Loading...
PBSD MSTBU Minutes 05/07/2014 (verbatim & unsigned) TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD Naples, Florida, May 7, 2014 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION at Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dave Trecker Michael Levy John Domenie John Iaizzo Joe Chicurel Tom Cravens Susan O'Brien Hunter Hansen Scott Streckenbein ABSENT: Frank Dickson STAFF PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick,Recording Secretary PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING & BENEFIT UNIT NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 7 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, Fl. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll call 3. Agenda approval 4. Audience comments 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 26 Landscaping Workshop b. March 5 Regular Session c. April 2 Regular Session 6. Administrator's report a. Selection of Operations Manager b. North berm restoration update c. *Clam Pass dredging d. L'Ambiance lake bank update e. Update on Oak Lake Sanctuary pipe f. Update on mangrove trimming on north boardwalk g. Escarpment management h. Monthly financial report 7. Chairman's report a. Communications to residents b. Summer meeting schedule c. Commercial membership 8. Committees a. Budget i. *Board vote on the proposed FY '15 budget b. Clam Bay i. Management plan, workshop, and 10-year permit ii. *Revised ordinance for vessel speed iii. Clam Pass data c. Safety i. *Board vote regarding installation of warning lights at San Marino crossing ii. *Board vote to replace all pedestrian crossing signs containing red stop signs with yield signs iii. *Board vote to investigate type and placement of signage along pathways on Pelican Bay Blvd. alerting bicyclists to yield to pedestrians d. Landscape &Water Management i. Expanding testing (CH2M Hill) ii. Proposal by Mike Levy 9. Old business a. Water management responsibilities in Commons project i. Easement restrictions on Commons site ii. % impervious in PUD, now, and in proposed plan at Commons iii. Proposed water management changes at Commons 10. New business 11. Adjourn *asterisk indicates possible Board action item 5/5/2014 2:11:32 PM 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 PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Mary, do we have a quorum? MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do. We have Mr. Iaizzo, who's not present yet. He may be wandering in and, of course, Mr. Vincent is not here today. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. Yes, we -- the former chairman noted that we have a quorum of Foundation board members as well. The next item is agenda approval. Could I have a motion to approve? MR. CRAVENS: Move to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MR. LEVY: I second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Are there any corrections or changes? MS. O'BRIEN: Should we consider moving up 9A? I believe we're supposed to have a report, and we probably want to do that earlier in the meeting rather than later in the meeting. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Where would you put it? MS. O'BRIEN: I don't know. Under administrative report someplace, just so it gets moved up. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Well, let's make it 6H, and the financial report I. MS. O'BRIEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is that acceptable? MS. O'BRIEN: Sure, thanks. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, a point of information with the retirement of Mr. Lucas. Last Friday I had assigned Ms. Resnick some interim responsibilities, and she's just not able to also continue to handle the minutes, and so the young woman here today is part of an out-source contract the county has. And you're not under some congressional sort of investigation the fact that she's here today. We will produce our normal summary minutes you're accustomed to and, as you know, we're required to keep recordings of today's proceedings. But I just wanted you to know that that's why she is sitting where she's at. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. The next item is audience comments. MR. CRAVENS: We didn't vote on the approval. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. DOMENIE: I have a question. Will somebody discuss the trimming of the mangroves along the north boardwalk? Do we have -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: That's Item 6F. MR. DOMENIE: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So the -- there's been a motion to approve the agenda. It was modified. So I'll call the question. All those in favor of approving the modified agenda, indicate by saying aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion carries. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Audience comments? Now, the way we handle this, for those who may not know, we allow three minutes per person for any topic at onset. We also allow one minute per person per topic for individual items as we move through the agenda. So we're at the place now for general comments. Anything you might want to say, three-minute limitation. Are there any audience comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Terrific. DR. RAIA: I'm Ted Raia at St. Raphael. I've been reviewing the 1978 permit for the South Florida Water Management District which granted permission to build Pelican Bay, and that plan was predicated on protecting the area for a 25-year five-day rain. Now, there have been 180 revisions to that plan. One of them has changed that to a 25-year three-day rain. Now, how this all came about, I don't know, but you people are responsible for the water management system; you're supposed to be doing the approval. I don't know what the other 179 revisions were, but if nobody's keeping track of this, we don't know what the heck is going on. And, really, you should take a serious look at that system because what happened up in Pensacola can happen here. It can happen anyplace. So let's just see where we stand with that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Ted, could you provide written input on that so we know just exactly what you're referring to? DR. RAIA: I'll write out what I just told you, sir. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, appreciate it. DR. RAIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. Other comments? MR. COOK: Could I just make one? David Cook. I live at the Crescent, and I'll speak on behalf of the Crescent. As you-all leave this meeting, for those of you that drive south on Hammock Oak, as you get to the intersection with Hammock Oak and Pelican Bay Boulevard -- some of you, Joe, know what I'm talking about -- unless you pull onto the crosswalk, bromeliads on the south -- the northeast corner of that intersection seem to significantly block your vision. And so I would just ask you guys, you know, as you're working on landscaping and safety, at least that's one point of which I think we really have a current problem in that it could be, you know, solved in about 15 minutes by moving bromeliads. DR. CHICUREL: You're right, Dave. We did pass that, and the bromeliads will be moved. I've been wanting them to be done yesterday but, apparently, it's taken some time. Thank you. MS. O'BRIEN: That was on our -- that came up at the last meeting, and we were told that would happen the following Monday. So can we get that on the schedule? MR. DORRILL: I think that place -- I think it took place. Pedro, did -- PEDRO: They're going to be removed tomorrow. MS. O'BRIEN: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Yeah. The survey was done, and we coordinated that with folks at L'Ambience who were interested and will pick them up tomorrow. You want yours in a clay pot? We can move them. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Are there other general audience comments? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Bruce Beauchamp, Barrington Club. In 19 -- I'm sorry. In 2012 there were extensive discussions about bike path installation on Pelican Bay Boulevard, and at the time the construction of the pathways was stopped, and there was some discussion about the county's responsibility to redo Pelican Bay Boulevard, resurface it in 2016 or thereabouts. I would hope that the committee make some recommendations concerning the introduction of the bike path on Pelican Bay Boulevard before -- I think we have to anticipate the county's resurfacing of the road. And I personally presented to the board, I believe, at that time a comparison between Crayton, the width in Crayton, the fact that there were two bicycle paths on Crayton and how that could be incorporated into Pelican Bay Boulevard. I think that should be explored. One of the reasons that has to be anticipated is because there are reflective markers in both sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard, which it would have to be addressed, and a lane width would have to be addressed if a bike path would be incorporated. The width of a proposed bike path would probably be not the optimum width that we would like, but it could be wider than the width on Crayton. And, as you know, Crayton has traffic in both directions whereas Pelican Bay Boulevard has -- there's traffic in one direction only, making the incorporation of the pathway much more realistic. Also, I realize that the bike clubs would probably not adhere to a narrower bike path, but it certainly would encourage the -- MR. IAIZZO: The single bike paths. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yeah, the not professional bikers to ride on the road instead of the sidewalk. My wife is a stepper. She walks five miles a day. Oftentimes on the bike -- on the sidewalks we have people coming up behind us who don't have bells. It, you know, potentially could be a concern and a hazard. So I think in anticipation of resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard, conversations and studies should be made to incorporate a nonprofessional bike path into Pelican Bay Boulevard. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. Let me fill you in, if I might, on the status and some of the recent history of that. This question comes up, I think as most of you know, with some regularity, probably every five years or so. The services division board considered undertaking a comprehensive community survey asking questions on a number of issues, including bike paths. The decision was made not to do the survey because previous policy had been established -- I guess maybe a couple, three meetings before -- that we wouldn't pursue that but would instead put in warning signs periodically. Joe, do you want to expand on that? DR. CHICUREL: This week, next week, the county are -- they're going to install "share the road" signs along Pelican Bay Boulevard and other roads in Pelican Bay. It's an attempt to alert both vehicular traffic and bicyclists that we have to respect each other, we have to respect the law, we have to make every effort not to have an accident. The confluence of issues are making the reoccurrence of the question about a bike path something that we might discuss, namely, that the road is going to be resurfaced, and if anything happens, that's the time to do it and, second of all, we're focusing on safety, because there have been accidents and -- especially on the paths. MR. IAIZZO: Pathways. DR. CHICUREL: So we're not adverse to having a dialogue but, of course, we don't want to do it in haste, and we're not going to be pushed by the fact that the road is going to be resurfaced. But I think that's a dialogue that we can have, and I think the Foundation's survey may help guide us to see how that conversation will go. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Joe, would you have your committee take this up as a regular item? DR. CHICUREL: I certainly will. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Appreciate it. Other comments? Mollie? No. MS. MOFFATT: No. It's somewhat similar to it; it's road related. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Oh, three minutes. MS. MOFFATT: Mollie Moffatt, L'Ambience. Recent -- in the last week or so driving around Pelican Bay and Vanderbilt Beach Road and looking at the conditions of the roads within Pelican Bay, you can't go a hundred feet without your car vibrating. And looking around the side roads, coming up Oakmont, it looks like you're prepping to do little cul-de-sacs here, little cul-de-sacs there. They've done Vanderbilt -- they're doing Vanderbilt as we speak right now in front of the library and the police station up to the Marketplace shopping center, which looked to me to be one of the smoothest roads in our area. Who is selecting these sections of road? Last year at this time almost -- at least a half of Pine Ridge was done, and all that road surface was in excellent condition compared to Pelican Bay Boulevard. How bad does our road have to get before we get upgraded or downgraded to really being in need? And I think we're sort of being ignored in Pelican Bay by the county. I'd like to have it followed up on. There's been a lot of work being done, and it's not a shortage of money. So I guess it depends on who you know. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: My understanding -- and I think we had a commitment from our commissioner -- is that the work would begin the latter part of this year. Neil, is that square with your understanding? MR. DORRILL: Latter part of the calendar year, beginning of their 2015 fiscal year, which starts on October the 1st. You'll recall that a former member of your board, Mr. Chandler, worked on this very hard. We've had probably three meetings with your commissioner, and I have every reason to believe that it will be done in the first quarter of the new fiscal year sometime between October and end of December. MS. MOFFATT: When does that budget come out that we would be part of? MR. DORRILL: The county's budget, the tentative budget, will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners in workshop in July. MS. MOFFATT: So we know should by August? MR. DORRILL: We should know in July at the time of the budget. MS. MOFFATT: July -- whether or not we're on the list. And if there's any way that somebody could put in a good word for us -- because our cars are just being damaged. Our bikes and our bones and everything else are being damaged with the -- MR. DORRILL: Well, not to belabor this, but the county DOT does an annual survey of pavement condition, and we've sort of floated back and forth. Their contention is that while our road is aesthetically very, very poor, that it structurally is very, very sound. And the reason the road has failed from an aesthetic standpoint is the fact that they did what was called a micro-surfacing about seven years ago. It didn't work; it began to fall apart -- MS. MOFFATT: Immediately. MR. DORRILL: -- about three years after. MS. MOFFATT: Who judges -- as far as when they evaluate these roads, though, too, Neil, it just seems like the roads that are being repaired are way, way, way superior than our road. MR. DORRILL: Well, I won't sit here and tell you that it's a precise science, but they do use an outside third-party consultant to perform the annual evaluation. The county is woefully underfunded on the maintenance side, and so everybody is desperate for what is a very small pot of funds. MS. MOFFATT: That work on Vanderbilt that they're doing seems to be such a waste, waste, waste of money. There's got to be a reason, I guess. Maybe because it's the entrance to a police and fire -- police station or whatever. But it is just ridiculous the amount of money and time and effort -- they've been there for about 10 days working on manhole covers and drains, and it just seems like they're wasting time, money, effort, when they could be -- there are a lot worse roads. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you, Mollie. MS. MOFFATT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, you can rest assured that we will apply whatever political pressure we can, and I think we can apply quite a bit to ensure that the schedule's adhered to, yes. MS. CRAVENS: Hi. And Mollie and everybody else, you know, it's a public meeting. You-all can go to that workshop, and you can lobby for the road. I just want to address several things that I -- MR. CRAVENS: Who are you? MS. CRAVENS: Marcia Cravens, Dorchester, and very active advocate for lots of things Pelican Bay and Clam Bay. Several items I don't think are action items beginning with administrator's report on the north berm restoration update. I have expressed my concern a number of times, and I'll continue to express it today, that this is supposed to be a restoration project for the swale. Installation of riprap is not restoration of the swale. While it may help with reducing erosion, it does not provide treatment of the water and does not slow it down or cause it to be retained or detained, and I have a lot of concern about that. You know, you have a surface water management plan and permit, not a flood control permit, okay. So -- and it seems to be counterproductive to the duties and responsibilities of this board for surface water management, and the items that you have expressed that you intend to do, which is to improve surface water management by treatment, reduction of nutrients, uptake of copper and so forth, installation of riprap does not accomplish any of that; however, a true restoration of the vegetated swale would do that. So we'd ask you to please take a look at that and really understand what this project is. The next thing I wanted to talk about was -- among other things, but the comments issue. You're going to get a report on this that only highlights things about pervious versus impervious, percentages of cover and the easement that may be here for property for the deed; however, what you really should be understanding is the actual amount of discharge and how that Foundation's plan to reconfigure the Commons affects your surface water management plan and the discharge of the waters from the development of Pelican Bay into the Clam Bay wetlands and water bodies. So I would ask you, please, also, really think hard about those aspects of the Commons project. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you, Marcia. Other general comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: If not, let's move on to the next item. Approval of meeting minutes. I'll entertain a motion to approve the February 26 landscape workshop. MR. CRAVENS: So moved. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MR. LEVY: Second. MR. DOMENIE: I second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there any discussion on this? MR. DOMENIE: Mr. Chairman, I note that under roll call it said all members were present, but if you look at it, four members were not present. Perhaps it should say that there was -- a quorum was present. I'm talking about February -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, under roll call. MR. DOMENIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yep. MR. DOMENIE: So I think perhaps a "quorum was present" should be stated. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Any other comments or changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: If not, we'll call the question. All those in favor of approving the minutes as modified, indicate by saying aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion carried. MR. CRAVENS: I move to approve the March 5th regular meeting of the PBSD. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MR. DOMENIE: Second. MR. LEVY: I second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Discussions? Comments? MS. O'BRIEN: On Pages 8676 and -- I guess that's the page. It was 15,000 cubic yards plus or minus 20 percent, and I just suggest we add the 20 percent. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Oh, it just says 15,000 plus or minus. MS. O'BRIEN: Right. And it should say plus or minus 20 percent, and there are two places, about six lines down and about 12 lines down. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. I see them both. Any other corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the -- yes. MR. CRAVENS: There's already been a motion made. You need to vote on it. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: A motion hasn't been -- yeah, motion as amended. MR. HANSEN: So moved. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: To approve the minutes as amended for the March 5th regular board meeting. So moved? MR. HANSEN: So moved. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Second? MR. CRAVENS: Second. MR. DOMENIE: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Those in favor, indicate by saying aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. HANSEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: The motion carries. Okay. The April 2nd regular session board meeting minutes. MR. CRAVENS: So moved. MS. O'BRIEN: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Any discussion or corrections? MR. STRECKENBEIN: I have a question. Page 8682, on the motion regarding the fixing or replacing of the fountain at Jamestown, I believe it was, if my memory recalls, we had a lot of discussion back and forth and amendment -- Susan's laughing at what I'm saying. I'm happy with that, but that's not, I don't believe, the way the final motion read with the last time, final line in the sand. I believe the motion was we will continue to do whatever we need to do with those fountains for now, forever or whatever, but I don't believe the "last time" piece should be in that final motion. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: It's my understanding that the -- this was approved with the understanding that this would be the last time the services division would repair or replace fountains not in its jurisdiction. MR. IAIZZO: Not so. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Not so? MR. IAIZZO: It was approved that we would continue to maintain those fountains in perpetuity. MR. STRECKENBEIN: That is my recollection. MS. O'BRIEN: Until they die, and then we would not replace -- we would not replace them again, I thought, was the essence. MR. IAIZZO: No, no. MS. O'BRIEN: Well, let's check the tape, let's check the tape and, you know, confirm it because we, obviously, don't agree what we -- MR. CRAVENS: Okay. MS. O'BRIEN: -- what the motion was. MR. DOMENIE: Wasn't there some discussion, too, regarding the second fountain, that if we're going to do the first fountain, we should do the second fountain, too, when the time comes? MR. HANSEN: Susan's got a good point. Let's check the tape. We're all working from recall and a different recollection, so check the tape. MS. O'BRIEN: Just check the tape and bring the minutes back. MR. IAIZZO: Neil, what's your recall on that? MR. DORRILL: I would suggest that we continue these minutes until the next meeting. We'll go back and check the tape and let you know what we think and what you said. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We'll table this and review it again at the next meeting. Okay. Administrator's report. Neil? MR. DORRILL: The first item I have today is an update on the selection process for the new operations manager. We're about three-quarters of the way through the interview process. The county HR folks had prequalified approximately 10 individuals and forwarded those on to me. I think we've done six or seven interviews. I have a phone interview with one out-of-state candidate scheduled for tomorrow afternoon who has very relevant experience. I would think that we will wrap up all of the first round of the interviews by this time next week. I have a meeting scheduled with the human resource folks next week because I had posed a couple of questions to them on work that they performed prequalifying people to make sure that any or others that may be qualified should be forwarded on to me so that I can make the final determination on that. My plan is to develop a short list of three at which time I will provide you a summary and all the backup based on the materials that I have so that you can see who the finalists are. I don't know yet whether we will need to conduct a second round of interviews, but I intend to inform you probably about a week from Monday who the three finalists are for that position. In the interim, I met with Kyle yesterday. In fact, I thought Kyle might be here today just to register to speak and complain about things as a citizen. But I met with him yesterday. We were successful in getting a written opinion from the Florida Retirement System so that if he does independent contractor work under the contract that I have he will not jeopardize his pension benefits with the State of Florida. If he tries to contract separately or go back to work for any public entity, then he immediately jeopardizes his pension payments. So we requested the opinion in writing. We've received it. I've asked him to do two things. I've asked him to give me a -- kind of a schedule of based on -- he made some notes on his last day here of different status. I've asked him to also look at and share with me what he would expect the monthly and quarterly work plan to be on the landscape maintenance side, and he will do that, and Mary will open a PO so that we can track his costs separate and apart from other payroll costs that we have. In the interim, I've named Lisa as the acting operations manager just because we need to have one; it has a lot of responsibilities in the budgeting and the payroll and the purchasing side that needs some administrative support there, and so that's where we are. Overall, I'm pretty impressed with the talent level of the people that were forwarded on to me. I don't see anybody that I would consider to be a perfect candidate. We've got a wide variety of educational background. Some people are a little short on the supervisory side of the ledger, but I'm pretty satisfied. There are some very talented folks that would love to come to work here every day. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: As discussed before, Neil, I assume you'll be amenable to input from the board? MR. DORRILL: Yeah, as long as we stop just short of, you know, what I would consider politicizing or having, you know, the -- I don't want them to ever think that they work for one or more of you as opposed to the county manager who is -- who we all work for, so we won't run afoul of that. But that's fine. I intend to share with you. And, in fact, if you want to see all of the backup material once it's received, I'll be happy to share all of that with you, in addition to what I pick as the short list. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. MR. HANSEN: Neil, of the candidates you're seeing, are their salary requirements within our budgetary confinements? MR. DORRILL: All but two. Two of them would love to come to work here for a lateral type move but whom make more than Kyle made at after almost a quarter of a century. And so I brought that to their attention and just said, you know, I think based on the first round here, that we ought to be able to keep it within the budget parameters that we have and not have to go higher than that. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The second item I have -- and, Jim, I'll ask you to come up to the podium. This is the north berm restoration project. Just very brief background; this is a project that -- Tim, you don't know anything about civil engineering. Not yet. MR. HALL: What's that? MR. DORRILL: You don't know anything about civil engineering. MR. HALL: No, but I've been dealing with the Corps. MR. DORRILL: Spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express. Bids were open, and the good news is that the apparent lowest and most qualified bidder is the same general contractor that we used before, Quality Enterprises, who did an outstanding job in Phase 1. We previously told the board we had a soils problem and a lot of heat on the west side of the berm that caused us some significant issues with grading. I'll ask Jim to touch on those. And then we also had a series of two addendums that we issued going down the home stretch so that we could ask the contractors to give us a separate price to stay out of the way of the Foundation's renovation or expansion of their beach facilities. I touched on this at a -- one of your meetings recently where we said, you know, there is a segment of the berm that sort of would be off limits to us during the course of the normal workday, and the contractor could only work after hours between 4 and 8 p.m., and there are cost implications to that. Jim can touch on those. And -- but we said at the time that, frankly, the Foundation's project and the amenity in this schedule to have that thing open in December is more important than our project, and so we bid it both ways. Jim, if you'll just sort of take it from there. The bad news is that we are over the budget that was originally anticipated for the two reasons that I mentioned. MR. CARR: Yes. I'll touch on the first item; that was the soils on the west side of the berm. As you might know, they're pretty soft and a lot of-- if you stand there or stick a rod in there, it's very soft. It sinks down anywhere from a couple feet to five or six feet or more, so that a geotechnical consultant was brought on during the design, and they provided a report and recommended that some geo material be put down and some of that material, if necessary, be removed. And then when that material's put down, that will help stabilize that side of the bank when it's restored, but that item is included in the bids. The second item had to do with -- which I think was discussed in one of the previous meetings about the timing of the work overlapping with the work that the Foundation's doing, so there were two alternates put in. One alternate was to work between the hours -- from noon to 8 o'clock on that segment where they'd be sharing access for the two projects at the same time. The other alternate was for 4 o'clock to 8 o'clock p.m. window. And so that second alternate is a shorter window, so the costs are a little higher, and that was about another $20,000 in difference between the two bids. Well, not bids, but between the two alternates. And, Neil, I don't know if you've already shared what the total cost was going -- MR. DORRILL: We have not. We have not had a meeting since then. We're just north of-- about $625,000 would be our share with the recommended Alternate No. 2, which means that our contractor can only work four hours a day, between 4 and 8 p.m. There's one additional add alternate, I think it's $75,000, which would be the repaving of the asphalt path, which is actually the property of the Foundation. And my impression is that that would be the Foundation's responsibility to pay for that; although, we will most certainly damage portions of it in the course of re-establishing the project that we have. So it's about 700,000 total. Jim, you can give them the exact number -- six and a quarter based on the add alternate that is in there, and that has some budget implications to it. MS. O'BRIEN: And it's about twice what we had budgeted? MR. DORRILL: Well, this is twice what was originally estimated. I think the budget that's been revised -- MS. O'BRIEN: We had about 300,000 in? MR. DORRILL: The original estimate was 300,000 that was tied back to the unit prices that we had when we did Phase 1 . MR. LEVY: Three thirty. MR. DORRILL: Three thirty. The soils issue alone -- and it's sort of caused a redesign of the project, and this geotextile fabric that would be laid down first is the main reason for the overage. Twenty thousand dollars, I believe, is the number, the upcharge to limit the contractor's access to that portion of the berm. That's the extra cost that we're paying to stay out of the Foundation's way. MS. O'BRIEN: And where will that extra money come from? MR. DORRILL: It will need to come either from contingency or it could be reallocated from other reserves that you have for some other intended future capital improvement. MS. O'BRIEN: And any reason we didn't have a copy of the bids? MR. DORRILL: I don't know when Jim actually got those. There's a summary that I was just handed at the start of the meeting. We can get some additional copies if you'd like to have those. MR. CARR: I know the bid meeting occurred Thursday afternoon. I was not there. I know Kyle attended that meeting, and I was forwarded a copy of the low bidder. I didn't see any of the other bidders -- MR. DORRILL: It hasn't been calculated completely. By the time we got to Friday afternoon, they were not available, and Jim's got a very detailed copy of the apparent low bid, which is the one that was done first by the purchasing department. If you want to push this off for a minute, I can have Mary run down and make some copies of the bid that is the low bid. MS. O'BRIEN: So we're going to be asked to approve this; is that where we're going? MR. DORRILL: We're taking whatever action the board thinks is appropriate. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Jim, will the laying down of the geotextile fabric be followed, then, by riprap of some sort? MR. CARR: Yes, that was going to occur anyways on the above-ground portion if this -- what this map would do is go down, when they get in there, and kind of clean up the banks that are there now, then remove some of the soft material. They would set the geo mat down on the level grade and then bring in the new fill material and backfill that up on the slope. So the material -- you won't see the material. It will be basically a stabilization to hold that material in from slopping down in like it's done over the years. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Would the new material then be stabilized by riprap? MR. CARR: Yes, on the surface it will. This mat is more underneath, so it prevents the slopping down into the swale. MR. DOMENIE: Neil, do we need special permit to work after 5 o'clock, or is that okay? MR. DORRILL: You know, that's a good question. I don't know if there are deed restrictions that limit construction activity after a certain point in the evening, but we do not need a special permit from the county. The permit that we will have, which is the same Nationwide Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows us to go in there and do the maintenance work -- and, Jim, I know that's filed. Are we in receipt of the Nationwide yet? MR. CARR: We don't have it in hand, I understand, but Tim Hall is the consultant on that, and I believe it's any day or within the coming days or weeks subject to the Corps' schedule. MR. HALL: Yeah. It is kind of subject to the Corps' schedule. I got a response back from the Corps yesterday with the request to fill in some information that goes into their memorandum of record, so that means that they are working on it, and we do expect to get it soon. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Neil, do you need board approval to proceed? MR. DORRILL: Unless you're frightened, you know, by the number and want to know what other alternatives. There's not really an opportunity here to value engineer or be trying to pick apart the bid specification based on the soils problem and the fact that we do want to stay out of the Foundation's way so that they can finish their restaurant without problems that could be tied back to us. So if you're prepared, after you've had a chance to see the detailed breakdown here -- MR. IAIZZO: With approval, how soon can they start? How many hours are involved? What days? MR. DORRILL: What was contemplated, Jim, for both the approximate length of the contract and notice to proceed and whatnot? MR. CARR: I believe from notice to proceed -- I don't have that contract in front of me, but I want to say it was 90 to 120 days, somewhere in that range. MR. IAIZZO: Complete the job? MR. CARR: Yes. There may be an additional 15- or 30-day substantial completion on top of that. I don't have that in front of me. MR. LEVY: Did I hear a total of 625-? MR. DORRILL: That would -- that would be the approximate amount that is attributable to us. I think that we -- as we did once before, we would look to the Foundation to pay for any -- the asphalt repaving. MR. LEVY: Because this -- the sheet we just got looks to me like it adds up to something higher. MR. CARR: Yes. It's about -- with the first alternate, Alternate 1, it would be the total of the top two portions, which is about 763,000, roughly. MR. LEVY: Yeah. So you say it's 625-, I mean, I'm -- I don't understand. MR. CARR: That, I believe, would be the portion that gets deducted from what the Foundation would cover, the difference between -- MS. O'BRIEN: Which is, ballpark, how much? MR. CARR: Neil mentioned that. I don't know what their percentage was. MS. O'BRIEN: I thought 75. Could we just get our cost? What would our cost be with Alternative A and our cost be with Alternative B? MR. DORRILL: Jim, can you estimate that? MR. CARR: The total cost is shown here. I don't know the percentage maybe -- I hear 75/25 is what I think I'm hearing. So these costs here are the total. MR. LEVY: There's 48,000 for asphalt overlay; is that what comes out? Is that the item that comes out, the asphalt overlay? MR. DORRILL: Yeah. The asphalt is part of the project cost -- MR. LEVY: Item 12. MR. DORRILL: -- but it's not intended to be part of our funds. MR. LEVY: All right. So -- MR. DOMENIE: It's 48 and 21. MS. O'BRIEN: Just over 700,000. It's still 700,000 and some change. MR. LEVY: It still seems to come up over 700,000. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: The services division portion? MS. O'BRIEN: Right. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Neil, what's the alternative here? MR. DORRILL: The alternative -- MR. LEVY: Twenty-one thousand comes out. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: You know, if we didn't approve this, what would we have? MR. DORRILL: The alternative would be to reject the bids and to postpone the project for a year in the hopes that the construction environment might be improved. At the end of the day, though, we've got an inferior soil condition here that -- I can't make that go away and, frankly, as site work contractors appear to be ramping up, I can't sit here and tell you that the construction pricing is going to be better a year from now, you know, if the overall housing and economy stays the way that it seems to be. MS. O'BRIEN: So which numbers on this list relate to the soil conditions? MR. DORRILL: I think they were included in the base bid as a result of work that Jim did with the geotextile. We don't have any separate bid -- or can you pull this apart? MS. O'BRIEN: I'm just trying to understand the extra costs related to the soil. MR. CARR: Yes. The line item would be 13 -- yes. Let me see, 13 and 15. MS. O'BRIEN: Okay. Thanks. MR. DORRILL: About 60,000 -- 65-, 66,000. MS. O'BRIEN: 65-. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I'll entertain a motion to approve the project with expenditures not to exceed -- what are we talking about -- 700,000? MR. DORRILL: Does the 762- include the paving or exclude the paving? MR. CARR: It includes the paving. MR. LEVY: That includes the paving. MR. CARR: That's the complete job with no reimbursement from Foundation or anybody else. The complete contractor costs. MR. LEVY: That would be Item 12 and Item 28. MR. DOMENIE: Yeah, 444- is pending -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a motion to that effect? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Looks like there's very little support for this, Neil. So the alternative, in the absence of approval here, is to hope we don't get further erosion and go back for new bids; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: You could try and rebid this thing for work to be done at the beginning of next spring. MR. LEVY: In other words, what we would wind up saving is the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. That's what we would save if we put it off, Neil? MR. DORRILL: Yes. MR. CRAVENS: Well, that's assuming that there's not going to be an increase in cost, and I'm not sure. MS. O'BRIEN: Well, we're looking at $200,000 for the special workday, right? MR. LEVY: Well, it's 207- less 22-. There's 22- in there for asphalt overlay. So it's about 190-, something like that, if they took the low option, not the high option. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So is it the consensus of the board to defer this? Let's take a sounding on this. I think it's important. MR. STRECKENBEIN: You know, being on the budget committee, you know, we wrestled with just what we were putting out for this year's budget. This is a significant alteration to that budget, and I feel that -- I don't feel comfortable, you know, going forward with this at this time. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Hunter? MR. HANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to the majority of the board since I am unfamiliar with the project and personal involvement with it. So I'll defer to the majority of the board. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Susan? MS. O'BRIEN: I think we should postpone. MR. CRAVENS: Well, I'll go along with whatever Mike Levy and Scott -- I assume if they both go for postponement, they're the budget guys, and John. DR. CHICUREL: My only concern is how acute is this undermining process of the soil? MR. CARR: Well, it's something that I don't think anybody can predict, but what you have there now has been ongoing for 30 years, I believe, or 30-plus years, so one more year. DR. CHICUREL: Thanks. That helps me. And I would go along with the budget committees. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: John? MR. IAIZZO: Postpone. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: John? MR. DOMENIE: I'm -- I don't think we should postpone because delaying it -- are we going to delay it for one month, three months, or a year? And if you delay it for three months, then we get into trouble with people who come down in the season; we'll be blocking that berm during that time. And I think we can postpone it a moment until we get to the budget approval, but I don't favor delaying the project at this point. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Mike? MR. LEVY: Well, from a budget point of view, the money -- the money could be -- could be found because we've got the -- we have the funds available in capital. That's where all our reserves are. So there is money to do it on the one hand. On the other hand, 170,000 additional, whatever it is -- MR. DOMENIE: Three hundred seventy. MR. LEVY: Well, no, it's 555- on the top, less the -- MR. IAIZZO: Less the 50- basically. MR. LEVY: It's 500,000 right on the top. That's what it's going to be, the top number. MR. CARR: If I could clarify something on these bid tabs. The top section there is for the sections -- it says on there 1 through 17, and 32 through 59. So that's the southern one-third and the northern one-third. The two alternates, that work also needs to be done. It's for the central one-third, but it was priced as if it could be done in a four-hour workday versus an eight-hour workday. So that work is needed no matter what. MR. LEVY: So what -- I guess the question is -- MR. DORRILL: Six ninety-three, I think, is my rough number; 693. MR. LEVY: What does it -- what do we say -- so what we're saying is, if the -- are the numbers, then, 555- less 48,000 for asphalt on the top one, and on the middle one they're 207- less 22- for the asphalt. So it's, essentially, you know, one -- MR. DOMENIE: I make it 693-. MR. LEVY: Or 680-. I don't know what -- MR. DORRILL: Six ninety-three is my number. MR. LEVY: But the question is what -- how much less would it be if we didn't have the problem with the conflict with the restaurant being done at the same time? What -- how much do we save if we put it off a year if the prices don't change? MR. CARR: I think you could interpolate here and see that it's 207,000 for the eight-hour day and 226,000 for a four-hour day. So I think if they had free range to work as they saw fit, that 207,000 number may come down a little more but probably not more than 10 percent, if I took a guess. So you're still looking at something in the upper 100's, I think. MR. LEVY: So you're saying we'd be able to save maybe 20,000; is that what you're saying? MR. CARR: Yes. MR. DORRILL: Yes. MR. CARR: And that's the difference now between the two bids, the two alternates. MR. LEVY: Well, that's really the way to look at it. We want to put it off a year, because we talked of putting it off a year. MR. CRAVENS: What do you want to do? MR. LEVY: What do I want to do? MR. CRAVENS: Yeah. MR. LEVY: What's the best way to do this for the community? I mean, 20,000 -- nobody wants to spend 20,000 more than they've got to spend, but it's not like we don't have the money. And it's also -- you know, we don't know whether the price is going to go up or down if we wait a year. It's more likely to go up than down. MR. DORRILL: You know, if you would -- and I know you're struggling with this, and we just got this when Jim got here, because the bids were opening late last Thursday. You may want to just refer this down to the budget committee, let them bring back a proposal with an actual proposed budget amendment and discuss this at your June meeting, if you're not prepared to do anything today. MS. CRAVENS: Public comment? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Public comment? MR. CRAVENS: There's a motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: There's no motion on the floor. DR. CHICUREL: When would this start if it was passed? MR. CARR: The normal timing, I think, is anywhere from one to two months from now if the -- if it was accepted and went through the process. MR. DORRILL: It's got to be awarded by the County Commission. You could probably take this would start right after the 4th of July holiday, and this item would be to try and have this thing wrapped before Thanksgiving, which is what we did the last time on Phase 1. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Let's put this to closure with a motion and a vote. MR. CRAVENS: Okay. I'll make a motion that we proceed with the restoration work. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I'll second it. Discussion -- further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Question on the floor? MS. CRAVENS: Yeah. Is it possible to modify this project to not use all this riprap? Because you are eliminating treatment areas that are in your permit. And then if you do it this way, it is not a Nationwide permit. It will not conform to it because it's not restoration of what was previously permitted. And, you know, this berm has been restored in the past. It was restored about 15 years ago, and it lasted a good 15 years without adding riprap. And you should look at what the cost was to do it, that restoration that was done previously and how it was done. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Jim, do you know whether the permit would permit the use of riprap? MR. CARR: It does now. We do have a South Florida Water Management permit, and your Army Corps permit has been completed as well. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. Let's do a roll call vote on this. MS. O'BRIEN: Any discussion? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Another comment. Sorry. MR. BACHMAN: Henry Bachman with the Claridge. One thing to consider is that if we do it now we have one disruptive period on the berms, because the people -- we can't use the berm to get to the beach anywhere on the north. So one advantage to doing it now is you get all that construction over at one time. And since it only costs, like, $20,000 to keep out of the way of the Foundation, that might be worth considering. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. So let's review the motion again. This is to defer -- MR. CRAVENS: No. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: The motion is to proceed -- MR. CRAVENS: To approve this. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: To proceed. Other questions or comments? MS. O'BRIEN: Just, you know, we've had -- in the budget we had 330,000, and now we're twice that. MR. LEVY: We anticipated 200,000 more at the last budget meeting -- MS. O'BRIEN: We were told two weeks ago, yes, that it would be about $200,000. MR. LEVY: We have been the defined third. MR. DORRILL: That's in the tentative budget. The budget was revised upwards in anticipation of this soil test. MR. LEVY: Yes. We put in 200,000, which is, apparently -- 530, and then this 160,000 more. But it's not like we do not have the money. We would just be taking reserve funds and assigning them to this budget. MS. O'BRIEN: That we're currently reserving for other things. MR. LEVY: Well, we don't know what we reserve. In other words, we've got funds. We know things are coming up all the time. You know, we can't operate -- we can't operate if we don't have some slack. We've got to have some funds in the bank to use when we need them. MS. O'BRIEN: I just need a little bit more time to process this large increase, and it would be extremely helpful if we had some reminding background on the south berm project and about how much that cost us and about how many linear feet, what that -- you know, just so we have some frame of reference. Part of my problem is I didn't even know we were going to be dealing with this. We didn't know -- I didn't know we were going to have bids to consider today. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I guess my concern is that the erosion will continue unchecked, and if, indeed, we have the money available and if the engineers are making the recommendation to do it now, I'm going to vote for doing it now. MR. CRAVENS: I think I'm going to vote for doing it now, too, because of what John and Mike said, and also I think what Henry said is a point well taken. And I think it's better to have a one-time disruption rather than come back again and disrupt the people that use the berm. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Any further discussions on this? MR. DORRILL: Only one thing. I would not recommend that you put it off and rebid it next year, because the 20,000 or so that you save by not either -- working around the Foundation, you'll eat that 20,000 up with mobilization. Once the contractor mobilizes his equipment and the Port-A-Johns and the staging area and the cones, that's a mobilization cost that he's going to put in his bid to come back and only do that segment next year. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Mary, would you do a roll call vote. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Streckenbein? MR. STRECKENBEIN: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Ms. O'Brien? MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dr. Trecker? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: You're voting for doing it now. MS. O'BRIEN: I said yes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Cravens? MR. CRAVENS: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dr. Chicurel? DR. CHICUREL: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Iaizzo? MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MR. DOMENIE: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Yes. Mr. Levy? MR. LEVY: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: And Mr. Hansen has stepped out, but it's unanimous so far. MR. BACHMAN: It's closed. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. The motion carries. Gracious. MR. BACHMAN: What do we do to keep them out when the berm is going to be closed? MR. CRAVENS: Well, now -- MR. BACHMAN: It says by June 1st. MR. CRAVENS: I think you have a good point there. The map that was provided by the Foundation indicating closure, I believe, indicates that there will be a closure of the northern portion of the berm from Station 8 down to Station 6. MR. BACHMAN: On June 1. MR. CRAVENS: I don't know. Did you -- MS. O'BRIEN: Well, that will change when we know the schedule, I would imagine. MR. HOPPENSTADT: That's just to accommodate you. MS. O'BRIEN: Right. So if it changes? MR. DORRILL: My plan would be to try and have this on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda for the 10th of June before the board, and then there will be a notice to proceed, then they file their insurance documents and whatnot to kind of coincide with that right after the 4th of July as sort of an estimation. MR. CRAVENS: Now, Neil, I'm still a bit unclear. Are we going to be doing work from 4 to -- from the Commons -- basically north to the Commons, up to 5? MR. DORRILL: The station numbers, sir, I can't equate those -- and I'll ask for Jim's help here. MR. CARR: The entire project would be from the Commons heading north all the way to the north tram. MR. CRAVENS: Okay. Okay. That's -- MR. IAIZZO: We don't go south to the Commons? MR. CARR: No. MR. CRAVENS: Well, my question then, I guess, is, is it going to be necessary also to close the berm from the Commons up to Station 5? That part of the berm is currently open. In essence, is what we will have then is the berm will be closed from the Commons on north? MR. BACHMAN: You can't use the Sandpiper to get to it. MR. CRAVENS: You won't be able to get to the Sandpiper, and you'll have to shut that down. There won't be any tram service from Sandpiper. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Will that be for four hours a day, or will it be all day? MR. IAIZZO: Well, we have beach access, too, is another problem. MR. STRECKENBEIN: It's open four hours a day. MR. CRAVENS: Well, we have the beach access problem now. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Neil, is that an issue? MR. DORRILL: You know, I don't know. I'm a little ignorant with respect to tram locations and -- MS. O'BRIEN: I think Neil will be able to work with Jim, and I think we'll get information about when the berm will be closed, right? I think these guys will work it out. MR. DORRILL: Yeah. There will be a required preconstruction conference between the engineers and ourselves and our friends at the Foundation, and then we'll publish a schedule following that. MR. CRAVENS: Well, currently the Sandpiper parking lot is being used, half of it, for -- MR. LEVY: Construction. MS. O'BRIEN: And that may change. MR. CRAVENS: -- construction and the half-- well, it's going to stay -- no, the half that's being used for construction isn't going to change, but it may very well be that if the berm is shut down from the Sandpiper parking lot south to the Commons, that parking would be useless for Foundation residents and guests, because if they park there they're going to have to walk along Pelican Bay Boulevard to get to the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They have a shuttle. MR. DORRILL: The shuttle remains. MR. CRAVENS: No, it -- MS. O'BRIEN: Let's let them work it out, okay? I think they can do that. They're sharp guys. MR. DOMENIE: The problem is, if they park there in the afternoon and they get back at 9 o'clock or -- that might be -- cause a problem. MR. IAIZZO: Well, we'll have to post the times. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. We'll leave this in the capable hands of the administrator. Neil, do you want to proceed? MR. DORRILL: Next item pertains to Clam Pass dredging. And, Tim, I'll ask you or Mohammed to come up. We had a recent committee meeting, Clam Pass committee meeting. The most recent bathymetric and aerial surveys point to an increasing shoal problem within Sections B and C and, as a result, there was some desire on the part of the committee to bring this to you today and discuss the possibility of obtaining a new Nationwide permit for a project that Mohammed can address in a little more detail here. Good afternoon. MR. DABEES: Good afternoon. Thanks, Neil. Mohammed Dabees with Humiston & Moore Engineers. And today I'm just going to go over some of our findings from the data collection, mainly the 12 months post-construction. And this aerial here on the cover just shows the recent conditions that were flown in -- on April 22nd, and these conditions were flown at mean high water elevation, which is a little bit above mean sea level, so it's not high, high water, and it's not low water, mainly because you can see that this path here has water in it, and these shoals are covered with water. And during low water conditions, these shoals are emergent. And as we go across the boardwalk, we can see that those shoals are emergent at low water. So the area that Neil was referring to is this shoaling there and also some of accumulation within Section C. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Mohammed, it's my understanding that that was not dealt with in the previous dredging; is that correct? MR. DABEES: What was not dealt with in the previous section, in the previous dredging, is this part of Section C. Section A is the channel, Section B is this part here, and Section C is this bend. And in the last operation, we stopped at this area here. So all this part in Section C was not completed during the 2013 maintenance dredging. So just to put things in perspective, these were the conditions at the completion of the dredging last year in April of 2013. And, again, the dredging reconnected the Clam Bay system to the gulf with a straight channel and the dredging of Section B and part of Section C. The conditions in March 21st, which is around the time of the survey that was completed for the annual -- or the one-year post-surveying -- and this is more at the lower tide elevation. And you can see here, just as you always notice when you cross the boardwalk, all these shoals are emergent. This area here in Section C is full of submerged sand, but Section B has plenty of accumulation that's almost close to the conditions prior to the dredging in 2013. So what we've done since the image was reopened and given the critical condition of the pass is that we established an interim monitoring program that included data collection at three, six, and 12 months, and we also have hydraulic monitoring and documentation of the interdynamics through the bathymetric surveys and shoreline mapping. And, quickly, I will just demonstrate some of the annual monitoring from the April 2013 where the channel was a straight connection between the bay system and the gulf. And as we move forward in time, this is July, the channel's starting to veer to the north, then in September we have events that push the ebb shoal on shore, and there was some concern. And at the time we said, we're not as concerned because there is still plenty of water in the back areas, and the flow will force itself out, which it did. And in November the conditions were -- up until December we're as good as it has been for Clam Pass over the past year. In came January and February and March, which are months of high northwest wave energy that pushed a lot of material into the mouth of the pass. And then we all remember there was some sort of a spit (sic) at the south end of the -- of the north side of the pass that, following that, it was pushed all the way inside Section B. So this amount of material that was pushed in Section B pushed the channel to force the channel to meander around that almost emergent shoal system. And this is where we highlighted the concern to the Clam Bay committees to look into it. So looking at it from an observer point of view -- and, again, the conditions for that pass looks night and day between high tide and low tide. You go at high tide, and you see 200 feet wide water shore to shore, and it looks as big and natural as it can be; however, at low tide you can see that there is just a lot large -- this is what the shore line here is at this area here. So all this gets masked under high tide condition while all the bodies of sand are sitting ankle deep below the water line. And the channel has to meander around all these areas. That's on the outside. On the inside at high tide, if you go at high spring time, it looks as wide as it's ever been, mangrove to mangrove. It's very wide. And I took that picture by just wading back, all the back in street clothes. So it just looks like I'm taking the picture from a boat, but it's just because this whole area here is not any deeper than half a foot to one foot from spring high tide. Same area, if you look at it at mean sea level, it's a recreational area. You see a lot of people using this area as a recreational area, and sometimes they bring, even, chairs in that area. And that's in the middle of Section B. And at low tide -- I guess the lights are not showing it as it is, but all this is sand, exposed sand. The water meanders around just south of the Marker No. 12. And at high tide, with people present, you can tell that it looks very wide and wet, but it's only ankle deep all the way back to the marker in the back of Section B. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Mohammed, I was up there yesterday at high tide, and I noticed the sandbar. MR. DABEES: Because yesterday is high tide. It's not spring high tide. The spring high tide happens twice a month, which is at new moon and at full moon. In between you have smaller tides. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I understand. MR. DABEES: So that's why I tried to document it at spring tide, mid tide, and low tide so that we can have the complete observation so that we do not get a snapshot and judge based on a snapshot. However, that's an observation point of view, and we should not judge based on observation, because this is a dynamic system. That's why we always like to have data and like to have bathymetric data. Big lesson learned from the closure of the pass in 2012 is that we did not have physical monitoring of the previous two years, so we --just looking at the water does not give us the full picture. We need to have numbers. We need to know what is the physical condition? What are the elevations on the water so that we know when the image is moving into a critical condition before it becomes critical? So if we look at that section, whether it's high water or low water, when you measure the bathymetry and you measure the cross-section, you know what you have. The dredge template is this trapezoid section here, the green line here is the conditions right before -- at the time it was closed, and the dark black line is the conditions of the last survey. And you can see that it is very close to how much it was, and in areas it's almost a mean high water area. The rest is less than a foot below that line. And then for the inlet to survive and stay open, all it has is to meander and push against the mangroves on the south side. That's why you'll see a 5 feet -- 5 feet -- 5 to 8 feet recession of that mangrove line on the south side and over a foot of scour in this area. So for hydrodynamics that's the survival of the pass. The scour -- scouring of the weakest section. And because of the overloading of sand in this side, it would push towards the area over at the mangroves. So if we look at it in a whole picture rather than just one profile, these are -- the survey that was conducted right after the dredging in 2013. The areas in blue are elevations below 3 feet deep, areas in green are between one and two feet deep, and yellow (sic) and above are in the orange and yellow colors -- or the swatch (sic) zone or the shoal area between high water and mean low water. And if we look at it now, this part of Section B here is almost high land. This orange here is areas above mean high water and yellow is almost at mean high water. The areas in green are depths between one and two. And you can see the scour holes that are basically the lifeline for the water to flow is to scour those areas, encroach on the mangroves on the south side. This meandering here by itself forces the channel to meander the other way, and this sinusoidal channel pathway gets established. And the Section C also shoaled significantly over that period of time. So if we compare the two surveys and look at the elevation change, areas in red show an elevation change of 3 or 4 feet buildup, areas in yellow are 1 to 2 feet, and blue are the scoured areas. So the channel -- as a response to all the shoaling in Section B and C, the channel meanders to the perimeter of the nodule area of B and C, and then it ends up pushing against the north side. So early on where there was some concern about the meandering to the north, I pointed to the fact that this is open water, so we have nothing to be concerned about. Once this becomes emergent and the channel is forced to meander all the way to the south, that -- it has to carry that sinusoidal pathway, and it pushes against the north side, which is what's happening now. To illustrate that more and to document it with a numerical tool, we used the two datasets; one that was representative of the six months post-dredging survey or -- sorry, the three months post-dredging survey, which was conducted in August in 2013, and compared it to the conditions of 2014. We ran the model with the two different bathymetric conditions but the same exact tide conditions. So the tide from the gulf is the same for two simulations. One for the August conditions and one for March conditions. If we look at bathymetry or the depth and elevation for those two conditions, we see in August we have a lot of blue. The blue areas are depths that are deeper than 3 feet, and these are -- there are plenty of areas in blue that allow the water exchange between the gulf and the bay area that is naturally shallow, while now we can see that a lot of buildup in Section C making the channel meander to the outside perimeters of it, and then Section B, a big part of it became upland or almost dry and that the channel is encroaching on the south side and scouring in this -- in that area compared to the August. If we see what the model shows for the -- what does affect -- how does this affect the dynamics of the flow, we see that in the August conditions where we have more clear passage that the water velocities are 1 to 2 feet per second, and then at the throat or the area where the flow is breaking through the swatch zone, then you get high velocities that avoid or prevent the sedimentation of the mouth through this high velocity at the entrance. And it's more -- it has a more of a western direction to it, so it's pointing more into the gulf rather than paddle into the shoreline, while if we look at the conditions with -- following the March 24 survey, we see more unstructured areas with -- if we look at the cross-sections where it is a problem, that contraction or that constriction for the flow, the velocities increase, and these high velocities scouring this area, scouring deep and the mangroves to the side because it cannot deal with the amount of shoaling that is on the north side. If we look at how does this affect the water levels -- and if we look at the stage of low tide or ebb flow, these are the water level color scales, so blue is -- at this stage is about a foot-and-a-half below mean sea level, and the orange is close to one-and-a-half foot above mean sea level, so because of the bay system and how all the shoalings and the mangroves and meandering channel puts a lag in the system, always in the upper bays, the water table is much higher than the gulf and outer bay. But if we compare the conditions in March and August, we can see here that the recent conditions the water is held back longer. At that stage the water is six inches or half a foot higher than the conditions that were in August. So we are increasing the phase back and reducing the tidal range by allowing the clogging of Sections B and C to stay in effect. If you'd look at it in closer view at the inlet, you can see that the area to the south still has water above mean sea level at that stage, while in August with the conditions where the channel was more open, that drainage was much faster, and the water level dropped faster than the conditions similar to now. Over the past few months, we've been working with the Clam Bay Committee to try to develop the Inlet Management Plan design criteria. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Mohammed, we've got a very, very full schedule today. Could you move this along. Get to the recommendations. MR. DABEES: Yeah. This is the design criteria recommendations, which is still our recommendations. And based on our analysis of the annual monitoring plan, we developed a set of indicators or criterias. And the criteria for Sections B and C are met as far as crossing the threshold for requirements for dredging. And our recommendation at this time is to move ahead and schedule a dredging or -- a maintenance dredging event prior to the inlet going into more critical conditions where it will be susceptible to closure. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: What sort of timing do you see on this? MR. DABEES: Timing for the inlet to deteriorate or for -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: No. When do you have to do it? MR. DABEES: As soon as possible. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. MR. CRAVENS: As soon as possible? MR. DABEES: Yes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: As soon as possible, but what does that mean; one month, two months, six months? MR. DABEES: The operation itself will take less than a month. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. MR. DABEES: But to get to -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Are you saying if it were delayed, to take a number, three months, that would be dangerous? It might close? I'm trying to get a sense of just how critical this is. MR. DABEES: The good side is the inlet is still open. The inlet is trying to stay open by scouring and moving around those shoals; however, we're going into a tropical storm season, and if we have a wave event that comes at a time where the tide is not at a spring tide condition, that would be too critical, and the pass could close. And once the pass closes -- we've seen from the previous closure that the ebb shoal features collapse onshore and complicate the recovery of the pass. So that's why it is recommended that we dredge the pass while it's still open before it closes rather than wait until it closes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So would this be characterized as a maintenance dredging? MR. DABEES: This is a maintenance dredging so that we do not move into critical conditions where the features start to collapse and complicate the path -- the capacity to stay stable. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: What are the permitting implications, Neil? MR. DORRILL: Tim has told me that we should not expect that it can be done in 28 days. That took a lot of extraordinary sort of effort. But I think Tim said in less than 60 days. Tim, is that fair? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: How would this be funded? Would the county cover this? MR. DORRILL: In anticipation that this was coming to you, we gave the county manager a courtesy briefing along these same lines a couple of weeks ago, and he is supportive of recommending this to the County Commission with TDC funds. MS. O'BRIEN: And what would it cost? MR. DORRILL: It would cost approximately half of what it cost before because we're dealing with half of the number of cubic yards that are expected to be moved. MS. O'BRIEN: Which is what? MR. DORRILL: Do you guys remember? MS. O'BRIEN: We need a set of construction drawings, we'd need to seek the permit, and then we'd have the cost of the dredge. So ballpark, what are we looking at? MR. DABEES: Well, the good news is we already have a survey that is valid to provide construction plans. MS. O'BRIEN: We have a survey, but we don't have the construction plans? MR. DABEES: The construction plan is following a similar template of what was dredged in the past. MS. O'BRIEN: And that would cost about how much? MR. HALL: I think the last time that we looked at this it was in the 25- to $28,000 to get -- to make the submittal and then the dredging costs on top -- the dredging costs on top of that, which I don't remember what it was. MS. O'BRIEN: Okay. Well, that was about $200,000, I think. And Neil was suggesting that this would be less so it could be done. MR. DORRILL: And then it's -- and we've already advised the Coastal Zone Management, who handles that end of the TDC funding process, to anticipate -- I think we said $300,000 before the end of September. It needed to be set aside as part of their own budgeting purposes. MR. DOMENIE: Are we talking Sections A and B, or what sections are we talking about? MR. DABEES: Section A currently has enough flow going through it but, depending on how -- the conditions at the time of the project, if a tropical storm moves in and closed the entrance to the pass, you'll have to dredge it. So we will have to include Section A in the permit plans. And when the operation is going underway, then the -- when the project is going out to bid, it would be according to the conditions at the time of bidding the project. MR. DOMENIE: And you're talking about dredging with a dredge, not with any other instrument, backhoe or whatever? MR. DABEES: The Section C, since most of it is submerged -- and there are problem areas in the back of Section C similar to the cross-section that I showed, we would recommend that the Section C also be completed in this operation. So depending on the contractors and the bidding -- and the bidding process and the costs, we don't -- we cannot force them to either use a backhoe or a hydraulic dredge or some combination of the two to complete Section B and C. Getting access or getting the barges or the hydraulic dredges or the equipment may require a vessel or a dredge to go through. So all this has to be included in the permit so that the operation will be feasible. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Might it not be better economy to do A at the same time? MR. DABEES: That -- as far as -- once you have mobilized, and if Section C necessitates a hydraulic dredge, then you'll need to do Section A. MR. CRAVENS: You mean, Mohammed, we can do this, if we do A, without constructing the existing ebb shoal at the present? MR. DABEES: Yes, because the amount of dredging -- the template that we are going to put on the construction plans for the maintenance dredging is smaller than what we dredged in 2013. So it's all within the template that was previously authorized. It's almost a foot shallower than what it was before and narrower in width just to maintain the flow since -- as we have seen from the dynamics of this pass, that it does restore itself to its natural equillibrum. But when you have sand trapped in the mangrove forest and these meandering areas, the sand has no way of getting anywhere, so it ended up clogging the system. MR. CRAVENS: I'd like to make a motion that the board recommends that we proceed with a maintenance dredge of Clam Pass. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MR. DOMENIE: I second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Further discussion? MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. What are the tide range ratios for January, February, March, and April? MR. DABEES: The tide range can be around -- MS. O'BRIEN: No, this year, the date on that. What did we find that to be? Because, you know, in our model that we've developed from the management plan, we have the tide range ratio targets. And I'm just wondering what the data -- MR. DABEES: Oh, you mean the tide range in the gulf or in the back bay? MS. O'BRIEN: No, the ratio -- MR. DABEES: Oh, the ratio. MS. O'BRIEN: -- of the two at both locations. MR. DABEES: The ratio is usually between .6 to .07. MS. O'BRIEN: No, I'm sorry. What were they in January, February, March? What -- the data from this year from 2014, what were the ratios? MR. DABEES: The ratio, the earlier part of the year it was .65 or so and then it dropped to below .5, and the recent data is -- (Mr. Hansen left for the remainder of the meeting.) MS. O'BRIEN: But I -- because what our plan does now is it says that we'll monitor that monthly, and we'll take that ratio. And when it gets to a certain point for three consecutive months, then we will consider some more physical monitoring of the system. That's in the management plan that -- MR. DABEES: I don't know that it specified three consecutive months. MS. O'BRIEN: Yeah. That's in your plan, Mohammed. MR. DABEES: What I specified is if it goes below what's in my document -- MS. O'BRIEN: Yes, if it goes below .5 -- MR. DABEES: If it goes below six -- MS. O'BRIEN: Point 5. MR. DABEES: No. If it goes below .6, it needs to be monitored and field observation needs to be conducted. MS. O'BRIEN: And then if-- MR. DABEES: If it goes below .5 -- MS. O'BRIEN: For three consecutive months, then we will consider doing some physical monitoring. So all I'm suggesting is we need to know the data, the hard data on three consecutive months this year before we finalize plans to do the dredge, because what we're trying to get away from is we think we should dredge and what our -- you're developing the model, and I think it's a good one, and the committee has spent a lot of time on it, but it says that we're going to monitor for three -- if it falls below .5 for three consecutive -- all I want to do, Mohammed, is confirm that it's below that. So I think we need the data on that. MR. DABEES: I worked in developing that design criteria -- MS. O'BRIEN: I know. It's good. But now what we have to do is follow it. MR. DABEES: I did not put three months -- I mean, if it's three months stated, that doesn't mean it's a solid line that it has to be three months, because the whole idea is we already have a hydraulic monitoring program that gives us the range -- let me finish. If that range -- if that range is safe, then we don't need to do any follow-up monitoring. In the presence of physical monitoring data, if I have a cross-section that is clogged, I don't need hydraulics to tell me I need to dredge. But the hydraulics -- the establishment of the hydraulics allows you to know when to do the expenditures to do the physical monitoring. We just have the dataset that was collected months ago that shows critical shoaling. We can show it by physical data. MS. O'BRIEN: But what we started with -- and the number one target in the plan you designed is tidal range ratio. MR. DABEES: Yes. MS. O'BRIEN: And in your copy -- I'll read it. If the tidal range ratio falls below .5 for three consecutive months, physical monitoring of the potential shoaling areas that could be impeding flow should be considered. So -- and you wrote it well, and now all I'm suggesting is we need that data before -- we need those three pieces of data to see what the three consecutive months look like. And if they are below .5, then we should be having this conversation. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, let's move on. MR. DABEES: But read it again. It says when it drops below .5, physical monitoring is needed. The physical monitoring is already done so -- MS. O'BRIEN: I'm just asking you what the numbers are. MR. DABEES: The numbers are -- MS. O'BRIEN: What are the numbers? Are they .3? Are they .4? Are they .5? What are those three numbers? That's all I'm asking. MR. DABEES: Well, we don't have three months after it's .5. MS. O'BRIEN: Sure. We collect that every month. MR. DABEES: Yes, but -- we collect it every month, but the data is available six weeks after it's collected. MS. O'BRIEN: So which months do we have? MR. DABEES: We have January, March, and now we have April. MS. O'BRIEN: Okay. And so what are those numbers? MR. DABEES: The numbers in March is -- I don't remember March, but I do remember that it went below .5 in January -- in February. And then in March it's roughly about .53, if I remember correctly; I don't have the data in front of me. And the April data I don't -- we did not finish processing the April data yet. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. And let's -- I think we've discussed this adequately. Let's move on. I had a question about turtle monitoring. Is that going to create a problem? MR. HALL: Yeah. I was just going to say that the cost associated with the dredging will be more because of some of the monitoring that has to be done as a result of it occurring within the turtle nesting season. There's some timing issues where they have to stop by a certain time of the day, and they can't start in the morning until after monitoring that section of the beach has been done, and then -- MR. CRAVENS: That happens pretty early. MR. HALL: Yeah. It's usually about 8:00, 8:30 they can get going again, around 9 o'clock. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Other questions or comments from the board? MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. Where will the sand be placed? MR. DABEES: The sand will be placed within the template of-- MS. O'BRIEN: Above mean high water, which was our problem last year when we dredged because we were restricted in terms of where we could place the sand. MR. DORRILL: Which means that we would prefer that more sand be put on the south beach this time for that very reason. MS. O'BRIEN: And then how much sand this time versus what we did in 2013? MR. DABEES: So far what accumulated in Section B and C is 7,000 yards. If you add Section A, then you have a total of close to 10,000 yards. MS. O'BRIEN: And that compares to -- MR. DABEES: But we're not going to dredge the entire shoaling in the template. So we're looking at a number between 7- and 8,000 cubic yards. MS. O'BRIEN: Because one of the issues we had last year when we dredged was, because we had to place the sand above the mean high water, some of that sand is causing us problems now. So part of the issue with the Nationwide is you can't put the sand where you want to put the sand -- MR. DABEES: Within the -- MS. O'BRIEN: -- which should be the pass -- MR. DABEES: We are putting the material not in the immediate section here, but we're placing it on the south and in the north side within the permitted template. MR. HALL: Yeah. It's not that you can't put the sand below mean high water as part of the Nationwide. It's the type of coordination that has to occur with the other agencies. The reason we didn't do it before is because the time frame associated with National Marine Fishery Service was so long, it would have held up the dredging more, so that's why everything was above mean high water. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Let's take other board comments and then the audience comments, and we'll move on from this topic. Any other board comments? MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. Can we just get -- we're talking about securing the Nationwide permit, and where does this fit in with the timeline for also pursuing a 10-year permit? Neil, could you give us an update on that just so the board knows kind of how these two would dovetail to each other? Because we're going to be seeking a 10-year permit -- once the management plan is approved, which we hope will be relatively soon, we're going to seek the 10-year permit. MR. DORRILL: If I understand your question, I'm led to believe that we will have the 10-year maintenance permit sometime between August and October of 2015 in anticipation that it will take almost a year to get the biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MS. O'BRIEN: I'm wondering when we'll apply for it. MR. DORRILL: I'm anticipating that it would be applied for sometime in the latter part of August or September. MS. O'BRIEN: So we're not going to pursue that right away? MR. DORRILL: The 10-year maintenance application? MS. O'BRIEN: Right. If-- no. The goal is to have the management plan to our board in June and then to the BCC in June for approval and that we're not going to seek the 10-year permit for a couple months. MR. DORRILL: Now, if all of that happens and we can accomplish that before the County Commission goes on their summer recess, then you can back up a little bit from my August -- MS. O'BRIEN: Well, I'm just hoping -- and I just want the board to understand how, you know, we'd be seeking two different permits and kind of the ballpark timelines on them because, conceivably, if we were to apply for the 10-year permit right away -- and the 10-year permit, once we get it, we will have more flexibility in terms of when we can dredge and placement of sand and so forth. So we don't -- we will then be pursuing another -- we'll be spending another, what, $28,000 or so pursuing a Nationwide permit, and we're expected to spend $71,000 seeking the 10-year permit, so that's another 71,000 we'd be asking the county for, and we will not even know how long it will take us to get the 10-year permit before we'll seek another permit. So it's -- we may or may not get the Nationwide. MR. DABEES: Just a quick thing with respect to the cost. The $28,000 for the development of the application will be significantly less given the fact that the survey's already completed. The survey costs over $15,000 just to complete the survey. So it just -- there is already an advantage of having a survey that is completed that would be valid for a permit application. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Let's take audience comments at this time. Marcia? MS. CRAVENS: Yeah, you know, I do support -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Briefly. MS. CRAVENS: Okay -- support going for the Nationwide three permit, however, scheduling a dredging at this point in time might be a little bit premature because although you could potentially have a scenario where you get a summer storm that is pushing sand eastward, the converse is also true. You may end up getting storms that are actually pushing water out, and you may have wind and current going in the opposite direction, and you may not actually -- it may actually create some correction of what you have in there right now. I'm also a little concerned about the eastward portion, what they call Section C. I want to -- you know, you don't have any construction drawings in front of you right now, and neither does the public. And I think that, you know, you're getting into a situation again now where you had before; you're asked to suddenly approve of a scheduling of dredging activity. You don't even have all the data and drawings in front of you, and that raises a lot of concern. So while I do think it would be prudent to submit an application to get another Nationwide permit three, that does not equate to the same thing as scheduling an actual dredging activity. And the one thing that we all agreed upon was that when you look at the conditions in Clam Pass, you don't want to just look at a snapshot of it. You want to look at it over a period of time because you should be allowing it to do a self-correction, which it can do. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I assume, Mohammed, the board would have an opportunity to review the final construction drawings? MS. O'BRIEN: Absolutely. I'm sorry. MR. CRAVENS: He's asking Mohammed. MR. DORRILL: Let me ask you -- excuse me. Keep in mind that we have a court reporter here today, and when three of you are talking at one time and somebody's shouting from the audience, you make her difficult job impossible. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. Mohammed? MR. DABEES: Of course, once we finish -- the plans are usually done in a preliminary form, a draft form. It gets approved. And once they're approved, the permit application will follow. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. So the board will have an opportunity to review the construction plans. MR. DABEES: Yes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. MR. LEVY: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if Mohammed or Tim could address a comment that was just made that if a storm came out of the east, it could clear out the sand that's in there now. I would like them to address that. MR. HALL: Well, I mean, if you have a permit in hand, it allows you to do maintenance work, but it does not obligate you to do so. So you're going to be -- we're going to be proceeding forward -- the board's going to be proceeding forward with this long-term 10-year permit. But while that's in process, you still don't have the ability to do anything with the pass. So if on the -- erring on the side of caution, you've got both of your experts here saying we have concerns that the pass is not going to be able to sustain itself under a smaller event. Whether you want to proceed forward with that or not is your decision but, you know, we've given you the information on why we think that and on what the corrective measures could be if there isn't any kind of self-reparation that happens in the intervening time. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: If there are no further questions or comments -- DR. CHICUREL: Mr. Chairman, I just have one further point. For clarity and to really speak more specific, should we not have the motion to seek a Nationwide three permit as opposed to a dredging motion? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Tom? MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. MR. CRAVENS: Okay. MS. O'BRIEN: I'll support that. MR. CRAVENS: Yeah, I'll support that change to seek a Nationwide permit, and at that point in time, once we've got the permit we can -- MR. DABEES: Review the plans. MR. CRAVENS: Well -- MR. HALL: Well, you review the plans before. MR. CRAVENS: Of course, we're going to view the plans anyway. But we can proceed -- once we've got that plan, we can proceed -- MR. DABEES: With the dredging. MR. CRAVENS: -- with the dredging. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Just, procedurally here, is there a second to the modified motion? MR. STRECKENBEIN: I'll second it. MR. CRAVENS: John, do you accept the modification? MR. DOMENIE: I'd like to hear the whole -- MR. IAIZZO: The whole motion now. MR. CRAVENS: Can we call upon Mary to read the motion as modified? MS. McCAUGHTRY: First of all was to proceed with the maintenance dredging, and then Mr. Cravens just said that he would amend it to seek a Nationwide permit that would allow us to proceed with dredging. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: With the maintenance dredging. MS. McCAUGHTRY: With the maintenance dredging. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: With the maintenance dredging. MR. DOMENIE: We only have to vote on that one amendment? MR. CRAVENS: Well, we don't even have to vote on it if it's okay with you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. I'm going to call the question. Mary, would you do a roll call on this? This is fairly important. MR. IAIZZO: One more question. MS. CRAVENS: Public comment. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Tim; sorry. DR. RAIA: The objective is not the pass. The objective is the mangrove estuary. We know that the pass can close for two months, much more than two months, and it does not affect the mangrove estuary. So I would suggest we concentrate on the 10-year permit and buy time. If it closes, you have easy amount of time. Hopefully we will be at a time we're not limited with the turtle season. You're going to run into a problem where you're going to put the sand because of-- not only for the dredging, where you're going to put the sand on the beach because of the turtle season, you have to monitor. We're forcing ourselves into a corner here where we don't have to be. That pass was closed for many months, and the mangrove estuary survived. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: My understanding is if Mother Nature intervenes in our affair -- in our favor, we don't have to do the dredging. MR. DABEES: Precisely. MR. CRAVENS: We'll be taking the prudent action of preparing to dredge if necessary. That's all this does. MR. DABEES: It's when necessary, not -- it's when. If the conditions are critical such that, depending on the weather, the shoal can collapse on shore, then the inlet will be closing down rapidly. MR. CRAVENS: And our advisors are telling us to proceed with this, and I think we should. I don't think there's any argument that we should not proceed to do what our paid knowledgeable advisors are telling us to do. MS. O'BRIEN: Dave, can I just make one other -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, one last one, then we're going to call the question. MS. O'BRIEN: Thank you. After this was approved, the recommendation to seek a Nationwide permit at the committee meeting, I called Tunis McElwain at the Army Corps to talk with him. We worked with him. He was fabulous a year ago when he got us the Nationwide permit. And he said, if you're going to apply for a Nationwide permit, you have to be ready to dredge. You can't get the permit and then hold onto the permit and then dredge later, maybe never, whatever. You've got to be in dire conditions to even seek the Nationwide permit. So we just need to know that going in that, you know, they're assuming that the conditions will be dire, that we have to dredge immediately. As soon as we get that permit, we'll have the backhoes or the hydraulic dredging or whatever equipment ready to go. So just more background that, you know, they really -- you know, it's for intent to -- it's for a condition that presents itself when you apply for the permit, not down the road. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Is there an expiration date on that? MS. O'BRIEN: It's a one-year, but they expect you to have the job done in a year. They expect you to pursue it, because you're seeking this Nationwide to do the project right now. MR. IAIZZO: What does that year cost us? MS. O'BRIEN: Excuse me? MR. IAIZZO: One year is going to cost us what to get that permit? MS. O'BRIEN: Well, they're saying 20-some thousand dollars. MR. IAIZZO: Twenty-eight something. MR. DABEES: Minus the survey. MS. O'BRIEN: Well -- so what would that be, 20,000 or something like that? MR. HALL: Probably about 16-. MS. O'BRIEN: Sixteen thousand to get this. And what I'm trying to convey is that the fellow that -- this is the head guy at the Fort Myers office of the Army Corps -- said you can't seek a Nationwide because you may use it. You can only seek a Nationwide if you intend to use it immediately upon its issuance. MR. IAIZZO: And that isn't the case, basically, is what you're saying? MS. O'BRIEN: Excuse me? MR. IAIZZO: You're saying, basically, that is not the case. MS. O'BRIEN: Well, I'm not hearing from our consultants that it's urgent. I mean, when we talked about this at the committee meeting, we thought that what Mohammed was suggesting, that we get the Nationwide as, quote, an insurance policy because we don't have a 10-year permit. That insurance -- Go ahead, John. MR. DOMENIE: But then it also depends on the availability of equipment. MS. O'BRIEN: Absolutely. But then -- that's why I decided to call Tunis. I'm, like, I don't know if we can get this Nationwide. And he said -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We would be intending to use it, certainly. MR. DABEES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We would get it with every intent to use it. Whether we would use it is a different argument. MR. DABEES: The physical conditions based on the survey that is collected meets the requirements and passes the critical threshold for Sections B and C. So presenting this information to any permitting agent will show that the pass requires maintenance to avoid closure under active wave conditions. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. MS. O'BRIEN: But they would then expect us to do the work immediately. MR. HALL: Unless the conditions change. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We've been over this many times. Mary, please do the roll call vote. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Levy? MR. LEVY: Aye. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Domenie? MR. DOMENIE: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Iaizzo? MR. IAIZZO: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dr. Chicurel? DR. CHICUREL: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Cravens? MR. CRAVENS: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dr. Trecker? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Ms. O'Brien? MS. O'BRIEN: No. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Streckenbein? MR. STRECKENBEIN: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Thank you. Passes 9-1 (sic). CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion -- the motion carries. Anything more on Clam Pass dredging? Can we move on? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. And just in a few minutes, if not now -- because the rest of my report can be fairly quick, we probably need to give our court reporter a little recess. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Five-minute break? MR. DORRILL: That'd be fine. I think she would appreciate it. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. The five minutes is up. Let's reassemble to move things along. Mary, what happened to the administrator? Oh, here he comes. Neil, if possible, move on smartly here. MR. DORRILL: The next two items are pending. We're only cost sharing for both of those condominium communities in the cost associated with the soil. And we've otherwise, I think, made our resources available. And neither one of the projects has yet been done, but we will participate on a fair-share basis of our contribution. MS. O'BRIEN: On the Oak Lake Sanctuary, I think they were -- I think we had committed some civil engineering work to help them? MR. DORRILL: We had committed to advise them. We're not going to design or really participate in the repair of their pipe, but we will do fill and grading on either side of the pipe so that the finished cross-section will be consistent with the original design. MS. O'BRIEN: And I met an Oak Lake Sanctuary fellow at a meeting last week, and he said that that advising period had not yet begun, so -- MR. DORRILL: Well, they have been struggling with the Foundation as to whether they would have to build a head wall that would hold, you know, their pipe, a vertical head wall. And my understanding is that the Foundation will require a head wall. And so I think that they will move forward and get some proposals from a site work contractor, and we'll participate in the building and grading the sanctuary. MS. O'BRIEN: And they were thinking we were going to contact them, I guess, so -- and this fellow had made contact with -- anyway, let's just -- MR. DORRILL: I think Kyle spoke to them last week. I mean, if they need to, they can call Lisa or I, and we'll reiterate what our -- you know, our willingness is. The next item concerning mangrove trimming. You know, we hold the permit that allows us to do mangrove trimming throughout the community. There has been, I guess, a great deal of concern as to the removal of all or part of the canopy associated with that north beach project. I have made it abundantly clear to our staff that that's a pretty substantial pruning job and cost and that we have neither the manpower nor the budget resources to devote to that. I'm told that it is necessary to aid the delivery of the trusses for the new restaurant, but, you know, we're not a party to that. And if the Foundation's project contemplates that, no one at the Foundation has told me that, and I'm not in receipt of any request to do that. MS. O'BRIEN: But trimming will be done under our permit? MR. DORRILL: I presume that it's eligible to be done under our permit, but we do not intend to do it as a staff. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So nothing is imminent, and we've received no requests? MR. DORRILL: I've received no request at all associated with that. And as I sit here right now, I'm not really intending to do it for the two reasons that I mentioned. MR. CRAVENS: Neil, would it be possible for the Foundation to get a permit to transport those trusses down the beach? MR. DORRILL: Yeah. They would simply need a vehicle-on-the-beach permit from the county. I don't know that any other DEP permit would be necessary unless during the sea turtle nesting season, and I'm just not the person to ask. MR. CRAVENS: It would certainly seem to me -- MR. DORRILL: Let's ask the expert. MR. HALL: For the trusses to come down the beach, they would need the -- like Neil said, the vehicle-on-the-beach permit and as well as -- because of the timing, they'd have to have all of the sea turtle nests within that stretch of the beach relocated, which is not a very, I guess, environmentally sound way to go forward. The trimming -- MR. CRAVENS: Well, do we know when these trusses need to be delivered? MR. HALL: I believe it's the end of May or early June. MR. CRAVENS: Well, if they would push that delivery up, there are no -- there are no turtle nests on the beach at this time. MR. HALL: Yeah, but they can't -- they can't store anything on the beach because that's an impediment to nesting, and they don't have the room to stage anything on the boardwalk because of all of the other vertical construction that would be going on. MR. DOMENIE: Could they barge the trusses in? MR. HALL: Well, they -- I suppose you could barge them in, but you'd still have to cross the beach. MR. DOMENIE: But only a small section right in front of the construction. You don't have the -- MR. HALL: No, but you would have to get the equipment or something down there to physically move the trusses and lift them up onto the platform and all. I -- there are a lot of ways that they could be done, and you could fly them in with a Sikorsky and put them down that way, but it all comes down to -- you know, to, I guess, financial and timing issues. The trimming itself, because the boardwalks are in place through the mangrove forest, trimming to maintain those boardwalks is exempt under the state permitting criteria. MS. CRAVENS: It's very strict. MR. CRAVENS: But that's not maintaining the boardwalk. MR. HALL: That absolutely is maintaining the boardwalk, that the -- you are allowed, under any permit that I have done, to trim a vertical plain along your handrails. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We're arguing something here that has not yet been requested, so let's move on until we get a formal request. MR. DORRILL: The next item I have, again, with Tim's assistance and some coordination with Maura Kraus, who is the turtle staff manager for all of Collier County -- you know, we've had some escarpment along the northern reaches of the actual inlet at Clam Pass, and so we have arranged to have a plan that if or when further escarpment -- at times it's been like a 4-foot dropoff, that we are without the need to have a permit, and we're going to be managing any escarpment. I'm told there's none currently there. But, again, depending on storm conditions and whatnot, if escarpments form that in any way hamper sea turtle nesting season, we've taken the initiative to have a plan to address that with the approval of the state and the local turtle officials as a new sort of program initiative this summer. We'll be doing that on an as-necessary basis and utilizing Coastal Zone Management equipment, the beaching-moving device or a small box blade, as we have done in the past. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Now, we've moved water management responsibilities and the comments project up next. MR. DORRILL: This is the one where we have referred the Site Development Plan application for the expansion of the Commons to Jim Can at Agnoli Barber, who's your engineer of record, to do several items to see if it conflicts or will require an amendment of any substance to the South Florida Water Management permit. There has also been this recent issue raised by Mrs. Roth concerning a previously recorded or designated drainage easement that may be altered as a result of the proposed project. And, Jim, if you can come to the mike and give them a summary of your findings on those two issues and any questions they might have. MR. CARR: Okay. The first item is South Florida Water Management permitting. Actually, this kind of goes hand in hand with the site development permitting through Collier County. We looked back at the historically -- the first -- the first permit from around 1980 when this was shown as a park was very general, just out of-- discharge out to the south. There was no documentation we saw from 1980 on to 1998. It was about an 18-year gap. So when they came back in with the permit to make some minor changes, some of the areas had already been constructed, the main roadways, the main parking, some of the tennis courts. So there was no data on how much pervious or impervious coverage was supposed to be there originally. The permit -- a permit modification has been filed by the engineer for the project to the Water Management District. We looked at that permit. And, again, I didn't -- I saw a total land-use calculation for the impervious coverage, but there was no indication of what was originally permitted and what the difference actually was. But the Water Management District has issued a comment or request for information letter, and some of those comments in there, they were looking for those exact items. They wanted to see a tabulation of how much impervious coverage and how much water quality was being provided. That water quality was another item I could not tell from the plans actually what was being quantified there. Historically, this area has been a parking lot with swales and pipes with the pipe discharge out to the northwest corner and then another discharge out to the south in the lake to the south. With the new application that's been filed, the 36-inch pipe to the south is remaining. Basically, collects all of the open swales from the parking lots and discharges out to the south. There's a new dry detention area being put in in the northwest corner with a control structure that's going to hold water. Again, I don't see the quantity that they're providing, but it is going to provide some water quality before discharging out to the west. MS. O'BRIEN: So how do we get that information, the qualities? MR. CARR: Per the comment letter the engineer's going to have to respond to those items. They're going to have to quantify those numbers and show how much coverage and how much water quality they're providing. MS. O'BRIEN: Have they submitted drainage calculations with that permit application? And what information -- what does that mean "drainage calculations"? To me that means the amount of water that would drain. MR. CARR: Well, the drainage calculations can consist of pipe sizing to make sure that the water does not flood the parking lots but also how much will discharge off the site. Like I was saying, there was no historical data in the previous permits that told me how much they were allowed to discharge. It appears that all they needed to do was to provide their water quality, and then they'd have free discharge into the offsite systems. MR. CRAVENS: Currently there exists at the northern end of the structure at the Commons there -- where the -- I guess that -- where the trams are located, there's grade work that drains the water in that area, and the tram drivers in the morning get out there and wash their trams using chemicals. This drains directly into the area in back of the Commons. Additionally, the painter has washed his brushes and rollers off, and this water drains directly into the area in back of the Commons. Is there -- is this in any -- is this shown on any of their documents? MR. CARR: No. That would be a sort of operational thing that's happening. I didn't see anything about that. I wasn't looking for that specifically. There may be a wash-down area or a collection area. MR. CRAVENS: This drains directly into the watershed back there. It's not treated or anything. MR. CARR: Okay. I wasn't looking for one. There may be a wash-down type area, but I did not see one on the plan. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: That doesn't have anything to do with a project, right? It's just the existing practice. MR. CRAVENS: It's an existing practice, yeah, and not a good one. MS. O'BRIEN: The Landscape Water Management Committee may want to take that up. MR. DOMENIE: Where does the 36-inch pipe go to, to the lakes there? Directly? MR. CARR: It goes to the lake to the south off site from the Commons' parcel. MR. DOMENIE: But it's not withheld for any drainage or anything. It goes direct? MR. CARR: Right. There's no restriction upstream of that on the Commons area itself. It's an open pipe that's driving to the lake. MR. DOMENIE: So that's water from the parking lot where cars may drop oil, and that gets -- goes directly into the lake; is that right? MR. CARR: Sure, that could happen. I mean, there is some treatment where water can run into the swales that are there now. You know, I know several of the swales will be filled in and piped, but the water quality being provided is a volume. It doesn't necessarily have to happen at every location if it's a total volume that's being held on the site, and that's what needs to be responded to in the questions that the district has asked of them. MR. DORRILL: Could you also discuss this existing or phantom drainage easement and to the extent which this upcoming project is going to, in which way, impact that drainage easement? MR. CARR: Well, I saw on the letter or the email that you referenced there was a statement about two easements. One is to the west. It's west of the Hammock. I don't see how it affects this project at all. It's out in the open area. And on the deed that was referenced, the easement itself did not even identify what type of easement that is, so I don't think that that's an issue that -- now, the other easement was, in fact, a drainage easement. It runs along the south of the Commons parcel, and currently the parking lot sits on top of that area, and the parking lot, I believe, even goes off site onto the southern property. So my guess would be that that drainage easement must have been modified at some point or maybe it still exists today and the parking lot sits on it. They may not relocate it because now there's a lake to the south, and drainage occurs to the south. MS. O'BRIEN: So we looked at OR pages on these drainage easements? MR. CARR: Yes, I have those. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Neil, I'm trying to, in my own mind, summarize what Jim is saying here. My understanding is that there are two critical questions. Was there a substantial change to the Site Development Plan and whether the impervious limitations were exceeded. MR. DORRILL: And the extent to which there is a planned alteration to any drainage easement or drainage feature that we control, I think the -- what I understood you to say on the last question is, no, although there may be a drainage easement that has been encroached upon by earlier construction. I mean, if the drainage easement lies underneath some of the existing paved parking areas, the historical parking areas, I think we can pursue that a little further to see if it at some point was vacated and then a new easement to the south of there, if I understood what Jim said, was recorded or conveyed to the services division. And then I don't want to speak for Jim, but what I heard him say is based on his analysis that, in his opinion, the Site Development Plan changes do not contemplate a substantial change and/or would affect some higher level of approval from West Palm Beach on the South Florida side. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: And the level of-- or the degree of changes to impervious land are difficult to measure because of poor -- MR. DORRILL: Because they have not previously been -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: -- historical data. MR. DORRILL: Yes. MS. O'BRIEN: No, we don't have the data yet, right? MR. CARR: Correct. We could not find any historical approvals of what was permitted. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So what's the baseline? MS. O'BRIEN: What's the current right now, impervious? MR. CARR: That's what I didn't find. MS. O'BRIEN: And what's the proposed? I mean, that's what we wanted to know. We can't find out what was in the PUD. We wanted to know what the current is and what the proposed is. MS. CRAVENS: It's in the DRI. MS. O'BRIEN: And then we need the title searches. Do we have the title searches to show any other -- MR. DORRILL: We don't have the title search. I think Jim could do some further evaluations. MS. O'BRIEN: We need the title search -- MR. CARR: We could do some further. All we pulled was the easements that were referenced on the deed. MS. O'BRIEN: I thought we were going to do title searches. That was mentioned in the minutes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Well, it sounds like we have more work to do here. Do we have time to do the work? How fast is the Foundation proceeding on this? MR. DORRILL: I was told by Mr. Cook that this is not an urgent project, and so I would think, based on his verbal representation to me, that we do have time for their research, but I can confirm that. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Let's plan to do that. Marcia, briefly. MS. CRAVENS: Yeah. It's not just a PUD. It's a Development of Regional Impact, which includes records from the flood control district that indicates the discharge per -- it's cubic foot per second for discharges, and there are plans that show that kind of information per drainage basin. So it's not that the information doesn't exist; it does. And one of the things that this board should be considering is, like I said in the beginning of this meeting, you need to be considering how this affects your surface water management plan and program for of all of Pelican Bay. That's your responsibility. And so if this -- if it changes, discharge and drainage through that parcel, and there's water that drains off the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard in the golf course underneath Pelican Bay Boulevard, around the tennis courts, and through that parking lot to the west side where that preserve buffer zone is, it's not just the parking lot, so it affects your entire water management -- surface water management program. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So, Neil, I guess we can take this as a status report and wait for an update at the next meeting? MR. DORRILL: Well, yeah. Let me make sure that I fully understand. I think what Jim said is that there is no historical cumulative impervious calculations that have been either submitted or monitored or calculated over time, but he can at least determine, based on aerial photography and whatnot, what the current impervious areas are within the drainage basin in question, if that's what you're asking for. MS. O'BRIEN: Well, that's what we had been asking for, yes. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Well, I think he says that there is no historical data that has been compiled as construction has commenced over the last few years. MS. O'BRIEN: We've got that. MR. DORRILL: We can determine that. The separate issue concerning this new or phantom drainage easement I can ask him to explore further. And if we need a real estate attorney or -- I don't know if someone in the County Attorney's Office is qualified to do that sort of thing, but surely they have attorneys for eminent domain type proceedings. And, if necessary, we can find out well, what, if anything, is within the -- I'll call it a phantom drainage easement, or was it vacated and then superseded from a new drainage easement for which we either have some facilities or serves as some sort of drainage swale or feature to the south of the one that has been paved over over the course of the last 20 years or so. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: It's going to be important to run this to ground, because I think this is precedent setting for us. We don't want to set the wrong precedent by not owning up to our responsibilities there. MS. O'BRIEN: And the title search would generate any easements, any other easements that may be out there, may be hanging out there that we don't know about, right? I think that's one of the things. And then I think we still don't know exactly the impact. I think, Jim, you're saying, has -- it's insubstantial, but what is the end result in terms of is there more water going to the lake, for example. I don't think we know that. MR. CARR: Right. We just don't have the current calculation. That's something that's been requested. MR. DORRILL: They're not shown on the Hole Montes plans, right? MR. CARR: Correct. MR. DORRILL: Were they required to be, or have we brought that to the attention of West Palm? MR. CARR: Well, West -- or when you say -- MR. DORRILL: Or the -- MR. CARR: -- the South Florida -- yeah, the Ft. Myers office is the one that reviewed, and they did make those comments. They are looking for that information. MR. DORRILL: They are awaiting that information from the design engineer. MS. O'BRIEN: So we're on their email list to get that? And can we get that from Lisa then? MR. DORRILL: We can be. It's all public record. MS. O'BRIEN: Right. But, I mean, if we can get on their email list, and then Lisa can get that out to us as soon as it comes in. MR. DORRILL: Yeah. Jim, how does that work? Can we ask to be notified as an interested party? MS. O'BRIEN: Absolutely. MR. DORRILL: As part of the ROI process? MR. CARR: The comments letter is currently on their South Florida website. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. More to come on this. Let's move on. MR. DORRILL: Okay. The final item I have would be the financials, seven-month financials. Very quickly, there's nothing here really to report. Your revenues are at 97 -- I'm sorry 94 percent of budget. In fact, they are just slightly ahead of budget. We're within $2,000 of Mr. Levy's forecast for the year to date in receipts on a $4 million budget. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: You get credit for that, Mike. MR. DORRILL: That's pretty doggone good in my book. And the year-to-date operating expenses are about $100,000 below budget. And, in fact, the only line item that is even slightly above budget -- and it's only $5,000 -- is the parks budget within our fleet maintenance allocation. We're $5,000 overbudget year to date. We're $100,000 underbudget year to date overall. I'll be happy to answer any -- any other questions you might have. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Neil, do you need a motion of approval here? MR. DORRILL: You typically entertain a motion to accept the financials as presented. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a motion to accept the financials? MR. CRAVENS: Move to -- MR. LEVY: So moved to accept. MR. CRAVENS: -- accept financials. MR. DOMENIE: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Second? We have two motions but no seconds. MR. DOMENIE: Second. MR. LEVY: Yeah, John seconded. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: John seconded. Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Those in favor, say aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Opposed, no? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion carries. MR. DORRILL: And that completes my report for today. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. The chairman's report. I'll be very brief. John Domenie registered an impassioned plea that we improve our communications to the residents. Lisa and I got together, and we tried to do that in the form of a report that would appear in the Pelican Bay Post, and you've all got a copy of this in your package. And the idea here would be to present a summary report after each board meeting listing board actions, specifically motions, those that passed and didn't pass, and maybe a few paragraphs on certain local activities. Full activities or specific topics would be reported on quite separately. Joe, you indicated the desire to write something up on the safety program, some of the critical aspects of that; that would be a separate article. I would like to do one on Kyle's retirement and all of the many contributions he's made. That would be a separate article. Another, perhaps, on the beach situation, beach renourishment, as that evolves and planning evolves on that. So that's where that stands. And if there are no objections from the board, we'll continue to do that. The procedure here that I would like to follow is to draft it, again, with help and guidance from Lisa, and then to submit the draft to Neil and a board member, and I would nominate our past chairman, Tom Cravens, just to review the draft for accuracy. You can't write these things by committee, I can assure you of that. But I think -- I think some review is going to be necessary. So if I don't hear any objections from anybody, we'll continue to do that. And, John, I hope that meets at least part of your recommendation. MR. DOMENIE: Yes, it does. Thank you very much. But, Mr. Chairman, under administrator's report we had included H, which was the budget -- approval of the budget for the Fiscal Year '15, if I'm not mistaken, and we skipped that. I think that requires budget approval. MR. CRAVENS: No, we didn't. We had a motion and -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: No. MR. CRAVENS: You seconded the motion. MR. DORRILL: I think we moved 9A up. MR. DOMENIE: But to approve the budget? MS. McCAUGHTRY: No, just the financial report. MR. CRAVENS: Oh, just the financial report. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Just the financial report. MS. McCAUGHTRY: The budget approval will come later. MR. DOMENIE: We have to go to the budget for 2015. MR. LEVY: That's coming up, John. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: That's coming today, John. MR. IAIZZO: That was moved. MR. LEVY: No, they didn't move that. MR. DORRILL: It was moved to 9A. MR. IAIZZO: It's still there. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. Let's move on here. MR. DOMENIE: I apologize. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We had an informal vote at the last board meeting on who could attend the summer board meetings, and I understand there have been some changes since then. So what I'd like to do is just run through that again very briefly. Let me have a show of hands for those who can do the June board meeting; in other words, the June meeting. MR. LEVY: (Raised hand.) MR. DOMENIE: (Raised hand.) MR. IAIZZO: (Raised hand.) DR. CHICUREL: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: (Raises hand.) MS. O'BRIEN: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. Good. How about the July meeting? Same thing; show of hands. MR. LEVY: (Raised hand.) MR. DOMENIE: (Raised hand.) MR. IAIZZO: (Raised hand.) DR. CHICUREL: (Raised hand.) MS. O'BRIEN: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We're still -- MR. CRAVENS: I could be here, but I -- we're still -- our plans aren't finalized, so I can probably attend June -- or July and August, but I can't put my hand up -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. MR. CRAVENS: -- at this point. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. August seems to be the critical one. How many can attend the August board meeting? MR. DOMENIE: (Raises hand.) DR. CHICUREL: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: (Raises hand.) No August meeting. So that would scuttle the August board meeting. Okay. Last item, the chairman's report. We've had a discussion at a number of previous board meetings about our commercial membership. And Hunter has come back with us, and that's good. We still are missing one. Hunter was going to talk with Ed Staros to see if Ed would be interested in rejoining us. Neil, were you going to talk with anybody? I kind of forgot where that stood. MR. DORRILL: I think Mr. Hansen was going to reach out to Mr. Staros at the Ritz to see if he or a designee on behalf of the hotel would be interested in applying. I haven't heard from Mr. Hansen, but I can call him when we leave here today, and we'll share that with you one way or the other by email. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: How about the Waterside manager? MR. DORRILL: I've spoken to her or who I thought would be a good designee now twice, and apparently they have no interest, because I actually went over there one day and introduced myself and gave her a little history of what PBSD was and the fact that she is a substantial contributor in taxes and assessments to this community, so she understands. And I'm told they had the best season they ever had, and so maybe she's busy getting rich and chooses not to participate here. MR. CRAVENS: How about the Phil -- I mean the arts? MR. DORRILL: I'm not at all acquainted with the new executive director -- MR. CRAVENS: Have you spoken to Kathleen? MR. DORRILL: -- but I could certainly do that. Again, not necessarily her but someone on behalf of her. I'll be happy to do that. MR. CRAVENS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, let's do it. Okay. Let's move onto the committee reports. Mike, budget? MR. LEVY: Okay. In your package, if you turn to it, there's a summary sheet of the Fiscal Year 2015 operating budget. That would be right after -- it's right after the financial -- the monthly financial that we just got. MR. DOMENIE: And it's marked Page 1. MR. LEVY: Yes. MR. IAIZZO: One of three. MR. LEVY: It's marked Page 1. And this is our proposed -- let's see, how the budget committee proposed a budget for Fiscal Year 2015. And if you'll look down in the bottom right of the sheet, four numbers up from the bottom there, it shows a projected assessment of$4,026.75 per equivalent residential unit, and that is an increase from last year of$28.63. And this increase is for the establishment of a new reserve, which would be for beach renourishment. Our charter was revised earlier this year making us responsible for beach renourishment. And the last time it was done before this time was in 2006, and it cost a million dollars, at least that's my information -- it cost a million dollars, which is paid for by the PBSD. So when the budget committee discussed setting up a reserve of$200,000 a year, it would probably be in the ballpark of what we would need to budget renourishment. I'll also -- if we look under capital projects -- that column capital projects -- and go down this sheet, close to the bottom of that column you see a number, $1,238,917 -- does everybody see that? And if you look to the left, that says Capital Projects Fund 322. And what that is, that's all the -- all the money we have which has not yet been assigned to a specific project. So today we talked about the berm and the fact that the cost on the berm is going up, I think, by roughly, a -- well, we had 500 -- excuse me -- 530,000 for the berm, and now I think the cost is six hundred and -- it's up another 150,000 or so. That would have to come out of that number. I'm just trying to show you where the money has come from. And then that would be assigned to a project up above. Like where you see capital outlay right above of 200,000, that's the additional 200,000 we had in for what we thought was going to come in. So that will go up by an additional amount. It will come out of the million, 238,917. I'll call your attention to one of the sheets Mary gave us before the meeting today. It's called Capital Projects Planning Estimate. If you look at that, it sort of gives us a little overview. And starting with Fiscal Year '14, it shows where we had planned $808,000 of expenditures this year, including the north berm, of 330,000. We then modified that to include an increase to the north berm and the beach renourishment which cost us 505,000, and also to fund the landscape update of-- to the amount of 175,000, and that -- and 121-, which was to bring us to 175-. And then if you follow your way down the column there, it showed that at the end of the year we would be left with the balance of a million -- excuse me -- that was the end of'14. Well, okay, a million, 540. But then for Fiscal Year' 15, we continue with lake aeration, one more year of that program. Lake bank improvements continue out all the way to Fiscal Year '20 at the rate of$120,000 a year, which Kyle explained to us. That's an ongoing -- ongoing project. And then -- MR. CRAVENS: Mike, I have a question for you. Are we assuming that lake aerations are going to be discontinued after 2015? MR. LEVY: Well, Kyle said we'd be finished; 200,000 more -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, capital inlay. I think the idea is that we employed -- no new capital expenditures would be needed. I don't know if there's an operating cost associated with that. Should be able to do it with capital costs. MR. LEVY: Right, that the lake aeration, that would be finished with 200,000 more. So it's not that we're stopping it. We've finished it. MR. CRAVENS: Okay. MR. LEVY: We've finished it. And then the beach renourishment starts in Fiscal Year '15 at 200,000 a year. Landscape we know goes on for '15, '16, and '17, and it's anticipated by that time we'll be finished. And then it shows the funds available. The beginning balance in '15 is a million, 540. Income -- income is coming in, 195,000, and that shows -- let's see. Income is -- the balance -- I see the assessment -- what am I looking at here, Mary? MS. McCAUGHTRY: That's before the increase. MR. LEVY: Oh, that's before the increase. Okay, thank you. And interfund transfer of 77,000, and that's money coming from water management community beautification but due to efficient operations so that we would have an end-of-year balance of a million, 50. Now, that's before the new $200,000 add-on. And if you follow that line across the end-of-year fund balance, you see how that would go down to virtually nothing. And, again, that line is before the additional 160,000 whatever for the north berm. That would all be lowered by that amount, too. So I'm just trying to point out to you that we really don't have -- the budget committee felt we really had to increase the assessment for the beach renourishment, that we just couldn't take that on within our current assessment. So then when you add -- when you add on the 200,000 a year for the beach renourishment, you get a revised end-of-year fund balance, which it shows on the balance of the sheet there. So we would stay at a million dollars or better through that time. And that's not to say there won't be projects to do that aren't -- that we don't know about. That's going to come up, so we need money in there to deal with things like that. We have to have some money in the bank. So if you go back to the -- if you go back to the sheet again, you'll see that the -- this does reflect that 200,000 coming in, and under capital projects it shows the assessment of 336,000 going to capital projects, which is the 118- we started with plus another -- another 200- -- 218-. You add 218-, you get to 200- (sic). MR. CRAVENS: I make a motion that we approve the proposed 2015 budget. MR. IAIZZO: Second. MR. LEVY: I appreciate that. Could I make one more comment? MR. CRAVENS: Sure. MR. LEVY: And that has to do with streetlights. If you -- the streetlight -- that's the ad valorem, and that rate remains at .0857, which is the same that it's been since 2012, but I would like to call your attention about one, two, three -- about five lines up from the bottom of the page. It shows reserve for operating fund capital improvement, and the number in there is 883,500. Does everybody see that? MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. MR. LEVY: That's what would be -- that's what's projected to be available at the end of Fiscal Year '15 to redo the streetlights. And that is sufficient funds, actually more than sufficient, to replace the arms and the lights and all of the Boulevard lighting. So that if we work our way up that line under field services, the first line under -- is engineering, and it shows $25,000. Now, that 25,000 is to hire a consultant to review -- to review that project in terms of what our options are, and that's for next year. So that we can -- in fact, we would be in a position to go ahead in Fiscal Year '16 and replace the arms and the lights if it turns out that that's still the right way to go. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I think the budget committee is to be commended here. They've covered a lot of things. The increase that we would be approving, should we vote for it, would be the first in five years and the highest since 2005; in other words, it would be -- the 2005 number was actually higher. So we have been good stewards, I think, with the -- with the taxpayers' money. We've held the line. The increase, in my view, is entirely justified. We've been given another major responsibility in beach renourishment. It's going to be costly. As the committee begins to go through some of the numbers, look at some of the metrics, we'll be able to refine this, I think, even further, and put some dates on this. So I -- Mike, I think you and your committee are to be commended here. MR. LEVY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Any other comments about the budget? MR. LEVY: Well, Jonathan may use -- was asking about the police protection, and 30,000 was put into this Fiscal Year '15. I understand that that stopped the end of April. There's 30,000 in in case of some ugliness rears its head again. The monies in the other contractual services, 15,000, water management; 15,000 community, it's there. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. Marcia, briefly, please. MS. CRAVENS: Yeah. And I think the budget committee does an outstanding job. I've got two concerns. One is, yes, it's accumulated an awful lot of money for the lighting fund, but once that project is done, then perhaps there might be some consideration of reducing that assessment in subsequent years. I would hope everybody would take a look at it, and also I would love to see this board have some consideration about their conceptual idea for new streetlighting. If you have not heard about the city darken and things that need to be considered for light pollution when you overlight areas, I hope that you'll all consider that. MR. LEVY: That's been laid out, actually, in the WilsonMiller report when we did the community improvement program back in 2010. So the -- the lighting is laid out in that, and that's what would be a starting point for this engineer or who ever is coming on to look at that. And the lighting they picked, I'm sure, is keeping with the ambiance in Pelican Bay. MS. CRAVENS: It lights it up very, very bright, which may not be what you desire. MR. CRAVENS: I think she's addressing something else, Mike, the idea of lessening the amount of light pollution that we have and the negative impacts that this has on a wide variety of things. It's an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Are there other audience comments? Mollie? MS. MOFFATT: Year after year I've talked to Kyle about tree trimming and everything. Where does that fit in your budget? MR. LEVY: Well, the tree trimming is a number of places. MS. MOFFATT: Because he tells me every year "I don't have enough money." MR. LEVY: We've got actually $182,000 in for tree trimming in Fiscal Year '15. MR. DORRILL: That's a lot. MR. LEVY: Which includes Clam Bay; 38,000 for Clam Bay, and 52,000 in water management, 92,000 in -- MS. MOFFATT: I've been reading an awful lot about evaluations in Pelican Bay done by all these outside consultants and tree people, et cetera, et cetera. Every single article says the neglect tree trimming that we have had is the reason for the ugly appearance of our oak trees and other hardwood trees in Pelican Bay. I've gone to Kyle on a regular basis, and I've trimmed some of the Pelican Bay trees that are on my -- on the side of my property just to keep them healthier looking. And the trees in my complex look a lot healthier. I was saying to somebody the other day -- we were bike riding on Ridgewood. And coming up Ridgewood and looking at the oak trees that are in the lawns of people that have houses down there, and look at the oak trees on the Boulevard instead where they're done commercially, basically, or by the county, and they are a difference of night and day. MR. DORRILL: If you want to, let's deal with the budget issues first. And if they give me the money, then I'll be happy to coordinate a meeting with you and our arborist to discuss, you know, areas both for this year and next year. MS. MOFFATT: It just -- it's getting really, really shabby. MR. DORRILL: We've got the money. MR. LEVY: I'd like to make one more point, and that is if you look up under Clam Bay and it shows -- the line inter-fund transfers, it shows $222,000. And what that is, that's money that Neil has requested from the county in support of Clam -- in support of the management of Clam Bay. And that would bring us into the ballpark of where we were in the past when we had responsibility for Clam Bay, which was in this vicinity, and maybe a little bit higher. Also, that 222-, I think, reflects the 10-year dredging permit, the 70 odd thousand dollars of expenses just to get that permit. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Good. Thanks, Mike. If there are no further questions or comments, we'll call the question. Those in favor of the motion, say aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion carries. Susan, you're up. We're up against a bit of a time deadline here. MS. O'BRIEN: I'll try to go real quick. And I want to thank Tim and Ariel for all their efforts on the management plan. We had hoped to have a copy to all the board members today. But our new deadline is Friday, so hopefully Friday afternoon, if you're interested, you can go pick up a copy over at the office. Neil, is someone -- I know Lisa has some new responsibilities now, so -- and we also would like to get the management plan up on the website Friday afternoon, so is that going to be doable? MR. DORRILL: We're exploring -- if it gets here, yes. We're exploring also having some additional temporary office assistant in the interim. MS. O'BRIEN: Yeah. Because we have those two special projects Friday, if we could get copies of the management plan available for board members to pick up who would like to read it and to get it up on the website. And then, secondly, in the notes I had given you, Neil and I had talked about possibly doing a public notice relative to the workshop next week that would be in the Naples Daily News, just more broadly advertise it so everyone has an opportunity to come if they'd like to. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Good idea. MS. O'BRIEN: And I guess I just wanted to see what the flavor of the board -- I don't know how much that would cost us, Mary, but -- the public notice. MS. McCAUGHTRY: May 14th? MS. O'BRIEN: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: When's the deadline for the Naples Daily News? The day before. MS. McCAUGHTRY: I'd have to call them tomorrow, and you'd probably be looking at around $300. MR. DORRILL: Three hundred's a good number. We might need to call them this afternoon before we leave before the classified -- I'd like for this to be done as sort of a small display ad as opposed to buried in the public notices. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thanks. Good idea. MS. O'BRIEN: Yeah. Is that okay -- MR. CRAVENS: Yeah. MS. O'BRIEN: -- with board members? All right. Okay. That will just further publicize it. And then we also have the last item on Clam Bay as the ordinance change that we're going to -- should you choose to approve, we would ask the BCC to approve, because the old ordinance relative to vessel speed in Clam Bay is no longer enforceable. And you have that copy with you of what we're recommending. And we just want to suggest a couple -- I want to suggest a couple changes to that. And, Tim, you know, I kind of bounced these off you. And one of them relates to -- on Page 1, you see on that in the second -- well, I guess it's the third paragraph there where it says relative to the Manatee Protection Plan, the original ordinance has identified. And Tim is suggesting we change that to proposed, and I'm now suggesting that we go back to the original "identified" that was in the '96 ordinance rather than change it. Tim, I don't know if you want to comment on that or not, but -- MR. HALL: Well, I guess the only comment is is throughout the whole course of all of these activities we've been trying to be very exact with our language, and if we -- the Manatee Protection Plan was enacted in 1995 -- I think Neil knows quite a bit about that -- and then the ordinance wasn't passed until 1996. So the Manatee Protection Plan couldn't have identified Clam Pass as an idle speed zone. It proposed it as an idle speed zone when it was enacted in '95, and then the '96 ordinance -- DR. CHICUREL: Codified it. MR. HALL: Yeah, codified it. So where this is referencing the Manatee Protection Plan, I just don't think it's correct to say it identified it as an idle speed zone, because it was the ordinance itself that was doing that. MS. O'BRIEN: And I'm not taking issue with that. I'm just trying to stay with what the ordinance originally said, which was identified it, not change the ordinance. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Needlessly. MS. O'BRIEN: Needlessly, thanks, Dave. That's all I'm suggesting. MR. HALL: Again, it doesn't, you know, really matter one way or another to me. I just -- I think "proposed" is more correct in terms of the language. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Let's not fuss over wording too much. MS. O'BRIEN: And then on Page 2, about -- under Section 4, we omitted Upper Clam Bay. We have Outer Clam Bay, we have Inner Clam Bay, and we have Clam Pass. So I'm suggesting that we add -- MR. HALL: We added that. MS. O'BRIEN: -- Upper Clam Bay. You've already added that. And then also a couple lines down I'm suggesting that we specifically say "within Clam Pass and within the waterway between Clam Pass and Outer Clam." Maybe you've already made that change. MR. HALL: We made that change as well, yes. MS. O'BRIEN: All right. Okay. MR. HALL: We just -- we've made that change to the copy. We have -- the only thing I wanted to really clarify was the "proposed" versus "identified." MS. O'BRIEN: All right. So what's the board's pleasure in terms of going with "identified" and "proposed"? MR. CRAVENS: I'm fine with it. MS. O'BRIEN: What? MR. CRAVENS: I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I'm fine with "identified." MS. O'BRIEN: With "identified"; is that okay? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Sure. MS. O'BRIEN: So I'll move that we approve the revised ordinance to present to the BCC. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MR. CRAVENS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Any board discussion? MR. DORRILL: I have one, if there's no board discussion. This work here is excellent. All of you, I hope, have seen the excellent picture that was taken from a condominium by a resident of the boat pulling the recreational inner tube through the open water portion. It's my understanding that that type of activity is not enforceable in terms of restricting or eliminating. My understanding -- and, Tim, if you would comment to this. This whole issue about Naples Bay and the 10 years worth of lawsuits and whatnot, the new FWC criteria is proximal, and as it's shown on this exhibit -- I hope we've given you all a copy of the exhibit -- we can, in fact, restrict boat speeds within certain proximity to boat launching, canoe launching areas, areas where we have limited visibility and whatnot, but larger open water bodies -- I don't want anybody here, unless I'm completely mistaken -- you cannot shut that type of activity that was attributed to the picture that we have shared with you based on the state's criteria. Can you comment on that? MR. HALL: No. That's correct. We can't limit the speed within those open water bodies, but you can if you can show that the activities are unsafe operations. You know, if they were doing that around a kayak or creating an unsafe wake for people on paddleboards or something out there, that is enforceable, just under an unsafe -- and that would be enforceable today. But he's correct, those open water bodies, the way it sits right now, I don't see that we're going to be able to get a speed restriction on that. MR. DOMENIE: But there are manatees in those open waters; you're limited to idle speed in any case. MR. HALL: No. You can go speeding past a manatee in any water body that's not posted. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Susan, has Klatzkow, the county attorney, looked over this and blessed it? MS. O'BRIEN: Well, it's been Colleen Greene that's been working with him. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Oh, okay. Has it? MR. HALL: Yeah. It's been submitted to Colleen without some of these last revisions, but I have not heard back from them yet as to its appropriateness in terms of the legalese. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. Marcia, briefly. MS. CRAVENS: Yeah, well, I'm going to take my full three minutes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: One minute. One minute. MS. CRAVENS: No, because you're being cited a statute -- you're omitting a statute that you've got to include. And that's statute -- I gave everybody some handouts. So Statute 379.2431, in parentheses, 2, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, and that is what originally indicated to post Clam Bay as idle speed, no wake zone. That statute still exists. The Collier County commissioners had every right and authority to post all of Clam Bay as an idle speed, no wake zone according to this statute and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. Additionally, I gave you some more pages there, including Florida Administrative Code, which is the second set of stapled papers. So 68C-22.001 is the Florida Administrative Code which implements the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. But I'm just going to read the first portion of that. By establishing restrictions to protect manatees from harmful collisions with motorboats and from harassment to protect manatee habitat, such as seagrass beds, from destruction by boats or other human activity. And that is exactly why those other pages that you have are from the Manatee Protection Plan, which was approved and adopted by Collier County commissioners in 1995 which they then sent onto the state and the state approved it. So in every instance Ordinance 96.16 referenced the Manatee Protection Plan which met all requirements. And so -- and there's no reason why you cannot keep those idle speed, no wake zones in Clam Bay and keep it posted as a manatee protection zone. That is what the commissioners did properly back in 1995 and 1996. And you're being quoted one statute which is not as appropriate to Clam Bay as this statute that I just cited to you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: But is that -- is that inconsistent with the ordinance change we're proposing? MS. CRAVENS: Yes, because the ordinance change you're proposing actually adds in a speed zone for slow speed, and you really don't have a good reason for doing that. As a matter of fact, it makes the Clam Pass system appear to be more navigable than what it is. And though -- that statute that you were cited has to do with restricting speed in a navigation channel, and you know how many times we have fought that issue in this community and in the larger community of Collier County. There is not a navigation channel in Clam Pass system, and you're confusing the issue if you go ahead and recommend this and you cite that statute. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Susan, what do you say to that? MS. O'BRIEN: Well, I talked with a couple of people at NWC about this, and our -- the manatee plan that was submitted by Collier County was not accepted by those folks. MS. CRAVENS: I've got a page -- MS. O'BRIEN: Well, it's not on -- you know, we're not -- Clam Bay is not listed on the state's approved manatee protection areas reducing or restricting vessel speed. MS. CRAVENS: Well -- MS. O'BRIEN: So that's why we're going this route, so that we can get some protection. And we can -- we can, and over -- you know, we can attempt to build supporting data that we have so many sightings of manatees and so forth in the system that we could eventually qualify for that. MS. CRAVENS: You already qualify for it. MS. O'BRIEN: Let me just finish, Marcia. MS. CRAVENS: But you don't have to -- MS. O'BRIEN: May I finish my response? MS. CRAVENS: Okay. But -- MS. O'BRIEN: May I just finish my response, please? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. Let's get this wrapped up briefly. Go ahead, briefly. Susan, go ahead; go ahead. MS. O'BRIEN: This is our best effort to get some protection in Clam Bay. MS. CRAVENS: And what I'm trying to explain to you is the Manatee Protection Plan actually does include -- on one of those pages that I provided you, it does include showing the manatee protection zone of all of Clam Bay. The County Commission approved it, and the state approved it. There's an error in the 1989 document by FWC. That's what they're referring to. And what I would recommend is that this board recommends to correct that error. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: You've made your point. Thank you. MS. CRAVENS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there further discussion? Linda, please be brief. MS. ROTH: On Page 3, the definition about slow speed -- and that is all new, and I don't understand why that's inserted and then strike out is proceeding at slow speed. I don't think those words should be included in there. It wasn't in the original document. MS. O'BRIEN: Slow speeds, because it was all idle speed before -- MS. ROTH: No, no. MS. O'BRIEN: -- and now certain parts are -- MS. ROTH: No, no. MS. O'BRIEN: -- eligible for idle and some for slow. MS. ROTH: Look at the one that was just posted in the supporting documents, okay. The slow speed means a vessel that is completely off plain and which has fully settled in the water and is proceeding without wake or with a minimum wake is proceeding at slow speed. Those words have been striked out, but they shouldn't be there because that was not part of the original document. MS. O'BRIEN: Right. And we're adding it because there are some eligible areas now for slow speed. MS. ROTH: Maybe I'm not clear about that. MS. O'BRIEN: Per the statute. MS. ROTH: No, no, no. MR. HALL: I think what she's looking at is we have the definition for slow speed, and then at the end of that sentence it says "is proceeding at slow speed," and I struck that out because it was redundant. We don't need that there. MS. ROTH: Yes. But that should not be in the final version. MR. HALL: It's not. That's why it's struck out. That's why I struck it out. MS. ROTH: Okay. But the thing is -- it's confusing because usually when you have met (sic) the document, adding something is underlined and strike out is striking out words in the original document. MR. HALL: And I think what you have is a copy of one of the older documents, maybe not the most recent one that we did. MS. ROTH: This is the one that is from the agenda. I just print out. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Tim, you're saying slow speed is no longer there? MR. HALL: Is -- proceeding at slow speed, at the very end, is strucken (sic) out. MS. ROTH: Okay. I just want to make sure those words are not in the final version. MR. HALL: Yeah. I just -- I don't understand. I mean, it's struck out on the document. It's not there. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. Thank you, Tim. MS. ROTH: But if you strike it out, that means it's still in the document. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Linda, thank you. Thank you. We -- I think we have a choice here. We can remand this to -- back to Clam Bay Committee for further consideration or approve it today. So we have a motion, right? And a second. We've had lots of discussion. Let's call the question. All those in favor of approving the document as presented by Susan, indicate by saying aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion carries. Anything else? MS. O'BRIEN: No, thank you. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is that it? Yeah, okay. We're down to the end, Joe. We've got some important stuff, so do the best you can. DR. CHICUREL: I know. I'm always at the end. Safety committee met on April 29th, and in your packet there's a list of seven actions that we took. I have a question, Neil. How much did the last six weeks of extraordinary police enforcement cost or, maybe, how much would the $30,000 buy in the future for this? MR. LEVY: That's for next year? DR. CHICUREL: Yes. MR. LEVY: That's for year '15. DR. CHICUREL: '15. MR. LEVY: If we need it. MR. DORRILL: About a thousand dollars a week. We haven't been invoiced completely through the end of the month, but we will be. DR. CHICUREL: Well, it was well worth it. And, of course, this home invasion situation, it hasn't been solved. We don't have an update, and they're really not giving us much information at this point, but -- MR. DORRILL: But if you saw this morning's newspaper, the FBI and Collier County folks were on the ground in Wyndemere, Florida, today, which is where a lot of high-level sports celebrities live, for a similar home invasion. It has lots of characteristics identical to those that occurred here. DR. CHICUREL: Number two on the list, and this is in response to the petition that the San Marino folks gave the board at our last meeting. We did numerous on-site evaluations, and the board -- the committee discussed this at length and unanimously decided that the warning signs that are on site now are sufficient and lawful and recommend that this board not install yellow flashing lights at the crosswalk. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to that effect so that we can discuss it here and/or vote on it. MR. DOMENIE: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MR. DOMENIE: Second. DR. CHICUREL: Let me make -- MR. CRAVENS: The motion? DR. CHICUREL: Let me make the motion. I move that the PBSD board accept the unanimous recommendation of the safety committee that warning signs approaching the San Marino sidewalk are adequate and lawful and that no flashing yellow lights are needed at the crosswalk. MR. CRAVENS: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Now is there a second? MR. DOMENIE: I second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. Any discussion on this? MS. O'BRIEN: No, we just need somebody, if we pass this, to get back to San Marino and let them know. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Right. Okay. DR. CHICUREL: Yeah. Unfortunately, they were not at our meeting, but I had hoped they would be. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Call the question. Those in favor, indicate by saying aye. MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Opposed, the same? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Motion carries. DR. CHICUREL: Number three, numerous emails to the committee, to the PBSD, reflecting residents' concerns and complaints and, unfortunately, some physical injuries that occurred to the resident while walking on Pelican Bay Boulevard paths. It was the result of bicycle -- bicyclist just careening into the individual. The safety committee recommended that the PBSD staff investigate the placement and the minimum number of county approved signs along Pelican Bay Boulevard paths indicating in some form that bicyclists must yield to pedestrians, and I'd like to make a motion to that effect. MR. CRAVENS: I'll second that. But you skipped the pedestrian crossing signs containing stop signs. MR. LEVY: No, that's the next item. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: That's next. MR. DOMENIE: Joe, does this extend also to the berm? Because I see people riding faster on the berm than the pathways. DR. CHICUREL: Yeah. We did discuss that. Of course, the berm is Foundation property, and we're not directly involved with placement of signs. MR. LEVY: That's got a lot of width, so I don't think -- DR. CHICUREL: I mean, that's something that could be part of the conversation as we expand the safety. But my motion, if I can make it -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, please do. DR. CHICUREL: Triple three -- well, I did, but I want to make it formally. I move that the PBSD board authorize staff to investigate the type of signage and the placement requirements for safety signs alerting bicyclists to "yield," in quotes, to pedestrians along the pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard. MR. CRAVENS: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So you're asking the staff to look into what types are available and where they might be placed; is that right? DR. CHICUREL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Discussion? MS. O'BRIEN: So we have more signage alongside the pathways? Is that what would happen? DR. CHICUREL: These would be signs that pedestrians and bicyclists on pathways would see in particular, and we have to really, you know, refer to the county. MS. O'BRIEN: And bicyclists, especially, who would crash into. I'm going to vote against this just because I think there's a safety thing. I don't think we need more signs along our pathways. I think we need a better educational program. Bicyclists have to know that they yield to pedestrians, period, end of story. But that's, unfortunately, not as well publicized in our community as it should be, and I think that's part of what I think our safety committee's heading out to do. And I think we need to give that a shot first before we go to signs, which I just think that, you know, we're going to be adding some bicycle yield signs along Pelican Bay Boulevard and maybe Gulf Park, that I support, clear the air there, but I just don't think we need them along the pathways. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Joe, I think, is not recommending signs but only asking staff to look into what kinds there might be. MS. O'BRIEN: I don't even want to look into them. I want to try to educate our community that by -- you know, pedestrians have the right-of-way. - MR. LEVY: Is there anything along the pathway that says, you know -- not a physical sign but a sign on the pathway, painted on the pathway indicating that bicycles must give right-of-way -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I don't think that was the intent. DR. CHICUREL: The intent, really, of this motion is not that we can hash it out here but that we can have the committee and staff really investigate it. And we may not even bring it back if it turns out that signs become a dangerous -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: And some of us are concerned about proliferating signs and having a forest of them, so -- MR. IAIZZO: I would put that on the table; I'll tell you why. I think it's time we show the bicyclists where to go. Give them a path, and they'll go. I think it's time we think that through, but that's another day, another time. MS. O'BRIEN: We're also short on staff right now. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah. This is going to be a split vote. So let's -- Mary, let's do a roll call on this. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Okay. Mr. Streckenbein? MR. STRECKENBEIN: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Ms. O'Brien? MS. O'BRIEN: No. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dr. Trecker? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: No. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Cravens? MR. CRAVENS: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Dr. Chicurel? DR. CHICUREL: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Iaizzo? MR. IAIZZO: No. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Domenie? MR. DOMENIE: No. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Mr. Levy? MR. LEVY: Yes. MS. McCAUGHTRY: Split, 4-4. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: So it does not carry then. DR. CHICUREL: We'll go back to the committee and -- MR. IAIZZO: We'll table it, basically. Joe. DR. CHICUREL: And number four, this is an issue. The "stop for pedestrians at crosswalk signs" that people are mistakenly interpreting as a stop sign. I know Dave Cook made this some months ago, and we've gotten more emails and concern. And our chairman brought it to the committee, and the committee is in agreement that we should change these signs to yield, and perhaps that would help motorists -- MR. LEVY: Is that sign an approved sign? DR. CHICUREL: Yes, it is. MR. IAIZZO: But it says "stop," and we're getting cars stopping. MR. LEVY: No, no. This is not a sign. I'm talking about -- DR. CHICUREL: If you'd turn the page, you'll see -- is what the sign would like look instead of having a stop sign. It will have a yield. And I think -- MR. LEVY: That's better. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Yeah, I think that is better. DR. CHICUREL: So I need to make a motion to that effect. MR. DORRILL: Jim, did you have a comment? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: I think we have -- make a motion first. Make a motion first. DR. CHICUREL: I move that the PBSD board accept the safety committee's unanimous recommendation that all "stop for pedestrian in crosswalk signs" be replaced by "yield here to pedestrian in crosswalk." MR. CRAVENS: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Now discussion. Jim? MR. CARR: I was just going to add that, yes, they can be switched out, the signs can be switched out. I talked with Collier County traffic operations. They would provide the signs. The -- now, the stop bars would need to change. Currently it's a solid white stripe. Those would change to triangles that point towards the vehicle. That's an official yield stop bar. And if that's going to happen, I'd suggest that maybe that happen when the pavement overlay happens, if you wanted to not incur the cost of changing out all the striping and have it -- DR. CHICUREL: You have to have both together. You can't do one separately. MR. LEVY: What about other crosswalks, mid-block crosswalks? MS. O'BRIEN: We have "stop" there. MR. LEVY: They've got the same signs now, don't they, about stop for pedestrians? CHAIRMAN TRECKER: They do. DR. CHICUREL: They all do. MR. LEVY: But they've got a bar there. How are we going to -- MR. DORRILL: That's his point. MR. CARR: Well, that's the caveat is that all signs would have to be consistent. So any time there's a mid-block or one of these uncontrolled T intersections, that they would all need to have the yield for. MR. CRAVENS: So are you suggesting we not proceed with this until we do the repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard? MR. DORRILL: Or you'll have to paint over those to meet the county's satisfaction and then repaint them. You'd have to paint them black or something if they allow that. You don't want to mill them down. MR. CARR: Right. If you do convert all the signs over to the yield signs, then the stop bars would have to be modified as well. MR. LEVY: They're not stop bars. They're zigzag lines. MR. CARR: They would change from a solid white to a zigzag. DR. CHICUREL: And they have to be done in tandem; they can't be done separately? MR. CARR: Right. MS. O'BRIEN: So the cost would be? MR. LEVY: Well, it looks ugly. And you would paint black over the white line and then paint a new line. I think that's what you'd have to do, right, Jim? MS. O'BRIEN: And the cost would be? MR. CARR: We can find out a cost for that. There are several. There's dozens of those stop bars that would have to change. MR. DORRILL: So if you want it done now, we're going to have to explore painting black the white lines and the aesthetical impacts of that. MR. LEVY: That doesn't look nice. MR. DOMENIE: And then -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Joe, let's remand this back to committee for further consideration of it. Okay? DR. CHICUREL: I agree. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. Thank you, Jim. DR. CHICUREL: Withdraw that motion. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Okay. MR. IAIZZO: There's a question on the floor. MR. BEAUCHAMP: In deference -- CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Name? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Oh, Bruce Beauchamp, Barrington Club. In deference to the opinion on requiring the stop bar to be altered at the same time as the sign, I am not sure that's correct. I think the yield sign in particular locations have a solid bar to indicate where the vehicle has got to stop to yield, not necessarily -- I think the sign is the controlling factor, but I think that could be double-checked. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Thank you. I'm going to propose that the last committee report be deferred. I don't think that we have anything absolutely critical here. We've got an upcoming committee meeting that will deal with some of the possibly new proposed testing. And, Mike, if you could withhold your recommendation -- even better yet, attend the committee meeting. That would be good. So I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. CRAVENS: So moved. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Is there a second? MS. O'BRIEN: Second. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Those in favor? MR. LEVY: Aye. MR. DOMENIE: Aye. MR. IAIZZO: Aye. DR. CHICUREL: Aye. MR. CRAVENS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: Aye. MS. O'BRIEN: Aye. MR. STRECKENBEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN TRECKER: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:05 p.m. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION DAVE TRECKER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.