Loading...
Agenda 11/19/2013PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ic, Municipal Services Taxing & Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2013 THE SURVEY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILL MEET TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19 AT 3:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Audience comments 3. Agenda approval 4. Approval of October 17 minutes 5. Review of board input and approval of draft survey 6. Adjourn ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO ONE (1) MINUTE PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT HTTP:/ /PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET 11/14/2013 10:33:45 AM SURVEY COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OCTOBER 17, 2013 MEETING MINUTES LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 3:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Survey Committee Tom Cravens, Chairman Dave Trecker Susan O'Brien Pelican Bay Services Division Board Also Present John Domenie Joe Chicurel Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Mary McCaughtry Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Participant Pat Bush, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association ROLL CALL All committee members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Cravens motioned, Dr. Trecker seconded to approve the agenda as resented. The Committee voted unanimous1v in favor and the motion passed AUDIENCE COMMENTS None DISCUSS DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY SURVEY TO INCLUDE BICYCLE LANES The Committee discussed proposed topics to include in the Pelican Bay Services Division's (PBSD) community survey, timeline, and obtaining full Board input. The Committee also discussed the Foundation Strategic Planning Committee's (SPC) survey. ADJOURN Dr. Trecker motioned, Ms. O'Brien seconded to adjourn. The Committee voted unanimously in favor, the motion passed, and meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. Tom Cravens, Chairman 3 Minutes by L H R 11/14/2013 9:59:09 AM November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 1 of 10 ResnickLisa Subject: FW: The Proposed PBSD SURVEY - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Joseph Chicurel [mailto:ichicureI&gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:28 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: The Proposed PBSD SURVEY Lisa, Please forward this e -mail to the PBSD Board, Neil, and Kyle. Thank you, Joe I am an advocate of hearing the opinions of the community on projects and initiatives, however, the current proposed survey our Board is considering is unnecessary. I will attempt to detail my views on each topic and explain my position. STREET LIGHTS (omit) As was brought out at our Nov. 6, 2013 Board meeting, funds have been and are being collected for a reserve fund to allow a future Board to finance the replacement current street lights within PB. That "future" Board may need to survey the community to pinpoint and fine tune the replacement project at that time. I don't think it is necessary to poll the community now. I would like to know at some point the details on the dates we were given on the survey and the details as to the plan that was envisioned by the CIP. It is my understanding that we or a future PBSD Board are not obligated to a specific plan or timetable. PELICAN BAY ENTRANCES (omit) I feel the Rt. 41 entrances are just fine and reflect a "quiet" elegance. Where is the need to remake our image coming from? PATHWAYS (omit) I thought this issue was put to rest at the Jan. 22, 2013 committee meeting. To paraphrase the committee discussions: "the residents seem pleased with resurfacing the county did on PB Blvd." The pathways (sidewalks) throughout PB do need replacing /repairing, not just on PB Blvd. Some stretches (i.e. Greentree; Oakmont Lake) are in such poor condition with crumbling edges and cracks that it is imperative to address a project of maintenance and repair of the existing pathways and not one of widening. The PBSD needs to make the current pathways safe. November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 2 of 10 CROSSWALKS (omit) Because there are individual communities and residents within PB that do not like the cobblestones, it would be appropriate to hear their opinions on the subject at a workshop or committee meeting and proceed from there. LANDSCAPING (omit) There was enough negative feedback concerning the "tall" Bromeliades that we do not need to survey the residents. We should just remove them and replace them with lower more appealing plants or just replant the sites with the jasmine that are currently surrounding the Bromeliades. SIGNS (omit) I don't understand why this is an issue. An explanation is needed. BICYCLES (omit) The PBSD Board voted 7 -1 on Oct. 2, 2013 to place "share the road" and bicycle safety signs on PB Blvd.; Gulfpark Dr.; Greentree; Oakmont Pkwy.; Ridgewood Dr.) at sites to be determined by staff. The Board also voted 7 -1 at that meeting to task Kyle to bring back to the Board costs and details. A survey on the issue is therefore not needed. November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 3 of 10 Comments concerning the proposed survey by the PBSD board. Frank Dickson I agree with Mr. Levy and Mr. Chicurel that the survey is not necessary, and would vote against it. Their well thought out comments more than make sense. November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 4 of 10 From: hobodorvCobcomcast.net To: ResnickLisa Subject: Survey Report Date: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:53:17 PM I believe we have been asked to comment on it so that some of the thoughts could be incorporated in the proposed Survey. Most of us were rather surprised at the financial figures which were included in the cover letter and in the actual survey. There appear to have been differences of opinion as to who provided the figures, how they were interpreted, and where did the underlying info come from. Some felt that the last sentence of the opening paragraph should be eliminated. I feel that it should be included as it would form a good basis for comparison with any other figures we may want to include. And when figures for street lighting, pathways, crosswalks etc are included it must include some comment that these figures would be attained by small increases over the next years in order to build up the reserves (funds) to pay for such improvements - and not next year all at once. It sounds confusing to me. My very own observation would be "why do we have to spend so much money" - has any one complained about the lights, signs, etc. Yes, from time to time some people have spoken up on these and other subjects, but I do not see a groundswell of complaints or demands for additional "services ". I recall that years ago the biggest attendance we ever had was when the controversy over bikes on the pedestrian path along Oakmont Lake - there were 25 people infavor of banning bikes and 25 in favor of permitting bikes, and for safety the PBSD Board decided to ban Bikes. But, I have never seen 50 people come to any of our meetings to express their views on any subject in the survey - OK we had a small delegation complain about the cobbelstones. And when the residents find out about the true costs of the pedestrian crossings they just can not believe what they hear. Surely we do not need 10" of re- inforced concrete to lay the red pavers! What are we doing wrong? Why do we not have more people in attendance at our meetings? (I must admit that even the Foundation Meetings do not fill the rooms to capacity). Is there a way that we can advertise our meetings and agendas more to attract residents. Or is there a general apathy - or is it an indicatioon that all is well? SO: rergarding street lights: (The top half of the first page of the proposed survey). The resident has a chance of saying "YES ", "NO ", or "NOT ALL ". Would it be more realistic if the possible answers were "YES ", "NO ", and "NO OPINION ". After all how many people drive through the private home residential streets at night on a regular basis. We used to live off Ridgewood, and the only time we saw any traffic at night was when the PHIL let out. I doubt that not even 10% of the residents can identify North Pointe (please note it is not Point, but Pointe!!!) Drive, or even Green Tree Drive. How are people going to answer "YES" or "NO" in that case ? ? ?? November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 5 of 10 Regarding the second half of the page - who (as far as the respondent is concerned) made the decision in 2013 that lights and poles must be replaced in 2026 - are you sure it will not be 2027? If you replace the lights along PB Blvd in 2018 at a cost of $350.00 will you be asked to pay for LIGHTS and poles in 2026 - that certainly does not make much sense to me. I find this whole section confusing - and how many people will worry about 2026? Personally I am very satisfied with the entrance monuments to PB along US -41. Do we want to be ostentatious and have water features, fountains, and more there. If we feel that the entrances need enhancements at some future date due to constant complaints of the residents we can then address just this questions in a simple survey. I just feel we are asking so many questions, to which 90% of the people do not have a true understanding of possible options. For Pathways the only option appears to be to widen the West side of PB Blvd to 8'. We have never (to my knowledge) determined that 8 feet was the best solution. And should the majority of respondents say "YES" - do we feel that we are absolutely committed to widen 2 -1/2 miles of pathways to 8 feet? And looking at a map of PB, and if the cost of the initial section to Station 8 is $450.00 per residence ( here we are mixing "residence" with "resident" in the first paragraph of the cover letter - which one is correct (RESIDENTIAL UNIT!), how can we say that the 2 -1/2 miles would only cost $850.00. The initial section is roughly 1/3 of PB Blvd how then can the total length only add $400.00 - where did these figures come from. And based on the figures provided the cost of installing pavers at the three entrances from US -41 would cost $4,550,000.00 - that is $700.00 times 6,500 residential units. Please some one justify this expense - on top of "enhancing" the beauty of each entrance. Regarding landscaping I was under the impression that our goal is to make landscaping environmentally friendly - you may have some support for just putting the question to the two latter sentences. Perhaps I am a pessimist (realist ?) - I do not believe that most residents have sufficient knowledge on most of these items (witness our own debates on these questions - and we are more "knowledgeable " ? ? ? ? ?) to give meaningful responses. And the idea that we could mail the survey out and expect more than 30% (or any minority) of responses within two weeks during the Christmas Season is not realistic - again - these are all my opinions. And leave out the bicycle sign questions - this was already decided by us - are we going to open a can of worms again - like someone in the audience who relyed on a survey made years ago in the summer by some outfit from "up- north "? who then November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 6 of 10 suggested one lane each way on PB Blvd for cars and one lane for bikers! I believe the Survey Committee has a big challenge to come up with meaningful questions which can represent the majority opinion of our residents. And let's limit the questions which we can address within the next two years - we only make a one year budget - perhaps we should consider making a one year budget and a rough projection for years 2 and 3. John November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 7 of 10 Subject: FW: Comments re Proposed PBSD Survey Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:36:00 AM - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Iaizzo fmailto:iaizzo(&comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:09 AM To: ResnickUsa Subject: Comments re Proposed PBSD Survey I am not in favor of proceeding with the following survey questions at this time: 1) STREET LIGHTS 2) PELICAN BAY ENTRANCES 3) PATHWAYS 4) CROSSWALKS 5) LANDSCAPING 6) SIGNS 7) BICYCLES November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 8 of 10 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mike Levy [mailto:m-ikelevy435@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 12:25 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Comments re Proposed PBSD Survey Lisa- Please forward this e -mail to the PBSD Board, Neil and Kyle. Thank you, Mike Levy. Thanks to the Survey Committee for preparing a draft survey for the PBSD Board to consider. I am not in favor of proceeding with the survey. My reasons are explained in the attachment to this email. November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 9 of 10 Comments re. Proposed Survey— M. Levy Street Lights I do not support a survey for this item. Street lights were a major element of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) undertaken in 2010. At that time, existing lighting was thoroughly reviewed and deficiencies were remedied as best possible. To that end, some light poles were moved and interference from trees was addressed. And a new up -to- date lighting system with high efficiency LED lighting was spec'd out. To provide capital funds so that a future board(s) will be able to implement same (at their discretion), the millage rate for the ad- valorem tax was increased beginning in FY 2012 from 0.0531 mills to .0858 mills. (It is estimated that the Street Light capital fund will be at $674,000 at the end of FY 2014). For planning purposes, the anticipated replacement of our existing street lights is as follows: *Upgrade Pelican Bay Blvd and Gulf Park Drive lighting with new high efficiency LED lighting mounted onto new 6' wide arms (the current arms are 4' wide). The new lights and arms are planned to be mounted on the existing poles which were installed in CY 2000 and have a useful life of 25 years. For planning purposes, it is estimated that this will be done in 2018 at an estimated cost of $876,000. (During the upcoming budgeting cycle, the Budget Committee will review this item, as it may be possible to advance it to an earlier year). * Replacement of Residential Light Fixtures and Poles in 2021 at an estimated cost of $868,000. Here also, the lighting is planned to be high efficiency LED, but also new poles. *The Boulevard light poles are expected to be replaced in CY 2026 — the end of the useful life of our current poles— at an estimated cost of $501,000. This funding is believed to be sufficient for tapered poles with a decorative base. The then existing lighting and arms will be transferred to the new poles. Entrances — I do not support a survey for this item. I do not believe we should include this item on a survey unless we are serious about undertaking such a project. A range of estimated costs would need to be provided as well as a breakdown of responsibility between the Foundation and PBSD. The CIP includes as an option brick pavers on the first 150' of roadway at each of the three entrances from Route 41. (The 2010 estimated cost to do this was $463,000). Is this what you mean by "Crosswalks'? Pathways - Widening the West side of PB Blvd - I do not support a survey for this item as I do not believe the PBSD is ready to tear up a new 5' wide pathway and spend approximately $500,000 to $1,000,000 to replace it with and 8' wide one. This was a hot and divisive item taken up by the PBSD Board during the first half of CY 2012. It was decided for us when the county, out of the blue, announced that they were imminently going to repave the entire east and west side of PB Blvd at no cost to us. There is an organized group of Pelican Bay residents adamantly opposed to widening the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, and I believe it is too soon to take this up again. Also, there were more issues raised than contained in the draft survey. These include the number of trees whose health would be impacted by having roots shortened by 3', and a November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. PBSD board members comments Page 10 of 10 wider pathway may be closer to a buildings garage exit, thereby further complicating exiting the building by car. Also, there are more uses for the pathways than walkers and bikers - such as joggers and families with young children, some in strollers. And all of this is two way traffic. Crosswalks — I do not support a survey for this item. PBSD is in the process of completing their remaining four cross walks. The PBSD Board just recently voted against removing cobblestones from an additional crosswalk. I believe that if the community understands the reason for the cobblestones, they will support them. The cobblestones were incorporated into some cross walks after careful consideration by the Community Improvement Plan team. The CIP team identified speeding on PB Blvd as an area of concern. Our consulting team in turn proposed incorporating cobblestones in the crosswalks to help calm traffic. Do they work— next time you drive over them on PB Blvd, notice the reflex reaction of your right foot. It likely will be to release the accelerator. Landscaping— I do not support a survey for this item. Updating our landscaping throughout the boulevard medians and R.O.W. sides is part of the CIP and the responsibility lies with the PBSD. By removing grass and dated shrubs, maintenance and irrigation needs are reduced and the appearance is updated with an attractive new look. PBSD has begun this task, and has put in new landscaping at the new crosswalks (excluding those currently under construction). Low volume emitters provide the necessary irrigation. The new perennials and ground covers introduced are attractive, include color and give a new look. All the new landscaping has been in place for at least a year for all the community to see. Ellen Goetz was PBSD's landscape architect for this work. I am in favor of continuing the landscaping project by doing additional areas each year. Kyle, our Operations Manager, has saved the community money by using existing staff to do the work. Signs — I do not support a survey for this item. PBSD has taken responsibility for stop signs at each associations exit to Pelican Bay streets. I am not aware of any problems in this area. Bicycles — I do not support a survey for this item. The PBSD Board has already decided this issue by a 7 -1 vote, taking into account community sentiment expressed in the past. November 11, 2013 November 19, 2013 Survey Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 5. Review of board input and approval of draft survey (revised draft survey received 11/19/2013) Page 1 of 4 Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) 2014 Survey Dear Pelican Bay Resident: The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) advises the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County on matters pertaining to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefits Unit (MSTBU). The PBSD is responsible for street lights and paving, pathways, signs, some crosswalks, and landscaping medians and areas next to pathways and U.S. 41, extraordinary law enforcement, water management, beach renourishment, mangrove conservation area maintenance, and advising the County on dredging and maintaining Clam Bay. In performing its duties, the PBSD tries to reflect the views of Pelican Bay residents by conducting periodic surveys. In the enclosed survey we seek your opinions on crosswalks, bicycle signs, pathways, street lights, and landscaping. Please complete the enclosed survey as soon as possible and return it in the enclosed self - addressed stamped envelope. Your views are important and will help guide us on decisions in the months and years ahead. Results will be reported as soon as possible in the aggregate. You are guaranteed confidentiality with no results ever reported by anyone's name or identifying information. If you have further comments after completing the survey, please write them below. Please return the survey before (date ? ?) Thank you. < signed> Tom Cravens Chair Pelican Bay Services Division Please give us your comments here: o 0 ❑ ❑ 1313❑❑ ^" I o 0 00 O 0 . 0000 a ° I a a ao.caa O 00000 00000 z z ZZZZz V °' A Q L L ❑ ❑ 00000 m b z '�" o Z Z zzzzz w o v 8 ° °'' o ° a ❑ ❑ 013000 s CA CA CA � o i o'xa o:b W�1 W W W W W o ❑ ❑ 1313❑❑❑ o 0 00o: .. °s .0 .0 .0 -C C ° O O 00000 co " z OW s L I I d I I z z z z z z z �$ ❑ Y >� I���. ILI ❑ 0 ❑❑ ❑0❑ �o� b 0 a pqA AA A O O 00000 o o Z �� p,A.p z z zzzzz p y El c Qa oti c °0 13 13 1313 [31313 w&n mLn m zwi C/1 u= a. °Q ° �A" W �t WWWWW x azU G7O0 >1 0 h � G cc Ny C 0 U a ob ,IOU v b' 'o o M �� N H V a a3i a3i U �3zzzU E� v ,� a ° y E. C C C �' W_> y S� Cd aCecn ao A �3e, M Co Co � O O •C 13 11 ❑ g ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z o; O O g O❑ O p p O O to z Oz Z z Z z z z Z❑ Z CO) ❑ 13 ❑ 013 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑O❑ m z z z z z z z zzz a h ❑ 13 ❑ ❑ 13 30 13 a ❑ ) ° W W U e Lo ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑'a [3 [3 [3 13 p a o o S .o�°. 'a a •S z 'fl ;c ;a O �E C 0 C C z z z z ° z z ° ❑ z z z zp N O ❑ ❑ ❑ 013 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O O CA o� z z z zw o z z zzz �° 13 ❑ 13 ❑� ❑ ❑ 01113 o 00 0 U °tn c oc b ca �o� E ,E v YS o 3 •dy3cs��� �3y � �� � a oW 3 yew, Al c ,S r. }�•+ .c o= o v Y oo a� o 3 C N00 O\ �lu� •Na @ �+ tU Y> 3 c �o� � 0.8 o� a 4. ch :w x b rA 3 a iy E U ,d U y .-[. O c0 0 y '+ map c o o c� gU y R e a w 3U 3 c�� UU ❑ ❑U� wl ❑�~ .� .� .� N M O N_ � O .= w u N w y c cep„ ❑ O > : >Z v o O o cN om Y�G �� ❑ O o >�� °�' 'va ❑ L a� � ,r a ov g Z a ro ❑ -o � a H s a� u CO ❑ L o r/� O C rA U U C oCX x ❑ C/) 0- O ctl U � = O O W cn N ,Op CD w �' N N ❑ E yv CC$ Z > O N cC ❑ ❑ Z iri d 3 L � ❑ Cn M � 00 x C . U Y ti N cz O 60 ,Y cd N L. -0 > W Y O 3 c ° to .0 M c E a� x zs zs Cd Y W U m ° O M C CA N C bA w c on X