8) Sedimentation 9) Catastrophic Events (Hurricanes, Harmful Algal Blooms, Sea Level Rise, Climate Change) E. Questions and/or Directives: (Examples) 1) ID freshwater inputs, quality and timing for long-term conservation of the natural biodiversity • January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 b I 2A pi- 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley Page 3 of 9 2) Identify the minimum tidal flow necessary to ensure a healthy environment, develop mechanisms to alert us of hydrologic problems and responses to problems. 3) Invasive Exotic species management— Survey areas for exotics, plan to eradicate the exotics, etc. 4) Continue Mangrove and Seagrass Monitoring and establish benchmarks? 5) Identify essential habitats and assess condition of listed species and associated habitats by establishing monitoring programs. Implement plans if necessary to address deficiencies if they exist. 6) Identify natural resource and human use conflicts and test effectiveness of potential management actions, and encourage adaptive management. 7) Identify potential threats to the resource and develop and implement plans to negate impacts Once you have established management goals and answered all of the background questions you need to design a monitoring program that will allow you to attain your management goals. This is another exercise that requires a lot of thought prior to commencement rather than charging ahead and making mistakes, since in this case it will require merging of several current monitoring programs and discern how they can be integrated to obtain your management objectives. Here is where the monitoring plan fits in. MONITORING PROGRAMS: Without reliable information on changes within the estuary and the causes of those changes, management can not make sound decisions to deal with potential problems. Designing a monitoring program is not simple, since estuaries are not simple but complex systems. To design a sound management plan this complexity has to be made manageable. One method of doing this is to subdivide the entire design-process into separate components, thereby making it easier to tackle one problem at a time, and to apply the appropriate considerations to each component. In other words, to design a sound monitoring program, a general and systematic framework is needed. There are essentially two types of monitoring designs: 1) early warning system: detects changes in the environment which might need remedial action, and identify (possible or likely) causes of those changes to indicate the kind of remedial action needed. 2) early control: checks whether remedial action is successful or not, and to evaluate the predicted or expected consequences of specific measures or activities. This type of monitoring program often tests hypotheses regarding ecological effects of human impacts. Decisions need to be made detailing monitoring objectives, variables to be tested or monitored, sampling strategy and design, data collection, data handling, maintenance and organization. This type of framework will help design an effective monitoring system since it enables the authors to avoid overlooking important components, clarifies the relation between the different components, maximizes the exploitation of existing monitoring efforts and identifies shortcomings. Clarifying monitoring program priorities ahead of time tends to result in monitoring programs that are more effective at the onset. January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 6 1 2A c 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley Page 4 of 9 Functions of Ecological Monitoring Many monitoring systems lack clear purpose. A mere `knowing-what-is-going-on' argument often seems to motivate the effort. However, this approach can not be used to derive clear objectives and outcomes. A monitoring design must be able to both detect a change in the environment and be able to identify the cause(s)of a detected change. 0 interventions Input ___,,. Output y►. Ecosystem Functions Y v v v v v Monitoring program Environmental policy &nature management •~� Standards T Instruments & actions < Decision making Figure 1. The role of an ecological monitoring program as part of a regulatory system. Meelis and Ter Keurs (2000). Figure 1 depicts a monitoring program that provides information on the relevant ecosystem output which has aims or standards, which are set in relation to the desired functions of the system involved. Where these standards are not met, either new standards can be set, or remedial action can be undertaken. Subsequently, the information from the monitoring program can be used to control the effectiveness of the measures taken, i.e., whether aims are reached. The Framework 1. Purpose: the design of any monitoring program should start with the identification of the purposes of the program. 2. Monitoring Objectives: To establish meaningful objectives (goals) one must first review all known information about the estuary including past plans, studies, etc. This review will enable monitoring designs that are geared at achievable outcomes, help to 1 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session + 6 1 2 A rikt 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley - Page 5 of 9 identify areas of concern, gaps in monitoring, etc.. Then, objectives can be set geared at establishing a holistic effort to develop the best management plan possible for the health of the estuary. Objectives should be quantifiable so that the monitoring program can be evaluated in terms of effectiveness: the degree to which a program meets the objectives. 2. Select Variables: Variables describe quantitative aspects of concern such as density which estimates population size. Indicators are `surrogates' for `target' variables such as species richness in one taxon as surrogate for total species richness. Output or valued endpoints, like population size, is described with the term `final variables' such as numbers and densities per species in the figure below describing different types of variables. Uncontrolled variables Such as weather Dependent Permanent features such as soil type p effect or Anthropogenic such Condition variables response as Pass size Controlled variables Intermediate variables Final variables A A 4 A V v V v V Indicator variables Adapted from Meelis and Ter Keurs (2000). Variable selection is extremely important as variables chosen will determine analysis and ultimately decisions made to manage the estuary. There are physical variables like salinity, soils, hydrology, water quality etc. There are biological variables based on ecological importance such as forest structure,benthic, fish and bird components, etc. Biological indicators are used to reflect the state of the environment in response to human induced stresses and includes plants and animals found in the ecosystem and changes in their presence/absence, condition, behavior and numbers, which can provide information about the health of a the ecosystem. Discerning biological patterns that occur in response to stress and investigations into the source(s) of that stress, can lead to management of those problems for the estuaries future stability. 16 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 2 A t� 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley 1l Page 6 of 9 r Biological assessment of a community depends on the ability to define, measure, and compare the relative biological integrity or the condition of a community over time. Measures such as community structure and function, including species richness, species abundance and indicator species are often used to provide early warning of pollution or degradation of an ecosystem, alerting managers to halt or mitigate the impact before critical resources are lost. Unlike physical measures, which may only be useful during an impact, biological responses are cumulative and observable after the event that caused them. Thus episodic impacts become apparent through their lasting effects on the biota. Similarly, low intensity, chronic impacts (e.g. low-level pollution) may be undetectable by physical or chemical measures but the cumulative biological effects may be easily detectable. Examples of Bioindicators: 1. Phytoplankton biomass 2. Seagrass productivity and algal epiphyte loads on seagrasses 4. Benthic invertebrates. 5. Fisheries or fish survey data. 6. Composition and structure of sessile communities on mangrove roots. 6. Various organisms, such as amphipods, birds, etc. 3. Sampling strategy: Once the objectives have been set, and the variables have been selected, a general sampling strategy has to be set. This is the methods section: How are you going to collect the variables, select sites for monitoring, select time intervals for monitoring variables, etc. These methodologies are often dependant on what you want your analysis of the variables to show and statistical tests needed to accomplish this. As an example, one type of monitoring data collection strategy is described in Table 4 below by Townend, 2002. Table 4 Levels of monitoring L.esel Measurement Frequency 0 Extreme events(e.g., flood levels, Ad hoc defence failures) Bat hyme try/topo graph y Annual Water levels at one or more locations Continuous (ideally with one near mouth) Freshwater flows near tidal limits of Daily tributaries Velocity measurements Occasional Sediment properties Occasional Suspended sediment load, salinity, Daily/ temperature seasonal 3 Water quality parameters, henthie Seasonal samples, bird counts, vegetation surveys Boreholes,development records, user Occasional surveys,economic valuations January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley Page 7 of 9 2A IEF 4. Data collection: What is the amount of sampling effort needed per target area, i.e., field methods including sample area or plot size, sampling frequency (maybe on various time scales), the number of sampling sites (maybe on various spatial scales), and the number of replications on each sampling occasion and site. How can you fit current monitoring programs by different organizations to work for you and how do you keep costs down? These and other questions need to be answered to determine data collection protocols. Such optimization is often based on the intended statistical analysis, using statistical power as an important measure of effectiveness. Finally, for ecological monitoring systems meant to be operational for a long period, or even permanently, a regular measurement of the quantities and spatial distribution of the distinguished landscape units is necessary. For the long run, this would lead to a monitoring system which uses remote sensing techniques to monitor quantities of landscape units, and field work to monitor their ecological qualities. 5. Data handling: includes data storage, (statistical) analysis of the data, and interpretation and presentation of the results. The methods for statistical analyses must be determined in advance to check for compatibility with earlier choices concerning variables, sampling strategy, and data collection. For the early-warning system, analysis aims at detecting ecological change and formulation of hypotheses concerning the possible causes of that change. Need to know how you are going to use of the information; not only ecological change needs to be described, but also the possible causes, and perhaps even the different management alternatives for remedial action. 6. Maintenance: Sampling strategy and design, data collection and data handling represent the body of the monitoring program. A regular evaluation of protocols and quality control of the monitoring program is necessary to maintain the quality of the program. During the design and planning of a monitoring program, it should be established how quality control will take place. The diagram below depicts the framework for the design and evaluation of monitoring programs (Meelis and Ter Keurs, 2000). January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worley Page 8of9 161 2 i-rif) ,. Purposes External constraints ,IIJ!!1 H i list„ f °, 1 . Monitoring objectives j s ; 2. Objects and variables 3. Sampling strategy 4. Data collection t , 5. Data handling ■ 6. Maintenance 7. Organization r. °; , V. 9 Actual use of monitoring results in decision making ft 1f Available Cost Benefits 1. means _ 1! benefit Expected analysis benefits - _ Costs January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence-Development of a Management Plan submitted by Kathy Worle r Page 9 of 9 1 6 i A t) LITERATURE USED WHEN COMPILING THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDED: Linton, D.M. and Warnerm G.F. 2003. Biological indicators in the Caribbean coastal zone and their role in integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 46: 261-276. Meelis, P.V.E. and Ter Kuers, W.J. 2000. A Framework for the Design of Ecological Monitoring Programs as a Tool for Environmental and Nature Management.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61: 317-344. Ramos, S., Amorim, E., Elliot, M., Cabral,H., and Bordalo,A. A. 2012. Early life stages of fishes as indicators of estuarine ecosystem health. Ecological Indicators 19:172-183. Townend, I. 2002. Marine science for strategic planning and management: the requirement for estuaries. Marine Policy 26: 209-219. January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8. Cobblestones at San Marino Crossing(John C ndle Page 1 of 2 16 2 .4:Irwin,_ Condominium Association, Southwest Property Management Corp.,1044 Costello Dr.,Suite#206,Naples,FL 34103 (239)261-3440•Fax:(239)261.2013 March 19,2012 Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt President,Pelican Bay Foundation 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples,FL 34108 Dear President Hoppensteadt: The San Marino Association Board of Directors is herein bringing two issues to the attention of the Foundation and offering a proposed solution concerning the newly installed pedestrian crosswalk across Pelican Bay Boulevard adjacent to San Marino. The two issues are the need for increased safety for crossing pedestrians and noise pollution caused by automobiles driving over the cobblestones within the crosswalk. We understand that the intent of the redesigned crosswalk installed several months ago was to cause automobile traffic to slow down when approaching the crossing thereby resulting in a safer crossing for pedestrians. At each of the last several monthly meetings of the Association Board since the new installation,owners have related their personal experiences in making risky crossings at the crosswalk or have observed danger to other crossing pedestrians. Their observations are that often drivers do not yield to pedestrians at the curb,or are distracted or unaware of pedestrians who want to cross,or do not yield to pedestrians already in the crosswalk. It has been observed on several occasions that because of the two-lane traffic configuration of the Boulevard, a car slowing or stopped at the crosswalk in the outer lane blocks the view of a trailing car in the inner lane of pedestrians stepping off the curb. It also has been observed by residents of San Marino that the cobblestones have not caused drivers to slow down as they approach the crossing.At this point several months after revamping the crosswalk,it is apparent that the original intent of installing cobblestones to cause automobile traffic to slow down when approaching the crossing has generally not resulted in the intended outcome. The noise emanating from the cobblestones which resonates into San Marino has also detracted from the quality of life for owners who live within at least 100 yards of the Boulevard. - 9 - January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11. Changes to Pelican Bay Services Division Ordinance 2002-27(Keith J.Dallas)Commissioner Georgia Hiller's comments ( r Page 1 of 1 161 2A Original Message From: HillerGeorgia[mailto:GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday,January 02,2013 8:46 AM To: naplespatriots @comcast.net Cc: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net; keithdallas@comcast.net;jlytle @naplesnews.com; nfn16799 @naples.net;jbaron @watersideshops.com;johnchandler219 @gmail.com;josiegeoff @aol.com; iaizzo @comcast.net; mikelevy435 @gmail.com; naplessusan @comcast.net; djtrecker @yahoo.com; teedup1 @aol.com;hunter hansen;johnsusanboland @ aol.com; OchsLeo;Neil Dorrill; Dwight E. Brock; Crystal K. Kinzel Subject: Re: PBSD--01/02/2013--Agenda Item 1 I--Changes to County Ordinance--Audience Comment To all: There will not be an additional cost to the MSTU. With thanks- Commissioner Georgia Hiller On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:03 PM, "naplespatriotsAcomcast.net<mailto:naplespatriots(a,comcast.net>" <naplespatriots @,comcast.net<mailto:naplespatriots @ comcast.net>>wrote: We are concerned with the wording in section 1: "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." This management activity will be an additional cost to the residents of Pelican Bay. Does BCC plan to reimburse the PBSD for the time spent by the contracted administrator as well as the assigned staff for their activities related to managing Clam Pass? It appears that the transfer of the responsibility for managing Clam Pass was transferred from the Coastal Advisory Council to PBSD without consideration of the impact on the PBSD budget. Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks/Pelican Bay January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11. Changes to Pelican Bay Services Division Ordinance 2002-27(Keith J.Dallas)Audience comments b1seanandy D A r' Page 1 of 1 f� Original Message From: naplespatriots @comcast.net [mailto:naplespatriots @comcast.net] Sent: Monday,December 31, 2012 4:03 PM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net; keithdallas @comcast.net Cc:jlytle @naplesnews.com; nfn16799 @naples.net;jbaron @watersideshops.com; johnchandler219 @gmail.com;josiegeoff @aol.com; iaizzo @comcast.net; mikelevy435 @gmail.com; naplessusan @comcast.net; djtrecker @yahoo.com; teedupl @aol.com;hunter hansen;HillerGeorgia; johnsusanboland@aol.com Subject: PBSD--01/02/2013--Agenda Item 11--Changes to County Ordinance --Audience Comment We are concerned with the wording in section 1: "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." This management activity will be an additional cost to the residents of Pelican Bay. Does BCC plan to reimburse the PBSD for the time spent by the contracted administrator as well as the assigned staff for their activities related to managing Clam Pass? It appears that the transfer of the responsibility for managing Clam Pass was transferred from the Coastal Advisory Council to PBSD without consideration of the impact on the PBSD budget. Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks/Pelican Bay 161 2 A IT .4' 0 ffice of the County Manager . 41.4.; . Leo E. Ochs, Jr. O t `+� 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 202•Naples Florida 34112-5746•(239)252-8383•PAX:(239)252-4010 December 21,2012 Mr.Tunis W.McElwain Chief,Fort Myers Section Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard,Suite 310 Ft.Myers,Florida 33919 Re: South Permits Branch/Ft.Myers Section SAJ-1996-02789 Dear Mr.McElwain: This letter is in response to the letter Collier County received from Tunis W.McElwain regarding Collier County's Permit Application for dredging Clam Pass(SAJ-1996-02789). In this letter you indicated that"due to the extent of the issues and pending project changes,the Corps is withdrawing this application." Please be advised that the recent action taken by the County is simply a ministerial,administrative item that is no more than a minor reorganization. The recommendation approved by the County Commission was as follows: "Effective immediately,that Clam Pass be considered part of the ongoing management responsibilities of the Pelican Bay Services Division("PBSD")including but not limited to all monitoring components such as biological,tidal,and hydrographic data collection,and inlet dredge permitting/construction;that PBSD, exclusively,shall make recommendations to the Board ofCounty Commissioners as to when the inlet should be dredged and make such other recommendations related to managing the unified Clam Bay system as it deems necessary;further,that Clam Pass,being an integral part of the Clam Bay system,is managed as suck" Instead of having Collier County's Coastal Zone Management section overseeing Clam Pass and the permit process, the County's Pelican Bay Services Division will now handle these matters now and in the future. Both of these County departments operate under the supervision of my Office. The permit applicant has not changed;it is still Collier County. All that has changed is that one County department has been substituted for another County department in administering this process and will be the point of contact for all permitting issues. This action does not materially affect the County's current application. Accordingly,there is no justification for the Corps to withdraw the subject application and Collier County should be able to proceed with obtaining the Corps permit within the existing process. I,therefore,respectfully request that Application SAJ-1996-02789 remain active and ultimately be approved by the Corps in a timely fashion. Sincerely, \ c- [iv E.Ochs,Jr. County Manager CC: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Jeff Klatzkow,County Attorney Nell Dorrill,Administrator,Pelican Bay Services Division Nick Casalanguida,Administrator,Growth Management Division Linda A.Eilicot,USACOE(l nda_3.edigott@usace.arrn1.mi1) • . 161 2At t(f DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �s' \\ JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS • 1620 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD,SUITE 310 HI FORT MYERS,FLORIDA 33919 December 19, 2012 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF .. • South Permits Branch/Fort Myers Section SAJ=1996--02789 Collier County Coastal Zone Management W. Harmon Turner Bldg, Suite 103 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 • (via email) Attention Collier County Coastal Zone Management/Gary McAlpin: • Reference is made to .Department• of the Army permit application number SAJ-1996-02789. The project is located at Clam Bay/Clam Pass and the coastal shoreline, in Sections 8/9, Township 49S, Range 25E, Naples, Collier County, Florida. " • Due to the extent of issues and pending project changes, the Corps is withdrawing this application. When the file is re- activated and the application (with revised consultant and applicant contact) is deemed complete, the Corps will request initiation of ESA consultation for listed species with' USFWS and . • NMFS. Please provide a signed/dated application and complete details with..respect to the re,'rised proposal, including updated plan sheets. Please note that this action will not prejudice future permit requests. You are cautioned that commencement of the proposed work prior to Department of the Army authorization would constitute a violation of Federal laws and subject you to possible enforcement action. Receipt of a permit from Florida Department of • Environmental Protection or a Water Management . District does not obviate the requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit prior to commencing the proposed work. If you have any questions,, please contact the Corps project manager, Linda A. Elligott at the letterhead address, phone 239- 334-1975, or email: linda.a.elligott @usace.army.mil. Thank you for cooperating with the Corps Regulatory program. • Sincerely, • DC 4(\e111..A.A,st(1. 417see, • Tunis W. McElwain Chief, Fort Myers Section • CC: RD-PE agent: Atkins/Tabar • January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report 1 (11 Page 1 of 12 Pelican Bay Services 1 61 2A Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 27,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,539,841.12 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 1,085,189.35 Due from Property Appraiser - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 3,625,030.47 Total Assets $ 3,625,030.47 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 18,612.15 Accrued Wages Payable - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 21,645.54 Total Liabilities $ 40,257.69 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 900,302.49 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 2,684,470.29 Total Fund Balance 3,584,772.78 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,625,030.47 f i January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report Page 2 of 12 A t tii Pelican Bay Services . 1 6 1 2 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-December 27,2012 Operating Fund 109-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 951,600.00 $ 951,600.00 $ 951,600.00 $ - Special Assessment-Water Management Admin 695,000.00 556,000.00 565,584.26 9,584.26 Special Assessment-Right of Way Beautification 1,878,800.00 1,503,040.00 1,528,706.13 25,666.13 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - - Insurance Company Refunds - - 1,549.74 1,549.74 Surplus Property Sales - - Revenue Reserve (128,700.00) - Interest 15,800.00 3,950.00 1,018.18 (2,931.82) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,414,000.00 $ 3,014,590.00 $ 3,048,458.31 $ 33,868.31 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 42,000.00 $ 9,700.00 $ 6,870.40 $ 2,829.60 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 200.00 - - - IT Office Automation/Billing Hr. 4,600.00 460.00 400.00 60.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 85,100.00 42,600.00 42,550.00 50.00 Inter Payment/Mnt.Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 - 3,350.00 (3,350.00) Other Contractural Services 29,700.00 7,400.00 6,275.00 1,125.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,000.00 805.90 194.10 Postage and Freight 2,200.00 600.00 - 600.00 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,000.00 3,700.00 3,509.95 190.05 Insurance-General 1,000.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 1,800.00 200.00 10.47 189.53 Clerk's Recording Fees 1,500.00 - - - Advertising 1,500.00 - - - Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 500.00 71.15 428.85 Training and Education 1,100.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,800.00 $ 66,360.00 $ 63,842.87 $ 2,517.13 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 135,800.00 $ 31,300.00 $ 23,331.35 $ 7,968.65 Engineering Fees 10,000.00 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 18,000.00 4,500.00 7.30 4,492.70 Landscape Materials/Replanting Program 8,500.00 500.00 - 500.00 Interdepartmental Payment(Water Quality Lab) 30,100.00 7,500.00 2,382.50 5,117.50 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Temporary Labor 44,900.00 23,500.00 25,059.50 (1,559.50) Telephone 500.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 1,400.00 2,497.00 (1,097.00) Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 100.00 122.50 (22.50) Insurance-General 2,400.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - Building Repairs&Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 2,400.00 2,400.00 3,387.76 (987.76) Fuel and Lubricants 3,300.00 800.00 634.50 165.50 Tree Triming 36,000.00 9,000.00 4,992.00 4,008.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 400.00 433.00 (33.00) Page 1of3 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report 161 2A l f Page 3of12 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 767.12 (267.12) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 19,700.00 18,507.55 1,192.45 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,100.00 2,274.10 (1,174.10) Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 600.00 479.58 120.42 Total Water Management Field Operating $ 406,800.00 $ 106,200.00 $ 84,947.84 $ 21,252.16 I Right of Way Beautification-Operating Payroll Expense $ 43,300.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 7,078.79 $ 2,921.21 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 200.00 - - - Office Automation 9,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 37,100.00 9,300.00 6,830.00 2,470.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,000.00 806.90 193.10 Postage 2,200.00 600.00 - 600.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 12,200.00 4,100.00 3,794.95 305.05 Insurance-General 500.00 - - - Printing,Binding and Copying 2,600.00 400.00 - 400.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 300.00 - 300.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 400.00 71.15 328.85 Training and Education 1,500.00 600.00 593.22 6.78 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 126,900.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 19,175.01 $ 7,824.99 Right of Way Beautification-Field Payroll Expense $ 797,000.00 $ 183,900.00 $ 127,843.89 $ 56,056.11 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 800.00 809.68 (9.68) Flood Control(Water Use&Swale/Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 23,200.00 23,937.08 (737.08) Pest Control 6,000.00 1,800.00 1,925.00 (125.00) Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 600.00 582.82 17.18 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 13,200.00 12,541.00 659.00 Temporary Labor 201,400.00 77,500.00 69,362.58 8,137.42 Telephone 3,200.00 800.00 440.98 359.02 Electricity*$2,620 J/E pending to SL Fund 778 3,400.00 900.00 3,009.38 * (2,109.38) Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 4,300.00 3,865.32 434.68 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 2,100.00 2,598.99 (498.99) Motor Pool Rental Charge 500.00 100.00 - 100.00 Insurance-General 9,300.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 10,000.00 - - - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 300.00 300.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 17,600.00 4,400.00 4,077.22 322.78 Fuel and Lubricants 64,600.00 14,700.00 6,580.01 8,119.99 Licenses,Permits,Training 800.00 200.00 - 200.00 Tree Triming 64,500.00 3,200.00 - 3,200.00 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 1,600.00 1,318.70 281.30 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 800.00 796.97 3.03 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 27,600.00 27,358.79 241.21 Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 28,800.00 28,756.35 43.65 Mulch/Landscape Materials 52,000.00 39,000.00 25,602.50 13,397.50 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 10,000.00 10,359.80 (359.80) Painting Supplies 800.00 200.00 43.88 156.12 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,700.00 900.00 599.75 300.25 Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 2,300.00 1,822.88 477.12 Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Operating $ 1,549,600.00 $ 445,500.00 $ 354,233.57 $ 91,266.43 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,293,100.00 $ 645,060.00 $ 522,199.29 $ 122,860.71 Page 2 of 3 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report Page 4 of 12 At 161 ((--- Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - General Improvements - - - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification-Field Autos and Trucks $ 35,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification-Field Capital $ 36,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Expenditures $ 37,000.00 $ - $ $ - Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,330,100.00 $ 645,060.00 $ 522,199.29 $ 122,860.71 Non-Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 241,700.00 $ 241,700.00 $ 241,700.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,300.00 27,755.00 22,522.58 5,232.42 Property Appraiser Fees 72,900.00 40,095.00 39,607.92 487.08 Reserves(2 1/2 months for Operations) 533,400.00 550,400.00 550,400.00 - Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Improvement 65,000.00 Reserves for Equipment 107,800.00 107,800.00 107,800.00 - Reserved for Attrition (16,200.00) (16,200.00) (16,200.00) - Revenue Reserve - - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 1,083,900.00 $ 951,550.00 $ 945,830.50 $ 5,719.50 Total Expenditures $ 3,414,000.00 $ 1,596,610.00 $ 1,468,029.79 $ 128,580.21 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 1,417,980.00 $ 1,580,428.52 $ 162,448.52 • Page 3 of 3 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report A Page 5 of 12 1 6 1 1 (1- Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 27,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 570,417.22 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 54,386.52 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 624,803.74 Total Assets $ 624,803.74 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 799.82 Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 2,166.06 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 2,965.88 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 401,763.99 Excess Revenue(Expenditures) 220,073.87 Total Fund Balance 621,837.86 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 624,803.74 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report Page 6 of 12 If Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-December 27,2012 Street Lighting Fund 778-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 376,200.00 $ 376,200.00 $ 376,200.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 440,700.00 193,908.00 197,096.71 $ 3,188.71 Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $ - Insurance Claim 1,286.80 $ 1,286.80 Revenue Reserve - •-- ' Interest 6,700.00 670.00 314.95 $ (355.05) Total Operating Revenues 801,300.00 570,778.00 574,898.46 4,120.46 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration • Payroll Expense $ 42,200.00 $ 9,700.00 $ 6,870.41 $ 2,829.59 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 8,700.00 $ 4,350.00 4,350.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 6,725.00 6,275.00 $ 450.00 Telephone 3,600.00 $ 900.00 657.54 $ 242.46 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 500.00 - $ 500.00 Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 11,800.00 $ 3,900.00 3,651.01 $ 248.99 Insurance-General 300.00 $ - - $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 100.00 42.00 $ 58.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 200.00 - $ 200.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 97,300.00 26,375.00 21,845.96 4,529.04 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 63,900.00 14,700.00 11,240.12 3,459.88 Emergency Maintenance&Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Telephone 500.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 Electricity 44,200.00 11,100.00 5,426.75 5,673.25 Insurance-General 900.00 - - - Insurance-Auto 900.00 - - - Building Maintenace&Repairs 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 1,500.00 400.00 60.00 340.00 Fuel and Lubricants 900.00 200.00 111.59 88.41 Other Equipment Repairs/Supplies 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 100.00 - 100.00 Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 1,800.00 - 1,800.00 Page 1 of 2 7. Monthly l 2013 Pelican Bay Services Divisior�,Boar�i Re ular Sessy�q 7. Monthly Financial Report 1 6LJ Page 7 of 12 bbL If Light Bulb Ballast 13,100.00 3,900.00 3,790.10 109.90 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,000.00 32,500.00 20,700.64 11,799.36 Total Field Expenditures 243,300.00 58,875.00 42,546.60 16,328.40 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 244,300.00 59,075.00 42,546.60 16,528.40 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,700.00 4,110.00 3,984.78 125.22 Property Appraiser Fees 9,000.00 900.00 - 900.00 Reserve for Future Construction 444,200.00 444,200.00 444,200.00 - Reserves(2 1/2 mos.for Operations) 57,600.00 57,600.00 57,600.00 - Reserves for Equipment 32,500.00 32,500.00 32,500.00 - Revenue Reserve - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures 557,000.00 539,310.00 538,284.78 1,025.22 Total Expenditures 801,300.00 598,385.00 580,831.38 17,553.62 Net Profit/(Loss) - (27,607.00) (5,932.92) 21,674.08 Page 2 of 2 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report Page 8 of 12 16 i 2A 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 27,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 106,323.37 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 287,297.40 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 393,620.77 Total Assets $ 393,620.77 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ - Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd 1,144.00 Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities 1,144.00 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 200,198.08 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 192,278.69 Total Fund Balance 392,476.77 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 393,620.77 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report Page 9 of 12 161 2A ( kk Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-December 27,2012 Clam Bay Fund 320-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 354,768.43 $ 22,400.00 $ 22,400.00 $ - Special Assessment 134,400.00 57,792.00 58,673.85 881.85 Miscellaneous Income - - Fund 111 32,300.00 - - - Revenue Reserve 7:2-7,": "-, - - Interest 800.00 200.00 236.48 36.48 Total Operating Revenues $ 515,468.43 $ 80,392.00 $ 81,310.33 $ 918.33 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 164,478.75 $ 6,416.67 $ 4,080.00 $ 2,336.67 Other Contractural Services 10,464.65 6,802.02 6,551.58 250.44 Tree Trimming 67,000.00 5,600.00 4,992.00 608.00 Other Equipment Repairs 577.77 - - - Aerial Photography 15,000.00 7,500.00 5,449.80 2,050.20 Minor Operating 2,988.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,500.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 262,009.18 $ 26,318.69 $ 21,073.38 $ 5,245.31 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ - $ - $ 9,189.75 $ (9,189.75) Licenses and Permits - - - - Other Contractual Services 212,859.25 191,573.33 189,123.80 2,449.53 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 212,859.25 $ 191,573.33 $ 198,313.55 $ (6,740.22) Total Capital Expenditures $ 11,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 485,868.43 $ 217,892.01 $ 219,386.93 $ (1,494.92) Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 4,200.00 $ 1,260.00 $ 1,161.44 $ 98.56 Property Appraiser Fees 2,700.00 2,160.00 2,015.21 144.79 Reserves for Operations 22,700.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures $ 29,600.00 $ 3,420.00 $ 3,176.65 $ 243.35 Page 1 of 2 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7. Monthly Financial Report 1 6 I ,rte LJ A I Page 10 of 12 Total Expenditures $ 515,468.43 $ 221,312.01 $ 222,563.58 $ (1,251.57) Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ (140,920.01) $ (141,253.25) $ (333.24) Page 2 of 2 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report 1 6(V- 1 a A Page 11 of 12 �Jll/ Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet-December 27,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,607,620.65 Interest Receivable - Improvements,Vehicles&Equipment 1,213,800.81 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,821,421.46 Total Assets $ 3,821,421.46 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ - Goods Received Inv. Received 38,163.28 Total Liabilities 38,163.28 Fund Balance Fund Balance-unreserved 2,501,578.47 Excess Revenues(Expenditures) 1,281,679.71 Total Fund Balance 3,783,258.18 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,821,421.46 January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Monthly Financial Report y/ 2 ' Page 12of12 1 6 I 'LJ Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/Budget-December 27,2012 Capital Projects Fund 322-FY 2013 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 2,618,011.49 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - Transfer from Fund 109 General 241,700.00 241,700.00 241,700.00 - Foundation Payment for Crosswalks - - - Special Assessment 324,400.00 139,492.00 141,717.89 2,225.89 Transfer from Tax Collector - - Interest 25,700.00 4,283.33 1,898.16 (2,385.17) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,209,811.49 $ 2,938,859.37 $2,938,700.09 $ (159.28) Operating Expenditures: Irrigation&Landscaping Hardscape Project(50066) Engineering Fees $ 125,332.12 $ 20,888.69 $ 5,978.65 $ 14,910.04 Other Contractural Services 2,714,133.64 135,706.68 96,933.73 38,772.95 Sprinkler System Repairs - - - - Landscape material 64,550.01 24,529.00 23,522.25 1,006.75 Permits - - - - Electrical - - 2,285.67 (2,285.67) Other Operating Supplies(Pavers) - - - - Other Road Materials - - - - Traffic Sign Restoration Project(50103) Traffic Signs 78,920.00 - - - Lake Bank Project(51026) Swale&Slope Maintenance 192,775.72 77,110.29 75,807.28 1,303.01 Engineering Fees 500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 22,275.72 - - - Total Irrigation&Landscaping Expenditures $ 3,198,487.21 $ 258,234.66 $ 204,527.58 $ 53,707.08 Non-Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 10,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 2,805.30 $ 694.70 Property Appraiser Fees 6,600.00 4,950.00 4,867.45 82.55 Reserve for Contingencies - - - - Revenue Reserve 17,500.00 - - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures: $ 34,100.00 $ 8,450.00 $ 7,672.75 $ 777.25 Total Expenditures $ 3,232,587.21 $ 266,684.66 $ 212,200.33 $ 54,484.33 Net Profit/(Loss) $ - $ 2,672,174.71 $2,726,499.76 $ 54,325.05 Page 1 of 1 161 2A FACT SHEET NATIONWIDE PERMIT 3 MAINTENANCE. (a)The repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized,currently serviceable, structure, or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3,provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently authorized modification.Minor deviations in the structure's configuration or filled area, including those due to changes in materials, construction techniques,or current construction codes or safety standards that are necessary to make the repair,rehabilitation, or replacement are authorized.This NWP authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of those structures or fills destroyed or damaged by storms, floods, fire or other discrete events,provided the repair, rehabilitation,or replacement is commenced,or is under contract to commence, within two years of the date of their destruction or damage. In cases of catastrophic events,such as hurricanes or tornadoes, this two-year limit may be waived by the district engineer,provided the permittee can demonstrate funding, contract, or other similar delays. (b)This NWP also authorizes the removal of accumulated sediments and debris in the vicinity of and within existing structures(e.g., bridges, culverted road crossings, water intake structures, etc.) and the placement of new or additional riprap to protect the structure. The removal of sediment is limited to the minimum necessary to restore the waterway in the immediate vicinity of the structure to the approximate dimensions that existed when the structure was built, but cannot extend further than 200 feet in any direction from the structure. This 200 foot limit does not apply to maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments blocking or restricting outfall and intake structures or to maintenance dredging to remove accumulated sediments from canals associated with outfall and intake structures. All dredged or excavated materials must be deposited and retained in an upland area unless otherwise specifically approved by the district engineer under separate authorization.The placement of riprap must be the minimum necessary to protect the structure or to ensure the safety of the structure. Any bank stabilization measures not directly associated with the structure will require a separate authorization from the district engineer. (c)This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to conduct the maintenance activity. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construction activities, access fills,or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner,that will not be eroded by expected high flows. Temporary fills must be rem oved in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated, as appropriate. (d)This NWP does not authorize maintenance dredging for the primary purpose of navigation or beach restoration. This NWP does not authorize new stream channelization or stream relocation projects. 161 2A I(1) Notification: For activities authorized by paragraph (b)of this NWP,the permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity. Where maintenance dredging is proposed,the pre-construction notification must include information regarding the original design capacities and configurations of the outfalls, intakes, small impoundments, and canals. (Sections 10 and 404) Note: This NWP authorizes the repair,rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized structure or fill that does not qualify for the Clean Water Act Section 404(f) exemption for maintenance. General Conditions: To qualify for NWP authorization,the prospective permittee must comply with the following general conditions, as appropriate, in addition to any regional or case-specific conditions imposed by the division engineer or district engineer. 1.Navigation. (a)No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b)Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard,through regulations or otherwise,must be installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c)The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal,relocation,or other alteration,of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters,the permittee will be required,upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers,to remove,relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby,without expense to the United States.No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 2.Aquatic Life Movements.No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams must be installed to maintain low flow conditions. 3. Spawning Areas.Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g.,through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantial turbidity)of an important spawning area are not authorized. 4.Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Shellfish Beds.No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48. 161 2A )(( 6. Suitable Material.No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g.,trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt,etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 7. Water Supply Intakes.No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 8.Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 9. Management of Water Flows.To the maximum extent practicable,the pre- construction course,condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization and storm water management activities, except as provided below.The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows.The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre-construction course,condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment(e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). 10.Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management requirements. 11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls.Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow. 13.Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated,as appropriate. 14.Proper 11Nlaintenance.Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. 15. Wild and Scenic Rivers.No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a"study river"for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for 161 2A such river,has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency in the area(e.g.,National Park Service,U.S.Forest Service,Bureau of Land Management,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 16.Tribal Rights.No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to,reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 17.Endangered Species. (a)No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA), or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species.No activity is authorized under any NWP which"may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, unless Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. (b)Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. (c)Non-federal permittees shall notify the district engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.For activities that might affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat,the pre-construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work.The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity "may affect" or will have"no effect"to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non-Federal applicant of the Corps' determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification. In cases where the non- Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and has so notified the Corps,the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification the proposed activities will have"no effect" on listed species or critical habitat, or until Section 7 consultation has been completed. (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (e)Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the"take"of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization(e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with"incidental take"provisions, etc.) from the U.S. FWS or the NMFS, both lethal and non-lethal "takes" of protected species are in violation of the ESA. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from 161 2A °C the offices of the U.S. FWS and NMFS or their world wide Web pages at http://www.fws.gov/and http://www.noaa.gov/fisheries.html respectively. 18.Historic Properties. (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places,the activity is not authorized,until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)have been satisfied. (b)Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. (c)Non-federal permittees must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer if the authorized activity may have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible for listing on,or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities,the pre-construction notification must state which historic properties may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)).The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate identification efforts,which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted and these efforts,the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic properties. Where the non-Federal applicant has identified historic properties which the activity may have the potential to cause effects and so notified the Corps,the non-Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects or that consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA has been completed. (d) The district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre-construction notification whether NHPA Section 106 consultation is required. Section 106 consultation is not required when the Corps determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties(see 36 CFR §800.3(a)). If NHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur,the district engineer will notify the non-Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until Section 106 consultation is completed. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(k))prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA,has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation(ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. If circumstances justify 16I2A1 granting the assistance,the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, explaining the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO, appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes,and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties. 19.Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-designated marine sanctuaries,National Estuarine Research Reserves, state natural heritage sites, and outstanding national resource waters or other waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance and identified by the district engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment. (a)Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17,21,29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43,44,49,and 50 for any activity within,or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b)For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22,23,25,27, 28, 30, 33,34, 36, 37, and 38,notification is required in accordance with general condition 27,for any activity proposed in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 20.Mitigation.The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal: (a)The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent,to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site(i.e.,on site). (b) Mitigation in all its forms(avoiding, minimizing, rectifying,reducing, or compensating)will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. (c)Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10 acre and require pre-construction notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate and provides a project-specific waiver of this requirement.For wetland losses of 1/10 acre or less that require pre-construction notification,the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced,wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered. (d)For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre-construction notification,the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation, such as stream 161 2A restoration,to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. (e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 1/2 acre, it cannot be used to authorize any project resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2 acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary,to ensure that a project already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact requirement associated with the NWPs. (f) Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other open waters will normally include a requirement for the establishment, maintenance, and legal protection(e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, riparian areas may be the only compensatory mitigation required.Riparian areas should consist of native species.The width of the required riparian area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns.Normally,the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site,the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g.,riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation,the district engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (g) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in-lieu fee arrangements or separate activity-specific compensatory mitigation. In all cases, the mitigation provisions will specify the party responsible for accomplishing and/or complying with the mitigation plan. (h) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected, such as the conversion of a forested or scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse effects of the project to the minimal level. 21. Water Quality. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable,have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived(see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. 22. Coastal Zone Management.Not Applicable. 23. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions.The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer(see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian 16 I 2A 14 Tribe, or U.S.EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 24.Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits.The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit.For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14,with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 1/3-acre. 25.Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide permit verification,the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter,and the letter must contain the following statement and signature: "When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred,the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions,will continue to be binding on the new ownei•(s)of the property.To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below." (Transferee) (Date) 26. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who received an NWP verification from the Corps must submit a signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation.The certification form must be forwarded by the Corps with the NWP verification letter and will include: (a) A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general or specific conditions; (b)A statement that any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions; and (c)The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation. 27. Pre-Construction Notification.Not Applicable. 1 6 1 2 A Kf 28. Single and Complete Project.The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. Further Information 1. District Engineers have authority to determine if an activity complies with the terms and conditions of an NWP. 2.NWPs do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state,or local permits, approvals, or authorizations required by law. 3.NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 4.NWPs do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. 5. NWPs do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. • . 61 2 A 14 �t3T Op. ',#ri.17'� �' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY v _ - i; CORPS OF ENGINEERS,NORTHWESTERN DIVISION PO BOX 2870 •1 '•k_ PORTLAND OR 97208-2870 "<-4; _ .� REPLY TO -"Li!?r ° '.` ATTENTION OF CENWD-PDS 29 March 2006 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander,Kansas City District Commander,Omaha District Commander,Portland District Commander,Seattle District Commander,Walla Walla District SUBJECT: Department of the Army Section 404 Authorization for Replacement of Uplands; Northwestern Division Regulatory Program 1. Nationwide Permit(NWP)3(iii)contains the following language,which is causing confusion for the general public,as well as Northwestern Division Regulatory employees: "Uplands lost as a result of a storm, flood,or other discrete event can be replaced without a Section 404 permit provided the uplands are restored to their original pre-event location.This NWP is for the activities in waters of the United States associated with the replacement of the uplands." 2. To help alleviate confusion,the following clarification is provided regarding when a Department of the Army(DA)authorization may be necessary to replace upland areas lost as the result of a discrete event, such as a flood or hurricane. Development of this clarifying guidance was coordinated with HQUSACE: a. If the post-event(new)Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)or High Tide Line(HTL)remains at the same location as the pre-event(old)OHWM/HTL,no DA authorization is required for work to occur above(landward)the OHWM/HTL. If work is proposed to occur below(riverward/seaward)the OHWM/HTL,a DA authorization will likely be required fur the work in this area. b. If the new OHWM/HTL establishes below the old OHWM/HTL,no DA authorization is required for work to occur above(landward)the new OHWM/HTL. If work is proposed to occur below (riverward/seaward)the new OHWM/HTL,a DA authorization will likely be required for work in this area. c. If the new OHWM/HTL establishes above(landward)the old OHWM/HTL,no DA authorization is required for work to occur above the new OHWM/HTL. If work is proposed to occur below (riverward/seaward)the new OHWM/HTL,a DA authorization will likely be required for work in this area. 3. For the cases referenced above,a discrete event has likely caused a permanent change in the OHWM/HTL. Therefore, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 328.5, permanent changes in the OHWM/HTL should he examined and verified by the District Engineer.along with any changes in the lateral extent of jurisdiction. Printed on r ij, Recycled Pape( 1 6 I 2 A l `i- CENWD-PDS SUBJECT: Department of the Army Section 404 Authorization for Replacement of Uplands; Northwestern Division Regulatory Program 4. The following diagram graphically illustrates case 2.c.above: • No DA authorization required to replace uplands lost between C and D • DA authorization required to replace uplands lost between B and C, as the area is now a water of the US • ONWM 6 A A—Pre-event OHWM/HTL B—Pre-event bank C—Post-event OHWM/HTL D—Post-event bank 5. All Northwestern Division Districts shall post this clarifying guidance on their websites. My point of contact for this action is Mr. Timothy Carey at(303)979-4120 or Mr. Peter Gibson at(505)808-3880. ` ` — KAREN L. DURHAM-AGUILERA,P.E. Director,Programs 2 161 2AVf General Condition 27. Pre-Construction Notification. (a)Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre-construction notification(PCN) as early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, as a general rule,will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information,then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the activity: (1)Until notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) If 45 calendar days have passed from the district engineer's receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 17 that listed species or critical habitat might be affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties,the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that is"no effect" on listed species or"no potential to cause effects"on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act(see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation(see 33 CFR 330.4(g)) is completed. Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21,49, or 50 until the permittee has received written approval from the Corps.If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee cannot begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently,the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (b) Contents of Pre-Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1)Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project; (3)A description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s)used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity.The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the Y(( X61 a terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided result in a quicker decision.); (4)The PCN must include a delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps.The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States,but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains many waters of the United States.Furthermore,the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps,where appropriate; (5) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10 acre of wetlands and a PCN is required,the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or deta} eci,mitigation plan. (6)If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, for non- Federal applicants the PCN must include the name(s)of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and (7) For an activity that may affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on,the National Register of Historic Places, for non-Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (c) Form of Pre-Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application form(Form ENG 4345) may be used, but the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the information required in paragraphs (b)(1)through (7)of this general condition. A letter containing the required information may also be used. (d)Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level: (2)For all NWP 48 activities requiring pre-construction notification and for other NWP activities requiring pre-construction notification to the district engineer that result in the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g.,via facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency,EPA,State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office(THPO), and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37,these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the district engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive,site-specific comments. If so contacted by an 161 a A 14 agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre-construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame,but will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre-construction notification that the resource agencies' concerns were considered. For NWP 37,the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic hardship will occur.The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. (3)In cases where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency,the district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by Section 305(b)(4)(B)of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (4) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of pre- construction notifications to expedite agency coordination. (5)For NWP 48 activities that require reporting, the district engineer will provide a copy of each report within 10 calendar days of receipt to the appropriate regional office of the NMFS. (e) District Engineer's Decision: h7 reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the district engineer will determine whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. If the proposed activity requires a PCN and will result in a loss of greater than 1/10 acre of wetlands,the prospective permittee should submit a mitigation proposal with the PCN. Applicants may also propose compensatory mitigation for projects with smaller impacts. The district engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed work are minimal. The compensatory mitigation proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the district engineer determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, after considering mitigation,the district engineer will notify the permittee and include any conditions the district engineer deems necessary. The district engineer must approve any compensatory mitigation proposal before the permittee commences work. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a compensatory mitigation plan with the PCN, the district engineer will expeditiously review the proposed compensatory mitigation plan.The district engineer must review the plan within 45 calendar days of receiving a complete PCN and determine whether the proposed mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment(after consideration of the compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the district engineer to be minimal,the district engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant. The response will state that the project can proceed under the terms and conditions of the NWP. 161 aAFli If the district engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal,then the district engineer will notify the applicant either: (1)That the project does not qualify for authorization under the NWP and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; (2)that the project is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP with specific modifications or conditions. Where the district engineer determines that mitigation is required to ensure no more than minimal adverse effects occur to the aquatic environment,the activity will be authorized within the 45-day PCN period. The authorization will include the necessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a requirement that the applicant submit a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level. When mitigation is required,no work in waters of the United States may occur until the district engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan. January 2,2013 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 1 of 2 t 2 A IA-) 1 6"Elligott, Linda A SAJ" <Linda.A.Elligott @usace.army.mil> 12-28-12 Clam Pass project -- notes re: your messages (UNCLASSIFIED) December 28, 2012 6:10 PM Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Marcia, Sorry that I could not get back to you by phone today --- here are some general notes: The Corps process must be followed in order to re-activate the file for this project. With respect to your messages related to some possible project alternatives, the Corps project managers are not allowed to coach or help to devise a work proposal; our scope is to review proposed work as it is presented by an applicant and/or agent "of record" as per the official signed/dated application. You may coordinate with the consultant to discuss some options, but until the Corps receives an updated application that authorizes Turrell, Hall & Associates to act on behalf of Collier County, we cannot entertain discussions. Note: I am on scheduled leave part of next week and out of the office until Friday 4 January. My phone message notes my schedule. If you wish to speak with our Section Chief, please contact Tunis McElwain at extension 30; I believe he is scheduled to return to the office on Weds. 2 January, but I do not know his full schedule. Thanks, Linda 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.elligott@usace.army.mil Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE 1 6 1 2A . a •‘„, . . '... 1 CO a) , I co fo z 1 0 cn 0 as ct -2 I 2 w 1r, co 2 o >., D3 .o ca .,;.• ... # p c-0 o a) 4?.. ,.• -.7,^ . , .— -•-•• CA ;•-• 15 E • C; La 0 - b-0 **.i vt .. 0 ..• 0) c0 ..:•:) - u 0 • ,•44 I.0 : .1, . ., •E 2 ; •_,--- , , a) (1) ; ...• , se, t 4 .■:. 7, ./if..,i ..),/, . r >.•0 4.f..• .4,.. -•- fl f.I 1 1 0 0. ;.4 '::•;' N i lc..,,-44. - .. _ co ca 1: Ia) • - - — - - - _ c 1.- ' . , -'. ''■.; 4! 7" , . .5,,0 . - •, _ ., :. )',_..t.:c ■ t 4* i. ,.." 13 , a. z rt 0. " 0, 0 Ir. (NI al cs, 1.0:: .., • . . I 1 . co 2 MI 07 nal i. 4. .f. v,..,. - .1'iii.....:4 . . •.:,• . .... a iv\ ..,.... i ....\. -,,• ....- ,. . .. i , 7. tt • ' 3. ' ....4 ....4 ; . .., ... •,..,.. A, s . .... . , - ,s• ,- - ,.■.,, ...1. . I, . .. ....• , * •s4".0. 7 tY7 . •IP,: ...... 1.Y. . 4 . , • • , ',74." 7* i t ii,1 , . ' 7 '• ..., -s. 0 Z '— •. f7t1F ' i t'y . • ' ? 4 7 ' ..' G"' < ,..... , . — , ,---- 4',-..z.:. :1 .., if - , ■10 f:A , , C.:-.. rTh '''' — . . 44" 0 i tlftrlf Ztt ...*`•' Xt; i '• ' f:',' 4 '• t • ' i . I, • ,' , • . i %I 1 •-: . A,' %,.•., ' gb ...ir..' . .......,,,,.. _ .....,.... ,,, P ....0,s.... .. 0 ,,..t:...,,..t;:...iy ., ' : 4,' '-- * • ' •,,,. , - , —c; ..!..--.r. t' ' ii ; 'ik , - ir 'N .....r.t• l ' 144,1 . .1 • '° to't. SW - ,..3,1:•.,;,"•el*•:',/, , • .0.Z". .-V.41,,,t-Z.=°,'-k.Ari. .,,„„T•,..„.'...; .: is'-f""••_•7e'.' I ' • rlitInit: ....", . ' • . — • .,, , 7 ' ? 1 pniE3Riaiif,71:1M., ,. . - . .1.1.-:t.............. . , . _ - Al• • . 161 2A I'`l . ,, . .s \ .-- .,: ... . ...: ,),..,., ;.,.. ,.,,, , 1 4Y il 1 ' ■ 4 O 1 T ` I Y r I ms x i a !t' - Jo t * a g M Y �� gxt jA .x s p t � 1 s K '