Backup Documents 01/12/2012 Item #16I161 P��
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 10, 2012
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Miscellaneous Correspondence:
1) Public Safety Coordinating Council:
Meeting Minutes 9/30/10; Meeting Minutes 3/31/11
Sept e,�b� 312
0
11
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE I �(�'d� COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL N V 1 8 2011
Naples, Florida, September 30, 2010 BY' .......................
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating
Council, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM, in
REGULAR SESSION, in the Human Resources Conference Room, Building "B,"
3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Commissioner Fred Coyle
Fiala
Judge Cynthia Pivacek, Circuit Court Judge
Hiller --
(Designee for Chief Circuit Court Judge Keith Cary)
Henning
Stephen Russell, State Attorney, State of Florida
Coyle
Sheriff Kevin Rambosk, Chief Correctional Officer
Coletta _
Kathleen A. Smith, Collier County Public Defender
Pamela Donelson, Circuit Administrator, State Probation Office
Charles Rice, Director, County Probation Office
David Schimmel, Executive Director, David Lawrence Center
Christine Holmes, Administrator, Batterers Intervention Program
(Non- Voting) Members: Judge Janeice Martin, Circuit Court Judge
Rich Montecalvo, Assistant State Attorney
(Designee for State Attorney Stephen Russell)
Mark Lennon, Senior Supervisor, State Probation Office
(Designee for Pamela Donelson, State Probation Office)
Connie Kelly, Supervising Assistant Public Defender
(Designee for Public Defender Kathleen A. Smith)
Chief Scott Salley, Chief of Corrections, Sheriffs Office
Mark Middlebrook, Collier County Court Administration
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Skip Camp, Director, Facilities Management
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to County Manager
Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing, Human y eAerans Services
Pamela Baker, David Lawrence Center Tres:
Item #: ►� ,
1 --
Copies to:
September 30, 2010
I. Introduction: 161 Al
A. Call to Order
Commissioner Fred Coyle called the meeting to order at 2:02 P.M. and a quorum
was established.
B. Approval of the PSCC Meeting Minutes from March 25, 2010
Daniel Schimmel moved to approve the Minutes of the March 25, 2010
meeting as submitted. Second by Sheriff Rambosk. Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
II. Old Business:
A. Community Re- Integration Program — Sheriff Rambosk
Overview:
• Incarceration and fulfilling a jail sentence does not deter crime
• Responsibility of the police is to prevent crime through investigation, arrest,
and incarceration
• If a support system is not in place to help a released inmate develop life
skills, the likelihood is the individual will return to his/her established
patterns and be arrested again
• The jail's existing GED Program is one step toward helping an inmate
prepare for a more productive life after release
Sheriff Rambosk stated the Sheriff s Office has, for the past four years, been
examining instituting a Re- Integration Program and working with the community to
devise a plan to reduce the potential for increased crime, reduce the cost of jail
operations, and reduced volume in the Court system.
The jail population has been declining due to the economic downturn, the 287 -G
Felons Program, and good law enforcement. It is with the cooperation of the entire
community working together that the potential for increased crime will be reduced.
The overriding problem is what to do when an inmate is released.
Mission Statement: A transitional partnership that embraces a positive community
environment that establishes and reinforces a new identity, and prepares
individuals for productive citizenship that benefits the community and inmates as
well.
Local government, taxpayers, and the Board of County Commissioners will not be
asked to provide funding. The Program will be implemented with the assistance of
a strong volunteer core currently working with the Sheriff s Office.
The reduction of crime will benefit the community:
• from an economic perspective, i.e., the County will no longer "support" the
inmates by providing food and shelter
• increased overall safety — fewer victims of crime
The program will be data - driven and results will be tracked. Initially, the number
of eligible individuals will be small and will be expanded exponentially over time.
161 1,A1 11
September 30, 2010
Sheriff Rambosk reiterated it is not an early release program since the inmate's
sentence will be served in its entirety because Collier County is "tough on crime."
An eligibility criterion is being established and no inducements will be offered to
the participants, other than an opportunity to "straighten their life around."
He stated mentoring, training and support are crucial components of the program.
David Schimmel moved to endorse the concept for the Community Re- Integration
Program and approve the Program to proceed. Second by Stephen Russell.
Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
B. Jail "Snap- Shot" Report — Chief Scott Salley, Chief of Corrections
• The Agency Gang Unit receives intelligence from the Jail Gang Liaisons
and also photographs inmates' tattoos to assist in identifying various gangs
o 23 documented street gangs in Collier County and 59 inmates
were affiliated with gangs
• To date, a total of 510 inmates were transferred to ICE ( "Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ")
• The Pre -Trial Release Program is an effort between the courts and Sheriff's
office to reduce jail population by providing an alternative to bond:
• Qualifying criteria: inmate must not pose a threat to the public, must
sign a contract, and abide by the rules or he /she is returned to jail
• Savings: $260,546.60 (average cost to house an inmate is $166.97
per day for an average stay of 22 days)
• 111 participants in 2010
• Marchman Act /Baker Act — protective custody of persons who cannot care
for themselves due to influence of alcohol or drugs — 632 individuals are in
treatment
• Average Daily Population ( "ADP ") in 2010 was 896, compared to 1,224 in
2007
• Inmate Work Force: Inmates work within the jail facility in the kitchen,
cleaning detail, lawn maintenance, laundry and on assignment with
Domestic Animal Services
Chief Sally outlined the various services provided to inmates and stated two
potential educational programs for inclusion in the Community Re- Integration
Program, i.e., culinary arts and horticulture.
He introduced the new Jail Captain, Beth Richard.
Leo Mediavilla, who returned from the State Educator's Conference, noted a
recently published book entitled, "Seven Habits on the Inside, Reducing Recidivism
through Behavioral Changes, " featured Collier County and its jail model in
Chapter 3. [The book adapted the principals of "Seven Habits of Highly Effective
People " to the prison setting.]
C. Update: Criminal Justice, Substance Abuse, and Mental Health Grant Planning
Council — Pam Baker, David Lawrence Center
• The Public Safety Coordinating Council approved establishing the Planning
Council in March 2010 and has been meeting on a monthly basis
161 1 Al
September 30, 2010
• Members include: Representatives from Law Enforcement, Judiciary, State
Attorney Office, Public Defenders' Office, Mental Health advocates (as
required by the Department of Children and Families)
• Purpose: To position the County to apply for future grants from the State of
Florida's Department of Community Affairs and the Federal government
• A strategic plan is a required component to qualify for various grants
o Develop Sequential Intersection Mapping - The Florida Mental
Health Institute (FMHI), facilitated by the University of South
Florida, assisted with the mapping process.
o Purpose: to examine the intercepts where an individual enters the
criminal justice system and determine where the individual can be
diverted from the system and placed into an appropriate treatment plan
o Additional Purpose: develop future priorities
• Submitted an application for a Justice and Mental Health Collaboration
Grant (Federal grant) in April through the Sheriff's Office
• Applied to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Federal) for a Drug Court
Enhancement Grant and received $200,000 to purchase drug testing
equipment and pay for lab work, as well as hire a case manager
• The program will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for
approval
• New Application: for a Reinvestment Act Implementation Grant through
the State's Department of Children & Families
• Florida Gulf Coast University is a new partner
o will assist with program evaluation and provide interns to monitor
support services for clients
• Funding requested: $726,702 ($343,345 per year)
• Administration of funding: will be through Collier County's Department of
Health, Human and Veterans' Services and $24,000 will be allotted for
administrative services
• Matching funds (10 %) will be provided by Collier County Sheriff's Office,
Florida Gulf Coast University, the David Lawrence Center, and the National
Alliance on Mental Illness
David Schimmel stated the Crisis Intervention Training ( "CIT ") Program has been
acknowledged as the most concentrated, most effective program in the state. Over
300 individuals have been trained to date.
III. New Business:
A. Report: Juvenile Detention Cost Sharing — Crystal Kinzel, Director of
Financing and Accounting, Clerk of the Circuit Court
• Since 2005, Collier County has paid over $9M to the Department of
Juvenile Justice for the Juvenile Delinquency Incarceration Program
• Fair share of costs was established by the state, but the county had no ability
to research or verify information provided regarding charges
• Purpose: To ensure that Collier County only pays for its obligations and is
not charged additional costs
4
161 1 A I
September 30, 2010
• County Budget Office is working with the Sheriff s Office to enhance access
to information and analyze caseloads to correct the appropriateness of
invoices sent to Collier County
Ms. Kinzel will report to the council within the next six months.
B. Approval of Connie Kelley (replacing Mike Orlando) as Designee for Public
Defender Kathleen A. Smith
Kathleen Smith moved to approve the nomination of Connie Kelly as Designee.
Second by Sheriff Rambosk. Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
Kathleen Smith introduced Ms. Kelley to the council and provided a brief
background of her experience.
IV. Public Comments:
Armando Galella, District Director, Catholic Charities of Collier County, commended
the Sheriffs Office for the proposed Re- Integration Program and offered the services of
his organization in support of the program.
V. Member Comments /Suggestions:
Mike Sheffield announced the County Attorney's office has scheduled a Florida
Sunshine Law and Ethics Workshop on October 14, 2010 from 9:00 to 11:00 AM in the
BCC Chambers. All Advisory Committee /Board Members are invited to attend.
He noted the Board of County Commissioners has permanently appointed Commissioner
Coyle as Chairman of the Public Safety Coordinating Council. The Council members
unanimously supported the Board's decision.
VI. Next Meeting: December 9, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:10 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
COORDINATING COUNCIL
Commissioner Fred Coyle, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on &AAL c, � � / , � y
as presented C--,-o-r as amended
161 1 'A1
March 31, 2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY 3 0 3 R VIE
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
NOV 18 ?011
Naples, Florida, March 31, 2011
BY:.......................
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating
Council, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM, in
REGULAR SESSION, in the Human Resources Conference Room, Building `B,"
3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Commissioner Fred Coyle - (Excused)
Judge Cynthia Pivacek, Circuit Court Judge
L",-,
(Designee for Chief Circuit Court Judge Keith Cary)
Fiala
Hiller
Judge Eugene C. Turner, County Court Judge
Henning
Rich Montecalvo, Assistant State Attorney
Coyle ✓
Coletta :J G
(Designee for State Attorney Stephen Russell)
Kathy A. Smith, Collier County Public Defender
Sheriff Kevin Rambosk - (Excused)
Mark Lennon, State Probation Office
(Designee for Pamela Donelson, State Probation Office)
Charles Rice, County Probation Office - (Excused)
David Schimmel, David Lawrence Center
Linda Rieland (Designee for Christine Holmes, Batterers
Intervention Program — David Lawrence Center)
(Non- Voting) Members: Chief Scott Salley, Sheriffs Office
Mark Middlebrook, Deputy Court Administration
Skip Camp, Director — Facilities Management
Misc. Comes:
ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager, CMO
Susan Golden, CCSO Grant Coordinate: ' 110112
Item it 1 U-M V=N 1
Copies to:
16 IMaf 31KI
I. Introduction:
A. Call to Order
Judge Eugene C. Turner as Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at
2:02 PM and a quorum was established.
B. Approval of the PSCC Meeting Minutes from September 30, 2010
David Schimmel moved to approve the Minutes of the September 30, 2010
meeting as submitted. Second by Kathleen A. Smith. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
(Note: Judge Pivacek, Rich Montecalvo, Kathleen A. Smith, David Schimmel,
and Mark Lennon attended the September 30th meeting.)
II. Old Business:
A. Jail "Snap- Shot" Report — Chief Scott Salley, Chief of Corrections
• A copy of the Report was distributed to the Members and trends in jail
population were discussed.
• Immokalee Jail Center will close in June and the officers will move to Naples
B. Update: Criminal Justice, Substance Abuse, and Mental Health Grant Planning
Council — David Schimmel, David Lawrence Center, and Susan Golden
• An application was made to the State's Department of Children & Families
for a "Reinvestment Act Implementation Grant"
o The Grant was awarded and the Board of County Commissioners
approved the Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") in February 2011
o Grant allocation: approximately $548,000 disbursed over a 3 -year
period (Assistance for housing, medication, and transportation
o Participants include CCSO/Prison Health Services; David Lawrence
Center; NAMI ( "National Alliance on Mental Illness "); and Florida Gulf
Coast University
Potential Future Grant: "Justice Reinvestment Initiative" (JRI)
• An overview of the JRI program was presented.
Consensus: Return in six months to determine if the JRI Grant is a viable resource for
Collier County and if an application should be made.
III. New Business:
A. Report: Sheriffs Advisory Re- Integration Board— Chief Salley for Sheriff Rambosk
• Two meetings have been held and nine subcommittee has been established
• Sheriff Rambosk will be the Board's Chairman for first two years
• All meetings are advertised — open to public
• Triage Center in Fort Myers
• Report on tour of Lee County Triage Center will be added to next Agenda
B. Brief Overview: Justice Reinvestment Initiative — Susan Golden
(See Item #2 — "Old Business" — under `B ")
2
161MIh,Ao�
IV. Member/Participant Comments:
• Mike Sheffield
o Need Agenda topics /discussion items from members
• Mark Middlebrook —Collier County Court Administration
o Begun testing a new program allowing inmates to work off probation fees in
cooperation with Facilities Management
• Mark Lennon — Senior Supervisor, State Probation Office
o Florida Legislature will consider privatizing State Probation/Parole services
• House Bill #5403 (affects Broward and Dade County)
• Senate Bill #7084 (affects Manatee County and south — 18 counties)
• Drug Court Program Report — Jay Freshwater, Senior Officer, State Probation Office
o Data base was created to track statistics
o Obtained a Grant — all drug tests given for next two years will be free of
charge
o Average length to complete program —14 months
o Tracking new drugs: "Spice" —synthetic marijuana —not yet illegal
• Judge Cynthia Pivacek — Circuit Court Judge
o Hendry County Correctional facility will be phased out by end of June
V. Public Comments: (None)
VI. Next Meeting: September 29, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:10 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
COORDINATING COUNCIL
Judge Eugene C. Turner, Acting Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on icp
as presented f- or as amended
161 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
January 10, 2012
2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport AuthoritX:
Minutes of 10/3/11
2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 1015111
3) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10/13/11
4) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of 9/29/11; 10/6/11
5) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 1015111
6) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of 11/18/11
7) Horizon Study Oversight Committee:
Minutes of 6/17/11
8) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 9/28/11
Minutes of 7/27/11; 9/28/11
9) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of 10/12/11
10) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of 1015111; 10/26/11; 11/2/11
Minutes of 9/7/11; 1015111
11) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 11/14/11
Minutes of 10 /10 /11
12) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of 10/13/11; 11/3/11
Minutes of 515111; 10/13/11
'Ay
I t )
Meeting Minutes
Collier County Airport Authority
Advisory Board Meeting
Marco Island Executive Airport
2005 Mainsail Drive, Naples, Florida
October 3, 2011
16I2A'1
Q mu MR VJV
,
r. 0!,
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
Advisory Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, Jim Murray, Frank Halas, and
Floyd Crews
Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused: Byron Meade and Dick Rice
Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Robert Tweedie, Thomas Vergo, and Debi Mueller
Others Present: Dave Gardner, Bill Garret, Mark Minor, Marvin Courtright, Greg Shepard, Megan
Gaillard, Tina Roodermen Fiala t
Hiller
Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Henning
Coyle
3. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory B&AItta
4. Adoption of the Agenda.
Discussion regarding the Everglades Airpark was added to the Agenda as item 8.A.
Action: Mr. Crews then made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Halas
seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
Approval of Minutes.
Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the minutes for the August 1, 2011 meeting.
Mr. Halas seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
b. Acknowledgement of Airport Information.
Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board action
is requested.
0 DBE Goals for Fiscal Year 2012
An overview of the purpose and procedure for calculating Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(DBE) goals was provided, and the public was provided an opportunity to comment. There
were no comments.
Update on USDA Building at IMM
The exterior portion of the building /shell is complete, and the project is under budget. The
interior build -out was supposed to be funded by the tenant. However, since there is money
remaining in the project, it has been decided that it is in the Authority's best interest to build
out the interior with those items required to meet code requirements, expedite occupancy,
and enable the Airport Authority to charge full market value rent. Because of the proposed
amount of the modifications, it is appropriate to bid these additional items.
The Authority has provided the USDA with a list of the proposed modifications and associated
costs to verify that the USDA approves of those items and that they fall within the scope of
1of3
46 NO F-W
the project. Once the USDA concurs with the items that the Authority has proposed adding,
the Authority will enter into a lease agreement with Salazar Machine & Steel. The Authority
will not move forward with any building enhancements until there is a lease in place.
• Update on Above Ground Fuel Tank Installation by Fletcher Flying Service
Airport Management checked with other airports, state agencies, local fire marshals, and
consultants that specialize in this type of installation regarding the requirements and costs
associated with the installation of fuel tanks by a tenant to ensure that the Airport Authority
does not absorb costs that will specifically benefit a specific tenant.
These costs include modifying the Airport Authority's Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPPC) Plan to include the additional tank(s), and completing a site selection
survey to determine locations on the airport that are safe, secure, and consistent with the
airport's master plan. The estimated cost for the consultant to modify the SPPC Plan is $9,945,
and the estimated cost to perform a site selection is about $15,000.
The Airport Authority also developed a self - fuelling permit, which is required by the
Authority's Minimum Standards. (This permit was approved by the BCC on September 13,
2011, Agenda Item 16G2.)
• RFP for Sod Harvesting at IMM
The Authority is working with Purchasing to put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for sod
harvesting at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
Agreement for Cattle Grazing for Ralph Hester at IMM
The Authority is working with the County Attorney's office on a land lease agreement for
Ralph Hester for cattle grazing at the Immokalee Regional Airport. The agreement will include
approximately 200 acres at a rent of approximately $2,000 per year. The area is already
fenced in.
+ Sub -Cease Agreement with DC Air, Inc.
The Authority is negotiating a sublease agreement with Mr. Mayhood of D.C. Air. The
sublease will be similar to the one recently approved by the Commissioners' for Mr. Shepard.
7. Director's Report.
Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda.
Recommendation of one member from Marco Island to Airport Advisory Board
The Advisory Board unanimously agreed that both applicants are qualified to serve on the
Airport Advisory Board.
Action: Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend that the BCC appoint David Gardner to the
Airport Advisory Board. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous
vote.
• Recommendation that the BCC approve and sign a Site License Agreement with United Circus
Operating, Inc. d /b /a The King Brothers Circus for a circus at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
Action: The Advisory Board unanimously recommended that the BCC approve and sign an
Agreement for the King Brothers Circus at IMM.
2 of 3
• Recommendation to have the November 7 Advisory Board meeting at the Marco Island
Executive Airport
Action: The Advisory Board voted 4 -1 to have the November 7, 2011 meeting at the Marco
Island Airport, with Mr. Crews dissenting.
8. Finance Report— Month ended May 31 2011 and Quarter Ended June 30, 2011
The Advisory Board thanked Ms. Mueller for revising the finance reports to add the previous
years' financial information to the finance report. Everglades Airpark fuel sales were higher than
last year's because Everglades was able to take advantage of a load of less expensive fuel in the
tank while prices were rising and a significant number of airboat fuel sales.
8A. Everglades Airpark.
The Everglades Society for Historical Preservation would like to designate the airport as an
historical site. Mr. Klein will obtain additional information regarding this request. If necessary, the
Authority will request an opinion from the County Attorney's office regarding such a designation.
9. Election of Officers.
Action: Mr. Klein nominated Lloyd Byerhof as Chairman. Mr. Halos seconded. Mr. Murray
made a motion to close the nominations. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it
passed by unanimous vote.
Mr. Murray nominated Mr. Klein for Vice- Chair. Mr. Halos seconded. Mr. Crews made
a motion to close the nominations. Mr. Halos seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous vote.
Mr. Klein nominated Mr. Murray for Secretary. Mr. Halos seconded. Mr. Klein made a
motion to close the nominations. Mr. Halos seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous vote.
FY 2011 -2012 Airport Advisory Board Officers are:
Lloyd Byerhof — Chairman
Michael Klein - Vice Chairman
Jim Murray — Secretary
10. Public Comments.
Mr. Courtright stated that the Federal Aviation Administration performed a ramp check at the
Immokalee Regional Airport on Friday.
11. Next Meeting. The next Advisory Board meeting is on Monday, November 7, 2011 at the Marco
Island Executive Airport.
12. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m. without objection.
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mist. Comes:
_A!t�@L a-- Dft: ' G k
Lloyd A. 9yerhof, Chairman
Item or kuo= 2. IA 1
3of3
Copies to:
at, I I I
XV0 ;' 1/*
Creativity in Bloom
Bayshore Beautification MSTU
4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112
12 '02
Y-9 199W3
1,0' 1 0
r 1 1 ?Oli
BY: .......................
BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
OF THE OCTOBER 05, 2011 MEETING
The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order
by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive.
1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan,
Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, Victoria Nicklos and Maurice Gutierrez. Absent:
Dwight Oakley.
MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit (Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive
Director).
2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion:
Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 6 -0.
3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the September 07,
2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Buck. Second: Mr. Messmer.
Approved 6 -0.
4. Proiects Report:
a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the
Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in
the area. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices. Motion:
Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 6 -0.
b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Bayshore Drive South project
is under construction and on schedule.
c. David Buchheit informed the committee that Q. Grady Minor staff has
completed the stormwater plan and that the plan is available at the CRA office
for review.
d. David Buchheit informed the committee that Akins staff has completed the
Public art and place making study and that the study is available at the CRA
office for review.
e. David Buchheit informed the committee that the design work is still being
completed on Bayview Drive and Lunar Street, and that they will be provided
additional information at a future meeting.
October 05, 2011
Fiala
—
•r _—
i ,onning - — —
Coyie
—
at, I I I
XV0 ;' 1/*
Creativity in Bloom
Bayshore Beautification MSTU
4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112
12 '02
Y-9 199W3
1,0' 1 0
r 1 1 ?Oli
BY: .......................
BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
OF THE OCTOBER 05, 2011 MEETING
The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order
by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive.
1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan,
Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, Victoria Nicklos and Maurice Gutierrez. Absent:
Dwight Oakley.
MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit (Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive
Director).
2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion:
Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 6 -0.
3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the September 07,
2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Buck. Second: Mr. Messmer.
Approved 6 -0.
4. Proiects Report:
a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the
Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in
the area. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices. Motion:
Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 6 -0.
b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Bayshore Drive South project
is under construction and on schedule.
c. David Buchheit informed the committee that Q. Grady Minor staff has
completed the stormwater plan and that the plan is available at the CRA office
for review.
d. David Buchheit informed the committee that Akins staff has completed the
Public art and place making study and that the study is available at the CRA
office for review.
e. David Buchheit informed the committee that the design work is still being
completed on Bayview Drive and Lunar Street, and that they will be provided
additional information at a future meeting.
October 05, 2011
161 2" A2 ,
2P�
Creativity in Bloom
Bayshore Beautification MSTU
4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112
f. David Buchheit informed the committee that paper work is still being processed
for the Thomasson Drive conceptual plan.
g. David Buchheit informed the committee that he is in the process of getting
quotes for Christmas on Bayshore. Gerry Buck requested that if the quotes are
all equal that "Whited Holiday D6cor" be hired again this year. The committee
had no objects to his request.
h. David Buchheit informed the committee that the holiday banners have been
ordered.
L Ms. Nicklos made a motion that all invoices on all projects be paid. Mrs. Dugan
seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -0
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
a. Mr. Buchheit asked the committee to advise him if would like to proceed with
the public art project "Beautiful Streamers ". Mr. Buchheit explained that the
project would require Collier County cooperation to completed, and he
explained the cost that could be associated with the project. There was
discussion among the committee members about the project. Mr. Messmer
stated that he did not like the streamers, and that he didn't think that they fit in
with the changes in the neighborhood. Ms. Nicklos agreed with Mr. Messmer.
Aaron Gross of Ground Zero explained to the committee that he had concerns
with the installation and durability of the project. Ms. Nicklos made a motion
that the project be halted. Mr. Messmer seconded the motion. Mr. Gutierrez
called the question. And the motion stalled with three votes yes (Ms. Nicklos,
Mr. Messmer, and Mrs. Cochrane) and three votes no (Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Buck,
and Mrs. Dugan). After more discussion about the project. Mr. Buck made a
motion that staff continue to work on the project and provide an update at the
next meeting. Mrs. Dugan seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 -2 with
Ms. Nicklos and Mr. Messmer dissenting.
7. Public Comments:
8. Advisory Committee General Communications:
a. Mrs. Cochrane express outrage at the crosswalk lights being changed from red
to yellow. She explained that she witnessed a mother pushing a baby carriage
through the crosswalk and the cars didn't stop. The committee had a lot of
discussion, all in agreement that this change had made the pedestrian unsafe.
Mrs. Cochrane made a motion that the lights be changed back to red. Mr. Buck
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -0
October 05, 2011
161 ? A 2
Creativity in Bloom
Bayshore Beautification MSTU
4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112
The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on November 2 at 5:00 PM.
The meeti, adjourned at 6:45.
Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman.
Misc. Corres:
Date: ' \ % o k \ Z
Item #:1Lo = 2 A'2.
Copies to:
October 05, 2011
RECEIVED
NOV 10 2011
Board of County Commissioners
1612 A3
October 13, 2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, October 13, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at
Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government
Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIRMAN:
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta '� L
John Sorey, III
Anthony Pires
Randolph Moity
Jim Burke
Murray Hendel
Robert Raymond (Excused)
Joseph A. Moreland
Victor Rios
Wayne Waldack
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Cones:
Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples
1
Item #: ► t-cT Z. 10� 3
Copies to:
161 2 k, 3
October 13, 2011
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video
recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view
online.
I. Call to Order
Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Mr. Waldack moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7 — 0.
V. Public Comments
Speaker
Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
1. September 8, 2011
Mr. Pires moved to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2011 meeting subject to the
following change:
• Page 5, Item VII.5a. - delete language mistakenly referencing the Executive Summary
for Item VIIA and replace with the language: Gary McAlpin submitted the documents
"Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criteria Development DRAFT INTERIM
REPORT" prepared by Cardno Entrix" and "Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria
Clam Bay, Development of Site - Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria —July 2011
Draft" prepared by Atkins and "Standards and Assessment Section Comments on
Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria Clam Bay- Development of Site - Specific
Alternative Water Quality Criteria (Atkins July 2011 Draft), " (a response from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection).
Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7— 0.
VII. Staff Reports
1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY 2010 — 2011 " updated
through September 2011.
2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin
The Committee reviewed the "FY 201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects"
updated through October 3, 2011.
2
161 ;2 A'3
October 13, 2011
Mr. Rios arrived at 1:11 p.m.
3. Clam Bay Markers
Gary McAlpin provided an update and submitted the following documents for information
purposes:
• Email from Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist, Coastal Zone Management to
Gary McAlpin — Subject: Clam Bay Markers dated September 23, 2011.
• Letter from Ryan Moreau, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to Gary McAlpin
dated September 9, 2011 — Re: Permittee Collier County, Permit 911 -020 Clam
Pass /Bay Canoe and Information Markers — Collier County.
Speaker
Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident
4. Long Range Funding Requests
Gary McAlpin submitted copies of 3 letters from Vincent George, Project Manager, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection — "Subject: Collier County Beach Renourishment;
"Subject: Wiggin's Pass IMP Study" and "Subject: Marco Island Beach Renourishment" all
dated September 19, 2010 and copies of related "FY 201212013 Local Government Requests
for Collier County Beach Renourishment, Wiggin's Pass IMP Study and Marco Island Beach
Renourishment" for informational purposes.
5. Beach Easement - Verbal Report Only
Gary McAlpin reported a proposed easement for public access to those areas renourished with
public funds landward of the erosion control line was considered by the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC). The BCC chose not to pursue the easements and elected to complete
the renourishment project utilizing conventional construction easements.
6. Dune Restoration Report
Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of a letter from Earth Balance to Pamela Keyes,
Environmental Specialist "Re: Collier County Dune Restoration — Sea Oat Monitoring —
September 2011 Monitoring Event' ' and backup report for informational purposes.
7. FEMA Time Extension Requests - Tropical Storm Fay
Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of his memo to Robert Seibert dated 9/30/2011 "Re: TS FAY
— DR] 785" outlining the rationale for a proposed request for an extension of time to complete
the permitting and beach renourishment for the beach damage caused by Tropical Storm Fay.
8. Category "A" Ordinance Changes - Verbal Report Only
Gary McAlpin reported the Tourist Development Council has recommended the Board of
County Commissioners consider a change in the Tourist Development Council Ordinance in
the area of Administrative Costs.
VIII. New Business
1. Clam Pass Water Quality Presentation -Time Certain 1:15 -2: 30 p. m.
a. Backup Material
3
161 2 A3
October 13, 2011
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Review and recommend for approval
the Clam Bay Water Quality studies conducted by Atkins and Cardno Entrix for Collier
County and the Pelican Bay Foundation " dated October 13, 2011 and related backup
material as follows:
1. Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Clam Bay - Development of Site -
Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria - Atkins
2. Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criteria Development — Cardno Entrix
3. Email Russ Frydenborg to David Tomasko dated 917111
4. Technical Note — Project: Clam Bay Numeric Criteria prepared by David A.
Tomasko, PhD and Emily Keenan, MS of Atkins dated August 31, 2011.
He requested the Committee approve the 4 documents following the following presentations:
David Tomasko, Atkins - overview of his studies on the water quality of Clam Bay
(document # 1).
Doug Durbin, Cardno Entrix - overview of his report on dissolved oxygen site specific
criteria (document #2).
Speakers
Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident submitted the document "CAC Meeting —10131111 — Re:
Clam Bay Water Quality NNC" for review by the Committee.
Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted a document commenting on
the proposed Atkins Report to the Committee and staff for review and comment.
Marcia Cravens, Pelican Bay Resident, Sierra Club
Break: 3:18 p. m.
Reconvened: 3:23 p.m.
The Committee noted the Reports, as currently exist are comprehensive, but not cohesive
with conclusions and recommendations. In order to facilitate actions /comments that may be
requested of any party, they requested the documents be reviewed and submitted with an
Executive Summary citing the recommended water quality criteria and a self inclusive
reports) with timelines, conclusions, recommendations and backup material as necessary.
2. Engineering Approval Marco South Renourishment
a. Backup Material
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary (ES) "Recommendation to award two
Work Orders totaling $146, 000 to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the design and
permitting required to obtaining a FDEP permit for the Marco South Beach renourishment
project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit" dated October 13, 2011 and
related backup material. The Work Orders incorporated 7 tasks in total as identified in the
ES.
He noted staff is now requesting approvals of only 3 tasks: Task #1— JCP Permit
Application (FDEP) in the amount of $20, 000.00 and Task 2 - USA CE Permit Modification
Letter in the amount of $7, 000.00 and Task 3 - Permit Processing in the amount of
$62, 000. 00 for a total of $89, 000.00.
El
16124A3 ,
October 13, 2011
Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Work
Orders totaling $89,000.00 (eighty -nine thousand dollars) to Coastal Engineering
Consultants for the permitting required to obtain a FDEP permit for the Marco South Beach
renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USACE permit as indicated
by Staff above. Second by Mr. Rios. Motion carried 7 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted
"no. "
3. Conceptual Design Presentation - BarefootNanderbilt; Clam Pass/Park Shore; Naples
Beaches
a. Presentation
Steve Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. presented the document "Collier
County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis, prepared by Coastal Planning and
Engineering, Inc. dated May 2011, Revised October 2011 " for consideration and related
slideshow "Conceptual Engineering Report, Collier County Beaches, Florida"
b. Backup Material
Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Review with the CAC the Conceptual
Design Report for Barefoot /Vanderbilt, Clam Pass /Park Shore and Naples Beaches " dated
October 13, 2011 and related backup material.
Gary McAlpin requested the Committee:
1. Endorse the conceptual design as proposed.
2. Direct staff to move forwards with permit applications and 10 year plan based on
Alternative #3 as identified in the above Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc report.
3. Endorse the timeframe for the project of 2013 -2014.
Mr. Hendel left at 4:50 p.m.
Speaker
Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club
Jeremy Frantz, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted a map of travel for
endangered turtle "Kyra."
Mr. Rios moved to approve staffs requests listed above. Second by Mr. Moity. Motion
carried 6 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no."
VIII. Old Business
1. Wiggin's Pass Channel Straightening Project Discussion
Gary McAlpin reported the composition of the Wiggin's Pass Subcommittee should be
reviewed given its hiatus from activities. The meeting to be held on October 16, 2011 will be
cancelled.
The Committee directed staff to meet with Mr. Moreland to develop a list of potential
participants for the Subcommittee/Work Group for approval by the Coastal Advisory
CommitteeBoard of County Commissioners.
5
i 3
§Ctoker4, 201
2. Potential Project Deferrals Discussion
The Committee directed staff to provide a list of projects which may be deferred for the
purposes of re- allocating the funding to the beach renourishment project.
Speaker
Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club.
IX. Announcements
None
X. Committee Member Discussion
Mr. Moreland reported former Board of County Commissioner member Frank Halas is now a
member of the Estuary Conservation Association.
Mr. Rios requested the schedule for the laser grading on Marco Beaches and the status of the
renourishment of Tigertail Beach.
Gary McAlpin noted he will contact Mr. Rios with the scheduling for the laser grading and an
update on Tigertail Beach.
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
November 10, 2011— Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the chair at 5:08 P.M.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
Sohn Sorey, III, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented -C or as amended
R
16 12 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, September 29, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
p T 0ERRIIW3
BY: ................uu...
Fiala - 2
Hiller
Henning
Coyle ✓'
Coletta
CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain
Melissa Ahern
Brad Schiffer
Donna Reed Caron
Karen Homiak
Diane Ebert
Barry Klein
ABSENT: Paul Midney
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division
Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning
Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office
Tom Eastman, School Board Representative
A,
Avp
wa" ,
Xe Page 1 of 91
Misc. Corres:
Date: %\\
2
Item #: 11�z !►
Conies to:
161 2 A4 A
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. BOSI: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, September 29th meeting of the Collier County
Planning Commission. This is a special meeting, and I will read the names of the acronyms so that everybody knows
what we're talking about who might be watching who hasn't heard these before.
It's the 2011 AUIR, which is the Annual Update and Inventory Report, the CIE, which is the Capital
Improvements Element.
Well, anyway. Let's stand for Pledge of Allegiance, and we'll get into the meeting.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please make the roll call.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here.
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Midney is absent today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. There's going to be some chairman's comments first. Well, first
of all, we will be -- for those members of the public who are anxious to speak -- and I can see there's no one in the
room that is -- had you been here, you would be allowed to, of course, enter into the discussion at the end of each
category that we discuss. I wish all of you that aren't here were here. But thankfully we do have some people here
who we need.
Arld I want to congratulate Barry and Melissa for their reappointments to this board. You're both valuable, as
is Ms. Caron, and I only hope that, Ms. Caron, you consider reapplying. You have been a great asset to this board,
and I have been honored to sit next to you these years.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here, here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully you'll consider that. It would be good for all of us.
And with that, the only other thing, we had this scheduled for two days. Hopefully we can make -- get
through it in one day. This is also known as the annual smoke - and - mirrors report. Oh, I'm sorry. That's the budget
we're talking about.
I had to throw that in for Nick's benefit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's go. Mike, it's all yours.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning/Land Development Services within the
Growth Management Division.
I appreciate your optimism for the speed of the hearing today or the meeting. Hopefully it will take one day.
It's somewhat of a contrast, and you'll see -- I have a slight -- I have a short presentation to talk about the nuts
and bolts of exactly what those acronyms, are, the AUIR and the CIE. It should take about ten minutes, and then we
have our traditional agenda of presenters.
And what you're going to see within the AUIR is a continuation of a reflection of the new growth
environment that this county has witnessed over the last three to four years, continuation of the attention to planning `
for when those improvements are going to be needed based upon the projections for population, the population and
Page 2 of 91
16 21 !A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
growth, and trying to establish what is that new reality, what is that new growth rate that we can expect so we can
properly program and allocate with the resources and the infrastructure within the right places to optimize the
efficiencies within the systems that we present.
As I started, the AUIR, it's the Annual Update and Inventory Report, as the chairman has said. It's the annual
one -year snapshot in time of the projected needs and required improvements for all infrastructure and
service- providing departments, divisions based upon the population increases against the BCC - adopted
levels -of- service standards, and it should be noted that this snapshot changes as the changes in the demand equation
evolve.
What does all of that mean? Basically, what we're trying to say and what we're establishing within the AUIR
and the CIE is the projection. Over the next five years, what's the population that we're going to expect to have?
Those popul- -- with that population comes the need to service the infrastructure and the services to provide the needs
to those households.
So what are the improvements that are going to need to be -- to be needed to satisfy those populations? And
we build to a standard that's adopted within our Growth Management Plan for the majority of these categories.
They're levels -of- service standards. These are things that the Planning Commission will have -- has opportunities to
make recommendations upon the appropriateness to the Board of County Commissioners.
As I mentioned, all the infrastructure and services provided in the departments take part within -- take part
within the AUIR process. That's roads, drainage, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, parks and recreation, and
schools. Those are your Category A facilities or your concurrency facilities.
There will be some questions related to concurrency based upon the changes in the state law that we're going
to ask the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on. I will hit that
-- those points in -- a little bit later in the presentation as to -- and as the departments and divisions move forward.
The Category B, the non - concurrency facilities; your jails; your law enforcement; the libraries; the
emergency services; government buildings; and the two dependent fire districts, Ochopee and Isle of Capri.
As you can see, these are the major components that provide the services and the infrastructure that make
Collier County and make our society and our economy function. So attending to these needs are critical to the
continued growth, development, and the quality of place that Collier County enjoys.
One of the questions is how do we get to the projections. One of the things that always -- I think the advisory
boards, staff, public, decision - makers, politicians struggle with is projection, population projections. How do we get
them? How do we know that they're accurate? How can we make sure that the expenditures that we -- that we plan
related to those projections are appropriate?
The Florida Statute requires that we utilize the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, BEBR's, medium population for our population growth. They provide the population over the next five
years that we expect that is the basis of the AUK and they project our permanent population.
David Weeks and the comprehensive planning team allocates that population based upon past trends of CO
issues to make sure that the populations that are being projected are being allocated in the right geographic area,
which helps us with the proper planning and placement of the infrastructure and the improvements that are being
proposed.
We also have seasonal population. As we know, we have a robust season that runs sometimes from October
to April or May with various degrees of intensities within those months. The arrival -- or the BCC arrived upon the
current method of projecting for our seasonal population by taking our permanent population and increasing by 20
percent, and that's what yields the seasonal population.
Towards the end of this presentation, I will have the five -year population projection for BEBR, and we'll
make some comments related to some of the changes within the growth environment that we had but also the
significance of the 2010 census and the resetting that that provided to us and some extra slack within the system that is
provided, and I'll explain those comments in just a bit.
The next question related to the AUIR is, well, we've got the demand side addressed with the population,
which comes from BEBR. And then the next is, well, how much do we build based upon those projected population,
and that's all determined by your level -of- service standard.
The formula for capital improvements is right there, the top line. It's your new population times your
levels -of- service standard equals what's required within your capital improvements program. Library buildings are a
Page 3 of 91
16I 2- 114
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
good example, a very straightforward example.
For this five -year period we're projecting 36,316 people. The level -of- service standard that's currently
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners is .33 square feet. You take the population that's projected against
your required level of service, and that's what's required to be built.
Within this example, library buildings has satisfied that -- has satisfied that concurrency, so there's no
libraries being proposed. But this is what would be required. This is what the new population is going to be -- is
going to demand upon the system, so this system has to expand to be able to meet the levels of service as we've
prescribed them.
Also the AUIR identifies new -- the new facilities that serve the population, as I just spoke about, but also the
replacement for public facilities that will no longer be adequate within the five- year -AUIR time period. A sidenote on
this: I believe next year you'll see a much more robust presentation related to the -- related to the replacement cost of
all the assets that the county has based upon the direction that the county manager has initiated throughout this county
division starting with the public utilities division of an asset - management program, and with that program, with that
identification of the asset - management program, we're going to be able to provide a much more robust picture to the
Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners to all of the improvements that are going to be
needed, because when you add 235 lane miles in ten years, those lane miles need attending to.
All of -- all of the infrastructure improvements eventually need attending to. Nothing lasts forever. There's a
shelf life on everything. So we have to, as these improvements move forward, start to identify also the costs for
replacements.
CHAHZMAN STRAIN: Mike, you never take a breath between your sentences. The only reason I'm
noticing is Terri's typing as fast as I've ever seen her type, so maybe you could just slow it down --
MR. BOSI: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just a notch, a little bit.
MR. BOSI: I will. I will try to slow my patterns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Any other reasons for the AUIR? There is one reason, and it's related to impact fees. The AUIR
helps establish the rational nexus between the -- the imposition of impact fees and the improvements that are
associated with those fees.
For the Category B facilities, it really is kind of the safeguard to make sure that we're legally assessing the
rate of the impact fees, the charges of the impact fees, and the expenditure of the impact fees are being allocated in the
appropriate, lawful manner.
AUIR helps establish to make sure that we're on solid ground within all those categories. It also gives an
approximation of revenue over the five -year period as well as the costs. And it's not a budgetary document. But it
starts the preparation for the budgetary discussions recognizing what's the approximate cost and what's the
approximate revenue and where the gaps are within those so we can make sure that we can maintain the levels of
service that we have expressed within the Growth Management Plan or make the appropriate adjustments.
When did this all start? And one of the things that -- when I first started with Comprehensive Planning and I
took over the AUIR project and a couple of the side projects that we've done for the AUIR so the Planning
Commission become a little bit more familiar and secure with the way that we -- with the way that we do things, this
county is the only county in the State of Florida that I know that not only has a CIE, Capital Improvement Element
process, but also an AUIR process where we talk about the -- we talk about library buildings, we talk about jails, we
talk about law enforcement levels of service, we talk about levels of service for government buildings.
I haven't found a -- I haven't found a category (sic) that spends much time discussing with the advisory
boards, with the Board of County Commissioners, and with the public what they think is appropriate for our -- the
standards that we have in place and what needs to be changed or what needs to be maintained moving forward.
Basically, the idea of the AUIR came from the basis of the original 1985 growth management laws that said,
every county has to start to -- has to start assuring that infrastructure is going to be available for the populations that
that we expect.
The Board of County Commissioners back in the early part of the'90s identified the AUIR as a process to
help -- to help ensure that those standards are going to be met.'
There's been some changes. And this is -- there has been some changes on the statutory level, which I'm
Page 4 of 91
161 a A 4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
going to talk to you right after -- this last slide talks about the AUIR and the CIE. Used to be two separate processes,
and they used to create somewhat of a confusion.
And that first slide when I said the demand equation changes on a regular basis, well, so does the revenue
projections based upon the current trend.
We had the AUIR being heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in
November. We had the CIE being heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in
April. There was two divergent pictures that were being painted, but they were focusing upon the same components,
and that caused a great degree of confusion and misunderstanding.
Based upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission and then ultimately the decision of the
Board of County Commissioners, we -- last year we brought the two together, and we -- I think we found it was a
successful project, and we've made the county manager's decision -- the board's decision to move forward and
continue as one project.
And like I said, both of them focused on the same thing, the levels of service and the needed projects to
satisfy those levels of service.
I mentioned a couple times House Bill 7207, a number of changes within the growth management regulations
and structures, basically an overview not quite just related to the CIE /AUIR. The state has really pulled back. The
state has pulled back and said, the locals, we're going to give you much more control over the decisi ns you make at a
local level.
Related to the CIE /AUIR, what that means is we no longer -- well, first, the CIE used to be an amendment to
the Growth Management Plan. It is no longer an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. The CIE is the
updating of the schedule of capital improvements, but legally it is not an -- it is not an amendment to the Growth
Management Plan.
And also, before, every locality, Collier County included, would have to send your Capital Improvement
Element to the State of Florida, and that -- your Capital Improvement Element are your Category A facilities. Those
facilities that make up concurrency.
They wanted to make sure that those facilities that you had planned were moving forward and there was
revenue identified for them moving forward associated with those. No longer do we send our CIE to state, so it's
strictly going to be a local document.
So those are the significant changes in relationship to 7207 and how it affects the -- you know, the CIE and
AUIR.
And, lastly, one of the last questions -- and we're going to ask the Planning Commission for
recommendations related to concurrency. No longer is concurrency required for roads, no longer is it required for
schools, and no longer is it required for parks. It's now an optional element. If you -- if this county decided that they
no longer wanted to maintain concurrency for schools, for roads, for parks, we would have to amend our Growth
Management Plan to remove -- to remove those components of concurrency.
Within the staff report, staff s perspective is, the levels of service for standards that we have established -- one
of the primary tools that we have to maintain the levels of service in the sense of place that Collier County has is the
utilization of concurrency. The utilization of concurrency ensures that when an individual developer goes for a
development order for a plat or an SDP, that the capacity is planned or under construction or in place to handle the
demands of that individual development order.
I'm not sure what the benefit would be to take those assurances away from the development process. And
another thing -- another thing that -- allowing or -- and maintaining roads, schools, and parks for concurrency is
during the -- during the rezone process, during the Site Development Plan process, the plat process, it ensures that the
contributions that that individual development order is going to be required (sic) is going to be made to meet the extra
demand that their units are going to place upon any one system.
So from a staffs perspective, concurrency management, we believe, has helped ensure the levels -of- service
standards as prescribed within the Growth Management Plan, and staff feels it's still the most effective way to
maintain those prescribed levels of service.
This is a snapshot, and I believe it was within your staff report, and it just -- it documents AUIR starting in
2006 all the way up to 2011. And the most important, I think, column is that last column, the growth percent
annualized, meaning what is the percentage of growth we expect in terms of population on an annual basis?
Page 5 of 91
1612 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
In 2006, the population projections were -- provided a 6.2 percent annualized growth rate. And as you see,
2007 and 2008 it began to slow down to where it bottomed in 2009.
The past -- the past -- 2010 and 2011, right --just under 2 percent, that looks more and more to be what the
projections are for growth, at least moving forward over the next 5 to 10 years for the county. And based upon that,
the planning prospectives and the time frames associated with when those new improvements are going to be needed
is being calibrated towards that growth rate and when that growth rate's going to trigger that next needed
improvement for any one of the facilities.
A sidenote, when I was talking about how much do we build, most of the -- most of the divisions, most of the
departments are related to a population, strictly a population base. As I said, libraries is .33 square feet per person.
Roads is an exception, and what roads is is more of a real -time concurrency where we're out there with traffic
counts at the various stations looking at the volume to capacity for each road segment and what is the utilization for
each one of those road segments related to its capacity, and that is how the transportation planning -- obviously, it is
related to population, it's related to those units because those units are the ones that create the demand and create the
trips associated that put the -- or that occupies the capacity on the road, but it's not strictly, well, we're planning three
thou- -- or 36,000 people in the next five years, we need this many roads.
It's more of a real -time concurrency, and it was one of the efforts in 2007 that we went through with the
Planning Commission related to the AUIR, trying to see if we could bring that real -time concurrency approach not
only to -- not only to transportation, but to some of the other divisions and departments. We found that it's a little bit
more difficult to quantify with -- say with the library in terms of that actual usage, but we do provide, within your
package, the demand statistics for each one of the divisions, departments, for what kind of change they've had within
terms of -- within the organization related to year -to -year fluctuation.
And the goals for today's meeting -- this is the last slide, and then we'll move on to the more interesting
components -- asking the Planning Commission to accept and approve the attached document is the 2011 Annual
Update and Inventory Report on public facilities and then to give the BCC direction by separate motion and vote on
each of the Category A and B facilities relative to the projects and the revenue sources, and with the A facilities, set
forth -- set those forth and recommend them to set forth within the schedule of updates to the CIE for FYI (sic) 'I I
and'12.
With that, that ends my presentation. Any questions on the overview of the process?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'd like to do, Mike, is -- first of all, I'd like to ask the Planning
Commission if they -- if we can resolve each category as we go through it and take the vote at that time. That might
expedite, instead of waiting till the end and trying to figure it out then.
Second of all, as we always have done, let's move a few pages at a time through the reports. I imagine some
will go very quickly. But Mike's presentation was from the staff report that precedes the table of consents tab in the
documents we got. There's 11 pages there, some of which where maps and things.
Because that is not the AUIR elements itself, why don't we just take that section as a whole and his
presentation to entertain any questions we have at this stage from Mike on the AUIR before we get into the individual
items.
Does anybody have any questions on his presentation or his staff report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, it's me. I have some. Why did the legislature remove the concurrency
requirements or leave -- or provide the option to remove them?
MR. BOSI: That would -- that would be a question that I could not answer. I wasn't part of the process and,
you know, it would only be speculative, so I couldn't make that assessment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't have a lot of faith in elected officials, but there had to be a reason for
this, because below them they have the people who are really doing the work, which is the staff members like yourself
and different levels of Tallahassee. So someone up there was told to do this, and certainly the questions that would
come about as a result of what could happen if that was done were discussed, and I can't imagine them going blindly
forward without having the reasoning, and basically it's based -- what's behind the intent of the law?
And has anybody on your staff looked at that to see if -- what their intent was when they did it?
MR. BOSL• Commissioner, I was at the Florida APA conference the 7th, 8th, and the 9th of this month in
Palm Beach. Billy Buzzett, the current secretary of DCA, along with Mike McDaniel -- Mike McDaniel had made
Page 6 of 91
1612 A14 'I
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
presentations to this board during the public school facilities element adoption -- gave an hour -long presentation over
the changes related to 7207, there are -- questions came up.
And the only -- the only thing that Mr. Buzzett had provided was, he couldn't tell you what the legislator --
what the legislative motivation was behind it other than -- other than that 25 years of growth management has
engrained each of the jurisdictions within the process of how to do good planning, and giving the locals the option to
opt out is something they felt was appropriate.
Now, they didn't -- they wouldn't talk about what those consequences could possibly be. And there was a
tremendous amount of dis -rest amongst most of the public - service planners over the removal of these concurrency
requirements, but they wouldn't get into specifics.
And like I said, there's a tremendous amount of speculation that I could make on a personal basis, but from a
standpoint of the manager of Comprehensive Planning, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to speculate in
that manner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is, one of the things you've asked us to do is consider whether or not we
want to opt out or in on those elements that the legislature has allowed us to do so. And from my perspective, I'm
trying to understand why that was even put on the table in the first place, not by us but by them, because that -- their
reasoning would have a weight on any decision.
I'm trying to understand what the other side thinks so we know -- put ourselves in their shoes, more or less. If
you don't know -- and I'm sure, Nick, you don't have any further insight into it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean that facetiously. I mean, he probably -- I mean, Mike's probably gotten
all the information he can from you on the matter.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would imagine -- we've talked to a few people. I guess I'll be a little more
speculative than Michael will be in my position.
If you get rid of concurrency, the next logical step is a mobility fee in terms of impact fees, a pay- and -go
system where concurrency doesn't apply. A lot of jurisdictions are looking at that and moving towards that,
eliminating concurrency, and then reducing that impact fee or modifying into a mobility fee.
So I think -- we've talked with some of the jurisdictions, we've talked with some of the legislators, I guess, as
well, the aides, and to try to make it a more developer- friendly environment, so if you go to eliminate concurrency
and a mobility fee, you've pretty much got a streamlined approach, the development to move in as quickly as they can
come online.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what would be the basis then of something like a mobility fee as compared to our
system now, based on how many cars a project generates on the road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've looked at how many cars it would generate on the road and the average
distance they would drive in a certain county, and that would be a mobility fee.
Now, some of the more urban counties are looking at it for transit and bike paths. Right now you can only
use impact fees for capacity improvements, lane lines. They are now using it to add transit, add bike pedestrians
facilities. So mobility fees is much broader and can be used much broader versus a roadway impact fee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would they be -- if the -- has any county gone to the mobility fee yet?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Several have, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they use VMT or VHT, I think it is?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They don't just use VMT. They use VMT. They don't use VHT. But they look at
transit as well, too. There's a transit level of service they're starting to establish as well.
For our county, we have two TCMAs where you don't count strictly just those links. Some communities, if
you can imagine, expand that to the entire urban area, and then saying, put in a mobility fee there, which we're going
to have to look at eventually, but that's what they're moving towards, especially the more urban counties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is your mobility plan a setup for the future conversion to mobility fees?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not at this point in time, no, sir. We're sticking to what we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how many counties have opted out based on the legislature's recent action; do we
know -- have opted out of the concurrency and into something else?
MR. BOSI: There -- there would be none at this time. They would have to -- the statutes require you have to
go Growth Management Plan -- they have to amend the Growth Management Plan. So I have not heard of any at this
Page 7 of 91
16.1..._. Z
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
time.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're in the process.
MR. BOSI: There may be some in the process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't -- if you opt out and you go to the mobility fee, that's one option. Are
there any other alternatives to go to if you opt out?
MR. BOSI: They do not express any -- they really don't express options.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not by them, by the communities. Has anybody come up with a better creative
idea? We may not have the best square box in the world. Is there another way to do it that is better? We ought to be
looking at options. I'm just wondering if there are any. Has anybody come across any?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've looked at some of the urban counties, but better's a relative word. If you
spend time in Orlando or some of these more urban counties, I don't think they have the same public facilities.
So if their version is better, better for who, and that's a perspective opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more looking at alternatives. If there's a different alternative out there -- and
Collier County is unique. And if we have a way of now being able to turn to an alternative that is actually better, we
ought to certainly see if it is there and consider it. That's all I'm trying to find out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the alternative's out there, the mobility fee, and we will certainly look at
that, how it would benefit or hurt Collier County, make a presentation to the board when the facts come out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also mentioned, Mike, real -time concurrency. We do have some new members
of the board that may not have been here when that issue came up. And could you give us a real brief summary of
what the -- how that applies and how it works, especially on roads, real time versus vested trips and all those good
things that you guys like to bury us with.
MR. BOSI: I'm going to defer to my boss.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Mr. --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's going to defer to his, so this is going to be great. And you're going to defer
to who, Norm?
MR. FEDER: Chairman, members of the commission, I'll be very brief. But for those that haven't been on
the board, back in 2000 we came to a situation to address what was the disapproval of the theory that if you don't
build it, they won't come. We didn't build anything; everybody came. We had a huge backlog, and I'm talking about
transportation right now.
We had the concurrency provisions, and I'll get to that in the presentation on roads. But essentially what it
amounted to is we had an AUIR that was like this, a snapshot look at it, and the determination was that if we were
okay on segments of roadway for concurrency, that everything was fine for another year.
So I could have a roadway that, because it was very close to being at capacity and other things that have been
approved would bring it beyond that capacity and well beyond it even during that year, it could go from being just at
capacity, okay, to well beyond being okay before the next time we looked at an AUIR, and then we're way behind the
curve.
And the analogy I gave when I said, this doesn't seem to make sense, you're only looking at once a year on
roads, whereas my daughter, who was then in college, asked her how she's doing for money, and she's goes, I'm in
great shape, you know. I've got so much in my bank.
Well, how much have you written and how much is outstanding? Has everything cleared?
What do you mean?
Well, you've written a whole bunch of checks, from what you've told me. Have you checked those against
your balance and know where you really stand?
Well, no. I called the bank, and they said I have this much money in the bank.
That's effectively what we're doing by looking one time a year, not considering everything we had approved
and how it likely is going to come online.
So we worked through that process, and that's what we're doing right now, real -time concurrency. Everything
we approved, we look at a time frame for how quick it comes on.
Basically you've done that as what we called vested trips, so you do the actual traffic counts out there. You
look at your vested trips, bring some of those online, and as we look at new development, we consider not only what
the counts are today but also what we expect from what we've committed in the past to be around as we look at the
Page 8 of 91
16 i 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
concurrency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue about vested trips being counted on the road system to meet the
requirements of real -time concurrency, it makes sense, just like the checkbook does. But if you have a check that's
written and you know it's not going to be cashed in ten years, you've still got that money in your account. You could
utilize it for something somehow, as long as you know in the back of your mind you've got to have that reserve. That
has occurred a lot because of the economy.
We have piles and piles of vested trips out there that are not real. We have projects that are 90 percent off
their sales marks. Roads are being put in to sustain those vested trips that are not really happening.
What effort are we going to to bring real -time concurrency real?
MR. FEDER: That real -time concurrency was brought to you right after about 2000 with what I said. We're
now obviously in 2011. There's been adjustments over time. We have not brought on vested trips for a number of
years now, recognizing that --just that situation, that the trips aren't coming on as fast.
What you're talking about is almost ghost trips. We have developments, as the chairman's pointing out, that
came in for 699, maybe because 700 was the DRI. They came in, got approved for 699, they built 399, and the whole
built area is already built out. So the 400, we've started trying to take those into account and understand that those are
trips that are not likely to come onto the network. So we've tried to respond to that in the process.
And when we talk about concurrency, we've driven it by "growth pays for growth," because impact fee is
how we pay for our capacity in transportation. So if we don't have growth, we're not paying for it, and yet the good
news is we're not having concurrency problems because we're not growing. That's what you're going to see in our
presentation very shortly.
But, essentially, we do acknowledge that while we're trying to make it real time, we're trying to make it real
real -time. So we haven't assumed -- and, Nick, am I correct on that? For the last couple years we haven't brought on
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We only keep approximately one- seventh of vested trips. If a project had, for a
round number, 700 trips, we keep a static one - seventh of that, a hundred trips in the trip bank spread out through all
the links in that project, recognizing that they're not growing that fast. The goal was to keep them in there for a period
of seven years and then have them all in and then stop, but we stopped doing that. We just kept a static one - seventh in
there and wait till the project builds out as kind of a placeholder to see how they're doing, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's match real -time concurrency with a real -time occurrence. What did you
do with Hacienda Lakes? They showed an -- a reasonably high absorption rate that was their ability to show. I mean,
it's hard to dispute absorption rates. And it seemed unrealistic, but they got in, and their -- I think their buildout was
seven or eight years.
So did you accept their buildout process, or did you accept a hundred units per year; how'd you manage that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And it's a good question, because it clarifies a good segue. This commission
never sees concurrency. Concurrency's done at the development -order stage. What you see is consistency. That's
what the Planning Commission reviews when they do a DRI or PUD.
You look at the five -year program, and then with the DRI you look out even farther to see what's existing,
plus committed. That's part of that Question 21 for the DRI.
So you only see consistency. Is the project consistent with the future plans of Collier County's road program,
if you're using roads only as an analysis. So that's what you see.
If along the way, the DRIB become vested and they do that reanalysis, we would plug in those trips at that
one - seventh and then see how they materialize every year with those development orders coming against our road
program.
But you're not looking at concurrency when you see a DO in front of you as the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But because they put a schedule on the table that gave an absorption rate that
was considerably higher than what you're now saying you would normally use as a proportionate share of their
vesting, say they could perform that and they hit the roads, or say they're -- you don't know it, but they are going to be
able to do that, how do you then judge other projects in the area for concurrency that may add more to the road than
would be allowed by what they said they would do, even though you didn't necessarily take that to be the truth?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We -- there's two questions. It's concurrency and consistency. For concurrency, I
only look at real -time, what's on the road, and I look in the future for a DRI, that one - seventh, approximately, what
Page 9 of 91
161 2 A14 F+
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
they would develop annually.
For consistency, when a rezone comes in, they have to look at other projects in consideration. So they would
have to look at Hacienda in its entirety in terms of approved projects coming in. So if a rezone came in across the
street from Hacienda, we would not look at -- not only look at our concurrency management system, projected out
five years for consistency with our CIE, we'd also ask them, well, you realize Hacienda's coming online as well, too.
They have a traffic report. Consider that in your impacts to the roads as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got two systems going on simultaneously. One is concurrency and one is
consistency.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. That helps. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Does what you say about -- also help protect for redevelopment, I mean, so
that -- it does not?
MR. FEDER: If your trip is not out there, it's assumed already -- it's already gone through the process, so
you're looking at your background trips plus what we think is vested.
One of the concerns is that vacancy rate, because it's assumed that it's in that background trip because it's
already developed, it's already out and done, and in reality it's not going to come back again, and so that trip's going to
come on the system and it's not going to go through any review process or any application to improve the facility to
meet it. So that's one of the issues we've raised as a concern is that vacancy rate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your change of use -- there are two things. Right now the board has exempted
that impact fee as a waiver right now.
What we do is we look at, if a project comes in and develops, is there new net trips to the system? We still
they would still be subject to concurrency because they've not waived that requirement in our Growth Management
Plan or LDC.
So if a commercial building came in to redevelop another -- you know, that building, if it was more intense
and that road was failing, we would not allow them to develop under the concurrency management system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. I appreciate it.
Mike, I'm going to move through the pages then, if that's okay. You had talked about impact fees at one
point. What comes first, the impact -fee study or the level of service determin- -- the level of service that we set?
MR. BOSI: They're separate. The impact -fee study, those comes first. The impact -fee study basically
assesses what assets that general purpose county govertunent, Collier County Government, has for that one facility
and what is legally able to classify as capacity, and it sets that capacity. And it says, this is -- your capacity is at X.
All new people who are -- come into the system have to provide their proportionate share to make sure that we
maintain X. So that's your level of service -- that's your level of service that's established with your impact fees.
Your Growth Management Plan establishes a level of service and tries to be equal towards what are impact
fees, but sometimes it could be -- sometimes it's -- sometimes it's higher than what it is. It couldn't be lower -- it
couldn't be lower than your impact -fee level of service, but it can be higher. And you've got that case in some of the
various areas such as -- EMS is one of those prime examples where the level of service for the impact fee -- because
of leased facilities and other issues such as that, the impact fee is much lower than what the adopted level of service is.
So the impact fee and the adopted level of service are two separate components, but the level of service
identified within your impact fee needs the AUIR to make sure they were maintained in that X of what we're charging
against.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You ever hear about Alice in the rabbit hole?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was just going to -- the commissioner asked the question, the chicken or the egg,
which comes first. Your impact fee has a component as a variable level of service. So, you know, the board sets a
level of service, we do the calculation to set the impact fee. Based on the impact fee that you set, you collect
revenues, you build, and then you -- you know, you establish -- so it's a circular question, I guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one that may come up in some of the discussion today, and I kind of wanted to
get your snapshot on it before I went into those issues, so I appreciate it.
On Page 2 of your report we're talking about Category -- on the top of the page we're talking about Category
Page 10 of 91
161 2 a4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
B facilities. Does the new legislation change anything in regards to Category B facilities?
MR. BOSI: Not to my knowledge, that it has any relationship in terms of the financing for the AUIR/CIE
relationship to the Category B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we do have impact fees related to Category B facilities.
MR. BOSL• Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those impact fees are as a result of what we've determined to be levels of
service for those Category B facilities?
MR. BOSL• Those impact fees are -- those impact fees specifically determine their own level of service.
Those impact fees -- every time we update our impact fees, Tindale Oliver, or whoever the firm is, goes out and
makes the assessment, what is our capacity, what is the level of service we're providing.
It's not always -- it's not always -- it's not in agreement sometimes with what our adopted level of service is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Through the Category B, if everything -- if we move things to Category B
instead of Category A, what is the significant difference?
MR. BOSL• The -- well, one -- the obvious is, it's no longer going to be included within your Capital
Improvement Element update. It's no longer part of that schedule. And I guess one of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, would Norm have -- would Norm be upset if he was called a Category B
from now on?
MR. BOSI: No. If we moved it to Category B, but what -- the question is, are you going -- are we going to
move it to Category B and eliminate concurrency? That's the question. Because the CIE is a local document, as the
AUIR is a local document.
So if it's in the CIE or if it's only in the AUIR and we move transportation to a Category B facility but we still
maintain concurrency, the relevant significance is minimal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why wouldn't we want to move transportation to Category B?
MR. BOSI: Well, I guess the better question, what benefit do we gain by moving it to Category B?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. You've got two categories in front of us here
today, and I'm trying to -- I understand what the headers say, but in practical application we don't seem to have any
regard whether they're A or B.
MR. BOSI: It does. It does have a practical application because you remember --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm trying to get to.
MR. BOSI: Remember, Category A facilities, those are the concurrency facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not required to be anymore.
MR. BOSI: They're not required to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: No. But if we're -- so if we -- if we would drop concurrency for any one of those components,
we'd move them to Category B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they still would have impact fees --
MR. BOSI: They still --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we still could apply real -time checkbook concurrency?
MR. BOSI: No. No, you couldn't.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. So what would we lose? We'd lose the real -time issue.
MR. BOSL• We'd need to apply concurrency at the DO -- at the plat and at the SDP level.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you can't apply concurrency in Category B, then how do you enforce the level
of service?
MR. BOSI: We don't enforce the level of service. We --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you collect impact fees to regulate or to make sure you're consistent with
the levels --
MR. BOSI: As I said, those impact fees -- the adopted levels of service, that's what the board says, this is our
ideal. It's only expressed in the AUIR for the Category B facilities what that levels (sic) of service is.
In the impact fee, in the impact -fee study, they say -- they express what your real level of service is, what
your capacity -- what your capacity is, what your system is at, and that's what you're allowed to charge against.
Page 11 of 91
1612 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
Example is your EMS station. Your EMS station, your impact fees -- your impact -fee study says -- has a rate
about one unit per 34,000 people. That's what's in the impact -fee study. That's the level of service in the impact -fee
study.
The board has the level of services that is one unit per 16,400, much higher -- a much better level of service.
That's an aspirational goal. If we don't make that, it's just the Board of County Commissioners saying we have to do a
better job making that goal. But the impact fee -- the impact -fee study is -- identifies your actual level of service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Category B gives the local municipality more flexibility?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm wanted to say something. And the reason that's important is, some of
this insistence on a five- or three -year timetable on all the Capital A elements to the extent, like roads, if we had some
more flexibility without having to come back through and go through the hoops that maybe Category A requires
versus Category B, we may be better off with Category B to provide the flexibility when projects in selected areas
don't meet the levels of buildout they expected and we have ten -year buildout instead of one -year buildout.
And Norm has been wanting to say something, so --
MR. FEDER: I'll hold on the last statement, Mr. Chairman. But what I will tell you is -- to your question.
Originally, the Category A was where concurrency was required by the state, so your element's in there.
B was set up because this board decided that it wanted to encourage a level of service for certain attributes,
and the other was a required level of service that they set for attributes. So that's the difference in many respects
between Category A and B is the state set up what was required in your CIE to have a concurrency process which is
now changed. It's now optional at the local level.
I'm not sure Category A or B sets you greater flexibility under where you are and where you're moving but
depending upon what you're trying to accomplish, and I'm not sure I know what that is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to ferret out what -- now that we have additional flexibility --
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- offered to this county --
MR. FEDER: What are the options?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what is the best way to go. Because every time a project comes forward and
issues come forward, we hear different reasoning based on how stringent it has to be because of concurrency.
Concurrency's a good thing, but the problem is concurrency is real hard to management when you don't have
consistency in the absorptions that are going on in this economy, and we don't even know where we're going to be
going in the future.
If you read a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, we're still the worst place in the country as far as sales
go.
So the probability of us needing six -- a lot of new six -lane roads until some of the vested trips catch up, I
would hate to see us tied to a Category A facility for concurrency because it is a Category A, whereas, if we could put
it in B and then decide as we go forward if we still need to keep it in that window of opportunity or not because we
have more flexibility, we still get the impact fees, because the best thing out of concurrency is the fact we get impact
fees. And you're saying no, so that's what I'm -- okay.
MR. FEDER: I'm saying no because concurrency is trying to make sure you have infrastructure concurrent
with the impacts of development. The impact fee happens to be a way to try to fund that. So I wouldn't tie those
exactly the way you're hitting it.
What I will tell you is, we probably ought to go through the road section, because I think what that's showing
you is as we slow down as we have, the program has slowed down, you're not developing six -lane roads, we don't
need it, and even your concurrency map is not showing it.
I've only got two major projects in the next five years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of those is only your major project because you're dedicated to have to do
it by contract.
MR. FEDER: Which is?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oil Well.
MR. FEDER: Already underway. I have two in the next five years. One is 951 between Golden Gate and " "'`
Green, and the other one is 951/1JS 41 intersection. Those are the only two major capacity projects you have in the
Page 12 of 91
September 29, JAI A ZA « S�ecial » Meeting
next five years.
You've got one proposed to come in at the intersection of Golden Gate and Wilson -- and we'll talk about that
a little bit -- but other than that, you have no other capacity projects to construction in the next five years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we have got items in Category A that are regulated by strict concurrency as our
rules apply but Category B is not so much concurrency, can we look at moratoriums as solution to growth if it wasn't
in A but was in B because it pulls it out of that required concurrency level?
MR. FEDER: I don't think you could, no.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the discussion gets into the Growth Management Plan/LDC. I think now
with concurrency being reduced in terms of requirement, a lot of what's in your book could be modified very easily.
But I think you're -- what you're asking is could we modify the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code to eliminate when a road is deficient or what -- how many -- when the next new road coming in, it
has to be in that two -year window or three -year window or five -year window. That could be amended through an
LDC change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I don't want to see happen, Nick, is as we go down the road, we have --
this county's going to have terrible funding for a long period of time. And we've heard various issues where a
project's -- if it goes in and we allow it to go in because we have to, we can't impose a moratorium. We have to create
the roads that were in our system or were allocated to be created so that project can go forward. I'm trying to get us
out of that obligation if there's a way to do it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand. You're asking the question. If we say no to somebody right now --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- then we have to come up with a reasonable solution in a reasonable amount of
time by our own rules, which were the state rules, which are no longer in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we undid that and moved us to a different category, would we still have to
abide by those same state rules?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You -- it's not as much the category. It's what's written in the Growth
Management Plan and the LDC you change. That almost becomes irrelevant. You would just be changing that.
The only caution I would tell you is one of the -- if we do do that, I think we'd want to vet that with the public
because a lot of people were concerned that, you know, if you don't have that capacity in place --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying to do it. All I'm trying to find out is what happens when we're
completely out of money. And this county is heading in that direction with the drop in values again for -- coming up
for next year and the sales still staying slow. It's a real concern.
You have fire departments out there -- Golden Gate had just asked to -- they're looking at asking for another
increase in ad valorem base, which is absurd. They just did it a year ago. Now they're looking for it again. What
happens if the county does that? What happens if every municipality does that? The taxpayers in this county are
going to be broke, the bubble's going to burst. And I'm trying to look ahead and say, okay, how can we put enough
flexibility to take advantage of every piece of flexibility that we have so that if we have to move fast we can.
MR. FEDER: And just the point that you're making is what is already happening. When I go over
transportation, what you're going to see is, not only have you pulled away from capacity -- and actually your
concurrency problems have pretty much dissipated predominantly as well -- you're trying to move what dollars you
can -- which is not impact fees, but they're not coming in either because there's no growth -- to your maintenance.
That's really where your issue's going to be a major concern is -- in the future's going to be the maintenance of what
you have out there --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- because in a no- growth issue, it isn't capacity; it's maintaining what you have, both
populations and just pure maintenance of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will have a lively discussion in transportation, because I do have some concerns
over --
MR. FEDER: Be happy to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some of the issues you mentioned.
Page 13 of 91
x.61
2
.A 4
.,
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special"
Meeting
MR. FEDER: Be happy to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll try to move quicklier (sic) through. And I apologize to this board. I'm -- I
just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- get this stuff on the table.
Go ahead. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I just want to make sure -- because the tendency when we're in situations
like we are now with what's happening with our economy is to overrespond the other way, and I want to make sure
that that does not happen, because back in -- before 2000 it seems like that was the way we went, and we tried to
correct for that.
That correction has been going along pretty well. I don't always agree, but it's been going along pretty well.
And I just want to make sure that we don't try to overcorrect, because that's the tendency in government is to
overcorrect in one way or the other.
So I just would caution everybody to -- not to not look at these things, because I think they're all valid things
to be looked at, but just not to overcorrect and destroy what we do have here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm?
MR. FEDER: To Commissioner Caron's point, I think it's very well taken. Again, I can talk to
transportation. And there's other things you're going to be discussing today. But in transportation it takes about six to
eight years to bring a project from start to completion, to actually end of construction.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you have the same thing in your water /sewer district --
MR. FEDER: That's what I said. I'm just talking transportation. But the point is still well made. I'm trying
to make the point that what we did back in the savings- and -loan crisis of the late 1980s and beginning of the '90s was
to say, gee, everything's slowed down, nothing's going to happen anymore, and we didn't do anything through the
decade of the '90s. When I came in 2000, it was under an emergency declaration.
We are somewhat repeating history right before our own eyes, because now we've decided, it had gone from
job one to job done, and what we're doing is we're wiping out in the work program those production phases that will
bring something in in years eight, nine, and ten when we're actually going to need another project. There's only two,
and then the cupboards are bare.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One added comment and we'll move on.
Commissioners, if you make no changes at all, because of the House Bill 7207, the board at any time, if it
manages a system as it does right now, decides that, you know, we have a facility that's failing, but we feel we don't
have the money to do that, we can move it out and modify the GMP, the LDC, at any point in time they want to,
without any repercussions from the state. Before it was --
MR. FEDER: It's not a growth management change.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Before it was, you had to send it up to the state for approval. No longer.
Now it's a local decision.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
On Page 2, Item 3, Mike, you mentioned deferral or development issuance will occur for development not
vested by statute. What is a deferral of a development order? What is that? I mean, someone submits a development
order. What do you do when you defer it? Do you just --
MR. BOSI: You defer it means until the capacity -- until the capacity situation for -- related to the
concurrency, because that's at -- that's at the concurrency application. You defer and say, you have to wait until the
facility meets within the criteria for you to get the green light to move ahead with your project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long could you defer to?
MR. BOSI: That I would -- I'm not quite sure of the -- because I don't apply concurrency on a regular basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, take the word "deferral" out and put "moratorium." Is there any difference?
MR. BOSI: Oh, practically?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: Probably not. I don't know if legally --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't have moratoriums, I understand, right?
MR. BOSI: I think legally there is a difference.
Page 14 of 91
16 1
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "S fOia— rTmeeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can someone explain to me how you can defer something indefinitely and not
call it a moratorium?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can't defer it indefinitely.
MR. BOSI: I mean, I don't think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then when you defer a development order, what's the policy for the
length of what -- how long you can defer it, and who has had that happen to them in this county, and were they abided
by the time frame that you're about to tell me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have --we have deferred projects on 41, zoning projects for the --under
consistency and said you're not able to go forward because there's no capacity in the five -year program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That is not an issue. We have said no to development orders along 41. And what
the state has told us -- which the state no longer is involved -- is you have to have a plan.
Now, definition of a plan, you start to design, you have a plan to acquire the right -of -way, and you have, you
know, something coming down the road. It's got to be reasonable is what the state would say.
So at 41 we had the PD &E, we had a developer contribution agreement, so the state said that was okay. I
would imagine we would apply it the same way. If we said no to someone, they would say, well, what is our
response? How long do we have to wait? Definition of reasonable would probably be a legal review, but we would
have to have a plan to fix that deficiency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 3D, developer constructed improvements guaranteed by an
enforceable development agreement. If there was a -- can you have a DCA for something that was in the Category B
in lieu of a Category A? Are DCAs independent of concurrency? Are they independent of levels of service? Are
they just general agreements in contracts between a development and municipality?
MR. FEDER: The answer is yes. But practically speaking, you probably don't have a DCA if you don't have
concurrency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. FEDER: What would be the impetus?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now that takes me to Page 3. The last sentence on Page 3 was -- I wanted to
ask you about. It says, the recommendation sought from the CCPC related to the school district's proposed CIP is for
a recommendation to include the district's CIP by reference within the CIE that no inconsistencies are contained
within the district's CIP. This is a prelude to what we're going to get to in that tab for the school system. I didn't see
the CIE or the CIP in my book. Do you know where the CIP is?
MR. BOSI: Yeah. It -- I believe I had indicated in the staff report that I was going to include it within the
CD within your packet. I did not include it in the CD in your packet. I sent that email to all of the planning
commissioners with the link to the school district's CIP online. It's 197 -- it's 196 pages.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, Mike, we set a policy a long time ago that if it's over 10 pages, we
get it hard copy, and we didn't. So I have a problem approving something I have not been able to read. So we'll get to
that when we get to the tab then. But I wanted to point it out --
MR. BOSI: Last year there was provided by --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't here last year.
MR. BOSI: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, Mike, I don't know about everybody else on this board, but I
did not receive a CD.
MR. BOSI: No. As I said, I did not include the CD, and based upon that, I provided -- the link is an
electronic copy, as the CD would be. So I apologize for the oversight on my part. But -- and, Mark -- and I guess you
don't have to take my word for it, or Tom Eastman who works with the school district -- there are no improvements
within the five -year program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are no improvements on a lot of the -- a lot here, but if you notice, I have tabs
on almost every page. I -- still doesn't mean we can't have questions, and it doesn't mean if there's no improvements
we can't figure out ways to make things better even though the improvements aren't needed. There's other things that
could be looked at, so -- and I've had questions about the school board, which normally I don't even mess with,
Page 15 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
because that's a whole 'nother messy arena in itself.
But because I had questions, I couldn't answer them, and I thought, well, that's odd. I wonder why we even
got this, and then I find out that it isn't even -- to get it, I have to go online --
MR. BOSI: You have to remember, concurrency related to the school district is not something that's applied
by general purpose county government. That is a system that's administered by the school district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing you're asking us, though, is that there are no inconsistencies
contained within the district's CIP. Did you personally read that entire CIP, 197 pages?
MR. BOSI: I read the five -year -- the five -year -- the five -year window of improvements, and there were
none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, did you read the entire 197 pages?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did not read --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody on staff read the 197 pages?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sounds like the healthcare bill.
MR. BOSI: And I would say that it's -- I have -- the relevancy of the 196 pages of the school district's Capital
Improvement Program are related to the facilities.
And, Tom, you maybe want to help me out. But my purview and review of that, I don't know if that's -- that
would be appropriate based upon the relationship.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't care if it's -- I don't really care too much about the school system in the
sense that we can do a lot about it. I mean, they have their own rules, they have their own board, and they have their
own everything. To jump into that would take as much time as this board has to spend constantly.
So I wasn't looking forward to that. The problem I have is, if I personally have to say, yes, I agree, I'm
recommending that the -- there are no consistencies (sic) contained in the CIP, I can't do that if I personally haven't
read it, and I haven't, so that's where my problem lies.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically the only thing we looked at -- and, Tom, I want you to jump in. The
only thing we focus on, in the past seven years I've been here, is that inconsistency with roads and schools. And
where there are no capital improvements for schools, there isn't a conflict for us. So that's what we focused on as
county staff.
MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Chairman, the only improvements of a capital nature that we would make that would
force an interaction between the county and the school district would be a new school or a major expansion or some
type of change in our capacity of the school that would affect -- it could be utilities, it could be stormwater
management, it could be roads, it could be something of that nature.
But given the slow growth that we're having, we have none of those major capital improvements that would
force an interaction between the school district and the county. Our major capital improvements relate to roofing
projects, AC projects, things that are more internalized to the school district site that do not involve impacts external
to the site that would involve the county.
So albeit it a good point that you did not have the document to review in its 200 -page nature and that no one
has reviewed it exactly for that, it's a safeguard, and certainly a quick -- an assured way to know that there are no
inconsistencies, because every capital improvement would be internal to the site without county involvement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the school board has a portion of our millage allocation. The state sets the
maximum millage allocation for each municipality, or all the municipalities. I don't know what that number is. More
municipalities within there that get pieces, including all the independents, all the separate municipalities, all the
independent agencies, they start adding up to that top number.
So if the school board has an opportunity to save money but doesn't or the school board has an expenditure
that either retains or increases their millage rate -- and I'm not saying you're doing that now -- but retaining it instead
of reducing it, that's less that other municipalities who may need that millage could possibly have as we approach that
cap. So in a way you affect the county no matter what you're doing.
But I certainly would like to review it myself before I tell anybody, and including the board above us, that it's
not -- that there's no inconsistencies.
Page 16 of 91
161 2 a4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
And I understand -- Tom, I respect your position, but I have many times read things and found them to be
different than what others have read them as, and I would want to continue to read things myself So, anyway, I
appreciate it.
On Page 4, your first paragraph has got some bold typing in it, and after that it says, it should be noted that
public utilities, stormwater management, and transportation have developed a more complex storm area for the
system of maintaining level of service, which dictates capital expansion. That means the simple example you showed
us doesn't apply to those agencies because they've got their own -- especially like solid waste, I notice, has got a pretty
unique one. So -- okay.
Under level of service and impact fees, the fifth line down, local government cannot -- does not dictate that a
local government cannot adopt a level of service that is higher than the achieved level of service.
So if we get to a level of service that we have and, say, we've achieved that because that was our goal, we can
still set it higher. What would be the motivation to do that?
MR. BOSL• Increase the availability of that service to its population, increase the quality of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're assuming then that the achieved goal we were getting at was insufficient,
so we would increase it.
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, there could be a myriad of reasons why they may want to go beyond where they
set the goal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we lower it?
MR. BOSI: Can you -- you can't lower it beyond what your impact -fee level of service is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the impact -fee level controls -- not the AUIR?
MR. BOSL• It controls the floor of your level of service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you can never go below that floor?
MR. BOSL• Well, if you do, you have to drop -- your official level of service has to be correspondingly
dropped to whatever was adopted within the impact fee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your statement on Page 5, 2011 provides the third year in which the
annualized growth rate is projected at under 2 percent of the total population. This continued outlook is emerging as a
new - growth reality for Collier County.
Mike, I agree with you, and that's why I've expressed the things I have so far in just the beginning of this
report today is because even though there are -- a lot of the report has not changed, and the attitude I saw coming in
today was, oh, we should blow right through this, nothing's changed. Yeah, you're right, it hasn't. We haven't gotten
any more money, and maybe it could change in a different direction than what everybody thought these meetings are
about.
So I'm going to be probing more for ways to reduce, not maintain. Anyway --
MR. BOSI: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the bottom of Page 5 you start a sentence, what is noteworthy about this fact is
that those demands will not be accompanied by the impact -fee revenue associated with new units -- with units newly
added to the market and, therefore, additional funds will not be generated to satisfy the increased demands placed on
the system as units become occupied.
Correct, because we shouldn't need them because we used the impact -fee funds for improvements already
required by those supposedly- vested trips. Is there a problem with that?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BOSI: What that statement is intended to let the advisory boards, the Board of County Commissioners,
the general public, know is that when those units start to fill back in, the system's going to experience some increased
demands. It's going to get a little bit more difficult to get around.
Well, there's not going to be impact fees that are associated with that increased demand that's traditionally
associated with new units because these units have already paid into the system. And as they fill back in the real --
the real exertion, the real demand exertion that those units can provide will start to be experienced at its more -- at its
more full level, when the vacancy rate hits more -- or starts to be reduced a little bit.
So what that means is that we may start feeling a little bit tighter on the roads or may feel -- the libraries may
start feeling a little bit more crowded or the parks may start feeling a little bit more utilized, and -- but there's not
Page 17 of 91
16 1 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
going to be impact fees associated with it until those new units start coming on. But these are people moving into
houses who have already paid with -- into the system.
And just so -- and I guess it's kind of sort of the message that Norm was providing. We'd never want -- and I
guess we're extremely cautious. We don't want to give the false sense that everything's going to be okay and the
system can last forever that -- but there are -- there's more demand -- there's more demand out there than what we're
experiencing right now.
There's more demand that can be turned on like that then what normally would happen. Normally that new
unit's going to have to be constructed. It's going to have to be built. All that process has to go through.
All that has to happen now for the vacancy rate is someone has to move in, and then they start demanding the
services that a typical household would.
So we can see spikes, if the economy starts to improve. As our vacancy rate starts to lower, we can start
seeing spikes within some of the experiences of the systems, and there won't be those corresponding revenues
associated with it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's -- the discussion we've had as staff, it's the appearance of level of service, and
especially prevalent for roads. If you say that based on the impact fees collected and what we've built this is the level
of service you should expect based on what you funded, that's not the case.
If we have a 30- percent increase in traffic throughout the county, you're going to see a demand for
infrastructure. You're going to see people say we're crowded. We don't like this level of service. We're going to say,
well, that's the level -of- service standard that we have. It's E, and we're functioning at E.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, have you ever put a number -- population number on the vacancy rate
or a percentage or something?
MR. BOSI: Well, the census had a 32.5 percent --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty percent. It was about 30 percent.
MR. BOSL• -- a 30- percent vacancy rate, and it was about 3 percentage (sic) higher than what was allocated
in 2000. Just from personal observation, I think that it may be a little bit higher than what it was in 2000, but I haven't
-- that translates in teens of number of units. It's -- I think it's about 64,000 units that are either vacant or held for
occasional use, and making that determination between the two sometimes gets a little cloudy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, seasonal is within that vacancy number. Did you have
any guesstimate of what would seasonal and what would be an actual vacant home, unoccupied home?
MR. BOSI: There was -- there was a rough attempt out of that 64,000 -- 64,000 units that they had classified
as vacant. I believe it was -- it was close to about 65 to 70 percent that was classified as held for occasional use.
Now, the -- where the -- you know, the true accuracy of that, I mean, I think there's some flexibility within
that. But in terms of the true number of vacant units that aren't prescribed as occasional use, probably about 20
percent of the -- probably about 20 percent of those 6, so probably 15- -- or around 12- to 15,000 units that are just
vacant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And with the population, that would be about 45,000 people that are --
MR. BOSI: Yeah, right around 40 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would move in here without impact fee?
MR. BOSI: Yeah. We could experience upwards of 45,000 people moving in that are just moving into
occupy the units and then exerting the systems, on the school system, on the park system, the library systems, the
roads, and the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those built and unoccupied units, though, are paying their fair share of taxes so
that the maintenance and operations of the road system is completed. It's the projects that have pledged to build
higher amounts that don't, but we have maintenance and operation --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't let that go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got to keep you alert.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was going to say, you're not letting me sleep today. That's a negative.
Page 18 of 91
no
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
Our General Fund contribution and maintenance right now is almost -- is very low, if not zero. So let's -- you
know, we need to be very cognizant of that, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- you can't say that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 5 on that Page 6, a min, you have said something that sounds like a
deferral, but here it says, do not issue development orders that would continue to cause a deficiency based on facility's
adopted level -of- service standard.
Now, the reason I keep pointing this out is, is if that is an option -- because this board was told we cannot
refuse a development order for a long period of time. There's no moratorium allowed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's twice now you've referred to that as a possibility, and I'm a little surprised,
and I want to make sure I understand what it is you're insinuating by those terms.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think this Planning Commission and the board would want that flexibility.
Now no longer are you required by the state to have that in place, but I think if it's a -- if it's a facility -- whether it's --
public utilities is different. They're still Category A and concurrency required. But let's say roads; it's an easy
example.
If you're in an urban area and it's -- that road is deficient and you say, we don't want it to get worse, and it's
deficient 24 -- during that 12 -hour day during the a.m. peak, during lunchtime, during the p.m. peak, the board may
say, we want to maintain that deferral, and we'll have a plan to fix it but we don't want to let anything else to go
forward.
If we use Golden Gate Boulevard as an example, where it fails predominantly for almost one hour in the
morning and one hour in the afternoon, under our concurrency system, it may be considered deficient. If the board
said and the residents said, no, you know, we want that shopping center or we want some commercial development or
doctor's office to go in, exempt that road from that requirement, the board could make that decision. Because it's not
deficient all daylong. It's just that one hour, and the people may say, we're okay with that.
MR. FEDER: And that development might change patterns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Donna.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And we do that already with transportation exception areas, so --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they're outside of TCA, the TCME --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you just move the boundaries. I mean, seriously, that's -- you know,
they just bring it to the board and say, you know, we need --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We no longer have to ask the state. The board can say --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to understand what this board's options are as we go forward. And you
guys are presenting some verbiage here that makes it appear as we have more options than we've realized in some
cases, but I understand better --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do.
MR. BOSI: And clarification, that is strictly from our Capital Improvements Element. That's Policy 2.9, so
that's existing language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know it's there, but we have limitations on how we use it. That's the point.
Page 7, No. 3, transportation concurrency management database. What is that?
MR. FEDER: That is our real -time concurrency that we do. We look at what the actual background trips are,
putting on the one - seventh of vested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what does it tell you, like Project X has a certain number of vested trips per year
over a long period of time so you can see how things pop?
MR. FEDER: You can show that as to what's in the vested trips. Basically it's showing on a link, what is the
current service volume, what is the current volume, as you have in your table in the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can send us a link that we can tie -- all of us can have so that we can tie into it
and look at it when we have projects coming up; would you do that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I'd like to peer into that periodically just for confusion.
Page 19 of 91
161 2 iA
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Keep them on their toes.
MR. FEDER: Yours or ours?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we'll ever be able to do that, but --
MR. FEDER: Chairman, was that yours or ours in confusion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. FEDER: Was that for yours or our confusion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My confusion, then I can ask questions, see?
That gets us through the staff report where we can start on the first item, but I notice that, Mike, you have
suggested taking them out on a different order than is in the book. And I don't have a problem with that. We've just
got to remember we're not going to go tab by tab.
And before we go to any of them, it's 10:15. Why don't we take a 15- minute break and resume at 10:30 and
go from there.
MR. BOSI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. BOSL• Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Have a live mike but nobody seated. That's fine.
Okay. Thank you, Mike. And based on your schedule that you've got for the agenda, I think we're moving to
Category B, Isle of Capri, first; is that right?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Want to give us a page number since there's not tabs?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One sixty- eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One sixty- eight?
COMMISSIONER CARON: One seventy -one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One seventy -one.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I've got 168.
MR. BOSI: One sixty -eight is the beginning of the section. One seventy -one is the summary page, the
traditional beginning of the program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You -- oh, hi, Dan.
MR. SUMMERS: Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I forgot. You're not -- yeah, okay. I was looking at one of those guys in the fire
uniforms to stand up, but there you are, okay.
MR. SUMMERS: Good morning. I'm Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and
Emergency Management. Chief Rodriguez had a family emergency this morning, could not be here, so I'll pitch hit.
If you'd like to address Isles of Capri and Ochopee both, Chief McLaughlin is here with me from Ochopee,
and Captain Purcell is here from Isles (sic) of Capri.
I don't have anything -- any additions or corrections to share with you this morning regarding the report, and
I'm here to ask (sic) any questions that you might have.
I might also just say, I thank you for putting these fire departments up front in your agenda this morning so
they can get back on station today and even might ask if it might be appropriate to consider EMS as well if your time
allows instead of later today, but I'll leave that up to you.
But I am available to answer any questions, Chairman or the commission, that you might have at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we still in hurricane season?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know the answer to that, so that's why I think -- I definitely think you ought to
be D on the list. So I have no problem moving that up after Ochopee. And you can thank Mike for the first two, so --
MR. SUMMERS: I understand. Thank you for that indulgence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any problem with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll knock the first three out then.
I guess we'll take it a section at a time. Does anybody have any questions? Let's start with the Isle of Capri
Page 20 of 91
161 Z , A 4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
Fire Control. Does anybody have any questions with that segment of our pack?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, on the -- Page 171 under the level -of- service standard --
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have a one - unit -per- four - minute response time. Is that time for IS and fire
or just for fire? Is that the --
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we're measuring this only for the fire protection in this particular component. Now,
you understand at Capri that is split, obviously, between four - minute response time on the island versus four - minute --
in excess of four minutes to get up to Mainsail. But, no, this is -- this measures fire only. Now, we do operate ALS
personnel on the fire. But for the purposes of this measurement, this is fire only.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 172,1 found a really interesting statement that I hadn't seen before.
A gentleman during the break kind of helped clarify it for me. It still is absurd as what it reads to be. It says, it should
be noted that the East Naples station is located within the two -mile radius of Mainsail Drive location -- I guess that's
the radius you need for your response time -- but due to ISO policy can't be accounted for as providing coverage to
that area due to the area being the primary area for the Isle of Capri.
Now, what I think that's saying is -- and I know where all these stations are. Just up the street from Mainsail
is that East Naples station on 951, and it's minutes from Mainsail, yet even though it's that close, ISO can't
acknowledge it, and we, the taxpayers, have got to pay duplications for side -by -side stations practically?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. I don't believe that's the indication at all. What we're trying to clarify for you
here is that there are scenarios in these ISO ratings where the rating levels are split.
For example, the mainland or the island of Isle of Capri might, because of the hydrant system and the
immediate close proximity, have a rate, okay. The rate becomes split, which happens all across the county with
different levels -- with different districts, different locations, different geographical boundaries.
So the Mainsail is not -- and I don't have a particular ruling on this from ISO, so this is subject to some
clarification on our part. But I would tell you that as a -- to take advantage of all of the Isle of Capri's ISO rate,
Mainsail's geographic proximity to Capri's ISO rating means why they don't get the same rating as the island proper.
It does not reflect either that there would be an improvement if you were to redistrict that or rezone that, so to
speak, with East Naples. There are a number of factors. It could be hydrant availability, could be the number of
high- rises, et cetera.
So what we're trying to clarify for you there is that these are -- there are scenarios countywide where there are
split rates in the rating.
We work cooperatively, mutual aid and auto aid so it is not reflective of the response time. We have great
cooperation, great mutual aid and what we call auto aid, meaning that Isles of Capri and East Naples in that Mainsail
area would be dispatched simultaneously. In some cases they might beat us there. But we're strictly talking about the
element here associated with split ratings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: And, really, we don't have -- that really falls back to the ISO -- to the rating organization
and their governance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's the rating organization's perception of these district -- these separate districts
that's driving the need for a station there?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, it does drive a need in that if you -- if we were able to receive funding or were
postured at some point in the future for Mainsail, what you do have is an improvement in that ISO rating back to
proximity as just one factor. The other may be water flow, it may be an aerial apparatus availability if there are
high -rises or elevated structures.
So I can't tell you it's one factor. It's a multitude of factors that come forward with the ISO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ISO rating benefit's a reduction in insurance value -- premiums, right?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would seem to me that the community down on Mainsail would
tremendously benefit from the station you're proposing to put there?
MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and the benefits are in that that auto aid is there, but the difference, again, might be
these other rating factors that go into the index for Capri in these districts where they are split. East Naples, I'm sure,
Page 21 of 91
1612
A
4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special"
Meeting
has multiple split- rating districts as well. The two -mile proximity, we're identifying that to you as an auto aid in terms
of the service being automatically dispatched there, but it is not a reflection necessarily on those ISO rates because of
the two different districts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the ISO rate would be positively affected if you created another station
within the Mainsail Drive area, because that's within the territory of your district even though there's another one just
up the road?
MR. SUMMERS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the result of that would mean there would be a discount applied to the
insurance premiums for those people living in the Mainsail Drive area, most likely?
MR. SUMMERS: Most likely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that seems to me an absolutely perfect scenario to go to them as a
community and ask for an MSTU to provide a service that's only needed and isolated to their area. And I don't see
why anybody in the county or a county taxpayer would want to look at that when they're already covered practically
by the East Naples station.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, they're also -- there's some other ramifications there in that there was some
scheduled additional either high -rise construction or even opportunities within some of that highrise planned activity
that obviously has not occurred that would provide land and future impact fees for that. And, of course, we're at this
point and juncture now where we don't see that on the horizon anytime soon.
So I will tell you that it does warrant review, but we have certainly sort of hit the wall, so to speak, on all of
these potential future expansions due to the absence of growth and construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that is an old PUD/DRI, and when Westinghouse went in there and got
the variance or the permission, let's say, the amendment to the PUD/DRI to put those five, I think, towers in there,
there was a lot of discussion about all the utility and services needed.
Commitments, I believe, were made. Has anybody on staff checked to see that the -- whether the timing of
the commitment for the fire parcel, to see if it's met or hasn't been met?
MR. BOSI: Well, there's a provision -- and Chief Rodriguez mentioned it, I believe, two or three AUIRs ago
when it was first proposed -- that the timing of that Mainsail is really tied to the construction of the fifth high -rise.
And making space available and providing land is corresponding to when that PUD moves forward with that final
high -rise relationship to when the provision for the space allocation for the Isle of Capri is provided for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll -- hopefully staff will look at it too, but I'll certainly check the PUD to see
if the timing -- how flexible that timing is. But if he's got the land, then it's a matter of just paying for the facilities and
the operations within that area, and then that would be potentially subject as an MSTU if they wanted to look at it that
way.
I mean, I'm just trying to understand --it's kind of like a community- development district. If a -- if one of
those is formed and it only benefits a specific area, that area's the one that's taxed for it. This is obvious -- this appears
to be no different. So I'm just trying to explore whether or not you guys -- and since the chief isn't here, maybe you
wouldn't know, but have they gone out, have they explored the idea with the community, have they had meetings to
see if they want to establish funding for this facility so that they're benefitting from it?
MR. SUMMERS: Right, sir. And they do have an advisory board that does have representation throughout
the district. So while I think they're keenly aware, the other burden, if you will, would even be in the immediate
future if the land became available. Of course, equipment and personnel facilities right now are just not anywhere
near on our radar financially, but we'll certainly have the advisory board revisit that, and we welcome an opportunity
to do some further research on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, I was sort of going the same place, because I was surprised that in
here it said that it -- the Mainsail location was contingent on this land donation. And there are not very many PUDs,
certainly not DRIB, that go through this county that don't make that kind of thing a requirement. So I was kind of
surprised that it was still iffy.
Now, as Mr. Bosi said, if it's tied to the fifth tower, then I would caution anybody writing up these
agreements again. It shouldn't be tied to the fifth, because what if they only do four? They'll still have a really
significant impact, and you'll never get your land donation. So you've got to be careful in the language that's done in
Page 22 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
these -- when these commitments are made.
And -- but, secondly, I'm with you. I mean, somebody needs to look up that PUD and find out exactly what
that commitment was.
Unfortunately, where it's an old one, a lot of the stuff that was supposed to be trV4erred to those PUDs
oftentimes did not make it into those PUDs, so you may have to go back to transcripts as ch as anything else, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dan, what is the ISO number rating for that?
MR. SUMMERS: For --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isle of Capri.
MR. SUMMERS: -- Isle of Capri, I believe it was just rerated at a four, for the Island of Capri, and the
Mainsail is maybe a six. I need to check on Mainsail. Probably a six.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that's not really good, is it? I mean --
MR. SUMMERS: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not really a good number?
MR. SUMMERS: No, that's pretty good. That's a pretty good number. That's a very good number when it
goes to ten or not being rated. So they're not like other areas where -- no, that's not a bad operation whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, if the land is up for grabs, try to get a site closer to
951, because that would be a great place -- you know, the sales office is sitting where an excellent fire station would
go.
MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and I think honestly that was probably the intent. Once the sales office went
away, this might be an option.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SUMMERS: But, gosh, it's been -- it predates me from '03, so it's going to take some research to go
back and revisit. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To get up on the road would be good.
Thank you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? If not, Dan, on Page 177, in that table where you talk about
your responses, the second one from the bottom, move up to other fire departments, 168. Last year you had 12, and
the year before that you had 14.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, what, is East Naples out of business and you're taking care of all their area,
because--
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. It really is -- there are a number of factors there. Number one is associated with
some changes in protocol in our computer -aided dispatch this year, as well as -- a lot of the departments, we have a
function called auto aid or a mutual aid. And in this particular scenario where we had changes in computer -aided
dispatch, that means how 911 dispatches the call out to the fire districts.
There were move -ups where if Marco Island, for example, became -- all of their apparatus became committed
on a call, there's a move -up procedure that we do all across the county where we will backfill their station or bring
personnel from the next available into or closer to the central part of their response district. So we had a lot of
move -ups into auto aid into Marco Island.
Now, we have since revisited that where we might be alerted that Marco is apparatus or committed, but we
don't actually physically move the -- start up the vehicle, go across the bridge, and just stand by until their apparatus is
clear. So this is a high number. It is indicative of a lot of mutual -aid or auto -aid backups into Marco.
You'll see that number decrease this year because we have changed some of that activity and protocol. It
doesn't mean that we're not there standing by ready. It's just determining as to whether or not -- if they get an alarm
call, for example, sir, at Marco, we were automatically moving closer to the bridge to provide aid to them.
Now, we may not engage in that unless they get on scene and find out they have a working fire. As you
know, probably 30 or 40 percent of those calls were false alarms or, in fact, were not smoke or structure fires. So
we've retuned that auto -aid process, and you'll see that number decline next year.
Page 23 of 91
16I 2 44
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you use this statistical information for?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, it's a -- everything, everything that we do in terms of what our demand -- I
mean, really it is a measurement of demand, structure fire, inspections, vehicle accidents, HazMat, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it factor into level of service; do you know?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I would say that a lot of that -- I would say more of our level of service is somewhat
ISO rated to some degree in terms of pumping capability, firefighter resources that they bring on scene, as well as
structural hazards, hazard vulnerabilities within the community. So it -- I would say it really lumps all of those
together.
What we do for fire reporting -- this is typically the menu that we have for fire reporting. It matches the menu
of the service calls that would be -- that we would receive through our sheriffs 911 dispatch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why you would jump from 71 medical calls last year to 247 this year?
Because it wouldn't now -- in fact, you couldn't use the same argument that it would move up to other fire
departments because that one increased from 12 to 168. So why the jump in medical when we have a smaller
population than we used to?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, we have also engaged more our advanced -- having advanced life - support capability
on the engine. That helps provide service in terms of the first responder pre - hospital care intervention as a component
of either ALS transport or in some cases where our ambulance may be coming from a different zone from EMS, and
we've engaged in that medical call.
It's not unusual to see that kind of variance, in my opinion, in the medical -call scenario. Also some of those
medical calls are duplicative when it comes to, say, automobile accidents, et cetera.
You may have a vehicle accident where fluids were spilled and they just responded. You may have a vehicle
accident where fluids were spilled and medical care was a part of that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you --
MR. SUMMERS: Grammatically (sic) it's not -- it's not a big difference in what we're doing. I think what
you're seeing here is some clarification and codification of our run types and 911 dispatches.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're EMS for the county as well, and you happen to be standing in Chief
Rodriguez's spot today.
In your level, understanding of EMS side, you guys charge when an ambulance goes out and transports
somebody.
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because Medicare pays for it if the patient has that kind of insurance or their
insurance companies pay for it, and then deductibles aren't paid, and you separately bill individuals for that.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, not because -- that's not -- that's not our option, sir. That's board - directed policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm fine with it. I'm just -- I'm trying -- that's what you do in EMS. You do the
same thing for the 247 calls here?
MR. SUMMERS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not?
MR. SUMMERS: We have been -- we have had that discussion with the legislature off and on for the last six
or seven years. A couple of counties across the state have tried billing for fire and medical component service. It's
not successful generally, and insurance companies have pretty much told us they were not interested in engaging in
insurance claims for fire delivery service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's go back to medical. Your fire departments are trying to do a lot of
medical lately. They send an ALS or whatever, amb- -- whatever you call your ambulances now, and they pick
people up and move them to different places. When I was in the hospital twice in September in the emergency room,
the fire guys were bringing people in, and they're -- so, if they can bring someone in as a medical response and yet the
EMS, the ambulance that you have on the other side of the plate can charge for it and it's not fire related, it's a medical
response, why can't they charge? Why -- how does it -- why don't these insurance companies see that as medical
instead of fire? How is that reclassified?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, let me clarify. Probably -- you may have seen a firefighter and a Collier County EMS
individual on a Collier County EMS transport vehicle, but you did not see fire transporting anyone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they don't transport then?
Page 24 of 91
161 2 A4 '
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. SUMMERS: No. Fire does not transport. They're only initializing, only beginning initial aid. There's
no fire transport --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: -- in these districts, and there's no fire transport in Collier County to date now.
But you do -- you do see -- you will see combination uniforms in many cases on our transport vehicles. You
may see a firefighter driving, a Collier County EMS paramedic attending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I -- in the room they were bringing people in. It was fire guys bringing
them in. I was surprised, so that's --
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And it's not -- or there may have even been two Collier County EMS personnel
and one firefighter as a third individual depending on the magnitude of the patient. So -- but, no, the fire units
themselves, the fire entities are not transporting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does your department -- your fire side of your departments have any kind of
transport basis?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that table, if you were to look at percentages, if you take out the medical
and the move -up to other fire departments and the canceled en route and you look strictly at the responses that are fire
related, you're less than 8 percent of the overall total, 40 percent of which are medical related.
Now, that's a duplication of services in a lot of instances. Is there some way of knowing how many of that
247 you were first on scene?
MR. SUMMERS: First on scene on the medical or on the structural fire?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the medical, on the medical.
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, there is a -- it would take some research, but there is some resources that might can be
done to evaluate that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we have a lot of -- you fall off a bicycle now, you get two squad cars, you
get an EMS, you get a fire department, and I'm surprised the utility department hasn't figured out a way to respond.
We have a lot of abundance of response, and I'm just wondering if it all needs to be duplicated as much in these more
stringent times.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, there is calls for -- we do extensive review within the county. I mean, the Bureau of
Emergency Services, Capri, Ochopee, Collier County EMS and, of course, MedFlight. The other independent
districts within the county, I don't have the authority to direct their response protocol.
But you have to understand in Ochopee and Capri, you're essentially -- you're only going to get one vehicle,
and that may be -- that one response may initiate with a heart-attack call where a Sheriffs Department deputy may
arrive first quickest with an automatic external defibrillator followed by, in some cases, the advanced life support or
the ALS engine that has a greater complement of resources for that patient care, followed a few minutes later by
ambulance.
So there is -- there are very significant advantages to a first- responder capability, meaning the ambulance is
not always in quarters. Our ambulances -- and I think a lot of times folks forget that our ambulances are much more
transient than are apparatus that originate their call from the fire service.
So while I can pull that data, just understand that that particular component is really an
apples- and - orange -type delivery, and it is -- we do have first- responder programs here, and the engines complement
that scenario, because not always is the ambulance in quarters leaving at the same time as the fire apparatus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason I asked about the separation for the first responder was to find out --
that is -- I agree with you, that's the most -- that is important for the first responder to get there as quickly as possible.
MR. SUMMERS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just wondering how many times it happened to be the fire department was the
one.
MR. SUMMERS: I think we could go back and take a look at that for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On Page 176, the land replacement costs per station. I see the footnote
down here, but I'm just not seeing what that means in Table No. 2. There's a -- almost a million dollars here toward
that land replacement cost per station, and I don't know what that means.
Page 25 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. SUMMERS: Michael, if you want to address that.
The original fire station is essentially on a donated covenance, lifetime donation on the property, and then the
following is an estimate that should we have to buy back, or should we have to go to some other location I think that
was the estimated land cost based on a -- denoting the fact that the original property was donated. But I'll defer to
Michael on that one.
MR. BOSI: That's exactly what it is. It's -- one is a cost with land being donated, and the other is cost where
the district would actually have to acquire the land through purchase.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So -- but this would just be if you had to go get anew station. That's
not a figure -- that's not a budget item or anything else. It's --
MR. BOSI: It's just an estimate just --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just an estimate for the purpose of providing what that replacement could
potentially be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just a followup on that. That value is derived from the impact -fee study,
correct?
MR. SUMMERS: I'd have to defer to Mr. Bosi on that.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a -- what do they call that? A leading question. Makes it easy.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other thing, Dan, and probably this applies to both fire stations. Do you guys
contribute to the centralized fire review process here in Collier County?
MR. SUMMERS: Where -- the East Naples as the Office of the Fire -- the Office of the Fire Code official's
office?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just built a $2 million building out of cash and -- that they had kind of laying
around. Do you guys contribute to that money?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Because if you did, I was going to recommend that you not. Okay. Thank
you.
Anybody else have any questions of -- before we go on to Ochopee?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move -- we got -- we were going to vote separately each one, so what
I'd like to suggest -- is there -- anybody want to snake a motion in regards to the Capital B element of the AUIR for
the Isle of Capri Fire District?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval as presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Caron.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing 1'd like to ask is, I would like to see a follow -up with that donation of
land issue as part of the recommendation that staff be instructed to research that donation of land to make sure that the
timing of that donation is what it needs to be. If we can get it there quicker, I'd rather see it on the books than not, and
that way -- that will set the stage for how it's to be funded as a department later on.
Is that okay for the motion maker and second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's good.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That totally makes sense.`
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else?
Page 26 of 91
e
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.) i
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and it carries what, seven -- seven to nothing.
** *Next item up is the Ochopee Fire and Control District, and since you did so well on that last one, you're
going to stand in for this one too?
MR. SUMMERS: I will, and I can phone a friend if necessary, so we'll go right ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on the Ochopee?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why are fires, structure fires, increasing so much this year? Is there older
buildings, or what's happening?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, one of the -- one component the chief was just reminding me of was what a
tremendous spring wildfire season we had, and we were heavily involved in the state and national forest efforts there.
And there were structures -- again, we'll refer to some of those as camps -- but there were structure losses in those --
in those preserves where we were augmenting state or national forest firefighting operations there.
So -- but they are within the Ochopee district, so some of that camp loss that occurred in the spring fire
season contributed to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I know they're having trouble building back.
Why, the station on 75, would you actually put it up on 75 as opposed to around the intersection of 29?
Yeah.
63--
MR. SUMMERS: The 75 -- the -- you're referring to the discussions ongoing with FDOT about Mile Marker
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
MR. SUMMERS: -- discussion? Just briefly, sir, one of the key components, one of the big -- first of all,
Ochopee is the largest fire district in the State of Florida, and one of the big challenges for us at -- while we refer to it
as a fire station, one of the biggest challenges we have is the tremendous call demand that the Alley places on the
Ochopee Fire District and really the residents of Ochopee from the sake of their funding, their ad valorem funding, as
well as the resource draw that occurs with the number of accidents, car fires, hazardous materials incidents, wildfires
adjacent to the interstate and that burden on Ochopee.
There's tremendous response time out there for any of the Collier County assets. In some cases our helicopter
is really the faster deployment.
So our goal here -- it's been a goal since I came here working with Mr. Mudd -- was to get some additional
coverage on the Alley due to the magnitude and the call volume of the accidents out there.
The state legislature has approved and has endorsed joint efforts to get a facility out there fully burdened by
the State of Florida, FDOT, and the tolls. And we're in discussions with them right now about putting resources on
the 63 mile marker, again, because of its remote location, its -- that section, that 10 -mile section either side of 63 is
really where the road gets boring, and that's where we really have the major accidents out there and would provide an
invaluable level of service. And, really, I don't want to say service.
What we're really trying to do here is add to our golden hour of trauma and so -- where we can get out there
and make a determination to the extent of injuries, have the appropriate extrication tools, the appropriate medical
support, and make a wise determination as to whether we need air or medical support rather than automatically
dispatching the aircraft.
Page 27 of 91
ib 1
2
A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
So it is, I believe -- in some cases out there from the Ochopee station, it's what, 33 -- a 38 -mile ride --
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Up to 50.
MR. SUMMERS: -- up to 50 to cover the outside of their district. So that's another scenario there where it's
not really our choice. It is a choice location for us, but in terms of being able to partner with FDOT and get through
regulation, zoning, and free land, that's just the best -- that's a win -win scenario.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that station would essentially be dedicated to 75?
MR. SUMMERS: It would be dedicated to 75, that's correct. But as we do anywhere within the district, if
there is demand, there is move -up and replacement strategically done and tactically done by the chief.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Ochopee? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a follow -up. So you're saying that you're getting resistance from the state?
MR. SUMMERS: No, no. We finally have it -- it was finally enacted by the legislature --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: -- this year, so we're pleased. The County Commission and the legislative delegation has
statutory movement. I guess that's the appropriate word. There's a program in place statutorily to get this station
moving.
There are no timelines yet. There's no -- there hasn't been any cash received to this date for equipment or
personnel, but it is -- the legislature is -- and the FDOT folks are working with us on it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one more question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the ISO number for this district?
MR. SUMMERS: It's split, so, Alan, I'll -- Chief, I'll let you address your rating.
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The district is split due to its size. The areas that are covered within -- where we're
stationed within five miles of hydrants is a six. The areas outside that are nine, like in the areas that have hydrants,
like Copeland. Outside of those areas it's a ten. Ten being the worst and one being the best, to answer your question AVOW
earlier.
Your highest ratings on ISO come from ten down to five on residential, pretty much, and from six on down
you get your commercials, and then your industrial's really one and two and three, so that's your -- where your
benefits are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's what I thought, because when we discussed Capri, you
said it went from four to six. That's not a good thing, correct?
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Four is actually a very good rating as far as residentials, and it's also very good for
the high- rises. You can improve that rating in the residentials to a five in that area. They would get a benefit in the
residentials. But after five -- you really don't start to see a large benefit after five in residential. It pretty much
becomes commercial and multi- -- large multifamily commercial, so forth.
So I can just say that, like in City of Naples when the reductions happened over the years -- I was with them
for 20 years -- and we went from a five, four, three, a two. The hospital, the mall, they saw those large reductions
from a four down to a two. Those were the biggest dollar savings. The residents saw the biggest dollar -- really see
the biggest dollar savings anywhere from a nine down to a five.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few questions on your Page 187. You set your level of service on a
per -unit cost based on your Everglades City building, three million, two seventy -five. And the building replacement
cost in Everglades City is even higher than the one on Isle of Capri. How did you -- how did that come about, Dan?
MR. SUMMERS: Two options that I'm aware of. We can get into some more detail with the chief. But the
county -- the building that they're currently in is actually owned by the City of Everglades, so we are not a landholder
to that.
Should we have to relocate that, one of the big cost issues associated with that would be floodplain
management. Where would you actually go to a point where you could have an elevated structure or meet some of
the BFE elevations associated with a fire station? It's very challenging.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a good point, because the trucks would -- well, the trucks wouldn't have
to be up, but you're -- everything to service the trucks would have to be up, so you're almost forcing them to be up
Page 28 of 91
16 12 A'4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
rather high.
MR. SUMMERS: We're in -- right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting.
MR. SUMMERS: We're back to the coastal Carolina -style elevated fire station, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you lost the location you're at in Everglades City, you'd have to buy a new
location. So you didn't put land replacement cost in your Everglades City model that you used.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, I think the thought process there was a desire that you would not -- elevation does
not preclude relocation. So it might be that that would have to be worked out with Everglades City. They would
probably want the fire station still in downtown Everglades City. That's their desire. That's been their tradition. But
should it be lost, then you're re -- rebuilding, pardon me -- rebuilding on that site with elevation, I believe, was our
thought process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then you also have a station, a donation on the Port of the Islands of the
1.2 million for the land. That's considerably higher than the land donation that you had allocated for Marco Shores,
which is right here in the more urban area.
So just out of curiosity, how did the land value be higher for Port of the Islands than it was for the land -- the
919,435 you had on -- for Isle of Capri?
MR. SUMMERS: And I think that's, again -- one is comparing what we might be able to find. One is
comparing what is current -- what we would replace where we are currently. We are -- currently own the Ship Store
at Port of the Isles in a cooperative agreement with our park service.
So the fact that probably -- that that is at the marina, there is boat access -- which, again, was an interest of
ours from a marine firefighting and response component -- not one that we have now but one we'd like to have in the
future, so I think that probably is indicative of the fact that it is adjacent to the waterway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to move forward with a new facility, which one of these is the most
likely model that you would use? Because you used actually the one from Everglades City that doesn't have any
land - replacement cost, but yet I read in your article that you're looking -- hoping to get one along I -75. If you did that,
would you have zero land cost on that site?
MR. SUMMERS: On the I -75, the intention was zero land cost, because we're going to co- locate at the rest
area where there were existing resources, primarily permitting and water and sewer resources.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see the building replacement cost on a site like that comparable to the
Everglades City value or comparable to Port of the Islands' value, for example? Because you'd have a probably more
spartan building on 1 -75,1 would think, than you would need in the city. But the only reason I'm asking is, your level
of service is set at the Everglades City level, and I'm wondering if you really need that to where you're trying to go in
your next anticipated building.
So -- I mean, especially if Everglades City basis doesn't have any land- replacement cost per station as far as
land goes. So any thoughts on that?
MR. SUMMERS: But, sir, just to come in. I'm not sure I'm totally clear on your question. But I would say
that really the service - delivery component on 1 -75 is really not anything that you could equate to current typical
municipal fire - service - district response. I mean, it is really an issue out there of accidents and providing that initial
care and stabilization.
So your point's well taken, but I think the 1 -75 corridor and that desolate area there for the delivery is really
just hard to compare in terms of what we're doing in municipal -type fire --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I was trying to get at, simply that I don't think you'd use any of these
models for the valuations you set on I -75. You'd probably have it -- you'd have different site parameters, you'd have
different utilities access and even a different style building.
I'm just wondering if the number you use is accurate for that location, because that most likely will be your
next location if it works out that way.
MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and, again, because that's 100 percent funded by the state, we are not going to be
-- our goal is the FDOT resources and the associated service level just for the Alley.
So while -- yes, this may be an estimated number but, in fact, we are not burdened -- we've counted it, but the
burden, the full burden of this service to the Alley is to come from FDOT.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'd pay for the building and --
Page 29 of 91
1612 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Fully burdened.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then your unit cost under the level of service should be zero. I'm just kidding.
MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and, again, we're so early in the discussions, I will tell you it is a little hard for us
to quantify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that is interesting, though. I would rather -- to be accurate for your benefit as
well as the taxpayers is to provide an estimate of what a building of the type you would need next would cost with any
-- let's say it's not I -75, but the real cost had it go there. That might be a better way to approach it than to use the
valuations of buildings that most likely wouldn't be duplicated.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And I -- without a doubt, when we get some traction here with FDOT in the
movement of this program, we'll be able to give much better numbers. But conceptually, as we got through the
legislative process and found a program resource with FDOT, we are estimating at best here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got a bunch of really difficult people working for you in the Ochopee Fire
Department.
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. I've got a fine group.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not even -- they have no move -up cost, so they must not help anybody.
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, they do, they do. But honestly, they have a ways to go to get there, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they do any move -up cost? Because I notice that's missing from your sheet.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, they do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you might want to add that. It would help.
MR. SUMMERS: We'll add that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: And part of that move -up, too, I think, is appropriate for us to note to you -all, that a lot of
that is cooperatively with state and federal assets in the -- in the preserves in the forest areas there as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They still have that -- I think we used to call it -- Big Bertha, that big truck?
MR. SUMMERS: I thing there's baby --
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Baby Bertha.
MR. SUMMERS: Bertha 2 maybe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I worked on Big Bertha when I was a volunteer, so --
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Retired two years ago.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was an awfully interesting machine, so --
Okay. I think we're -- anybody else have any questions? Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. How long does it take to get to Chokoloskee?
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: About four minutes.
MR. SUMMERS: Four. Just for the record, reporting four, five minutes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I mean, it shows itself pretty far out of the four - minute circle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pretty much of a straight shot, though.
MR. SUMMERS: Straight shot, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Oh, go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question with the 1 -75 with the FDOT. Should this become theirs
and they pay for the -- I know they're going to pay for the facility and I know it's early, but will they be paying the
salaries?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So --
MR. SUMMERS: It is proposed and is written in the legislature that it is, as we call it, fully burdened.
Now, they have some time -- they need -- there are a lot of agencies that do pull money out of FDOT, Water
Management District being one of those. So while the legislature has assigned that function, our board took it to the
legislature as fully funded -- fully burdened for that effort.
The Ochopee district, I believe, close to 30 years has been providing that service. So finally at this point
Ochopee will get a little bit of relief. But the full- burden cost is to be made available through FDOT and its assets.
Page 30 of 91
1
1612 11a4 '"
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've been holding a question for Jamie. Is he here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He just poked in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding.
Nick --
You saw me. I saw you trying to leave, Jamie. You didn't want to be entertained anymore today, huh?
Okay. Brad, did you have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the Ochopee AUIR as presented with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0.
Thank you, Dan.
** *And we'll go right into EMS now as long as you're --
MR. SUMMERS: Okay. Well, Chief -- Interim Chief Walter Kopka is here. I'll have him stand by, and
we'll move forward. Thank you for having us up early.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything you want to start out with?
MR. SUMMERS: Let me get to the right page myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes the less said the better, but that's okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page?
MR. BOSI: 146.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's -- who should --
MR. SUMMERS: Chairman, Commissioners, on EMS, I'd -- I'll stand by for any questions that you might
have. I think we've provided you a very thorough documentation, and we continue to provide, in my opinion,
world -class service in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can attest to the fact you do charge. I keep getting these little bills in the mail.
I think, wait a minute. Insurance is supposed to cover this, but no.
Anybody have any questions starting on Page 146?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, you base everything on peak season. And as we've learned, everybody goes
home and we have a lot of downtime between when we're really busy to when we're not. And I know we've asked
this question other times, so could you just refresh us on how you handle the excess units when peak season goes to
dead season.
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, a couple of --just a couple of observations in terms of how we handle. We have had a
little bit of flexibility in se- -- what we call seasonal demand where we put some ambulances up only for a 12 -hour
period as opposed to a full 24 hours.
So there's been some -- I don't want to use the word freeboard within the service, but we do have some
day -to -day adjustments that the chief does make in season. That's been helpful.
The other thing I would tell you is that the other challenge that we always have is what's referred to as the
Page 31 of 91
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
concurrent call. So while you might look at hours of utilization per ambulance per shift per day, the thing that really
is always a challenge for us are back -to -back calls that may occur within a zone while ambulances are moving.
So before you -- before you say necessarily that there may be some excess within the system, what we have a
very hard time showing you is the continuous movement for zone coverage for these ambulances, the potential for
concurrent calls coming down in the area.
The other component here is, just don't forget how massive this county is in terms of drive time. So when
you're looking at 7 -, 8 -, 9 -, 10- minute discussions running emergency traffic, think about the geographic placement of
our vehicles and the fact that when a call does come down in a particular zone, we're getting back in a vehicle and
coming back to straddle those two zones for that coverage, and that in itself takes time.
So while you would look at us, if you just said we were providing an urban -model delivery, you might think
-- you might have second concerns about the number of units. I'm quick to point out and have a hard time quantifying
for you just the geography here, the normal drive time, and continuing to provide that level of service within the
response times that we've indicated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of your predecessors had gone into great detail with us about how they --
I guess they moth - balled or didn't use some of the units during the off season and they had them -- but they had them
available when the peak season came in. And I just was wondering if we're still maintaining that kind of operation or
not.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, if you mean that in terms of reserve vehicles for maintenance, or are you talking
about reserve capacity staffed during the day? The reserve capacity today is really only the 12 -hour resources that we
put up during peak season.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the adjustments you made because of our population today, which is far
different in where it's going from before, are reflected in here, because you used peak season BBR -- BEBR. So, I
mean, the fact that we've got a lot of empty homes out there, does that affect you any differently than --
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, my contention to you -- and, again, I probably can have Chief Kopka discuss call
volume with you. But one of the things that we are seeing is that people don't necessarily drive themselves to the
emergency room anymore. We've become more of a first responder for basic healthcare as opposed to emergency
healthcare in many venues.
So, you know, I think it's indicative of the economy, I think it's indicative of our demographics of an aging
population to some degree, and I think we've actually become more of a frontline care provider necessarily than an
emergency care provider in some cases. That doesn't mean that those are not medical emergencies when we get there.
It just means that folks have probably thought twice about going to their physician, and then they wait too late or have
waited too long to drive themselves to the emergency room and call upon us.
So while we might look at that as population, again, we kind of have to switch that to demand, to
demand - driven type programming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your revenue category, where is the revenue you receive for your transport
from both insurance companies and from private -- the, you know, deductibles, let's say?
MR. SUMMERS: I think our revenue -- I'm sorry, Michael. Go ahead.
MR. BOSI: I wouldn't -- not knowing specifically the finance, but I wouldn't know if that would be utilized
to finance your capital improvements program.
MR. SUMMERS: No, it's not.
MR. BOSI: And remember, this is only -- this is only a depiction of the capital improvement programming
associated with growth or replacement of added facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. But could it be used for that, just out of curiosity?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, since it doesn't come anywhere near close to funding our full operation, it is
only -- it's board - driven policy in terms of the fees that we charge that range -- that barely collect between, say, 43 and
56 percent of our costs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your collection rate is that low?
MR. SUMMERS: Our collection rate is one of the highest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but 40 or 50 percent is one of the highest, really?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Oh, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if I didn't pay you, you wouldn't come after me.
Page 32 of 91
16 ! 2--o
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. SUMMERS: In all jest, I dare not make any comments on the record, but the manager is probably
watching.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll be specific. If it's Commissioner Strain, they will go after him.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sure that was a board - authorized --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, it's not me, actually. It's a member of my family, so I haven't been
the one using your services, although they've been excellent the times you've responded, so --
MR. SUMMERS: I understand. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on EMS? This is a rare -- or I wasn't here last year,
but I know the year before it was real difficult. So I'm pleased to see it's coming together so well.
MR. SUMMERS: We're hanging in there, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're doing great. This is a much better presentation.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the Emergency Medical Services AUIR
with a recommendation of approval as presented.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, second by Commissioner Caron.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: You -all have a good day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's 11:30. Now, that means we can get into the next item, which is really a
short, quick, easy presentation by roads, I'm sure, which I can assure you it won't be. We can try to go on to
something quicker and get through before lunchtime maybe.
Norm, I don't know if we're going to get through you before lunch regardless if we start now. We can try, I
guess, so -- because you're going to have to be here whether we start now or not.
** *Okay, Mike. We'll move into the next one on the agenda then. Keep it in order. Let's go to roads.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I don't recognize anybody as being a member of the public. Most
everybody I see out there seems to be a municipal employee of some kind. Are there members of the public here that
are willing -- or wanting to speak on any particular item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I don't want to forget you. I just seem to recognize faces that I
already know to be in government employ somewhere.
Okay, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder. I'm the administrator of the
Growth Management Division.
On your AU1R in roads, what I'll do is give you a quick overview, then open it to any questions you have.
What I will tell you is what you see in front of you is a reflection of, obviously, how times have changed. It
Page 33 of 91
1612 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
reflects the fact that we have only two major and one intersection additional project for construction in our capacity
program over the next five years. Those projects, those two major projects, are only retained in the program because
we have major grant funds attached to them, as is the project that is under construction right now, which is Davis and
951, which also has 20 million coming back from the state as reimbursement.
So our capacity program, the above - the -line that you'll see as we get into this program -- and I'll call your
attention in particular just to give you the overview on Page 20, which is our five -year program where you see on
Page 20 that there's 85 million shown as the total over the next five years for major - capacity projects.
As you look down at the funding sources, you will see that both impact fees with the COAs, the developed
consortium, the grants, and the interest on impact fees, those four categories effectively total that same amount so,
therefore, the only thing I have in capacity is impact fees and grants. And none of your gas tax, ad valorem, or any
other funding is going to your capacity program.
What you also will see here from prior years is below the line where I have some program areas that are
pulled out but are part of my broader operations and maintenance, in particular intersection improvements, the bridge
program. I now have almost half of my hundred bridges that are 50 years old or older, that I have now moved more
and more of my funding to the maintenance program in an effort to try and respond to all that we've built, another 250
lane miles, and all that that needed to be maintained that didn't get done as part of that massive construction program
we had during the upswing in the last ten years.
So the program has changed considerably. The focus, as is established when you have growth pays for
growth, impact fees is my source for new construction; since there is not the growth, we don't have wider new
construction going on.
Commissioner Caron made a good point. The unfortunate part about our nature of funding and sustainability
of that is that we don't have major projects as you look through here. We pulled funding out of a lot of the projects.
What little bit we have in some right -of -way is in the outer years now, is not getting anything production -ready for
year'6, '7, '8, possibly'9, which is saying that if we continue with no major growth, we're okay. If that growth starts
to come, we are going to be -- every time we don't add these phases or bring projects forward -- further behind, much
like I experienced when I came here in 2000.
And that's just a quick overview. And I think from what I'm hearing there's a lot of questions, so why don't I
open it to that. And if you'd like to, we can go page by page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick asked us to particularly focus on transportation because you were
presenting it today.
MR. FEDER: I appreciate that. I'm sure he wanted me to have that opportunity, and I'm here at your
disposal.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I love you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody -- why don't we just work our way through the whole
document at once. I mean, I'm not sure we need to ask page by page. So, Commissioners, do you have any
questions? I can certainly start into it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on Attachment H. And since you updated the thing, it does point
out the fact that some intersections, like Wilson and Golden Gate, which you showed deficient last year, you moved
them to five years. So, as an example, what happened that reduced the demand on that intersection?
MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, what you saw was for the past -- we spent 2004,'5,'6, and '7 -- and I believe
I'm correct in those statements, and in particular I believe it was in'6 and'7 -- showing over 20 percent a year increase
on Golden Gate Boulevard. We had almost three years of close to 20 percent or greater increase in volume, pure
volumes. I'm not talking about our concurrency. I'm talking about actual vehicles on the road.
Then we saw a number of years were dropping, and we're still seeing a little bit of that. So what we're saying
is that need is still there. It's at capacity, but it's not nearly as great a need as we once saw when it was moving at 20
percent a year of just background - traffic increases.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the next question is, you know, we're going to build essentially
a trunk line, ultimately, down to Desoto. Have -- where are we on having -- the bridges? Because this is a major grid
layout. There are those that believe --
Page 34 of 91
16112 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I'm kind of one of them -- that if you do have a grid you don't end up with
arterial situations, and it's a much better driving, so --
MR. FEDER: Yeah. We -- right now we're having to concentrate particularly on capacity -- I mean on
maintenance of our existing bridge system, but we do have a couple of the bridges that we've identified, some 10 or
11, to try and make the grid pattern out in the Estates and try and bring some of that into -- in more function by
establishing bridges in about ten locations.
We have a 23rd as well as 8th and 16th that we're looking at over the next five years. Some of the pullback on
that is waiting to see what comes out of our inspection. Our bridges age. So when you see that bridge project there
on Page 20 that I mentioned, those are both in trying to get to those new bridges in some areas, but it's particularly
working on maintenance.
The new bridge, as this group asked and as the board agreed, on 23rd there's a maintenance of traffic for
White bridge replacement. The new bridges are impact fees being used on 23rd. And so right now we don't have a
lot of impact fees being collected, but that's the focus.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, how many canals are being crossed or are bridgeless at this point;
do you know?
MR. FEDER: Well, you've got -- we identified, I believe, is 12 specific.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's ten locations with two study areas.
MR. FEDER: Study areas, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that the majority of the roads that are not bridged, or is that --
MR. FEDER: It is the ones that we feel would establish a pretty effective grid. There is a grid out in the
Estates. It's something we didn't have here in the urbanized portion, but it's got the canals that are eliminating its
viability for movement.
So in answer to your question, the ten plus the two study areas are geared at addressing what the
emergency- response folks, EMS, fire, school, and others identified as the most critical crossings that would allow
them to use that grid more effectively.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't the design of these bridges essentially the same? I mean, they're --
MR. FEDER: Yes. We're in the process right now -- we went out -- when we did 23rd and White, we went
through a standard design so that we could utilize it in the following ones. Obviously you still have to hit it in site
issues, and some of it's permitting, too, as far as elevations or clearances. But generally we're looking at one kind of
span design, because there's a lot of similarity in those crossings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Then maybe when the economy comes back, you can allow
advertising to be embedded on it and -- people buy stadiums, why not a bridge? Anyway.
MR. FEDER: We'll have the rumble strips that sing out spurting (sic).
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the important thing, though, is that if we opened up the grid, we
really completed it, we might be in better shape than building a big trunk line through the Estates.
MR. FEDER: And I know where you're going on that. It's Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. I might as
well say it while you're raising that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. FEDER: I think what you're going to find is, yes, the grid is going to help you considerably out there in
movement, and that's why our focus all along has been on trying to get those bridges defined and to move on them.
But you only have two major east/west connectors: One of them being Immokalee Road, which we're continuing to
try to complete; and the other one being Golden Gate Boulevard, which is already constrained down to four lanes and
which stops at 951.
So the demands that we're showing through all the modeling, through the MPO process, is not only to utilize
the two -lane grid, to try to avoid major thoroughfares out in the Estates, but is to have another major, as you say, trunk
line, or however you want to define it, another major east/west corridor to serve overall county needs, and that is
shown repeatedly along with an interchange at 75 and Everglades, in that vicinity, as items that are needed. So that's
part of the long -range planning. It's been addressed in that way. And the identification of that corridor, for which
you'll see in here we've pulled most of the right -of -way out, and we're sitting at only buying where we're keeping
people whole, where they come to us. We're not actively pursuing it. We're not going into any condemnation
Page 35 of 91
161 2 +A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
proceedings, but we have acquired ten -- I mean, excuse me -- 19 of the original 23 whole takes, anyone that wanted
to be taken and addressed.
We have acquired some other parcels, but those are ones that came to us. Some came because they saw the
property values going down and asked us to take what we could now, and we did. But we're not out there actively
pursuing it.
But having said that, we now took people that, through a whole corridor, were being held hostage as to where
this thing was maybe going to go in the future, we've defined it. That corridor's being protected, and we're not
aggressively pursuing it, but it's out there for the future as it's needed. We are trying to pursue the bridge and the effort
to use the two -lane grid as best we can.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions at this time?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Norm, were there any developer contributions in the current revenues?
MR. FEDER: Yes. You've got -- first of all, on US 41 and 951, you've got a little bit over $8 million in
developer- contribution agreements, 8.2 towards that intersection and maintenance project down on 951. That's the
biggest that I have right now in the program is that developer agreement.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: What category are those listed under? I just didn't see them in current
revenues.
MR. FEDER: Well, you see in revenues here -- you see DCA consortium, down in revenues, back on Page
20. Now, what you're seeing is the balance of the last of that because the other funds have come in.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I see it.
MR. FEDER: But the overall is about 8 million.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Attachment C, it seems like all of the areas that are showing a 20 percent
decrease from 2010 were all areas that showed a20 percent increase from 2009 and 2010. What changed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that, Norman, if you'd like.
MR. FEDER: Go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we do these things in quarterly counts, some things that you'd notice back
was that Immokalee interchange opening up. So it's that traffic redirecting itself, because we do these quarterly, and
everybody's goes, what's going on, you know.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of a sudden, one road went way down, one road went way up. A lot of these
just are facilities that just opened up. And remember, it's a lagging indicator. They're done quarterly counts, so you're
going back four quarters behind us. So when you looked at last year's it was even -- you know, two years ago, of
counts. So Immokalee Road was one of those that was -- everybody was avoiding the interchange.
When the interchange opened up, you know, Vanderbilt decreased significantly now because people that
were avoiding Immokalee Road are now going, you know, back to Immokalee Road.
One thing on that exhibit I'll point out to you, if you look at the urban -- or I should say the coastal urban area,
what we noticed is that seasonal population had big increases this year. It seemed like the coast did really well, and I
think that reflects to what the Tourist Development Council reviewed in their numbers as well.
We've had a big influx along that 41 corridor, which shows the increase, but we still continue to see decreases
through the rest of the county.
MR. FEDER: Overall you did see a little bit of decrease. The reason I hesitate on that is because we're
looking at it over the last few years then, because of all the construction and new ones coming on or people avoiding
during construction, it changes so rapidly.
The good news is, as we get stabilized here, you shouldn't see it as much. But it is -- when you're looking at
overall trips, it's moving around, so that's why you have up and down, and a little bit down in this case.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It seemed like, you know, some of them changed, you know, a slight bit, but it
was just kind of ironic that -- almost identical roads.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. And you look at it, it's -- Immokalee opened up before, but then Vanderbilt opened and
Page 36 of 91
161 �4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CI Specia Meeting
people converted their trips and --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just kind of re- -- converted.
On the next page, Attachment D, there was one listed, the Tree Farin/Wood Crest.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And that's Advanced Construction. And I didn't see where that was on
previous.
MR. FEDER: We had set up to develop a Radio Road with major development that was going in and what I
will call the northeast corner of 951 and Immokalee Road, going from Tree Farm and Wood Crest on up. There's a
bypass through the major intersection, and recognizing a lot of development going in that area for a while there. It's
slowed down, obviously.
As we had that development going in, we had them working with us towards developing that Radio Road.
One of the developments had come in and put up a bond for what they were going to do in development. And this
represents those dollars in the bond that we held. It has to be used on that project, and that's why it's so indicated. But
it is basically calling that bond of what they committed relative to their development that hasn't yet developed there.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a -- how do you denote that, though? How would I know that, or how
would Melissa have known that? I mean, you can't tell that by this.
MR. FEDER: No. What we did is we showed the dollars on that project.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I see.
MR. FEDER: And it's pretty hard for us to show you every dollar and the history of it on one of these forms.
But, yes, that's what that is. It is dollars that were held aside, and the question is, why didn't I have a design phase?
Why didn't I have any other phase on it?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just went right to advanced.
MR. FEDER: That's -- yeah. It's sitting there being held. It has to be held there on that project.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, let's start with Page 15.
MR. FEDER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gas taxes.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You went up in gas taxes $10 million, which is well over 10 percent from last year.
Why?
MR. FEDER: That's over five years. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Over a five -year period?
MR. FEDER: Over the five -year. Basically because of what we're experiencing. We saw gas tax going
down a little bit and ratcheting down a little bit and then coming up, and the other one is, some of the commitment we
had against our gas tax, which was on the SIB loan, is going away, so we're going to see the additional gas tax without
experiencing that another year out. We had 2 million a year being contributed to that.
But the answer to your question is, the feeling was that, in fact, we're seeing a little bit of increase in vehicle
miles traveled again. Even with the population a bit slowed down, people are traveling more, and even with gas tax
high, people are still doing it, because I don't get more by price of the gallon. It's by gallon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So gas tax is being high, but gas itself being considerably higher than it was -- I
mean --
MR. FEDER: People are still traveling.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2009 you had 95 million in gas taxes for five years. In 2010 you dropped that
down to 85 million. Then in this year you bumped it back up to 95- again. So you're --
MR. FEDER: Yeah, because what we saw is a -- it looked like a trend that we're going down. The trend's
coining back up, so we've gone back to where we were.
Page 37 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29,2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a person in the room that takes credit for that. She's -- she likes to hide.
Susan Usher, she can wave. She's from OMB, and she does a very conservative analysis, and she drives a lot of that,
and she will tell us --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So she was too conservative last year?
MR. FEDER: Well, in '9, when she saw a little bit of a decrease, that was the push for us to go down. It
came back up, then we went back to where we were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Page 17. You have a third bullet which is a rather lengthy
paragraph about two- thirds of the way down. The line starts with "miles to the system," then the next sentence says,
the prior aggressive program to add capacity allowed existing system mileage to be rebuilt and the mileage to be
maintained throughout the construction cycle by the contractor. The limited non - impact fee resources have been
pulled out of capacity improvements to cover the O &M shortfall. What does all that mean?
MR. FEDER: Okay. Basically what we're saying is when we came here in 2000, you didn't have a lot of
money in your maintenance budget and you didn't have a lot of effort going in your construction program or a lot of
money, because you didn't have your impact fees at their full value. They hadn't been updated since '92, when we
came in 2000.
What basically this is saying is, is when you went after your aggressive construction program, the county, the
development community -- because they paid 50 percent up front, 50 percent within three years -- everybody to try to
address this major shortfall in transportation together, basically, as a contractor was out there working on that
two -lane roadway to make it four or six, or that four to make it six, they took charge of that roadway.
They were doing the maintenance during that construction time, because they control and own the
right -of -way, and more particular, they were making it all new. So a lot of your maintenance needs for either
resurfacing, striping, signage, new signal upgrades, were being done as part of your major - construction program and,
therefore, you didn't have to address them under a maintenance program that wasn't necessarily fully funded at the
time.
Now, of course, you've built a lot more, and you haven't really increased your maintenance budget, and that's
why for the past four or five years, if you look at your AUIRs -- which I know you do very closely, Chairman --
you're going to see that we've been raising this same issue about maintenance, that while this is basically a
capacity- driven discussion that we were concerned that we got to look at the life cycle of what we build and we've got
to maintain it as well -- and that's what we're raising.
And the fact that my bridges, up until about three years ago, I didn't have a bridge program. I didn't really
need it because every single review by the state, when -- every two years they look at every bridge in the state,
including the local bridges, the conditions weren't bad. But I knew my age was getting there. Now I have over half of
the over a hundred bridges over 50 years old. Life expectancy of a bridge is about 40, 50 years.
Now, we don't have major problems, but they're starting to be found. We had five bridges that we had issues
on. That's what the dollars started in a bridge program. So what I'm telling you when I went over Page 20 -- again,
I'll reiterate -- only impact fees are being used for capacity. My gas taxes have all been brought down to go into an
expanded bridge program, expanded resurfacing program, intersection modifications, almost to the point where it's as
big now below the line there beyond my regular maintenance program that it's almost as big as my capacity program,
and it needs to be expanded and continued, because right now operations and maintenance are the most critical part,
as we're seeing no real expansion or demand for growth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you put a road in, you're relying on the surrounding tax base to provide the
General Fund with the -- your needs for operation and maintenance?
MR. FEDER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any road systems that you've put in that cannot provide according to that
terminology or policy?
MR. FEDER: Well, we'd have to go back to your definition of what you're trying to do to operate and
maintain. And what I will tell you is, when I came -- and it's in better shape today now, but still, you did not have
sufficient maintenance to meet your needs. As is noted here, you didn't have a resurfacing program.
When I interviewed for the position, the first thing I noted was, looking at an annual report, that roads that
usually are eight to ten years on arterial and maybe 15 to 20 years, let's say, on a non - arterial, looking at the number of
miles, looking at the budget, my first note in my interview was, gee, you have wondrous roads down here, because
Page 38 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
based on what you have for a budget, they obviously last over 50 years. And I've never seen that anywhere.
What I was pointing out is, obviously, that you're not maintaining your system. We're doing better now, but
we still have a ways to go.
Obviously the critical maintenance issues, though, we're getting to. None of those bridges are going to fall
down. You don't have major potholes. So we're meeting the most critical needs, but we've got to continue to focus on
that and make sure that we address the life -cycle cost, and that's what we're doing along with the utilities to try and go
at asset management to be able to do that, not only for the major ones that we do have good information on, like
bridges and resurfacing, but also sign reflectivity, pavement striping reflectivity, and a lot of the other issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the roads aren't put in until they're needed, basically?
MR. FEDER: Roads aren't put in until they're needed. They're built based on a long -range plan to meet not
only the immediate need, but some future need; that's why there's extra capacity on some when they get built.
Unfortunately, they don't get all put in at one time, so that's why sometimes they'll get built with extra
capacity and it will go -- get consumed very quickly till, as was pointed out, the next one gets built and somebody
moves over to the next one.
But generally stating, yes, there's a long -range planning process, a very concerted effort to try and make sure
you only build what you truly need --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only exception is when you make a commitment pursuant to, say, some other
kind of contractual DCA or something like that.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 18, your notes, Note No. 2. It says, there's still concern that the
artificially low background traffic or volume as compared to several years ago will allow additional development
approval, which does not consider the current vacancy rate factor.
How does that happen if the currency -- current vacancy rate factor is included in checkbook concurrency?
MR. FEDER: Basically because the assumption is that one - seventh of that development that's gone is
reflected in the background traffic, and you've moved away from that, so you assume that your background traffic is
covering what's out there, and yet you have more that can come and very quickly impact it, as was the discussion
previously about the vacancy rates that I think Mike went through with you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We also -- Commissioner, one note. This board and this Planning Commission
made a decision that we -- when typically we CO a project, we pull the trips out of the trip bank. We've been more
conservative to say, well, if it's CO'ed, say, a shopping mall, is anybody in there? So we've tended this year and last
year to say we've CO'ed the shopping center.
Typically that comes out of the trip bank, and it's caught in the background traffic. Well, there's nobody in
there, so there's no background traffic to catch. So we've left them in the trip bank longer to kind of offset that. It's
more work for us. We have to go back and check to see when they CO, but it's more accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's it mean by the next sentence then? Is this a result in the addition of
unanticipated trips in a network? They're not unanticipated. You know they're there. You just haven't included them.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. The vacancy rate is a combination of not only approved projects that were
part of the concurrency system before, but also projects that were never in the concurrency system before it was
started. There's a lot of properties within Collier County that were never accounted for, you know, in terms of a trip
bank.
MR. FEDER: Some that have developed without ever paying impact fees.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Concurrency only goes back how far?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably about eight to ten years, yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, maybe ten, yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So especially in the urban area, there's a lot of stuff that's not accounted for at
all, so -- which means we need to be doubly cautious when we're approving things in the urban area to account for
things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one's going to go on for quite a while, but it's probably a good break time if we
want to go to lunch, come back. Does that sound -- then let's come back at 12:45, and we'll resume with
Page 39 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
transportation at that point. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all back from lunch, and I just found out that lunch was abruptly taken from
in front of a girl that worked hard to make it, Karah Lewis. Thank you again, Karah, for your lunch. It helped us all
sustain the afternoon. So we certainly appreciate your fine cooking.
With that in mind, we'll move on. We left off at the transportation issue. And during the break I found
something else, that we are going to lose a valuable county asset in March, and he's standing in front of us. His name
is Nonn Feder. He's part of the DROP program, I guess. And, Norm, we're going to miss you. You've been an asset
to this county, and you've sure been a -- really well responsive to this county, so thank you very much for all the
efforts you've done with us. We sure appreciate it.
MR. FEDER: Appreciate that very much.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. FEDER: Just file (sic) for me after the kill, I can tell.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just going to say, I started that out so you wouldn't -- I'm not doing this
to get you mad. If I tell you that first, he's not quitting because of the questions, so --
Okay. We left off -- and anybody else have anything that they wanted to ask that came to them over lunch?
I'm sure your entire lunch was dwelling on this subject.
If not, I have a few follow -ups. And then Page 20 is where I left off. And, Norm, I kind of looked over your
list, and you've got Vanderbilt Beach Road on there. What is the total cost of Vanderbilt, not just construction,
design, and permitting, but also right -of -way acquisition? How much budgeted money was going for that extension?
MR. FEDER: Okay. We've had a couple of estimates in the past, and I don't have that full figure right now.
What I can do is tell you basically in right -of -way we've already spent almost $13 million, and we have an estimate of
about 22 million remaining on the right -of -way.
I don't have the figure right now for the construction estimate, but I can get that to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many properties have been affected by that right -of -way; do you know
that?
MR. FEDER: The figures I have right here in front of me, there's a total process of about 162; 34 have
already been acquired.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 162 properties?
MR. FEDER: Total properties, yes, parcels. That's from Collier over to Wilson. Wilson to DeSoto is another
395. So you've got 162 and 395, are almost 400 -- 500 parcels --
CHAMMAN STRAIN: So 500 --
MR. FEDER: -- 550.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- parcels and you've budgeted about 35 million to collect them?
MR. FEDER: As we stand right now, we've got 35 million, and there's 2 million that's been spent to date on
the Wilson/DeSoto. What I don't have is the remaining of that figure. So there's two parcels. So let me make sure
I'm accurate in what I say to you.
Collier to Wilson, 200 -- 162 parcels, of which 34 have been acquired. That 34 included 19 of the 21 to --
now saying 23 whole takes. So we've spent a little over 11.4 million; 22 million left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just in that first segment?
MR. FEDER: Just in that first segment. Okay. So that was that 162 parcels, 34 acquired, 19 of those 34 were
whole takes, which is the first priority you asked to go after on voluntary acquisitions, and we've spent about
11- and -a -half million, not quite 11- and -a -half, estimated about 22 remaining to acquire all the rest of the parcels, the
119 remaining parcels in that segment.
In the segment from Wilson to DeSoto, 395 parcels, only 15 have been acquired. We spent 2.2 million to
date; that includes one or two of the whole takes and some people that have come to us and asked to be taken.
I don't have the estimate for the rest of that, but I'll try to get that for you before I leave today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Okay.
MR. FEDER: So it's an expensive corridor. Again, though, as I said, you can see here we've not put a lot of
Page 40 of 91
1612 A4 '1
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
dollars into it. We have dollars, though, are set so that anyone who comes to us and feel they want to have their
property taken now, that we can deal with them. That was the direction from the board from the start.
After, I don't know how many meetings, some 50 -plus meetings that we had, years of study and everything,
and the board finally, after an awful lot of discussion and some pros and cons from the community -- we know that --
decided that they had to acquire this corridor, set it for the future, and they set on an alignment rather than keeping
everybody waiting and wondering when it's going to happen or where.
They asked us to go out and get the whole takes first. We did that to everyone that was willing to be
purchased, a whole take, and we've taken others. But, again, the dollars and what we've taken and the dollars that you
see here, 200,000 a year starting, not in even next year, but the following year and out, are generally there so that we
can respond to anyone that comes to us and say they want to be taken. We're not going after condemnation. We're
not actively pursuing acquisition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the rate that you're purchasing and at the rate that you're funded and at the
rate that you still have to go, this is going to be on the AUIR for long periods to come, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. FEDER: You'll have the opportunity to bring this up every year for many years, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just trying to get an overall picture now, because it's --I mean, we're just
taking it little bits at a time. And I understand why. I mean, I understand that.
MR. FEDER: We're just trying to make people whole that asked to be made whole.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is this any kind of priority over any other projects in the county?
MR. FEDER: No. As a matter of fact, as you know, an agreement was made that plays priority over this
project and over Golden Gate Boulevard relative to impact fees in the two districts. And our priority, as I said right
now, has moved pretty much from capacity, and you'll see that as you see what concurrency issues are right now into
ongoing maintenance and operations, particularly the bridge program.
And I think one of the commissioners already raised the issue there, both in some level of expansion out in
the Estates, but also in maintenance of what we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did -- Nick, did the Big Cypress reactivate its DRI application?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not that I'm aware, sir, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any idea when that may be coming back up?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I know Vanderbilt extension isn't linked to it, but I'm trying to figure out
how all the pieces -- because there's a potential for contributions coming in of a significant nature once big DRIB like
that come into play.
MR. FEDER: Well, probably Big Cypress is one of their biggest areas of assistance when and if they come
forward -- will be our effort to get a multi -lane connection between the urbanized area and Immokalee, which we did
on Immokalee Road six - laning all the way out to Oil Well.
We then were looking at a PD &E up Oil Well and out on -- I mean up Immokalee and on Oil Well, when all
the issues came forward, and all of a sudden we started committing to Oil Well donations and issues there, but that
connection is still needed.
What we're looking at, the ideal is Randall with some connection across that property out to Oil Well, and
that's still the desired line to get that multilaning to bring all of the Immokalee community in with the urbanized area.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One other note, Commissioner, Chairman, Golden Gate Boulevard alone, as it's
constricted to four lanes, wouldn't be able to handle the Estates alone at even halfway through buildout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I mean, all that background, I'm fully aware of it. I wasn't
criticizing. I was trying to understand total evaluations and the timing needs, because the timing needs are what's
going to hit this county the hardest over the next few years while our -- we have a depressed valuation. So that's --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where that questioning was coming from, and that's where the rest of my
questioning will be.
MR. FEDER: And what this program does is it keeps some dollars for responding to needs, but it's not
pursuing actively that corridor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your -- on the same document, you've got some references to roadways that have
no values to be spent in the next five years. What is the purpose of having that on this schedule?
Page 41 of 91
161 2 A4 `
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. FEDER: Okay. The first -- are you talking about the items up on the top?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ones on the bottom, too. I don't know what SS -- SBB Copper Leaf to
Green -- it was Santa Barbara, probably, to Copper Leaf.
MR. FEDER: It was Santa Barbara. It was on there. It's just to show you the year before I had some dollars
in there. It got pulled out. And so it's still shown there. That was one that was originally budgeted and got pulled out,
but there are no dollars on that study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we show something on the five -year schedule, does that give any preference
to arguments that it's on the five -year schedule in regards to concurrency or when a development can move forward if
it's along one of those corridors?
MR. FEDER: It shows I have some level of production that I've done on it, because you see it up top. I
bought the right -of -way. That was originally set for construction out in the fifth year, and it got pulled out as dollars
went down last cycle, as a matter of fact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much money -- I mean, most of these, do you -- like the Copper -- the Santa
Barbara Boulevard to Copper Leaf to Green, do you know what that will cost us? So you -- I mean, it's on here, so it's
some -- do you have a ballpark idea of what the total cost of that segment will be so we know when we have funds
that can pop back on?
MR. FEDER: It was 17 to 19 million for the construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got a general idea of what the costs are?
MR. FEDER: Uh -huh.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You just -- I hate to throw out numbers. We've got a general idea, but every time
we do an engineer's estimate, they change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your general idea of 1 -75 interchange and Everglades Boulevard with nearly
900 parcels that you're going to have to buy?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: From the interchange itself, it's 40 to $50 million, depending. The widening --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's going to force a corridor.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The widening from the interchange up to Golden Gate Boulevard will probably be
-- you know, and these are estimates -- 60 to $100 million, depending on how wide we go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the need for that during this, let's say, rather depressed economy where Golden
Gate Estates is one of the highest vacancy rates in the community, why would we want to put those -- why would we
want to risk that until we know where some of the other developments in the east are going, like Big Cypress?
Because Big Cypress was already going to look at an alternative to that that wouldn't have cost us as much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But you're not. And notice, there's no funding identified there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why is it on here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've left them on there as projects that are in the past. We can surely take them
off. I mean, that's not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is that one in particular on here when the decision on how that's going to cost
this community and every taxpayer in this county has not been analyzed, especially when I have in front of me a
document that's titled "Methodology Letter of Understanding" between Big Cypress and, basically, and Collier
County, showing the 1 -75 interchange? There's currently a proposal for an I -75 interchange at Everglades Boulevard.
Project organizers are suggesting alternative interchange for their new yet -to -be -named road. And it has a road
coming down from Big Cypress interchanged at I -75 that they would participate in and that is mostly on their land
and affects no homes, basically.
Why wouldn't we -- looking at this as an alternative if you're looking so hard to add one on Everglades
Boulevard and I -75?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know you want to have fun, so I know this is why you brought this up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I didn't bring it up for fun. I'm looking at savings. Do you -- based on the
right -of -ways that you guys are already talking about, we're getting into fortunes.
MR. FEDER: Let me handle this one. First of all, two things I need to make clear. One, the area that you
see up here, these without items on them, usually you don't see it down below, but you did because we took the
dollars out.
Those are shown to remind you that we have projects underway going, but there's no new funding coming to
Page 42 of 91
161 2 A 4 a
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
those projects. That's generally what that's showing you.
To the issue on the Everglades -- the interchange, the fact of the matter is, there was a lot of discussion as
shown in modeling and needs for an interchange. That interchange can't be approved at an area with no connection.
So let's say today if you're trying to get approval of an interchange through the federal process, if you look at
Everglades, and then a better opportunity comes in the future, maybe an alignment that is brand new. Once you've
got an approval for an interchange, it's easier to modify it to that new location, but you cannot take a location for
which there is no DRI, there's no development approval, there is no roadway, and get an interchange approved to
connect to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the sake of the people who live on Everglades Boulevard and are basically
in the lurch on this, is there a reason we have to include the word "Everglades" on there? Just say "I -75 interchange."
I just don't like the designation, because the way I've seen other departments or even -- tend to use designations is that,
okay, it's been on the books for all these years. Why -- that's why we're doing it. And then all of a sudden it falls back
as to being the default.
I really think the research on that needs to be done before any position is taken. If this turns out to be the best
one, so be it. But right now I don't think that research is -- can be completed until we know where some of the major
developments are going out there who may be players in the future, one of those being Big Cypress. Their own
documents portrayed that.
MR. FEDER: And that's being evaluated quite heavily now, more from the environmental side, but being
evaluated right now as to different options and impacts and issues out there. So there will be a lot more study before
this ever becomes a reality.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Chainnan, I respectfully disagree. I think a lot of study's been done. I think an
analysis study for need has been done. I think a cumulative- effects study is underway. We've had public meetings
with residents that live on Everglades Boulevard. They recognize that.
I think when you move this interchange over, if you could, even with an application, you'll have significant
impacts on Desoto and Everglades to connect to those -- that new road that you're talking about.
So it surely can be looked at, and if a project of substantial size comes in at any point in time that we're in the
application process for either -- for the PD &E, the IJR, or the design, we could -- we could definitely reload and
relook at it. But until that comes forward, I think, board's given us direction and the studies have shown there's a need
out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I don't deny the need. In fact, if it was there, I would be using it. My concern
is the cost, the cost of where it could go versus where it may end up going because we've defaulted to a position. I
just want to make sure that doesn't happen, and that's the only concern I have.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Big Cypress steps forward and says, lookit, to sweeten the pie for us to get
approval, we want this -- we'll pay for a certain X amount of the connection, we'll provide the right -of -way; my
goodness, what a windfall that would be. I just want to make sure we keep that opportunity available.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And have that available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it doesn't happen, you're right, we need an interchange somewhere, and it has to
happen.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have that available --
MR. FEDER: Yeah. This county's history has been one that it has tried to capitalize on those opportunities
as they come forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only comment -- and this will be mine, not necessarily everybody on this
board. I don't mind -- I understand why you've got it on this thing, but from my perspective, I would suggest we leave
it just 1-75 interchange" and not reference a specific location until we know that is the absolute best default location
we have, and that's the only comment I have to make on it in regards to that issue, so --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Didn't we change the GMP language to specifically say Everglades?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was changed when the Golden Gate Master Plan was originally discussed back
Page 43 of 91
16 l (J�.
A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
in 2000, and at that time it was the only known alternative, and it was before the RLSA.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: But, I mean, last year when we did --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we changed it. I think it's --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: We did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We argued about it, but I don't think it got changed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in the GMP referenced as Everglades.
May I make a suggestion only for clarification. The chairman's point's well taken? The project ID number is
for an application that is at Everglades right now. That's what's a funded project in terms of an IJR.
If you don't want to show projects that are not funded within the five -year program, that I understand, because
they're not showing any funding, and that would lead someone to understand -- why are they even on this list other
than they're production -ready or they're in some sort of cycle. They can be shown as -- under another attachment. I
believe it's on Page -- Page 29. If you flip to that, we can eliminate them in Attachment D and just show them on
Attachment A, which is an activity report of projects either under contract or funded through another means, so --
MR. FEDER: Yeah. They are shown on 29, and that's an issue. These have always been shown every year
to show what is still outstanding because that was one of the concerns, what is outstanding, that you had before. But
what I will point out to you, to your concern, your CIE, or your Capital Improvements Element, is the key thing, not
this five -year work program, that we use for our efforts.
And your Capital Improvements Element, starting on Page 31, only shows those projects that are funded.
And so I think that gets at what you're going to, Mr. Chairman, in that it is not addressing those others. We're trying
to do that to keep full disclosure of what we're doing in working on projects and what we have still outstanding.
But as far as your Capital Improvement Element, you do not see that project there, nor any of those others
that don't have any funding in the five years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. So under Attachment D, you have no objection then to
dropping, under summary of projects, any projects that don't show funding within the five -year period?
MR. FEDER: I would say that in that five -year program you're trying to give full disclosure of what we've
been working on and what's still out there. I will tell you we've done that for many, many years. If it's this board's ANK,
concern, we'll raise that to the Board of Commissioners. If they concur, I don't have any problem. But my
understanding, actually, is about four or five years ago that this group asked specifically, what are the projects you've
been working on that still have dollars from prior years? Are you still constructing? Because the construction phase
takes a number of years.
And so we identified those. Then it was, well, I didn't see the dollars there, so then we -- Attachment -- I
thing it's J, but put that in to give you an idea of how many dollars still are outstanding relative to those. So now
you're going the other way on me and asking me to take them out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall that, but what I do notice, that the title says five -year work program,
dollars shown in thousands.
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be a cleaner attachment and exhibit. For example, on the top, what,
there's seven or eight up on the top. You only have one that's funded -- that's going to have work on it in the next five
years.
MR. FEDER: And that's because we came in with a change order and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why are we only --
MR. FEDER: -- for another year, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we showing the other seven or eight, or seven or six? I mean, it just --
MR. FEDER: Do we have a problem?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Attachment J serves that purpose. So if you want to put all active projects
MR. FEDER: Yeah. We can pull that out and just keep Attachment J, because it shows that purpose as well.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. That's active -- the projects that are funded --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for CIE purposes it would be fairer.
MR. FEDER: And CIE you don't have it in there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be consistent with the CIE.
Page 44 of 91
16 a 1 au 9_1A
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
On Page 21 you have your impact -fee revenue FY 12 going down in FY 13 yet the population, we had about, I
guess, a 2 percent increase. How did you figure it would be going down? It's a small amount, but, just, what made it
MR. FEDER: We had a couple of impact -fee repayments that came in this year, and without them we
wouldn't have been as high as you're showing, so we assume that it's going to stay flat again next year.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've also changed the way you collect impact fees. Now you get one -third
down and then the balance at building permit. So until that regulates itself, you're going to see we projected a little bit
of a decline in the upcoming year as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 29 --
MR. FEDER: That had a 42- percent reduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 29 you have two references to Oil Well Road, but you failed to put in a
third reference. And wasn't Phase III required to go in before -- as impact fees were generated from that traffic district
as well as to adjoining?
MR. FEDER: Once sufficient impact fees were generated -- the two sections you see here represent the
amount of impact fees that are collected from the agreement. I believe it was April of 2004 till we let the
construction.
We sized, actually, the project on the eastern end to come in to what we thought and what turned out to
actually be the bid amount. About 38 million, I believe, generally, if you'll bear with me on that figure.
We haven't yet generated sufficient funds. The agreement was that in'10 --the other was in'7. They weren't
designed, and we were ready to go until after'9 (sic).
The middle section then, at that time the original agreement was impact fees, once they're sufficiently
collected, to do that middle section, a ten, or until that date. Right now we don't have anywhere near that impact -fee
collection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't think then within the next five years you're going to have the
impact fees in order to start that middle section, so it's off for at least --
MR. FEDER: If it took me from about 2004 to 2009 during heavy development times to generate about 38
million, I think I'm safe in saying that probably in the next five years I will not generate 33.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the next five years you can't do that Phase -- you're not going to start the Phase
III then?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got Phase 1 and 2 completed, which are coming out to be really nice
segments. They're wide, they've got plenty of room, then they bottleneck down to Phase III, and it's going to sit that
way for five years?
MR. FEDER: We met with the board Tuesday of this week, two days ago, and we are putting in a safety
project --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I get too frustrated watching those meetings, so I didn't see what went on.
MR. FEDER: Okay. Well, the good news on that one, I can tell you, is we've met with them and told them
because of just that same concern that I've got expanded on both sides, and in the middle I've got 10 -foot lanes, not
12 -foot lanes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. FEDER: No paved shoulders.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FEDER: That we had a real concern about that period of time with no improvements. We're going in,
and we're going to do a re- -- a widening paved shoulder safety project in that middle section so it will bring it to
12 -foot lanes, 3 -foot shoulder on one side, 5 on the other, acknowledging that it will be there for over five years
without those.
The only thing the board wanted us to do with that bid was to make sure that the folks, and Barron Collier
and Ave Maria, who we have the agreement with, were agreeable that within five years they didn't expect there was
going to be multilaning in that section, just as you're raising.
Page 45 of 91
4
E ` September 29, 2011/ 2011Itki ecial" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the agreement, I believe, requires the impact fees as collected to be
accrued and then used to complete --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Immokalee Road -- or Oil Well Road before any other areas.
MR. FEDER: I'm not using impact fees on what I just said, but yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means the other two adjoining traffic zones aren't going to have any
improvements until that third phrase is done?
MR. FEDER: You do have an item on Page 20 here that shows Wilson Boulevard, an intersection
improvement, it's assuming some impact fees, and that's the other issue that we're trying to get concurrence with the
folks on that agreement. But since it's going to take quite a while to get the 33 generated to be able to do the middle
section, that we have an extreme need right now, and to allow us to move forward on that.
That's shown in here, but it does require -- and that's what I was going to make is a note on that. It does
require that we have that agreement not to be out of contract.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since you can't get enough impact fees to make your commitment for the
middle section, other than the Wilson, if you get an amendment to allow that to happen, then in those traffic districts
that are part of this impact -fee deal, there would be no other improvements then allowed from impact fees in those
three districts, really.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. Nor as you see are there any concurrency issues other than Golden Gate Boulevard,
and that's what we're trying to address with that exception.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where is this Wilson? I don't see the Wilson dollars on Page 20.
MR. FEDER: On Page 20. Let me call your attention to Fiscal Year'l5 where you see D /C, CV and
construction phase. It's in the middle. It shows Golden Gate Boulevard. You see one has Wilson to Desoto, and then
you see one that says intersection --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay.
MR. FEDER: -- which is a subset. So while we continue in the future to try to get the right -of -way out there
on Golden Gate Boulevard, we are trying to do an intersection improvement. We've estimated about five million, and
that's one that would come under that discussion we just had.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Now -- and the Oil Well shoulder safety enhancements that are for
that middle section --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that are showing in FY12, those are not impact -fee related?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You're just making those --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Gas tax.
MR. FEDER: That's gas tax. It's for paved shoulders and safety that we would have to do, since it's going to
take us more than five years to get to that middle section of Oil Well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. So you can't use the impact fees --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for those improvements.
MR. FEDER: Not when you're not adding capacity.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Those safety improvements.
MR. FEDER: Not adding additional lanes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the fun I can have with you.
MR. FEDER: Well, that was pretty good, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Nick, at break, asked me to calm down a little bit.
MR. FEDER: I appreciate that, Nick.
Page 46 of 91
161'2 A 4 "^
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said, Norm's retiring. Don't give him a hard time until March, please.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not what I said. I said, let him have it. He can take it. No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any --
COMMISSIONER CARON: First time he ever listened to you, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I know. I'm sure it's the last, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything -- anybody else?
If not, is there a motion on the transportation section?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward the transportation 2011 AUIR with a
recommendation of approval as presented.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Barry -- Mr. Klein --
Commissioner Klein, I'm sorry.
Now, discussion?
The only thing I'm going to ask is would you guys consider adding the stipulation that those projects that
don't show a funding in the next five years be removed from the five -year table as we discussed with Norm and Nick.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a problem with that, Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, somebody does.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We need to do the CIE at the same time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you've got --
MR. BOSI: Well, as well as the AUIR, we're asking that you would recommend approval of the CIE to be
for -- the update of the Capital Improvement Element schedule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're recommending approval of the road AUIR as presented with the
exception of that five- year -table correction and inclusion of the results of that into the CIE; is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0.
Thank you, Norm.
And you're staying here for drainage or --
MR. FEDER: It was so much fun the first time, I'm back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, this one's done quite differently. So this will be interesting.
MR. FEDER: Okay. This is very different.
This one is starting to get into a full- fledged program as we've discussed over the years, yes.
Again, for the record, Norman Feder. I'm the administrator of the Growth Management Division, which
includes, as well, stormwater.
Your stormwater AUIR is a bit different in the methodology and the like. What you'll see on Page 34 that I'll
bring to your attention is in stormwater we're trying to manage a resource. The old adage of why did we drain the
swamp, we already had that in the Everglades many years ago.
Page 47 of 91
161 2 1 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
We recognize that we need to address, yes, flood attenuation discharge rates, but we also need to address as
well water quality and the ability to have the recharge of the aquifer that we rely upon so heavily.
So hopefully when it does come dry season, we haven't made it drier, and in the wet season we haven't
destroyed Naples Bay and other areas with too much fresh water. So we are trying to manage it as a resource.
You basically, on Page 20 -- 35, excuse me, right now, it has three focuses in the program. A lot of that focus
has been very narrowed in because we have gone from .15 ad valorem, mills, from one five mills to .1 mill. So you
had a one -third reduction in the dollars to the program, also coupled by reduced assessed values, because it's very
directly tied, and so the program's dollar volumes are down quite a bit.
With that in mind, you do have three focuses. The first is LASIP, or the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement
Project. There are some 27 projects individually in that overall program. We went almost 17 or 18 years to get the
permits. We're about halfway through the construction. We've got everything else designed, ready to go, and are
slated to have every one of those projects done within the 2015 time frame of the permit with the exception of the
improvements along County Barn Road.
Now, County Barn Road's improvements were tied into the County Barn Road project itself, but then once
we opened Santa Barbara extension and moved from four to six lanes on that -- because it was almost -- I think it was
about 2 million additional cost to go from four to six rather than try to add the additional two lanes onto County Barn
initially. And so that project has been delayed.
Demand factor's down now. The two schools that were going to go on County Barn don't seem to be moving
forward. And I'll defer to Tom on that. Overall demand is not there to push County Barn, as we had anticipated
before, to construction.
So that one part of the LASIP separately permitted under the road project will be delayed, but all the other
portions will meet the permit deadline of 2015. So that's the major dollar and activity within the program.
Beyond that, though, we still have to focus on what's called NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, and that process is a permit requirement on us that we maintain now assessing information to
allow both public and private development within this county to proceed.
And that is being continued, and they're doing a lot of work on inventorying what we actually have in
systems, canals, structures and other things we've talked about in the past. And the third activity is to look at our
control structures and the age of those right now and getting back into the maintenance issue to some degree, because
we do have a lot of control structures, but we need to make sure we know what condition they're in and how they're
operating and what we need to do to make sure we have a life -cycle analysis of that.
Basically, the program itself, as I mentioned, is on Page 37. And as you can see, other than a couple of items
where we're doing continued monitoring, like at Freedom Park, the NPDES LASIP is the predominant item, and I'll
open it to any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions on stormwater? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I actually should have brought this up under transportation, but I
understand you're telling us that County Barn doesn't need to be widened now because of Santa Barbara.
MR. FEDER: Not at this time, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, at this time. But County Barn is, today, not a safe road the way it is
constructed. So under your safety improvements category there, other than the Oil Well one, will improvements be
made finally to County Barn after all this time? I mean --
MR. FEDER: We did one resurfacing, but your point is still well taken. What you're saying is no paved
shoulders and other issues. We're looking at, on the LASIP, do we wait until a multilaning, or do we tie it into what I
will call paved shoulders and a safety project on County Barn? So that is being considered.
Part of the LASIP provisions on County Barn were parallel to the roadway on the north end. South of
Whitaker was in the middle of a future four -lane envision. So we're re- evaluating that southern end in particular.
We've already acquired the right -of -way for multilaning and LASIP, so we have the ability to come in and consider
how long is it going to be before we multilane, and if it's going to be a while, can we do an upgrade and go into the
LASIP feature? So we're looking at that now. It's not in this five. It's still something being evaluated.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So it's not going to happen the next five years either?
MR. FEDER: It is a maintenance item, so it wouldn't be shown on your five in the element in here. It would
be part of your maintenance efforts, and only when it bears out that it becomes a bigger project, but you do have
Page 48 of 91
i 6 I ^2 A+4 fi,4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
intersection and safety improvements as a category of dollars once we break it out into specific projects. Like, for
instance, the Oil Well we broke out. We showed you that. So when you see on here -- on Page 20 back there where
you saw intersection improvements or enhancements --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: -- those we would pull projects out over time and identify them.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean --
MR. FEDER: I'm not saying they can't get to it. Right now we're trying to evaluate what's our best approach
given that we have the LASIP features that we want to get done for drainage in the area, and we recognize that
County Barn, even though we resurfaced it, is not in ideal shape.
The volumes are down on it. The demand is not growing, as I said, with new development coming in there,
but still, that's something that we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because I -- you know, I don't know. This is one of those that I don't
quite get. It's been out there for a long time. It's not a safe road, yet we're all concerned about this two lanes on Oil
Well for the 200 people that live in Ave Maria, but in the heart of the urban area, Cduntq Barn's been sitting out there
forever, you know, as an unsafe road, and it's like the stepchild of the world. I don't get it.
MR. FEDER: What I will tell you is when I came here County Barn had been in and out of the program
quite a few years, so I understand that statement. The part of the statement I will take a little bit of exception to is the
"unsafe." We don't have major traffic accidents, crashes, or issues relative to it. Is it --
COMMISSIONER CARON: You've got shoulder issues there.
MR. FEDER: We've got shoulders that are not the most ideal, I agree with you. And I have that in other
parts around the county. But I don't see it as an unsafe, so I don't want to characterize it as an unsafe section. But I do
agree with you it's not one that is our ideal crosssection; no, it is not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Commissioner Caron, I'll add. We were doing a surface water master plan,
and to Norman's comment, we don't want to do a project improvement over there and yet to find out we have to do
some LASIP improvements, so we're having the design team look at what could be done in the interim that wouldn't
be throwaway and could be combined into LASIP.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I understand you're trying to combine it into LASIP. My question was,
how many more years out are we going to have to go on that? That was all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Based on funding.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And so it's five years or more at this point, and I think that's too bad.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Norman, what --just --you call this secondary stormwater. What is
primary stormwater then?
MR. FEDER: Primary is the Water Management District. Big Cypress Basin has it. The primary is your
huge canals --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- the major canal system. The canal system that was typically tied to some of your major
arterials, Airport- Pulling, others that we develop that go into those larger canals is called the secondary system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. FEDER: The stormwater systems in subdivisions or within loca side - street swales is called the tertiary
system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then, you know, we have the watershed plan coming up.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have a phrase in here at the end that you're looking for an alternate
method to calculate level of service. I mean, over the years we used to do it by mile of canal and some crazy way.
MR. FEDER: Mile of canal is crazy, and we talked about that. We did try to go something more specific,
which we did do on projects we had permit basis on, on cubic feet and -- cubic foot.
But what we are doing right now, as you point out -- and I appreciate that, because I didn't hit on it -- is with
the watershed planning we are doing the modeling. We're becoming what I'll call predictive as to where our needs
are, much like we do in transportation, have a long -range plan that says, here's where my shortfalls are coming, what
projects am I going to do that can meet that.
Page 49 of 91
1 . A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUI CIE "Spe lal" Meeting
What we've been doing, like with LASIP, like with the projects we had before LASIP, if you will, were
identified where we had problems and study just one little sub - basin. We're trying to go countywide with a process
that allows us to predict where we need to be rather than react to just where we've seen that we had basically flooding
problems after major rainstorm events.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what your goal really is, to have a -- like you say, a predictable system, a
manageable system, that you can tune it, you can tighten up, loosen it up.
MR. FEDER: Yes. And Nick's been working very aggressively with some of the folks over there, with Jerry
and Max, who I know is -- Max is right back here, and they are trying to work with that watershed planning and the
modeling to give us an ability to predict where we need to make improvements given our current system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And as we drive around, we see these -- it appears to be sites off to the side
of roads where you have lakes and stuff like that. Are you having water - quality issues with those lakes or what --
MR. FEDER: Retention areas, no, not so much so. But as an aside, we're required to do that to treat the first
inch of water off of impervious surface, all that. It's not the most effective way, for me to put retention ponds here,
there, and everywhere.
Freedom Park was an example. We're trying to look at others to try and come up with corridors where we're
actually treating water, doing a lot more than just holding it. It answers your question, no, we don't, because we keep
it there. That's the whole idea of a retention is to let every solid go down, and that -- so when we let it off or weed it
off, clean it off the top, it's good water going out.
So we're not having problems with the ponds. It's just that it's a process that doesn't really give us the kind of
water quality like at Freedom Park and some of other things we're trying to look at will give us in the future.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, on Page 37, consistent with what we just asked to have on the five -year table
on roads, is there a reason why 510059 is on the Capital Improvement Element when nothing's showing up?
MR. FEDER: There is, and there's nothing shown for the last few years. But in your Growth Management
Plan you had three specific stormwater projects identified. One of them was Belle Meade. We've not had a project,
but it was in the Growth Management Plan as one of three major stormwater projects.
You had the Gordon River, you had LASIP, and you had Belle Meade, and that's why I was continuing to
show it for consistency with your Growth Management Plan. But it has not been funded, nor for a while now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the Gateway is a reference to the Gateway Triangle?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHARMAN STRAIN: Do you know what kind of improvements are going on there?
MR. FEDER: The improvements are almost completed. We put in -- worked with the Bayshore MSTU and
CRA. They added some more to a retention area. We've got a big bowl in the triangle, is the best way to look at it.
They bought some more retention area. We built a pump with outfalls, and an outfall to the south now, that in a major
rain event we can get that water out of that area much faster because you're below sea level there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How was the 200,000 funded? It's in the Bayshore CRA?
MR. FEDER: No. That 200,000 is coming out of your stormwater program funds, but we're working with
them. They're doing -- as I said, they helped buy some of the land there that is the retention pond now, and they're
working on -- back to the question -- the tertiary system, getting it to that pond area, and then our project was getting
it out of that area with the pump and that effort.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee is currently -- Immokalee CRA is currently going through some
improvements in stormwater improvements and others, and I understand they're paying for it out of their CRA side of
things. Why are not -- why isn't the Bayshore paying for their improvements out of their side of things?
MR. FEDER: No, they are. As I said, they bought land and they're doing the tertiary. The folks out at
Immokalee, we helped pay them for the design. They got a grant, and so they're doing some of it under a grant item.
We were in there when we had some money a couple years back, if you look at an AUIR, probably about 2009. We
showed some dollars going in there along with them to meet the many stormwater issues out in Immokalee.
We had to, unfortunately, pull back. We told them we'd provide whatever technical assistance we can, but
they're using the grant and they're taking the lead on it now out in Immokalee.
Page 50 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The secondary system repair on the next one, the non -CIE --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what is that, just cleaning out swales and things like that?
MR. FEDER: Yes, culvert pipe that goes in, other issues of the sort that are problematic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Swale maintenance and repair is --
MR. FEDER: Roadside swales.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why isn't that under roads?
MR. FEDER: Because you're using it as part of your tertiary system, the drainage. They're dAon4 it under
roads. We do aquatic spraying, but this is -- the roadside swales is part of this drainage system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it enters the secondary system -- when does the roadside swales become road
maintenance and when are they not? I mean, you've got two types of roadside swales --
MR. FEDER: They are road maintenance. Here you're doing specific projects to enhance. If I'm coming in
-- one is road maintenance if I'm just taking the swale, maintaining it, spraying it, keeping it clean of debris and the
like. If I'm coming in to help change profiles to get a better flow and address issues, then it becomes stonnwater.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your closed drainage systems or your roadside systems in the road program, the
ponds --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- your open Swale systems are in this program here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So these are strictly the open systems then, not the ones that go to retention
ponds --
MR. FEDER: Yeah, they're open. And they get maintained somewhat out of maintenance, but
improvements to them come out of this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Countywide stonnwater improvements. What is that? It hasn't got an SAP number.
It's just simply the last project on this list.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was --
MR. FEDER: That's the million dollars coming to us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. That was added this year. Last minute we had some issues with Forest
Lakes -- not last minute. We've known about it. We've been asking for budget for it and working with OMB.
They've set it aside. We didn't have an opportunity, even a project number yet, but it is that headwaters at Forest
Lakes tied into the LASIP.
MR. FEDER: It's the headwaters of the Gordon River. Essentially Forest Lakes, through MSTU, did all
kinds of improvements to their drainage system, but their ability to outfall is hindered, which is our system, the
secondary, getting it over to the headwaters of the Gordon River, and so this is a project to come in and improve that
connection from the Forest Lakes community to the Gordon River headwaters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did the problem exist before they did all their improvements?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So their improvements didn't help at all?
MR. FEDER: Their improvements helped them, but, unfortunately, are -- are being restricted by us not
getting this improvement done.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's outside the MSTU boundaries.
MR. FEDER: Yes, it's outside of their boundaries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last I had.
Anybody else have any on stonnwater? If not, I'd certainly entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make a motion. I would move that we forward the county - maintained
system of secondary stormwater management canals and structures in the 2011 AUIR with a recommendation of
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Ebert seconded. Mr. Schiffer made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Capital --
Page 51 of 91
i61 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The capital improvements --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Did you say the capital improvements?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, he did.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I didn't, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: He meant to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He meant to. No, you didn't, or yes, you did?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I agree it should have been in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion is to recommend approval of the stormwater drainage element
as well as inclusion of those elements necessary into the CIE.
The motion maker accepts that interpretation?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As does the second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Yeah, Mike?
MR. BOSI: I should have brought the point up when you finished up with transportation. Did you want to
make a recommendation regarding the maintenance of the concurrency management system for transportation to the
Board of County Commissioners?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Category A facilities.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I would definitely make that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion is to maintain the current concurrency management system,
basically keeping it a Category A as we've always used it. And there's been no other -- I mean, we've -- I think we've
discussed the idea in detail.
So I'm satisfied after the question and answer we had this morning, it needs to stay there, myself. Everybody
else okay?
Then we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
Page 52 of 91
161
PL
A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special"
Meeting
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0.
Norm, thank you very much. This is the last AUIR we'll probably see you for unless you come back
mysteriously as a consultant or something, but we appreciate everything you've done.
MR. FEDER: I can't for two years, I believe.`
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could probably consult for the county, but thank you, sir.
Okay. Potable water system. We'll do all the utilities in order. We've got potable water, sewer treatment,
and solid waste, and everybody's here. So, Nathan, it's all yours.
MR. BEALS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities
project manager.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you relation to the Bealls that owns those big department stores, just out of
curiosity?
MR. BEALS: No, I only have one L, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, good.
MR. BEALS: Sadly, I wouldn't be here.
I can answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a great -- I like that presentation.
We'll take each element separately, so we'll start with the water, it's Pages 41 to 51, or actually 41 to 53.
Does anybody have any questions on the water section?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, I think, it would be interesting just to see how we are using the
water. In other words, these are obviously all predictions, but it would be interesting, especially to determine, you
know, the level of service, if it's appropriate, is how much water is being used based on current population.
MR. BEALS: The level of service is reviewed during the master planning process, and we have a -- the last
one was done in 2008. Our next is planned in the next 18 months to be in Fiscal Year' 12, which we'll review.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not that I necessarily want to review it, but I would -- it would be
good if we had some historical data for the last couple years maybe based on the population of the last couple years on
the report to kind of see what we're using as a level of service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we're using as a potable water level of service?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because I've done some studies and stuff where, you know, I'm not
sure the population, what that is. And you're right, we don't want to change it. This is not the place to do that. But
just out of curiosity, you know, are we -- you're making predictions here and you're showing usage and predicted uses.
It would be good to see the current usage.
MR. BEALS: We're not exceeding the current level of service of 170. We are below that. It varies each year
depending upon the season demand that we have.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. That's the curiosity. But anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if the demand goes down, they just simply change the pressure in the
pumps, and then they still can pump the same amount of water as their revenues remain the same. Oh, that's not
happening, right?
MR. BEALS: We don't do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I just wanted to make sure we're clear for the record.
Any other questions on potable water?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Page 42. Nathan, your first statement on Number 1, the population
projections from comprehensive planning increased due to updates to the water county (sic) sewer district map. What
updates? How did that change?
MR. BEALS: In previous years we -- the water /sewer districts has sections that are exempt from impact fees
where we don't plan to expand our facilities in the next ten years, and we did not count the population that is within
the boundaries but -- that's within the boundaries and in those exempt areas in the past.
We corrected the maps because we need to be prepared to serve everybody within the water /sewer district
Page 53 of 91
1612 1 k4'
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
boundary whether they're exempt from impact fees or not, because they can connect -- extend a line to connect to our
mains tomorrow, and we have to be able to provide service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that brings up an interesting scenario then. So let's take Orangetree, for
example.
MR. BEALS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have Orangetree under your ownership currently.
MR. BEALS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the people in Orangetree aren't using your system. They're using a private
system that they've more or less paid for through -- however they paid the developer. You're going to go into
Orangetree at some point and take it over, and when you do you're going to charge all those thousands of homes
impact fees like they were new customers?
MR. BEALS: That is not my understanding. I believe that they're not in our water /sewer district currently.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BEALS: And they are already being serviced by a treatment facility, and we will be acquiring that
treatment facility. So no new impact fees, as far as I know, will have to be levied for those service areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got some documentation on Orangetree that had that discussion in it. So when
-- I'm sure someone from your department's going to be here when that comes before this panel for PUD approval,
because that -- there was an issue about the impact -fee payments that will be allocated to the people within Orangetree
if the county takes over the system, and I was trying to -- I thought that was -- I'm surprised to hear it isn't, because
other systems in the county, when you've taken them over from private, you've actually instituted impact fees.
MR. WIDES: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Tom Wides, operations director for public utilities.
There's been a lot of discussion over time about Orangetree and about impact fees, whether they'll be assessed
or not. All I can tell you at this point for sure is that we've done a lot of investment of time and discussion with
outside attorneys, with outside rate consultants, and it would be our general belief at this point in time that there will
be no impact fees assessed in this case, but there is no final decision.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how have you -- and, Tom, you know, we have had other private facilities
taken over where the county has imposed impact fees. So how do you justify it for them and not for Orangetree? I'm
not saying it's great (sic) that you're going out and doing this to Orangetree, but I'm wondering how you differentiate
between the two kinds of entities.
MR. WIDES: Sir, let me reiterate. There is no final decision here. This is a big discussion topic, and we
don't have a final answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WIDES: We've gotten suggestions from outside resources.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I hadn't even thought of this until the response regarding how you've
increased your population base. So the population within Orangetree, say, now is being counted by you in the
analysis that's in front of us for the required treatment needed for water and other things yet you're not providing the
services to them, but we have to provide the facilities to them, and they already have the facilities, and we don't know
if they're going to pay for the facilities now provided by the county.
MR. BEALS: The Orangetree Water /Sewer District is not included within the Collier County Water /Sewer
District at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go back to the original question. Where is the district map --
where did the district map increase that brought in new units from a -- that weren't part of the system before?
MR. BEALS: It was mostly in the Estates area between Vanderbilt and Pine Ridge from north to south and
east of -- I'm sorry -- west of Collier Boulevard. That was previously -- or still is exempt from impact fees, but we,
every now and then, receive connections close to the boundaries where we have mains.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's east of -- I mean west of 951?
MR. BEALS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The people there have not paid impact fees because they've been on water and
sewer, but when they choose to connect to your system they still don't pay impact fees?
MR. BEALS: When they connect, they pay impact fees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how is that any different than Orangetree? What's fair for one has got to
Page 54 of 91
161'2 a'4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
be fair for all.
MR. WIDES: Again, Tom Wides, for the record. First off, what Nathan is referring to are people that are
using wells, okay, because they're too far from our infrastructure. Occasionally we do get requests for service from
those folks, and it may be a case of running a water line a mile, two miles, half mile. I have no idea what the length
would be, but we do occasionally get those requests.
So we continue to monitor -- if someone finally makes that request and they're in the exempt area, they're on
a well system today, they're going to pay an impact fee. They don't have a current service provider other than their
wells.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does Orangetree Utilities get its water?
MR. WIDES: I'm sorry. Say it again, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does Orangetree Utilities get its water from?
MR. WIDES: From the aquifers below.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By a well.
MR. WIDES: By well, treated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everybody that uses the water from Orangetree Utilities is also on a well system?
No different than the county as a whole?
MR. WIDES: You could argue that; however, the treatment is much more dramatic for the people that are on
either the Orangetree Utility or on the Collier County Water /Sewer District versus a private well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This issue's going to come up when the PUD is discussed, so I would hope that
you've got a more definitive answer on how it comes out, because the people in the audience, of which there'll
probably be many dozens, will probably be real curious. That's been an issue with their PUD right now.
So I understand you don't have it today, but I think we better be prepared for that meeting.
MR. WIDES: I understand your question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Nathan, just a question on what you were saying is exempt from impact fees.
A while back you guys started charging impact fees for areas that were not -- could not connect right now, but
because they were in the district you were charging them. And the policy was if you did not provide service within
seven years they could ask for a refund. Are you not doing that anymore?
MR. WIDES: Tom Wides, for the record. First off, it's if we don't provide service within ten years and, yes,
if we do not provide service to an area or to an individual within ten years, we will initiate the process of a refund.
But in addition to that, what we've added into our process is looking at areas that we just know we're not going to be
able to serve in the next ten years unless there's a very special request. And in those cases, we're reviewing to see if
we can immediately refund those people, okay, or if they subsequently build a home, we're not going to automatically
charge them an impact fee.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So you're doing that automatically? People don't need to initiate that request?
MR. WIDES: We will send them a letter, and then they need to respond, and then we start the
impact- fee - refund process.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you.
MR. WIDES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we move on to more?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a tiny question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's kind of back to the other thing. What was the -- based on the chart on
45, what was the million gallons per day that you used in 2010; do you know?
MR. BEALS: I'm sorry. Repeat the question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was the actual use, in other words, the historical use of how many
gallons per day, million gallons per day in 2010? Essentially what I want to do is draw a little circle on this chart for
the actual amount of water.
MR. BEALS: I know that our peak demand during the season was approximately 29 or 30 million gallons in
that -- in those peak days during season of our actual use last -- this past fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Twenty -nine or 30 million gallons --
Page 55 of 91
�1-6
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. BEALS: In one day.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Per day. Okay, all right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 47, Nathan, it looks like you're -- on the middle of that chart, Fiscal Year
2013, does that mean that's when you plan on taking over the Orangetree plant?
MR. BEALS: That is the earliest possible date. We have to give them a one -year notice, and we currently do
not have a date selected or a schedule for when we will be taking over Orangetree, and we have to give them a
one -year notice with board approval to move forward with the taking over.
So we're just showing the best- or worst -case scenario, however your angle is, to look at this, that we would
take Orangetree over in 2013 at the earliest possible time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like you intend to operate it till 2024, or whatever the years that you're
allocated. Then you take it off the -- you take the amount of gallons you're going to be working off the books there,
then you add it where?
MR. BEALS: The decommissioning or taking -- shutting down of the Orangetree facility would coincide
with the northeast plant facility that is currently based on AUIR population and the current level of service to be
needed in 2024. And so they're going to coincide, and they're going to -- and right now the plan is to shut down the
Orangetree.
We would obviously investigate whether or not the facility can be expanded or interconnected and left in
place. Those would just have to be determined as we get closer to that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that new plant is the one that's going in the north, the very north end of
Orangetree that -- north of Orange Blossom Ranch, that big area up in there?
MR. BEALS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your department participate in any permission for that PUD to be changed in
regards to your section of that property?
MR. BEALS: I don't understand the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- properties within the Orangetree PUD, the Orangetree PUD is coming in for
a series of amendments. I just -- I can't recall offhand if there are any changes for that section of the PUD that is
owned by your department or by Collier County. But has anybody in your department ever gotten involved to see if
they need to make any changes or amendments to that plan?
MR. BEALS: I don't think so, because we are more than ten years out from doing any improvements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BEALS: I think that somebody would tap me if I was wrong, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good reliance. I like that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think Paul is listening.
MR. CHMELIK: This is Tom Chmelik, for the record, director of public utilities engineering.
I just want to say we've been involved in that planning process. But at this point it stands the way it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stands the way it is, whether it's -- if we read it and it appears to be amended --
MR. CHMELIK: There's no -- there's been no further amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on your part --
MR. CHMELIK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for that section?
MR. CHMELIK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the -- okay. I thought there was some -- someone -- one of the -- the
reason I'm asking is one of the public speakers said that you -all were trying to put in some wells or something on the
property that wasn't permitted before. I haven't checked that out, so I was just asking you if there was any changes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That was the fairgrounds she was talking about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. I'm not sure, but -- okay. So you don't know of any changes. That's
good enough; thank you.
MR. CHMELIK: To my knowledge, the wells have always been in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's even better to hear. Thank you.
Page 56 of 91
16 z A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
On Page 52 you have revenue key and revenue sources down below, and you're looking at water system
development fee, slash, impact fees. It's pretty consistent for the next five years. Why? I mean, we've got a --
variable standards for population and construction and we have increases or decreases in our population. How do you
think you're going to maintain a perfect scenario for the next five years?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, again, Tom Wides. We don't know what that number's gom to be. What I do
know -- and I've been here 11 years now working this plan. What we've seen is a great deal of varibility year to year,
okay. The last two years have been around 3 to $4 million of impact fees. And to try to project anything higher than
that would be risky at best.
Again, we will have a chance every year to come back and relook at these numbers,-and that's really the way
we're looking at it now. Rather than trying to predict revenue growth in the impact -fee area, we've just said just flat --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Straight line. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure I understood it that way. So--
you're going to love this question. You don't know if the Orangetree impact fees are included in these or not?
MR. WIDES: They are not included, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to ask that, Tom. You set it up too good.
Okay. Thank you. That's the only ones I have on potable water. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a -- now, this motion would have to include the potable water as well
as the inclusion in the CIE. Does anybody wish to make such a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward the 2011 potable water AUIR and CIE
with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Nathan, thank you.
MR. BEALS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to stay here for the sewer?
MR. BEALS: I'm going to stay here for the rest of the public utilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're like Norm. You're a glutton for punishment. Look out. Well, hopefully
these will be all about the same, so --
Anybody have any questions on the sewer element as it -- part of this AUIR?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nathan, same questions on the sewer element in regards to Orangetree. Do
you have any idea what you're going to do with impact fees out there for the sewer element?
MR. BEALS: Same answers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. And Tom was going to jump up and tell you to say the same thing, so
The -- Page 63 you have a 2013 new plant capacity of 1.1 million gallons per day as existing in Orangetree.
Is that system intending to be remaining? Because you don't show it coming out of the system like you did the other
Page 57 of 91
16I
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
one.
MR. BEALS: We don't have a plan for the northeast wastewater reclamation facility in the next 20 years, so
we would have to operate the Orangetree in place until the northeast plant is necessary.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: For how long did you say?
MR. BEALS: Till 2031, the 20 -year planning window that we look at during the AUIR process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the MU/U section of the Orangetree PUD, which is about dead center
between the two schools, is where I believe -- is that where this plant is currently?
I mean, that's what it would -- it says on -- the PUD says that's where it's supposed to be. Let's assume it is.
So that means that plant's going to be in place, then, for -- you're estimating probably 20 years or more, if the county
takes it over.
MR. BEALS: The existing treatment plant within Orangetree, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason that's relevant is the PUD coming up for review by this board in a
week, if it stays on schedule, has alternative commercial uses for that parcel at the demise of the plant.
And the way it's written, I'm wondering if you take the water plant out but leave the sewer plant in, would
you potentially do that?
MR. BEALS: I don't know at this time. We haven't had in -depth plans. We haven't gone in and looked and
had --
MR. WIDES: Tom Wides, or the bobbing head.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's always good to see you, Tom.
MR. WIDES: Thank you. Really, we're at the stages with the Orangetree Utility that we haven't seen any of
the infrastructure yet. We don't know the operating condition of that infrastructure. So it's very hard for us at this
point in time to even speculate what can we run, how long can we run it? Do we take one piece out and run the rest?
Those are just a lot of unanswered questions. The only thing -- you know, the only thing that's really in
concrete is that we can't take over before mid or late ' 12. And in terms of when we'd be ready, that's a whole 'nother
question, and we've got to have those communications yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the problem we have -- and this board happened to stumble into it, to be
honest with you. Last week all this was supposed to have been resolved. We would have made a decision last week
on Orangetree. That potential decision could have increased them by another 1,250 units and five times the amount of
commercial they currently have on that site. They've got 60,000 allocated. They're asking 332,000.
Now, that has a huge impact on utilities.
MR. WIDES: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you guys don't work the utilities or acquire them or seek the things you need
from them during this amendment process, or have -- because you've got an opportunity right now to see that a lot of
the groundwork's set for things you need in the future. I was under the impression this has all been fleshed out and
you understood all that and you had already allocated within that PUD your needs. But if you haven't, Tom, by all
means, you need to do that quickly.
MR. WIDES: No. Please don't let me run the risk of misstating. We have expressed our needs. We know
what we need in the system, okay. But your question that I believe I heard was what is our plan to take the water --
you know, if we build the water plant, what is our plan in terms of potentially demolishing that so that they can do
further building? That we don't know.
But we know the footprint we need. We know we've gotten the easements that we've needed. We've been
working with them to make sure we've got what we said we expected.
But what I can't tell you -- until we go in there and look at that utility infrastructure, I can't tell you that I'm
going to keep that water plant there and then just demolish everything atone time. And, frankly, that is --that is not
for us to demolish, by the way. That's the property owner, which that property stays with the Orangetree.
But I can't -- I can't tell you at this point in time how long we're going to be able to run that, if these
population numbers hold up. We could be pushing out farther or coming in closer. Those are the kind of questions we
don't know.
And you'll remember that we were in lawsuit with them for probably two -plus years, and we couldn't step
foot on that -- or weren't allowed to step foot on that property. Now we've got agreements to go out, and they've said,
come on in, take a look at our infrastructure and assess it.
Page 58 of 91
16 1 AA
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other part of the question I'm concerned about -- but it's all good we're
knowing this ahead and we're having this discussion today, because they did not get heard before us. They got
continued.
If the intentions to operate all of this new facilities and this expanded commercial and expanded residential
that they want in the PUD, it looks like it's going to have to be managed or handled within the plants that are there for
X amount of time, maybe the water plant shorter than the sewer plant, but that brings into question the capacities of
the sewer plant and whether it can handle a triple, doubling, or quadrupling of whatever the services are that are
needed of it and the amount of space that takes over a long period of time.
And so that's all issues I hope that you guys can at least try to answer some questions on to the extent that
you're involved in it when we do meet on that issue, which will either be the next meeting next Thursday or two
weeks from next Thursday.
So, Tom, if you guys have needs and you can get them through process, I would suggest you highly, you
know, exped- -- you know, let us know what they are so we can recommend.
MR. WIDES: The physical needs we have taken care of, but in terms of the whens, the whens are all going
to be driven by population numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WIDES: And so I don't really think it's reasonable for me to even ask Orangetree to try to provide me
anything more than our AUIR projections. That's when it makes it tough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying --
MR. WIDES: Understand --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the PUDs are written for future. PUD says how a community's going to
build out over a long period of time. All I'm suggesting is, if there's elements in there that would assist in making the
transition easier, we ought to be looking at those to make sure they can be carried out.
Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Wides?
MR. WIDES: Yes, hi.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Hi. Is it possible for you to at least go out and take a look at Orangetree before
this comes ahead of us so we have a better background on utilities? Because it is very, very important.
MR. WIDES: I'm going to ask our engineering director maybe to help us all understand what "going to take
a look" really means, okay, because it's not really literally just walking out there and saying, the structure's good.
There's a lot more involved.
Tom Chmelik?
MR. CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik, for the record.
To answer the question, we certainly could take a look at it, but there's a lot of analysis and research that
needs to be done with the information gathered to really understand what that means from a capacity and life
standpoint.
Certainly, a quick observation can gain some knowledge, but a detailed study is needed to really understand
what's there. And to do that within a week is not reasonable.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But it prepares us a little. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe that the Orangetree PUD and utility need to provide to this board
whenever you hear it the security that the plant can handle it through whatever time period if the county never takes it
over or if they -- and they have to operate it from now until the end of time. It is their responsibility, and if they can't
do that for you, us, then it shouldn't be approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct, but they'll --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So I just think they need to be put on notice that it's their responsibility at this
point to get us all the detailed information that we would need to make that judgment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're allowed to have -- they're required to show us that they have the utility
capabilities available to them in order to get approved. In our packet, our certifications that those availabilities from
that plant are available -- how they intend to expand it in the future, they just -- they can't get -- they can't get building
Page 59 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
permits unless the capacity is expanded to the point that it's needed. So that will be --that is addressed. That will be
addressed, and it's -- part of it's already been addressed in the Orangetree packet, but it's buried in hundreds and
hundreds of pages.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It was -- yeah, and it was not what I would call 100 percent, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's kind of back to the same thing. What was the peak at the north
county rec; do you know? And you can shoot from the hip on this.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can hold him to it later.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Right. It's much more fun that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The peak for -- what is it you're looking for?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just curious about what the peak load in actuality was at the plant.
MR. BEALS: At the north wastewater plant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. BEALS: Off the top of my head, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you wouldn't know the south either then?
MR. BEALS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't care about Orangetree.
MR. BEALS: I wouldn't know theirs either. I could find it out and bring it back to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, and it's maybe just a quirk, but what would be interesting is
since you do show 2010 next year, show like the peak, and then maybe the minimum or something, just so that I don't
annoy you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to leave all that up to me?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Wouldn't want to move in on Mark's --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: You're doing well enough.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't want to get in on Mark's turf.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've only got a year of that left, so -- okay. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to accept the solid -- not the solid waste. Doesn't Dan wish
that. Is there a motion to accept the wastewater treatment facilities AUIR submittal as well as entrance into the CIE?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For 2011, as presented, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry seconded.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
And with that, we'll take a 15- minute break before we come back.
Thank you, Nathan. Appreciate it.
MR. BEALS: Thank you.
(Commissioner Ahern left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.)
Page 60 of 91
1612 Ali
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
And, Nathan, you're not going to speak for Dan Rodriguez, are you? He's really good at speaking for
himself.
MR. BEALS: I'm going to give it a shot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow. Oh, that means we have got to have really difficult questions.
Are you kind of like involved in everything over there? All -- I didn't know what -- I haven't --
MR. BEALS: I'm the main planner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- okay. I haven't run into you before, so it's been your -- you seem
knowledgable, and I'm glad to meet you, but --
MR. BEALS: I've been here a few times talking to you directly, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not in the capacity you are today.
MR. BEALS: I'm usually unforgettable, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've reached that big six oh, I passed it, so what happens is I forget a lot now,
but I try not to.
Okay. With that, your presentation was excellent, thank you. It was very detailed. Are there any questions
on the solid -waste element?
Well, lookit, I'll start then, and as you guys come up with questions, we'll jump in.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Page 71 -- you'll make the motion? Not quite so fast.
On No. 1, your last two lines talks about increasing recycling and decreasing disposal as reasons why you've
gained capacity as well as reductions in the population estimated -- used to calculate the remaining disposal airspace
capacity. Didn't you guys get a height increase?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Seventy -one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that didn't take long for him to jump up.
MR. BEALS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He popped up already.
MR. BEALS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, didn't you apply for a height increase?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste
Management Department director.
We did, absolutely. The Board of County Commissioners, I believe, back in December approved Waste
Management to go for application to FDEP for vertical expansion of our landfill that would provide an additional 78
feet of capacity for our landfill.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Nathan was right when he said no, because it hasn't been approved yet, or
maybe applied, but hasn't -- so it hasn't been theoretically approved?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to apply for it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The application was submitted about 30 days ago. We have another 60 days to get a
response from FDEP. So far it's looking good from the preapplication meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the tables that we have in here that are reflecting your capacities over two and
ten years reflect the increase in height you're going to get, or do we -- is that just going to be more gravy on top of the
distant times we already have in here?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. That will be more capacity --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- and more value to our customers, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. That's great. I'm glad it's working out that way. Okay.
Next question. The proposed -- it's No. 2. The projected tons - per - capita disposal rate in 2011 solid waste
AUIR for 2012 forward is .53. And you --which is a decrease from the projected rate that you're using now of .5 --of
2010, which was .55. I think that's what it's saying. We're at .51 right now, and in 2010 we had .52. So can you
Page 61 of 91
1612
A
4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special"
Meeting
explain that No. 2?
MR. BEALS: In the 2011, the .51 is a projected, what we base on what we've seen currently, and we project
out through the end of the calendar year, or fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BEALS: And then we calculate the .53 using the previous two years and the current year to calculate
the estimate for a carryforward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The .55 --
MR. BEALS: Three -year average.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- reference is coming from where?
MR. BEALS: That was last year's carryforward number that was in the 2010 AUIR as a three -year average
carryforward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That .55 doesn't show up in any of the tables this year, though, right?
MR. BEALS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's eliminated because it's --
MR. BEALS: Because it reduced to .53.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps understand it better. Thank you. You're using peak population,
which means year -round -- I mean, which means you've got a higher population for the winter months than you do the
summer, but your tons per capita is actual; is that right?
MR. BEALS: The tons per capita is actual from 2000 through 2010, with 2011 being the estimate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so it doesn't really matter what population you used in regards to the multiplier.
The multiplier will be always the actual. You're not forecasting the multiplier for the population unless -- until you
get to the year in question. But, like, you know last year you got .54.
MR. BEALS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a fact.
Okay. And I'm trying to figure out fact from projections, because population estimates are projections.
MR. BEALS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- okay. Your population increases show an increase year to year of 1.7
percent. That's less than the 2 percent that Mike Bosi pointed out, so that's probably -- these are right off David's
numbers, okay.
Okay. Darn it. I'm out of questions. Well, I got Dan to jump up at least once, Nathan. That's -- I think I'm
out, Dan, so --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: If I may, Chairman, I just want to thank the Planning Commissioners that came out to
the new gas -to- energy facility that's up and running, has been since May. That's generating electricity for our
community, providing electrical power to over 2,200 homes.
Most importantly, it came to the county at no cost, and we're getting revenue for it. Roughly just under
$36,000 a month where for the previous ten years we were getting zero dollars. So that will help to offset our cost for
disposal in the community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your rate of kilowatt charge is the same and matches FP &L?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We wish. Absolutely not. FP &L, they're a tough partner as it relates to getting a
fair - market rate for our energy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So yours is a lot less?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's even better. But if we got the plant for free, the cost for distribution or
anything else, we're not -- the taxpayers are making a positive no matter what way you look at it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And another important aspect of that contract is Waste Management
controls the quality and quantity of gas, and that value that we get for the gas, they pay us for the gas, is tied to an
energy index. So as the value of energy increase, so does our gas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. That's great.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Dan has in the past invited all of us to have a tour of that, and I would still
Page 62 of 91
161
2
A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special"
Meeting
highly recommend organizing something like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I've been on one of his tours. The dinners are great.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I didn't go on the dinner one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I've been on one of the tours, and I mean, that's -- I had never seen the facility
since the old days when I used to go up in an old truck and unload my stuff. And you drive up on this really smelly
high mound, and it's all stuff pointing out of the soil, and it's totally different over there now.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I remember the smelly days. I was in Naples Heritage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Dan, you're doing a great job, thank you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, appreciate your support. And one other project I want to bring to your attention.
Thanks to the Planning Commission, your support of the resource recovery park that's north of the landfill, we're
moving forward with the Site Development Plan, and that's a great opportunity for us to partner with more
private- sector vendors to come in and provide recycling activities for our community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent, thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of solid waste?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to accept the solid waste AUIR submittal as presented and institute
the elements needed in the CIE? Did I say it right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Barry wanted to do this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Barry, seconded by Brad.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And I think we're 6 -0. Let the record show that Melissa Ahern had
to leave early, so --
Nathan, are you going to do the public schools, too?
MR. BEALS: No, thank you. See you next year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nathan. We appreciate it. I'll remember you next year.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Okay. Amy has been waiting all day to talk to us about schools. She's patient.
MR. BOSI: Well -- and when I spoke with Amy earlier in the week, I said, you know, you're more than
welcome to come, but with no capital improvements being proposed, I can most certainly handle the presentation that
there are no capital improvements scheduled within the capital improvement plan. But I guess I'll defer to Amy if
she'd like to elaborate upon that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think she'd like to. I can tell by the look. It's probably safer if we just ask you
questions, and where you get stumped, Tom or her jump in, if that works for you guys. I'm not sure there's that many
questions.
Anybody have any specifics question? I mean, I certainly had a procedural issue, and we opened up talking
about that. I have been supplied with a copy of that document. I will read it all, and it will give me enough level of
comfort that I'll feel free to vote on this today, now that I have it -- and I'll read it before the board meeting, and if I
Page 63 of 91
i6 I 4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Specla 'Meeting
see anything that is problematic, Mike, I'll just contact you and let you know. And, you know, then we'll go from
there. But I've been assured by everybody that there's no inconsistencies regarding our procedure here, so -- or CIE.
I did want to ask on a procedural issue, what value is something passed by another agency that is basically
independent, and it's done before we review it so they couldn't take the benefit of any comments that we, or for that
matter, even greater, the Board of County Commissioners may have if they already passed it?
I mean, are we -- isn't that procedurally out of whack, out of order?
MR. BOSI: Well, the way -- when you're looking at the CIP, it's already approved. And I guess there's
opportunity for -- if you find inconsistencies within the growth projects that would be in the CIP, that -- you could
offer those comments, and then the -- we as the staff would take those to our school working group and through their
formulation of the next five -year capital improvement program with the school district, and we could rectify or we
could bring those issues, too.
Because, I mean, you remember within any Capital Improvement Program, unless it's within this first year,
this next year, that project's not going to -- the construction's not going to be initiated. So there is some opportunity
for adjustments or recognizing potential inconsistencies.
But we fully recognize, and the school board acknowledges, the way that their process is -- and it's tied to
their fiscal year starting, I believe, in July 1 st or -- their planning process starts in a different window than ours, that
structurally we just can't find the consistency to bring it to the -- or to the Planning Commission, the Board of County
Commissioners before the -- before the school district would adopt traditionally within, I believe, September?
MR. EASTMAN: Yes. And in addition, we're pretty well experienced as to which issues cause conflict or
concern, and when those arise, it's really on -- an onus on staff, on the school district, and the county side to work out
a ready -made solution, something that's going to work for both entities. And we try to smooth those out before it gets
to this stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom -- or I mean, Mike, is this one of those things that we can decide if we
want it in as a concurrency element or not?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the fact the school board does their own thing regardless of where we are
with it and prior to being forced into the GMP which was, I think, just recently last year or two years ago -- they were
doing just fine without us -- is there a reason why they need to be in this system since we -- we're after the fact
anyway?
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, they're -- they are -- they are autonomous, they provide for the
capital- improvement needs of their system, and they coordinate their program with the county.
This would be one of those areas where I think that if you had -- would make the suggestion to remove from
the concurrency management system, I'm not sure if that would -- that that would have a detrimental effect. I think
that -- and that would be the reason why I think we would recommend to remain if we felt that there would be dire
consequences associated with it. But the school board's still going to plan for the schools, which they need, and be
able to provide for -- provide for the coordination elements the way that it's envisioned through the public schools
facility element.
So I can't identify a downside towards whether -- if you would recommend it to be removed from the
concurrency management system other than -- other than we would have to go through the GMP amendment process,
and we would be able to provide you a much more clearer answer as to why this wouldn't be a detrimental action.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think given the fact that it's already done by the time we get it, the school
board has a long history of planning pretty well where schools are going to go in advance of when we even know
about it, I don't see the need to push more paper through another system that's readily covered by itself. I mean, less
government is better government, and I'm not sure we need to impose more government on another government.
So I would certainly think that would be an element to explore removing from concurrency as long as there is
no detrimental effect. And I think we have an interlocal agreement with the school board that covers just about all
kinds of things, and I don't know why we need different than that at this point.
So I would certainly lend that as a concern that we ought to move forward with and suggest to the -- that it be
looked at to be removed, unless Amy has an objection, likes being here sitting in the audience for a day at a time, so --
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Whatever coordination efforts you need could be handled through the
Page 64 of 91
-
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE pecial" Meeting
161
interlocal agreement, right?
MR. BOSL• Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: As a -- so --
MR. BOSI: And that's what it was before school concurrency came.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly.
MR. BOSI: We had an SBR and interlocal with the school district before concurrency was mandated, so it
can be accomplished through that route.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The only thing I'm thinking of is, since these issues are often cyclical and one
governor's in office and says, get rid of this, and the next time another governor gets in and says, put it all back in, do
we waste a lot of effort if we take out what we've put in versus just, you know --
MR. BOSI: That was -- it's funny you mention that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just here, and --
MR. BOSL• I was speaking with Chris van Lengen, a recent addition within the public utilities. He was a
planner for Comprehensive Planning. He went to the Bonita Bay Group, then was with City of Marco, long -time
colleague. And he said, the one caution that you may want to at least recognize and put on the record is, there has
been talk that there may be a glitch bill this upcoming legislative session. Now, I don't -- I'm not sure if -- but that
potential that we could go through the effort and then it could be changed as you stated. I'm not sure if -- we may be
under paralysis if we would operate under that thinking, but there is always that potential.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean, I just -- I don't know that we gain or lose anything by them
providing us this information. It goes in the books and we say, thank you very much, essentially, but I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, for us to do our job and for the Board of County Commissioners to do
theirs and for staff to do theirs, to be honest with you, every one of us should be reading the 200 pages in this book
and not relying on others to tell us it doesn't have any -- has any inconsistency. Everybody should do their job. That's
just not at our level. That's at every level of government.
So I would just like to see this done so that we're not forced to acknowledge a book that we would -- of 200
pages that we're going to have to analyze, we have very little familiarity with, and no control over. So that's kind of
where I was coming from is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Well, reading it online was no fun, but I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I mean, that's -- but, you know, when I asked the question, staff hasn't
really read the whole book, and I doubt if very many people other than school board staff has, and rightfully so; they
should. But when you put the onus on others to verify it, you -- technically you should be reading it.
So I don't know. I'd rather see it pulled out. If no one objects to it, I would suggest when we get done we
include that in a stipulation or a motion going forward.
There are some questions I have on the sheets that are in front of us. But to be honest with you, now that I
have the book, I will read it first, and if those don't answer my questions, then I certainly will make sure that Mike, or
even Amy, I get in touch with you.
I did have one remaining question. Your impact fees, you just have almost a -- you have a straight line with a
-- looks like a pure calculated increase in impact fees. It looks like it was done the same way that utilities did theirs. I
would assume it was.
MS. TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than get into specifics on population, you just flat -lined it for a couple years
at a time.
MR. BOSI: Well, it was done by school board staff, but that would be my assumption as well, that
conservative approach.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll defer my questions then, because at some point I'll read that document.
And then if I have them still, I'll get in touch.
So with that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what does, you know, including the CIP, the school board CIP by
reference mean anyway?
Page 65 of 91
161 2 A 4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. BOSI: We don't -- it's not -- in our GMP, the Capital Improvement Element, the updated capital
improvement is an appendix to it. We don't include their CIP. We include just a reference to their adopted
documents.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. So us referencing it means nothing to do with endorsing it, nothing
to do with anything other than, by the way, they have that, too. We're just referencing it.
MR. EASTMAN: By referencing, the county is acknowledging that these facilities' plans are slated for the
future.
For example, if -- which we don't have here today, but if we did have a new school listed here and its location
was given, and road improvements were needed for that new school, then we'd either have to have an agreement in
place with the county that would address how those road improvements would be done, or you would be
acknowledging, this school's coming. We, as the county, including our transportation department, will be ready for
that and ready to accommodate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the interlocal agreement provide that, though?
MR. EASTMAN: The interlocal agreement provides that, and the process by which you acknowledge it is
this process right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you want to put a school in, you tell us -- we know it through -- the
interlocal agreement regulates for us how that school happens, but you've got no way for us to acknowledge that
you're allowed to put it in? I'm not clear what the value is.
MR. EASTMAN: There's a lot of -- there's a lot of review related to a school going in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. EASTMAN: First of all, we -- before we even purchase a site, we approach the county from a
consistency perspective to see if the zoning is correct in siting a school there. We receive that approval; we move
forward with the purchase of the property. And we have that in our land inventory.
And when construction comes to pass, we would notify you, then we go through a whole -- a whole SBR
school board review process as to the plans. But before we get to that stage, before we get to the actual site low
development stage, if you will -- it's a separate process known as SBR -- we give you heads -up notice through our
capital improvement plan that we're going to build that school.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do that regardless of whether or not we have it in our CIE, right?
MR. EASTMAN: We do that with a coordinated effort so that you are acknowledging that that's coming.
And the way that -- the way that the state legislature envisions this to work is that the school district tips its hand by
showing you what's going to be built, you then are on notice for what is going to be built, and if it requires additional
impacts that are public services that the county's responsible for, be it utilities, be it roads, you're on notice for that.
And we either need an agreement in place between the two entities that addresses how those are going to be
built, or they need to be delivered at the time of the school in accordance with the plans.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your presence on this board is basically on -- based on your knowledge and
experience with the school system. So based on what you just said, it sounds tome like you're advocating to leave
this in as an element of the AUIR and the CIE.
I'm not in a position to say you're wrong on that. I'm trying to seek a simpler manner in which to process
things that have no bearing by our review of it, which to me, if you've already made your mind up that you're going to
do things, for us to review it after the fact and after you vote on it, I -- it just seems like another bureaucratic waste of
time.
I'm not saying it is, but it feels like that, because we have zero impact on whatever we say here today. So
why bother with it, is what I'm trying to say. What's the -- if you see a benefit in it and you're telling me there is one,
then I'll accept that. But I just want you to be clear.
MR. EASTMAN: Well, first of all, I'm really not -- Mr. Chairman, I'm really not advocating for a position to
continue this process or not continue this process. What I'm simply doing is trying to outline the purpose behind the
process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we all knew what that was. We all participated in it, but that was changed
when 7207 was adopted.
MR. EASTMAN: The purpose --
MS. TAYLOR: I have one thing to add as far as the purpose of it being incorporated into the --
Page 66 of 91
161 k
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Amy Taylor, by the way.
MS. TAYLOR: Yes. For the record, Amy Taylor. For concurrency purposes, our UP has to be referenced
into your Capital Improvement Element. It has to be referenced there in order for that concurrency arrangement to
take place, because we are a separate entity. So that is -- there is a link there to why we're going through this process
in terms of concurrency.
What Mr. Eastman is outlining is also a function of that, but it can be -- and can be, you know, included in an
interlocal agreement, which it already is. So it can be part of a coordination process.
So I think -- I think what Mr. Eastman is saying, he's not advocating one way or the other, it's just, these are
mechanisms that we have in place.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark?
MR. EASTMAN: Again, I agree with Amy wholeheartedly. I'm not taking the position that you're incorrect
when you say this is duplicative work, this is worthless work, this doesn't add a lot of value. That may be the case.
I'm just saying, the purpose -- I'm trying to outline the purpose behind it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what they're saying by reference is they just want us to acknowledge
their CIP as meeting the requirements of our AUIR and CIE. I mean, they're not asking us to go through and edit it,
comment on it, doing anything. All they're saying is, this is just a passthrough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let me read to you what we're being asked to vote on. The recommendation
sought from the CCPC related to the school board's proposed CIP is for a recommendation to include the district CIP
by reference within the CIE and that no inconsistencies are contained within the district CIP. That's important.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I'm reading the one that's with this element. It says,
recommends that the CCPC recommend to the BCC to include the Collier County Public School District CIP by
reference with the 'I I /' 12 AUIR schedule of capital improvements. So, in other words, when I read that --I mean,
yours is saying it's a -- you're checking for parody. This one's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and if -- the problem I have is if we're placed in a position of checking for
parody issues, say, then by God we've got to check it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not, though.
MR. BOSI: Well, there's nothing to check. There's no improvements that are being proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you say so.
MR. EASTMAN: Well, the -- for example, if we're going to build a school and in order for that school to
work the county needs to build a road, then if we had in our Capital Improvement Plan "the school" and you in your
capital plan did not have "the road," you would have an inconsistency.
When we tell you that there is no additional capacity in terms of new schools or additions, we have no issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would look at it in a little bit reverse, Tom. I think if you put a school in and
we didn't have the roads, you got the inconsistency to put it there before we put the roads in. So that's --
MR. EASTMAN: That's not what the state says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --
MR. EASTMAN: And that's not what state law says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure if I find it, I would probably weigh in like that, so --
MR. EASTMAN: I mean, that may be your opinion, Mr. Chairman, but that's not the state law.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what that would seem to boil down to is that wherever you want to put
a school, we have to accommodate it, so then why are we even reviewing it? I'm back to that again.
MR. EASTMAN: Because, potentially, you may need to change your budget so that you can accommodate a
school that is coming in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the interlocal takes care of that.
MR. EASTMAN: It does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then --
MR. EASTMAN: And so should -- so should your budget potential, which is what this hearing's about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me try this motion, see if this works, is that we recommend to meet the
Page 67 of 91
16 12'
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
requirements of the 2011/2012 AUIR and CIE, that we accept the Collier County Public School's CIP.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: CIP rather than --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: By reference.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That means we just -- well, I am referencing it when I say its name. And
then that way we're saying, we didn't study the AUIR. We just --their CIP travels through as meeting our AUIR
requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a second, then we can have discussion.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak.
Mike, your statement in the staff report required something different than what Brad is now suggesting.
What do you need?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, are you looking at the staff- -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm looking at the staff report --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know that, and I read that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read what -- yeah. No, I don't disagree with you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is good. That one's bad.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's -- but what does he need? That's what I'm trying to get at.
MR. BOSI: What I'm seeking is to include by reference the school district CIP within the schedule of capital
improvements.
Now, you make -- when you do that, you make a recognition that there are no inconsistencies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see -- and there's the rub.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's the difference.
MR. BOSI: But what -- and I'm not sure what the rub would be. There can't be a rub against nothing.
MR. EASTMAN: Can't be a rub against nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But who's saying there's nothing?
MR. BOSI: The school district -- every individual who has reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan has said
there's no new schools being proposed here. There's no expansions to be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys just take a different level of interest in stuff that you agree to than I do, I
guess, because I won't agree to anything that I can't prove myself or understand myself, and that's one thing I can't. I
have not read that document.
MR. EASTMAN: Well, there's a summary sheet of our major capital improvements that's in your packet that
was distributed to all the commission members.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. EASTMAN: We have listed there our big roofing projects, we have listed there our big air conditioning
projects and another maintenance and capital projects. We have not failed to include a hidden school or any other
additional capacity or expansion that would cause concern for the county in terms of its obligations to provide its
public services related to a hidden school or hidden capacity. That's why we keep saying over and over again, there
are no concerns. There are no issues. There's no new capacity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, let me say something. We have no other data than a summary
from the CIP anyways. There's no presentation other than a summary from the CIP, so that's all we've got to go on.
So that plus the testimony, I can't see how we can get in trouble.
We -- we're not saying there's any inconsistencies. We're not guaranteeing any or guaranteeing any not,
because there's no way -- I'm not even sure if you read that you could guarantee it.
But the point of the matter is, is they -- the staff did not prepare an AUIR presentation because the school
board gave us a summary of their CIP, and I trust that. We've had testimony; we've had everything else. What kind
of problem could we get in? Knowing you, you could probably find one, though, so I guess I should be careful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what are you spending money for the next five -- four years on site acquisition
for?
MR. EASTMAN: Future schools in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I'm looking for.
Page 68 of 91
A4
September 29 2011/ 2011 ALAE "Spe aMeetin
Meeting
MR. EASTMAN: Yeah, future schools that would be outside of the five -year plan. We --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. These are -- okay. But these purchases are being done within the next
four years.
MR. EASTMAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be wise for this board to know where those purchases are so we know --
MR. EASTMAN: Absolutely, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. EASTMAN: -- you will know where they are. And before the -- the board won't, but the county will.
The board's review is not related to our purchasing of a site. The county's involvement for our purchase of a site
comes to, is this site consistent for a school site. And we receive a letter of consistency issued from the county before
we purchase, so we come to the county to say, is this piece of land that we would like to buy appropriate for a school.
If the county says no, we don't buy that site. Only when we have the letter of consistency that says it's
consistent with the zoning, then we buy the site. It's in our land bank. When we want to bring it forward for
construction, it falls within the five -year plan. It may even fall within the 20 -year plan, to tip you off, or the ten -year
plan.
And then when it falls within the five -year plan, now it's become a matter of needing to address it, needing to
prepare for it budget -wise, and the heads -up on both entities' side to say, here's a new school that's coming. Let's get
all of the public services that are necessary to make that school operate successfully.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, did you want --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I just wanted to say, you know, next year we review it. So the point
--we've heard testimony --is there's nothing on the radar screen. It's a clean radar screen. Next year things might
start to show up, and we'll deal with it next year. But this year's pretty easy and straightforward that the CIP has
absolutely nothing new in it to worry about whether it's consistent or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We -- actually, we're under discussion for a motion. The motion was to recommend
approval and inclusion into the -- acceptance into the CIE.
We still -- I would like the motion maker and the second to consider that we still should have staff to decide
or review whether or not we even need this process now that we have the option to move it out of concurrency and
fall back on the way we've done it up until it got added.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that would be an excellent motion after this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you want separate motions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: Please.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Call the vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking if I have any more discussion on my part.
MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. EASTMAN: I think that your follow -up motion about considering whether it's needed and concurrency
is excellent. We should look at it and see if it's a worthwhile thing to do. It's a mutual decision between the two
entities, and I don't think it can be achieved unilaterally. And to look at it is ripe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. EASTMAN: It's a very good point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to support the motion with the caveat that I'm certainly going to be
reviewing the document that didn't come with our packet. And if I see any discrepancies in it, I'll just get ahold of
staff and let them know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also that we're going to have another second motion coming up here.
So with that, we'll call the vote here. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 69 of 91
16i z as
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Is there a second motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the school system into Category B. Is that
the appropriate --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to just make a motion to determine if we still need the
school in the concurrency category.
MR. BOSL• And I think the appropriate motion would be for the county staff to work with school board staff
to generate a presentation to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners and the school
district board on the merits of the -- merits of maintaining the concurrency management system as it exists today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a result of the changes in the legislature with the new legislation, yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: 7207.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will that work for you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Brad made that motion. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Thank you. That was --
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- entertaining. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate your input.
** *Okay. The next one would be parks and facilities. I would like to suggest that we do the library
afterwards, since that's part of the same department, and then we'll move into the county jail and law enforcement
together, and then finally government buildings, if that works for everybody on the board. Okay.
Barry, how you doing?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, good, thank you. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation director. Good
afternoon, Commissioners.
Just -- you have the packet in front of you, I think. What I'm prepared to do is, with the absence of Nathan
Beals around, answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Where's Nathan when you need him?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good way to approach it, too. Thank you, sir.
Okay. It's -- the first segment of the AUIR for parks and rec is -- let's take them separately. The community
park's land, Category A. Anybody have any issues with community parks?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, let me start off, then others can jump in as we move through it. This Randall
curve.
Page 70 of 91
16 1 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went and pulled records all the way back to 2008. That was first removed in 2008,
and back then there was a total of 499.5 required -- 591.54 inventory acres. We pulled out Randall curve at that point,
minus 47.
In 2009 we had 544.54, and we pulled out Randall curve. We show it being omitted again. In 2010 we had
591.54 inventory acres, and Randall curve's still shown as being pulled out.
Now, we went from 591 to 544 then back to 591, and this year we're at 591 again with Randall curve still
going out as 47. In other places within the document, I think it is in the regional category. Randall curve is being
added back in, but it seems like it's for more acres than it's being pulled out of community parks for.
Could you explain Randall curve.
MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the question, I do. I'll try, I'll say that.
We did have Randall curve bouncing around for you. And part of the consideration originally had been the
47 acres. And this was a donation that we received from the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust to be used for a park.
Unfortunately on the side of Immokalee Road that it was located wasn't what we felt was the best location for a park,
and originally our intent was to take those 47 acres.
Transportation and the school board had discussions about developing a bus barn at that location. And so
what we intended to do was to take the 47 acres from community park land and take the funds that we would receive
for the use for transportation and the school board and put it into Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Again, the
regional park -- we were trying to show that those 47 acres would be used to support the regional park.
What's happened, though, is transportation, the school board, they're not pursuing those plans for a bus barn.
We returned the 47 acres back into the community park lands. But now what we're saying to you is still, you know,
we really don't foresee a park at that location. It's just not in the best location for a park.
We would like to work with the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust to see what we could do with those 47 acres.
And, again, for us the best thing to do would be to divest ourselves from it and use it for a park where it's needed.
So it's a little bit of follow the moving ball, I understand. And, certainly, if you still have questions, I'll try
again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess then -- I was on that land -trust committee when it began decades ago,
and I remember the property. I don't remember enough of it, unfortunately. But some of those bigger parcels had
reverter clauses in them. I mean, they could only be provided and used for a certain thing.
Has anybody verified whether or not this piece is 47 acres? Has -- any kind of reverter clause that requires it
to be used in a certain way?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's a good question. We haven't explored it fonnally. We have talked informally with
the land trust. We did solicit a county attorney's opinion about that very issue. I don't know that we have a clear
answer for you, but that is one of the things that we would need to do to see whether the land can be used for any
other purpose. That is a definite requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since we've taken it out four years in a row and we've -- isn't it time we looked
at that to see if it even is viable in the first place?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can someone get back to us on that --
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or is that something you could look at? Then we can clean this up forever on the
AUIR. And if it can't be taken out, we know it. If it can, fine.
In fact, back in -- my goodness. It was back in the late'70s or early'80s, Brenda Garretson, who is our code
enforcement magistrate, she was the county attorney working with the board at the time. I wonder if she would have
any -- remember this. Probably not, it was so long ago.
But, yeah, she used to work in the County Attorney's Office, and she participated in some of these
discussions. It's been ages, so --
MR. WILLIAMS: We are attending a land -trust meeting in October. We'll definitely ask that question and
pursue that and get back with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm not sure who the attorney is now representing on the county attorney's
side, but they ought to take a look at that for deed restrictions, their reverter clauses, to make sure, because I'd rather
Page 71 of 91
161 2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
see that resolved so we know if we've even got to talk about it anymore, so --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any more questions on community park land?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else on community parks. Is there a -- Mike, we'll
handle these separately, community and regional?
MR. BOSI: Please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions, is there any motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion, but how do you want to put the Randall in? How's that
going to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it stays as it's presented, but eventually -- we can always -- they weren't
going to transfer the property for three years. Ironically it started back in '08 as being transferred -- should have been
done by now, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm suggesting is before we keep it on the books as a potential transfer, let's
snake sure there's not a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
Then I will move the community park land 2011 AUIR forward with a recommendation of approval as
presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
** *Let's move on to regional park land.
Okay. Anybody have any questions on the regional park land?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, the 47 acres that is coming out of community is supposed to go into regional?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, originally when we had -- some of the moves we made earlier, that was the intent.
We had moved it out of the community, put it into regional with the anticipation of it being used as part of this
purchase of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so it still is that way, isn't it?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's -- the deal that we were anticipating was this deal I mentioned about
transportation and the school board. When that deal went away, we moved the acreage back into community parks
where it is. But, again, we're saying that we want to remove it, take the proceeds, not that we'll get from
transportation or the school board, but if we are able to divest and we are able to do that with the Golden Gate Estates
Land Trust, we would take the proceeds from that and put it into another park, foreseeably Big Corkscrew Island
Regional Park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, on Page 88 of the community park land, you show that this proposed AUIR
takes the 47 out again. If it does, then on Page 92 for regional parks, is the 121 that's there inclusive of the 47 acres
that is taken out of community, or where did the 47 go? If you're taking it out, how's it -- whose department gets the
Page 72 of 91
161 A 4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
benefit of it if it's subtracted from yours?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, the thought process is that if you were able to divest the monies that are
associated with those 47 acres, take those monies, or -- and purchase property in a spot where you do wish a park.
That would be the intent. You would remove the acres from community park. You wouldn't necessarily add the
acres to a regional park land.
Although, as you can see from the regional park description, we do have in the future the acquisition of Big
Corkscrew Island Regional Park, the 62 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WILLIAMS: So if you had funds left from the 47 acres, you might be able to use those funds to
purchase those 62 regional -park acres that we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how then do you account for the 47 acres that is taken out as a negative?
Basically it says proposed -- in the community, it says proposed AUIR negative 47 acres. You remove 9 million in
value from your AUIR inventory. What happens to that inventory, that suspended $9 million? Who's showing it on
the books?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a -- you know, again, this question of the values of these lands is one that we've
had in past discussions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WILLIAMS: You know, the $9 million is just a value that's associated with those acres. It's not -- it's
not money that we have in the bank necessarily. It's not necessarily what we would get for those 47 acres, market
values being what they are. And that's another consideration. If the land trust would allow us that, you know, do you
sell in this down market? Do you get sufficient funds to really do significant things with?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't, honestly, meaning it as the value that you stated. I just used that because
that's what you put there. But even if it was one dollar --or let's just look at the physical part of it. Forty-seven acres
is taken out of your inventory. It's in whose inventory then? That's all I'm trying to figure out.
Mike, how do you -- where does -- does it --
MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- what they're saying is that 47 acres is no longer going to be part of that park system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So whose books take it into consideration as an asset?
MR. BOSI: I would have to say -- this would be a question maybe in Susan Usher's -- the -- will they be
allowed to use the revenue that was generated from the sale of that 47 acres? Where could they use that money?
Because they -- the money then goes to whoever buys it. Whoever buys it is going to be the owner. And whether it
be a government agency or whether it be a private owner who purchases that land, the question is, the value for the
sale of that 47 acres that they're removing from their inventory, where can they utilize that revenue?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well --and I think --the other point I would make just --if you look on Page 90 and just
look at our five -year projection, the consideration is, to our population, what is -- are we meeting our level of service?
For community park lands with the level of service that you just approved, we continue to meet that level of
service without those 47 acres, so we're still -- we're still where we need to be in terms of our projections of
community park land for our population.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand. I was -- and I think my question was more of an
accounting nature, trying to figure out where -- who benefits from the asset that obviously is still there.
MR. BOSI: The question is, it's an asset that the park system has. My understanding would be, they would
be able to utilize that, but maybe they -- and I'm not sure what restrictions they -- where they could utilize it. Would
they have to utilize it for future acquisitions? Could they utilize it for future facilities? I'm not sure of that answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand, and I think I get a -- I've got a good handle on it. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it wise to have that $9 million figure up against that property, too? I mean --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, for the calculations that we use for, you know, characterizing these acres --
and for us, level of service is dependent on the acres per thousand.
So the number, the value, I know that this frustrates the heck out of you guys. The values are irrelevant in the
sense that we do use the impact -fee indexed average dollar that we paid for an acre in the past, that 197,000. So that 9
million, it's just showing the value associated with those acres. It's not a meaningful number, though.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All I'm just concerned about is tomorrow you find out there are no
restrictions and a buyer comes along and says, okay, fine, I'll give you 5 million for it. Does that make it look like
Page 73 of 91
161 2W
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
we've taken this huge loss to the county? I mean --
MR. BOSI: No. I think it would be a reflection of the true market value. And it's one of the issues with this
process because we have to give estimations as to expenditures. So we have to have an average cost for acreage. So
the acreage cost for one specific geographic region may be appropriate, but it's not appropriate for the other area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: So there would be no material harm with this allocation. It doesn't upset the free - market
exchange that would happen with that sale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: We have tossed that one around every year, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm trying to avoid getting --
MR. BOSL• I appreciate --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't know how to keep out of it, so --
MR. BOSI: Mr. Chair is kind of walking around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Anybody else have any other questions on regional parks? Because I
still have a couple.
Barry, on Page 93, the sixth line down you have 62 acres, which is intended to be the interdepartmental
transfer of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Where are you transferring that from?
MR. WILLIAMS: These are lands that are currently owned by public utilities. They own a parcel just
behind the Palmetto Ridge High School, and so the thought process is that we would purchase some of those lands, 62
acres, to build Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they -- just out of curiosity, do they value their sale based on your accepted
valuations, or are they going to charge you more than what you normally pay? Or have you -- how does that work,
just out of cur- -- I mean --
MR. WILLIAMS: That's a good question. I appreciate that, too. And I'm sorry Mr. Yilmaz is not here. I
think that's a negotiation. I think that certainly they would want to get what they paid out of it. Certainly it wouldn't
be what our valuation is. We wouldn't -- and nor would they expect us to pay that. I don't know exactly what their --
the amount of money that they paid, but it would go for market value, and it wouldn't necessarily be less than market
value either.
I mean, they're -- while it's a department within the county, you know, we don't want them to necessarily lose
what they've already put into the property, so -- but it hasn't been negotiated, quite frankly. I think part of it has been
looking at, you know, this question of -- and for the AUIR, what we're seeking to do is to identify the lands that would
be available for the park.
The other big thing is building the facilities, and the funding for facilities just isn't there. So it's just not
something we've put our pencils to paper and worked out.
We are working on access to the lake, though. There is a portion of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park
that's already in our inventory. It's a 90 -acre lake that would be associated with these 62 acres, and we're working to
get access to that lake. It's a great -- it's a great location for recreation, we think. Fishing, in particular. Bass fishing is
a good -- is good at that location, so we are working on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that the Brian Paul Lake?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Brian Paul Lake is the one that you're referring to as the property owned by
the utility department?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. The lake has been donated to the parks and recreation department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's a property adjacent to the Brian Paul Lake?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means that that big utility site on the north end of Orangetree is potentially
going to be the property that you're going to purchase, or a piece of it, for a regional park, and then if utilities -- holy
cow. This is going to change a lot on the PUD coining up.
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, just association -wise, think of Veterans Park and our relationship to the water plant
Page 74 of 91
1.6 1 v2, ee
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
there. It's not uncommon, I guess, for parks and utilities to be partners, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more worried about making sure that the current PUD amendment that they
have going forward can accommodate and make -- it's written right so that we can save a lot of hassle down the road.
If this actually would ever come to fruition --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would be good just to plan for it better now.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, maybe that's for -- your department ought to look at Orangetree PUD
and make sure that the segments that are potentially going to be part of this Big Corkscrew Island Park has the
potential to be the park that they want it to be. I mean, right now it's a public - utility site.
MR. BOSI: We'll have to coordinate with Kay Deselem to see whatever contemplative changes are to the
master plan and within that area in terms of what can and can't go based upon whatever changes --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be good to look at it -- well, I mean, boy, you guys could save a lot of effort
if you combine it into one PUD amendment, got it all done at once, plus the -- it would help probably quell some of
the neighbors' concerns that they have up there with your utility plant, so -- your potential.
And at the same time, you've got to wonder now if that 47 acres could be used for other things than a park.
That would have been a more central location for a utility plant in some ways than maybe the one that you are
currently looking at. Interesting.
Wow, okay. It's something to keep in mind, I guess. I understand the -- so the 62 acres isn't just the 47, but
some of the 47 capital could be used to secure the 62 acres.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further down that list is one that I've got a concern with. It's the 90 acres.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it reads, 90 -acre developer contribution, Big Cypress, subject to BCC approval
of Big Cypress DRI. But see, by the BCC accepting this in the AULR now, regardless of how it's paraphrased, isn't
that something like contract zoning? Wouldn't there -- wouldn't they somewhat be acknowledging that this is an
acceptable mitigation for the DRI for whatever purposes they may want to construe it to be? I mean, do we need to
put that in record before we even get to that review? Because we've not even looked at that DRI.
MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing I can offer is that it is out past the five -year window. And I don't know if
that's helpful or not, but I -- I'll let --
MR. BOSL• Well, yeah. I mean, it's -- with it being in Years 6 through 10, those -- the certainty associated
with that acquisition becomes much more cloudy and nonbinding. I guess the point the chair's making is, do we cause
-- do we cause any liability issues with the county by saying that we anticipate this type of a -- this type of a
contribution from the Big Cypress DRI?
But that -- I guess that -- whether that's -- whether that places us in a libel situation would be determined
about, what is the size of the population that they expected and what's the demand that that population's going to exert
upon the system in there, what's going to be the contribution that they're going to have to make to satisfy that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we also have a new Growth Management Plan legislation that does a couple
things. It's going to look at mitigation and establish a fair method in which the developer is to be compensated for that
if that's the -- if it's not required mitigation for the development, above and beyond impact fees. So getting into this
discussion now, I think, doesn't help us.
Secondly, we have a valuation of land in 74.205 Code of Laws that tells us how this has to be evaluated, and
it has to be evaluated before the entitlement is on the property that they're coming in to ask for. All that seems to be
disruptive. By putting this in an AULR document in this stage, I would highly suggest this is the wrong thing to do.
Why bind the hands of any preceeding -- board after this and down the road? Let them do what they need to do.
MR. BOSI: I don't -- I mean, I would defer to the parks department, because this is an improvement that's
planned in Year 9, and basically it's on the far -- that far end of the second five -year window, and you're not really
gaining --or you're not really into a tremendous deficit at that time. I'm not sure what harm would be from just
removing it, striking it from the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if no one else -- Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: Is it an existing developer contribution agreement?
Page 75 of 91
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. WILLIAMS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They haven't even got an approval.
MS. ASHTON: Because I thought that there were some commitments at the time this stewardship district
was created by the special act, so that's why I was asking whether or not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know that answer.
MS. ASHTON: -- whether it's between the two governments or whether it's actually a developer. I don't
know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hate to see this put in here and have our hands tied in the future by
any legislation that we currently have or could change, plus just the intention of it. It sure looks like we already made
our mind up, and I know we haven't.
MR. BOSI: Well, you could have -- you could direct staff to remove it. And before the Board of County
Commissioners, I can check on the SSAs that were associated with the Big Cypress. And if there was any specific,
you know, obligations related to this, then we can put it back in, but unless we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't put it back in for any reason. Why would you put it in if it hasn't
been an approved -- if it's an approved exchange, irregardless of the DRI, yes, but why would you want to taint the
DRI's approval by predetermining its approval through mitigation that we haven't even negotiated because we haven't
even seen the DRI yet?
MR. BOSI: I wouldn't want to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's what he was saying, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's saying put it back in.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That he would go check the SSA, but if the SSA says it --
MR. BOSL• If the SSA --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then --
MR. BOSI: -- that upon --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then that's one thing.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I can only get one at a time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you'd still have to change the language, is what I'm getting at. The
language refers to the DRI, so you'd have to change that language. Because if it's pursuant -- already done because of
an SSA or some other developer's agreement, fine, but don't use the DRI as the bases for it, because I think that
document can't -- shouldn't be approved prior to it coming before the public process, or any part of it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mark, it does say that too. It says, subject to BCC approval of the Big
Cypress DRI.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, anyway, I think that's another suggestion that I would -- if we get to --
when we get to the motion part of it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: To remove it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
On Page 103, Barry, your first one, Isle of Capri. That's the kayak site, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting a 1,773,000 benefit from that site, but we're not paying for any of it,
right?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. It's a -- basically what it will be -- it's not finalized, but we're in the process
of working with Rookery Bay to finalize a lease agreement from the state that would become, in essence, a county
kayak launch and -- nine -acre parcel, restrooms, parking. It's one of the best kayaking places in the county, actually.
It's really going to be nice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been working on that with Gary Lytton down there for years. I'm glad to see it's
finally coming forward. So that's a good thing.
But the fact that you are benefitting from the value, does it preclude Rookery Bay or any other state level
from benefitting from the value as well? I mean, how many times can the value be used, I guess, is what I'm asking.
Is anybody else using it?
MR. WILLIAMS: You know, I don't know that answer in terms of how the state values their lands and how
Page 76 of 91
2 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUI J61
IE "Special" Meeting
they would account for those. 1 think that, you know, the ownership would be retained by the state but -- you know,
in the lease agreement. And our lease is mainly to do very light maintenance, pick up the trash, you know, make sure
the bathrooms are in order, those type of things. So I -- I don't know how that affects the state's inventory,frankly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to figure out a way to keep the boat trailers from parking and
inundating that park with boats and trailers? Because the -- you know what happened to 951 with all the -- that was
one of the fears of building that park is that everybody would just park over there for their boats and walk over and
inundate the place with people not using it for its intended purpose.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and certainly we'll patrol and make sure that people are where they need to be. I
think, though, the one advantage that we see is that -- and we are working with transportation to develop a crosswalk
from the boat ramp, 951 boat ramp.
One of the big concerns that we've had from people using the park has been the -- you know, having a
bathroom once they come off the water. So we do think that we're going to have some traffic that come from the boat
ramp, the people, you know, using the facilities and whatnot, but for them to park, put their boat in versus a kayak,
that would be something that we wouldn't allow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would doubt that any of those people would walk over. They'll probably drive
over and use the parking lot and then -- with their trailers and their boats behind them. And I have a feeling that that
park may not be the kayak park that it was intended to be if that happens.
MR. WILLIAMS: But I got to tell you, the location, and the kayakers that we've talked to, it's just -- you
know, it's just a great location, great fishing, is my understanding, too. I've never fished back there, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kayak out there quite a bit. It's a real -- but I eat lunch at the fire department, so --
it's the only thing that fire department's ever done for me. But anyway, we won't get into that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's all my questions, I think, on the regional. Yes.
Does anybody have any questions on the regional parks in addition?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on the regional park system?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'll make it, but you can add the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three items to add, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I'll make -- the base motion would be that we forward with a
recommendation of approval the 2011 AUIR regional park as presented with the following -- is it going to be
stipulations?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, recommendations and inclusion into the CIE, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And inclusion into the CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert, okay.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made three notes. One is that someone is going to research the 47 acres in the land
trust to make sure it's not deed -- it's not restricted for -- with a reverter clause or anything, so it can be swapped out.
Number 2, staff will take a look at potential of savings in time and effort and including provisions in the current
amendment to the Orangetree PUD.
Since you -all are part and parcel to that PUD, you have -- you certainly have a right to enter into it. Your
property's coming into play, so I would suggest that be looked at to see if that can be done.
And the third is the removal subject to SSA research or anything else needed of the reference to the Big
Cypress Regional Park acreage, so -- and those are the three stipulations that I had written down.
Brad, does that work with you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
Page 77 of 91
161 � A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, thank you. You're not going to do the library, huh?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Terri, we'll try to break after this, and then I think we can finish this
afternoon. We'll run pretty close, but that way we can get done in one day.
Hi.
MS. MATTHES: Good afternoon. Marilyn Matthew, library director.
The library has no planned construction in this AUIR period. And if you have questions, I'd be happy to
answer any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Library is on the third one.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 131.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 131.
MR. BOSI: 130.
MS. MATTHES: 131.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 131.
MS. MATTHES: We have both buildings and materials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's start with -- we have to do them one at a time, so let's start with the
library buildings.
Anybody have any questions on library buildings?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just paying for what we've got.
C14AMMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- under your revenues, you have impact -fee revenues anticipated
1,541,795.
MS. MATTHES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm trying to find my reference. Yeah, in your appendix, which is on Page 200,
if you take the -- see on the right -hand column where it says F 12 to F 16 (sic) -- and I guess, Mike, part of this is your
question. Should we be -- the five years we should be analyzing is FYI I to FY 15, or FY 12 to FY 16?
MR. BOSI: Twelve to sixteen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the -- how does that -- impact fees of 1,830,109 relate to the fifteen
forty-one nine -- seven ninety-five on the front page? I guess that's the question that I'm trying to remember that I
wanted to ask.
MS. MATTHES: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did a lot of this math when I was sitting at home one night, and I'm trying to
remember it all.
MS. MATTHES: I've used the calculations that were given to me, and I haven't really looked at Page 200.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. MATTHES: That's done by the budget and management.
MR. BOSI: Unfortunately, Susan Usher is not here. The way that you would calculate it is it's FYI through
-- FY 12 through 16, and if I had a calculator, I could do it. It's -- to me, FY 12 through ' 16, it's not 18 or one --
1,830,109, because that would be including'11.
Page 78 of 91
1612 AA
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you take eighteen --
MR. BOSI: It would be 18 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thirty-one oh nine, and you take off 370,000?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MS. MATTHES: Sounds like it, yeah.
MR. BOSI: And that still is not squaring up exactly with the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not.
MR. BOSI: -- the impact fees anticipated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if it -- we need to figure out -- yeah, you're still then at -- one four sixty
one oh -- yeah, you're still off.
MS. MATTHES: Twenty thousand.
COMMISSIONER CARON: She does need to come and tell us, because this is actually new from past
years. That column header is, headline, do not touch, formula driven, so it's some sort of formula. It's not a strict
addition of the column here. And I don't know why that is, and we've never seen that before. And I had it marked
down to ask when we got to the appendix what was going on.
MR. BOSI: That's the -- that's the budget workshop. This is based upon the budget workshop. This is the
product of OMB for their calculation for how they determine what the impact fees are going to be over the next
five -year period so we can project the -- an estimation upon the revenue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we need to do is point out the problem. You guys figure out a
resolution to it, and make sure the numbers correspond, and then we can still move forward.
MR. BOSI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's a discrepancy that needs to be fixed, because if you change the impact -fee
number on the summary page, it's going to fall through all the rest of them.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Any other questions on library buildings?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any myself. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a -- ah, she showed up. Well, we might be able to get this resolved
before we vote. That's good.
MS. USHER: Hi. I'm Susan Usher from the Office of Management and Budget. And you had a question
about where the one point eight million is?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question that the appendix for the five -year period seems to differ from the
summary page for the five -year period for the impact fees anticipated.
MS. USHER: The library impact fees in two components: One is buildings and one is books. So if you go
to Page 131, that's the buildings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. USHER: And then you go to Page 134, and that's for the books. And when you add up the impact fee
for the books with the impact fees for the building, that should equal the 1.8 million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The summary in the appendix is for the entire department --
MS. USHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is inclusive of both sub - elements?
MS. USHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, perfect.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But -- okay. Then I have another question, then. Further down on that page,
on 200, it says, estimated book expenditure budget. So does that get added in additionally?
MS. USHER: No, it does not. That was a way for me to calculate how much money should be heading
towards books for future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much you're going to spend in that particular year?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That would indicate then that the level of service is going to change?
MS. USHER: It's an outdated number.
Page 79 of 91
abl 2A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MS. USHER: But that is not a revenue item, and it's not -- this Page 200 is to help push out revenues, and at
the bottom, to help track expenditures for debt service.
So the 6.4 million in revenues is accounted for on the two pages, 131 and 134, and then the same thing with
the debt. The debt of 6.1 million, almost 6.2 million, all of that is shown on 131, because we don't buy books with
debt, with bond money.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It's an odd -- it's an odd thing, and if she can figure it out, that's her job.
I just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you're here to explain it. Thank you.
MS. USHER: Yeah. Just take a pencil and draw a line through that 276,544.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Just take it out completely?
MS. MATTHES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we had a motion for library facilities, I think. No, we didn't. Is there a
motion for library facilities?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make one, that we move with a recommendation of approval the 2011
AUIR for library buildings --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak, made by Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
** *Let's move on to library materials. That's on Page 134.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, motion. I move --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not a motion. We haven't discussed library materials yet. We've got to discuss
it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I'm preloading.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You said you had no questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I meant the previous one. I only had one.
The population you use is peak population. Is there any way to weigh the population based on the fact that
the seasonal people aren't here during the summer and the library materials don't get used year- round? Does that have
any impact on the quantity of materials you need?
MS. MATTHES: It means that if John Grisham writes a book in the winter, we buy more copies in the
winter. If he published a book that was due out in the summer, we wouldn't buy that many copies of his book in the
summer.
We still have a lot of year -round residents. We have a lot of kids' usage. And at some years, we have even
had the July circulation equal the January circulation because of children's usage.
Because there aren't so many kids around that we see these days, that hasn't happened in a couple years. But
there are times when the July circ has equaled the January circ. So we still have usage in the summer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Donna?
Page 80 of 91
161= 2 A4'
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER CARON: What it means is that for those of us who live here year round, if we go into
the library, we can actually get a copy of the book. So it's a good thing to use peak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That kind of helps.
Okay. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? If not, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the 2011 AUIR for library materials with a
recommendation of approval as presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry. Oh, Barry had his hand up. Too quick.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klein seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
Thank you again.
** *And now we will move onto county jail and law enforcement. I guess we'll --
MR. SMITH: Did you want to take a break first?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. You want us to take a break. Let's see. It's been about an hour -- we don't need
-- 2:15 to 2:30. Let's do county jail first. Let's squeeze one more in, then we'll take a 15- minute break. We'll see how
long the county jail takes. I mean, we've got about four hours left, so --
MR. SMITH: All righty. Hey, I tried.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Greg Smith, chief of administration from the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
County planning staff has furnished the Sheriffs Office with the -- this most recent version of the AUIR. We
have reviewed it. We have no problems with its content, and I stand ready for any questions or clarification that I
might be able to provide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission on the jail section? And I'm --
impact fees. You know, last year you had 800,000 approximately in impact fees, and this year you're noting
2,130,748. How'd that jump so much?
MR. BOSI: That would be a Susan question.
MR. SMITH: Yeah, that's a Susan question.
MS. USHER: Hi. I'm Susan Usher with Office of Management and Budget. Every year we do the
calculation on impact fees based on the amount that we're putting in next year's budget, which this year means for
Fiscal Year'l2.
Based on what we have in Fiscal Year'12, as you saw on the -- Page 200 with the library, the same thing
happened with the correctional impact fee is that I used the formula with the percentage of population growth, and I
increased that income or that impact -fee revenue by the population growth.
So every year we look at -- when we do the budget, we look at how much money we've received in the
current year, and then we try to project what we're going to do in the next year. And based on Fiscal Year'12, I
project out four more years to come up with that dollar amount.
Now, we have some -- I'm not sure in this fund. We have some deferred impact fees that are coming due, and
Page 81 of 91
1612 AA
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
it skewed some of the numbers in some of the impact -fee funds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Susan, what happened, in 2008 your projections for impact fees were 4.5
million. In 2009 they were 2 million. In 2010 they were less than 800,000, which is a huge drop, which
understandably we'd had problems in our population, but then we didn't have a significant increase that would get you
back from 800,000 up to 2.1 million. And I'm just wondering, what's the significant difference between last year and
this year in population or whatever that calculated such a big jump in numbers?
MS. USHER: We look at where we are this year and we look at what we're going to do next year. Next
year's Fiscal Year'12. Based on Fiscal Year'12, that's where the population growth gets applied.
When we were in'10 and we were budgeting for'l 1, the number was a lot less. Commercial had just
dropped, residential dropped. I think last year when we were looking at Fiscal Year'l 1, we didn't think we would
collect much of anything. So the number that we budgeted in ' I 1 was extremely low.
And when you put the population growth an extremely low number, that's why in the AUIR last year the
number was extremely low compared to where it is this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it you're basing your impact fees on population changes --
MS. USHER: But first -- the first thing I calculate, though, is where are we this year, and what do I think
next year's going to be. And in Fiscal Year'12, if you look at the Fiscal Year'12 budget for impact fees for correction
versus what was budgeted in Fiscal Year'l 1, there's a big difference.
In Fiscal Year'l 1, I had budgeted 152,000. In Fiscal Year'12, I'm budgeting almost $400,000, so that's a big
difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MS. USHER: When you leverage population growth on 152,000, that number's going to be little, but when
you start doing the population growth based on almost 400,000, then the number gets bigger. I mean, that's why
there's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike?
MR. BOSI: I think the reason was they experienced more impact fees this past year than they did the prior
year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MR. BOSI: More impact fees came in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but why didn't all departments show that reflection? We didn't have
increases like this in any other department. That's a huge -- I mean, I've got all the impact fees for all the departments
listed year by year starting in 2004 so I can see the trends. And the trend in this one was different than the others. And
I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just trying to understand how it got there, that's all.
And I understand your explanation, but it doesn't explain why the others, then, didn't have the same result as
you got. Why didn't, you know, transportation? Why didn't parks and rec? Why didn't all the other
impact- fee - driven categories show the same drop in increase to the same ratios that you've got? It doesn't pan out. I
-- that's my -- that was why I asked the question, so --
And I understand what you said. I'm not sure I think it may be the right way to do it, but I'm going to have to
try to figure it out myself. It's not going to hurt anything either way. I just was curious.
MS. USHER: I know a lot of the impact fees had rate studies this year, and I don't have those notes. They're
downstairs. I'm not sure what this impact fee did, but some of the impact fees stayed status quo. Other impact fees
actually went down, and I don't remember what happened to this one. So I can't explain right off the top of my head
what the difference is, but if you give me five minutes or so to run down and grab the notes and bring them back up
here, that might be part of the explanation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- the explanation's not going to affect the outcome. I just was curious as to -- I
mean, at some other time we can -- I'll catch up with you and try to find out, because this -- I'm just trying to satisfy
my own understanding as to how one department can vary so much.
But even if you did or didn't, it's still going to -- I think your number's probably more accurate what it is today
than it was last time, is what I'm trying to say. So I would accept this one over the last one, but I just can't explain the
increase.
on that.
So I'll catch up with you. There's no sense -- I don't think there's going to be significant play here today based
Page 82 of 91
162 a4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MS. USHER: But all the impact -- most -- I think just about all the impact fees have had a study this year,
and all of them -- their rates got adjusted one way or the other; some significantly, some not as significantly, so -- but
if you stop by on the second floor in my office, I'll have an answer for you after the meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll come, but it won't be today. But I'll catch up with you next week sometime.
MS. USHER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Susan. I appreciate it.
Any other questions on jails? If not, Brad, do you want to do what you normally do?
MR. SMITH: I do want to make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, wait a minute. He doesn't like our motion.
MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. If you'll turn to Page 113. I think it's reflected in other pages as well in the report.
I'd like to call your attention down in the bottom of the page, IJC's inventory, and you see that we have 40 beds in
Sprung units, and I just wanted to alert everyone that those Sprung units are temporary structures, albeit they're very
good temporary structures. Those are nearing their life cycle.
Right now we've asked that the manufacturer's rep come down and meet with us and do a walk- through to see
if we can do some mitigation relative to their aging process. But it may well be that this time next year we ask to have
those taken out of inventory.
Now, I don't know what ramifications that might lead to, but I thought I better give you a heads -up this year
in anticipation of that occurring next year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got 107 -bed surplus, so you pull 40 out, you've still got 67, so you've
still got a better -- bigger facility than what you need based on the numbers you provided.
MR. SMITH: Exactly. We're going to be good. I just didn't know how that relates to the inventory on hand
and how that, you know, coincides with any of the impact fees and that sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'll make a motion. But first, what does sprung mean? It sounds like
they jumped out the window.
MR. SMITH: Yeah, it kind of does, but that's just the brand name of the structure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SMITH: It's -- Skip's in the audience. Skip, help us out here. What is a Sprung unit?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, it's nowhere near that important.
MR. SMITH: It's some kind of polymer that's stretched tight over an aluminum frame. Am I anywhere
close?
MR. CAMP: Yes.
MR. SMITH: It's a real good tent. It's a nice tent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. I move we forward the 2011 AUIR summary form for the
county jails forward with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Ebert.
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 6 -0.
That's law enforcement. Law enforcement may take awhile. We'll just take --we'll take our break now and
comeback at 3:50, and we'll finish up this afternoon. Okay. Thank you.
Page 83 of 91
161 Z AA
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. BOSI: You have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have a court reporter anxious to take every word down, so we don't want to
disappoint her.
Okay. We left off on law enforcement. We're just getting into that. I got to wait for Brad to get seated and
we'll be all set to go.
Chief, did you want to make any grand presentations?
MR. SMITH: I'll just open by saying what you have in front of you is the county law enforcement portion of
the AUIR, and I stand ready for any clarification if I'm able to bring it to the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you changed it this year.
MR. SMITH: We changed it a little bit, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little?
MR. SMITH: A little.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we went from last year and the year before and the year before and the year
before of having a unit cost on a per -man bases of about 165,000 to now a building square foot cost on a
per- square -foot basis, which is a radically different number, because it's $341. And the calculations came out with a
valuation of police officers and other things that I'm trying to desperately understand.
Your available inventory, which was per building before, is it reflective of the number of officers you have in
the field?
MR. SMITH: Yeah. I think this is -- and I haven't had that many discussions with Mike, so I apologize for
that. But I think this is a direct result of us saying that the only thing we really use this for is not for budgeting or
manpower allocation strengths, but to determine how many facilities we build and when. And so then we thought
there may be a better -- and you may have missed that discussion last year. I don't remember you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't here last year, and I did miss it, so sorry.
MR. SMITH: Okay. So a decision was made to change the methodology to more reflect what those numbers
are actually translated into as far as action.
And, Mike, you can take it from there.
MR. BOSI: And that's correct. Thank you, Chief Smith.
It's always been the issue. You know, 1.96 officers per thousand, but we're really trying to measure the
construction of new square footage for new facilities, and there was no direct translation towards that level -of- service
standard and what was being proposed for the new facilities over the five- and the ten -year period. Based upon board
direction and based upon the recommendations of the Planning Commission to find a more appropriate way to
translate that levels -of- service standard towards what the capi- -- or what the AUIR is -- and that's to measure the new
facilities that are coming online.
Based upon that direction, the impact -fee study has been updated, and it's now -- it's more correlated to the
actual staffing of the Sheriffs Office, and then what is the square footage that exists within our inventory based upon
that, what is the square footage associated with each officer.
So then if we're going to project what our population's going to be over the next five years, then you can take
that number against our service -- our levels -of- service standard and find out how many new officers we need. Well,
then, we can take those how many new officers we need, we translate that to the square- footage costs, and then we
can give you a much better accurate assessment, all right. This will be the buildings that we're coming forward
representing what we needed -- or what we need based upon -- based upon the population projections that we are
expecting over the five- and ten -year period, to be able to give a little bit more of a coherent and cohesion towards the
summary pages than what it was before -- what it was before there was a real disconnect within the process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I started out just by asking that question, because I wanted to understand your new
philosophy. But before I ask the rest of my questions, I'll certainly defer to my board members. Do you guys, girls,
gals -- I keep calling gals "girls," whatever.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wanted to make sure --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any of you have any questions that you want to ask? Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wanted to make sure I understand. So what you're saying is that each
officer needs 401.2 square feet, is that right, or what is that?
Page 84 of 91
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
MR. BOSI: That's what the current -- the current available square footage based upon the number of officers
that we have in the -- our inventory or on staff translates to 401 square feet per officer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the $341.62 is per square feet?
MR. BOSL• Yeah. It's the total value of all the square footage divided down to the square -- you know, to
what one square foot would represent within that total value.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if I -- the cost of -- if we had to add a new officer, would that cost
be 401 times 341?
MR. BOSL• The -- a new officer would be 401 square feet times -- is that what you just said -- 341, correct.
That's would be an approximation for what it would cost -- the square footage to accommodate how -- service one
new officer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, that's pretty expensive square footage.
MR. BOSI: Well, I think what -- the reason why that is, is the most recent expansion for -- with the sheriffs
operation was the EOC, and the EOC has a degree of technical components, I believe, that have pushed up the
square - footage cost to something beyond just what it costs to construct the building.
But the computer, the intelligence or equipments, those apparatus, those type of things, the laptops that are
utilized within the squad cars and the officers are something exceptional beyond the norm of what a traditional
square - footage cost would be.
MR. SMITH: Well -- and it's the hardening of the actual physical plant itself, and then the redundancy
systems that are built in, and, you know, it's not --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you derived a number -- I think a good methodology. But -- so
each new guy gets a 20- by -20, you know, office with -- that 400 -- $340 a square foot. That's -- but that might make
sense.
MR. BOSI: And from what I hear, it was actually utilization within. The officers spend most of their times
out on the road patrolling. That's some of the square footage associated with the EOC, the back support system, those
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SMITH: Well -- and what you're detailing out, too, is the 911 call center. That's being attributed to
every deputy and, you know, the mechanics, the bays, the garage and fleet, you know, are being attributed to each
deputy, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not against it. And, actually, the demonstration I gave isn't fair, because
the guy's not going to --
MR. SMITH: No, actually, it's very good for clarification purposes, because there may be those watching
that don't understand why you get there, and that's exactly how you get there, so that's an important point to make.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on law enforcement?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my questions all center on that. Your impact -fee issue is still -- is similar
here, but I'll take that up with Susan Usher when I catch up with her, just to understand it better.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The thing that I -- with the clarification, you explained the square footage. It's now
understandable. But you went from 949.9 officers based on your other methodology, and at the time you needed 771,
so you also had a surplus.
And I looked at this and said, wow, he's down to 647 officers, which means you laid off 300 people. Well,
that's interesting. And then your requirement, though, went up, and I thought, well, why'd you lay off so many? So
that's kind of --
Mike?
MR. BOSI: Well, what happened, we reset everything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured that.
MR. BOSL• That 947 -- that 1.96 officers for a thousand, that was a number that -- the Sheriffs Office, they
saw it on the thing, but that had nothing to do with how they staffed, how they operated. And what we did with the
Page 85 of 91
16 1 2 A 4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
direction, to say, make this more straightforward, more relevant towards what we're doing. The impact fees -- at the
time that they developed the impact -fee study for the update, they looked at the staffing, the current staffing level.
So what you have here was -- based upon that time that the impact -fee study was done, was that 647 was their
staffing level at the time. So there's not this fictional need of 900 officers when there -- actually only needs for their
operations.
So they reset everything, so now going forward it looks like there's need within the system, and we will
coordinate with the Sheriffs Office to adjust the next unit of improvement. Will that be needed before those
2019/2020, you know, projected -- next projected improvements, or will this staffing level maintain appropriate?
Those discussions will have to go on.
But what we did was we really reset everything towards the current staffing level of the impact fee of that
2010 impact -fee study, and that's why you see the drastic changes.
MR. SMITH: Yeah. It's going to give us a more measurable baseline. And going forward, we're going to be
able to better communicate not only to you, but to the board, exactly what our staffing needs are and how that space is
allocated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I would agree.
MR. SMITH: It took some real good work on the part of planning to do that, and I applaud them for that,
because it took a lot of work.
MR. BOSI: And Amy Patterson apologized. She was going to be able to provide a -- much more detail than
the clumsy explanations that I've provided, because she's worked with the board intimately on this issue to be able to
give it a little bit more meaning and relevance. But she apologized. She wasn't able to make it today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- I forgot my train of thought on that. Hold on a second. I'll -- it will come
back to me.
Anybody else have any questions in the meantime?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just while you think of what you were going to say, perhaps there should
be some explanation based on Mr. Schiffer's conversation to say what's involved in making up that number. Since it
is anew number, it might be good for the board to just have it here saying your unit cost is based, you know, on --and
what constitutes that are things like the portion of the EOC or the portion of the 911 call center or the portion of
whatever, and that way --
MR. BOSI: And my conversation with Amy is, those issues were -- this was -- it was put forward when the
board approved the impact -- or the law enforcement impact -fee study, that this was the direction that we were going,
that this was how these calculations were made up, that this is why the square -- why you saw the cost associated with
it. Maybe it's higher than what you would normally anticipate.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why I'm just saying a reminder might be, you know, a good footnote.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this square footage is gross square footage?
MR. BOSI: I have to check the impact fee, but I believe -- I believe it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the jail --I know this isn't the jail, but the jail is one of the --I imagine
is one of -- is one of your buildings.
Does it factor into the gross square footage needed for law enforcement?
MR. SMITH: Only the booking portion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, by the way, I know we should have asked this last time. Is the jail used
by Naples PD?
MR. SMITH: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they contribute to the cost?
MR. SMITH: Through ad valorem taxation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through ad va- -- okay. So the residents in the City of Naples pay a portion of their
ad valorem tax to Collier County, and that does cover the jail?
MR. SMITH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's all I've got. Does anybody else have any more?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just, you know, you're showing a major -- you know, we're way
below inventory available versus population and inventory required. So what are we supposed to do with that? I
Page 86 of 91
16 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
mean, it appears that, middle of the year, we crossed over.
MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- I think that's a recognition by this advisory board and the Board of County
Commissioners that when they adopted the new impact -fee study and the new methodology, that we were -- we were
aligning the need with the requirement at this base year. And as we move forward, there's going to be a divergence
and -- between that, and it's going to -- it's going to appear that there's a greater -- that there's a greater and greater
deficit that's being created, which may be the case, and it stresses that the communication between the needs of the
Sheriffs Office and general purpose county government and the Board of County Commissioners will need to be
maintained to make sure that next- needed improvement is going to be correctly timed.
And that -- and I understand your point was, before we were -- our levels of service that we had was satisfied
well into the future. Now we set everything to meet each other at year zero or year one, and every year you move
forward, each population's going to be another need.
So it gives the appearance -- and I think what is going to happen is probably as we see the population trends
further define themselves and the operations of the Sheriffs Office define themselves, there may be a need to bring
those improvements in a closer year. But until that case -- until those conversations or that realization is brought
upon, we're going to leave these next improvements in towards the outer years.
MR. SMITH: Yeah. And a good example of that would be the Orangetree substation that we have -- that the
sheriff has funded out of his budget although -- and I think everybody's aware of the fact that the sheriff, by statute,
cannot own real property. So he's dependent upon the board, and the sheriff certifies the need, and then the attendant
facilities are constructed.
We still have identified the need, you know, several years ago, still waiting on a facility. We all understand
the reasons why it hasn't been built yet, and they're acceptable. But, you know, at some point in time, the residents
who live out there deserve a permanent law enforcement presence, and those are the comments I intend to make in
front of the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do -- does the fact that the Orangetree is increasing 1,250 units that are not vested
and five times the commercial from 60,000 to 330,000 have any impact on law enforcement?
MR. SMITH: Absolutely, they do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And have you reviewed the PUD that's coming before us to see if there's any
possible way that you might find a location that might be granted for a substation out there?
MR. SMITH: We have not, but we would review any location that the county staff brings to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a week in which to get together with Kay Deselem to take a look
and see if there's anything there that works for you and the developer. The developer might find it a wise addition to
his community to have a more secure community and pacify people who are concerned about security out there,
because that is a big issue.
MR. SMITH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So something to consider.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're correct, Mark.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me go back to Mike. Here's the problem I have. You're saying that we
don't need any more money to get us through the level -of- service needs for the next five years, and then we have a
chart that shows that that's not the case. Asa matter of fact, it shows as we meet we're out of compliance. So--just
to make me feel comfortable that that chart is, you know, protected --
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the Board of County Commissioners can look at that and say, well, let's -- this is
our own decision as to whether we need to make sure that this chart is always mirroring our need with our available
inventory. Now, if they made that independently without consultation of the Sheriffs Office, I'm not sure if that would
be an appropriate decision, but they're entitled to do that.
This is a Category B facility. This is strictly us saying, these are the rules we're setting for us. And we're
setting at Year 1 and we said, we're going to align the available units with what were needed. So we know -- we've
made that recognition, so we make also -- with that recognition we have to accept that each year that goes forward
we're going to have a divergence between --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. I mean, your response should have been, nice observation, but we
don't have to -- we don't have to be that way. Okay.
MR. BOSL• That was a very good observation. We will not have to meet that obligation.
Page 87 of 91
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You want to make a motion, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we forward the 2011 AUIR law enforcement as
presented with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry Klein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
MR. SMITH: Thank you for your service to the community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. Last but not least will be the government buildings.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Camp.
MR. CAMP: For the record, I'm Skip Camp. We have no plans to do anything for a long time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that doesn't explain the buildings you lost. That's a good thing.
MR. JONES: For the record, Hank Jones, if you've got any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any plans to expand?
MR. JONES: I don't have any plans if he doesn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's good, both.
Any questions of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say -- I mean, do we have vacancies within buildings?
mean, obviously --
MR. JONES: We do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we could be bowling in some of them. So the intent is that we've got
plenty of buildings for a while, relax.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
MR. JONES: And we have no rental facilities right now. We're not leasing anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Donna.
MR. CAMP: With few exceptions. Usually for the tax collector, it's a necessity or convenience for the
taxpayers location -wise.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was just going to say, on Page 64 we have several leased facilities, so
MR. CAMP: And the one that's not -- does not fall in that category is a long -term lease with the State of
Florida, transportation. It's a dollar a year for 50 years or something.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, that's right. That was on it last year, wasn't it? Did we take it off just
because it's a dollar -a -year lease or something?
MR. JONES: No.
MR. CAMP: It's in there.
MR. JONES: It should still be here.
Page 88 of 91
go?
1_61 ..
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's on there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah, FDOT.
MR. CAMP: Yes.
MR. JONES: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I said, "You lost some buildings," you've got 12,000 feet you lost. Where'd it
MR. JONES: I think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, last year you had 906,000 square feet. This year you have 894 -. It's rounded
off to about 12,000.
MR. JONES: Well, part of the impact -fee study last year, we went through and scrubbed all of our inventory
just to make sure we were using the correct square feet. So between myself and Amy's group over there, we scrubbed
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get a little closer to the mike.
MR. JONES: I'm sorry. We scrubbed the inventory to make sure we had the same square feet on every
building. And some were using gross, some were using net, some were using inside. So we scrubbed it all out, and
this was the net result.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you used gross?
MR. JONES: We're using permitted gross square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you break out the square footage of the EOC?
MR. JONES: We break it out by room, by office, by usage space, and then we prorate the hallways and
common spaces based on the aggregate of different departments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which departments do you work with on that breakout?
MR. JONES: Let's see. The 911 center is separate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be the SO?
MR. JONES: It's in the -- I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be part of the SO's --
MR. JONES: Yes, oh, definitely. Part of the Sheriffs Office. It's a substation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So out of the square footage, how much is the SO? I mean, SO says they've got
44,133 square feet of the total square footage.
MR. JONES: Forty-four, and I think the rest in this -- I think there's a note in here it's 57,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two seventy -four.
MR. JONES: Yeah, I don't -- I think it's about 50 -- right, the 911, sheriffs substation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just from department. So you've got two departments involved in EOC.
MR. JONES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got government buildings and you've got Sheriffs Office. Who else?
MR. JONES: And EMS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How much square footage does EMS take? Because I didn't see a
breakdown in their -- well, let's take a look and see if there is a breakdown.
MR. JONES: I don't have the big spreadsheet with me, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JONES: But I can show you on the spreadsheet exactly how we've done it. But we've broken out all
those individual groups and then prorated common spaces.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- see, in years past, occasionally we would get different kinds of
breakdowns, but I don't see one for building square footage or even a reference to the EOC in the EMS categories that
are in front of us here. I find units, but no building size. And the reason that's important is I'm trying to get to the
total square footage of the EOC. Do you know what that is?
MR. JONES: About 134,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's interesting, because in the law enforcement facilities inventory
that was done to update their impact fees, they have a total square footage of the site for the EOC at 8075 Lely
Page 89 of 91
161 2 �A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting
Cultural Boulevard as being 154,388, and of which they're using 44 -.
If you pull the plans on record in SIRE, you come up with 129,543, which I probably think is closer to the
130- you're referring to. But yet your guys are claiming 57,274, with the 44- to the sheriffs. That leaves 30,000
unaccounted for. Is that what you're telling me the EMS people use?
MR. JONES: Yes, probably about -- that's about right for a magnitude.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as far as the EOC goes -- because that was one of the buildings that
you've got in here, I wanted to make sure of -- all of the square footage was accounted for.
So eventually when I get around to talking to the EMS, they're going to be able to verify that they've got
about 30,000 square feet?
MR. JONES: Absolutely. The parties have all agreed upon the split -up of the square footage as well.
MR. CAMP: And we actually -- every month, because we have to prorate all the utilities, we'll get you that
spreadsheet that shows exactly the amount of square feet that's assigned to each department.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that would be great. Just email it to me, and that would be -- all of us. That
would be great.
Actually, send it to Mike. He can distribute it. It would be easier than trying to figure out where nine of us
live, and emails.
Your impact fees, you kind of did what the Sheriffs Department did. I'm curious to see what your
explanation was.
In 2009 you had 3.4 million in impact fees, dropped -- was 7.3 in 2008. In 2010 you dropped down to 2.3,
and then in this upcoming year you're predicting 3.5. Do you really think -- oh, they got -- Susan, I can come down
and talk to you about this later then.
MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, Chair. I should have -- all the impact -fee projections come from OMB. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: He just wants every penny accounted for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we've got more money out there, now's a real good time to know about it,
so--
And that's almost -- I think that's everything I've got on government buildings, yeah. Everything else looks
status quo. You're not building anything new, thankfully, and -- except for all those $10,000 desks, but we won't talk
about that.
Anybody have any other issues?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion then?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make a motion that we forward the 2011 AUIR for government
buildings as presented with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert made the second.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Thank you, gentlemen. I know you've waited patiently all day. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Mike, that brings us to the end of a glorious day. It's been entertaining and fun. Thank you.
Page 90 of 91
16 12 A4
September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUlR/CIE "Special' Meeting
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate the time, diligence, and the questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before we leave, I want to say one more thing. Ms. Caron, we are going to
miss you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has been a real pleasure working with you. And I hope that if you reapply it all
works out. I know how things work sometimes and they don't work. But you have been an asset to this community
and this board. So thank you again for everything you've done for us.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I appreciate it. It's been a pleasure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll be looking for you as a consultant for one of those developers in the
crowd out there.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, not a heckler.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let Donna make it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I motion we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With everybody in agreement, we're adjourned.
Thank you, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 4:17 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
G �
MARK S RAIN, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on tip' 3 l , as presented or as corrected V
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER ANDNOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 91 of 91
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 3 a 3 R W 3
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION O
Naples, Florida NOV 0 '2011
October 6, 2011
BY: .......................
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
Fiala —
Hiiier
Henning
Coyle ✓
Coletta �_ -----
Mark Strain, Chairman
Melissa Ahern
Philip Brougham
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Barry Klein
Paul Midney (Absent)
Brad Schiffer
Misc. Corres:
Date: va kyz
Item #: V 'rte
ALSO PRESENT: C^�ies to:
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Page 1 of 89
ibl'2A4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, October 6th meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Before the roll call, just so the secretary knows, we have a new person
on board. I wish to welcome Philip Brougham. He's the guy way over there on my left, your right. Phil, welcome.
We've got a busy schedule. You walked into a day that will probably be one of our longer ones. And we have a very
busy month ahead of us.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know you're doing it just for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, it's initiation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What a way to break in.
Okay, Secretary, do the roll call, please.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? Absent.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here.
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
* *The addenda to the agenda. We have a couple things. The mobility plan that was 10.13 will be moved up
to the first thing on the agenda. It's a short presentation as an update.
I understand the bulk of the plan will be coming to us next month, but I guess because we had to
accommodate some people who felt there were more important things to do than attend this meeting, so -- so we had
to let them move first before we go into that, though.
Also then under old -- actually new business, I'll add the first October meeting. We always elect new officers
for the Planning Commission. So we'll do that at that time.
* *And then the next item up is Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is October 14th. Now,
that's unusual because that's a Friday. It's next Friday at 9:00. And it is the workshop. Does anybody know if they're
not going to make it to that workshop?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we can't finish that particular day -- it's on the EAR, and we received that
book a week or so ago -- it will continue on the 18th, which is a Tuesday. Anybody know -- okay for that day?
Then our regular meeting is on the 20th of October. Everybody fine with that?
Okay, so we should have quorums.
"The approval of the minutes. We have three sets of minutes that were sent to us electronically. The first
one is August 18th. I'll need a motion on each one, or corrections.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Homiak.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
Page 2 of 89
16 1 P2 A 4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brougham, you were --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Should I abstain, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be a smart thing to do. So we have one abstention and, one, two, three,
four, five, six approved.
I'm assuming, Mr. Brougham, you'll probably do the same on the next two.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September 1 st, 2011.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Homiak. Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schiffer. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
And one abstention by Mr. Brougham. Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
September 15th.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same motion by Ms. Homiak --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody voting no?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And one abstention, Mr. Brougham.
Thank you.
Page 3 of 89
6 I 1 -`_- 'T
1
October 6, 2011
* *BCC report and recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on September 27th the Board of County Commissioners heard the Ronto Livingston
DRI extension. That was approved on their summary agenda.
On the regular agenda the Cope Reserve RPUD was continued to the October 11th BCC meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cope Reserve, that's an old -- that was a while back, wasn't it?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the Planning Commission heard that a bit ago, but it was scheduled for the 27th for
BCC and it was continued. I think the reason was they wanted to address the -- I think it was the parking -- not the
parking, the road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, we're working with the -- they asked the applicant to work with
the neighbors --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So County Barn -- and that Falling Waters and that whole interaction there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
* *Chairman's report. Just a couple of things. Mr. Brougham, since you're new, and for the others who may
have forgotten, everybody needs to be recognized before we -- to the best of our ability, and talk at a moderate level
of speed so the court reporter can accurately take our minutes.
And that's the other part of the report is the disappointment today is Cherie's here -- I mean, Terry's not here.
Oh, I said that wrong. Cherie' and Terry are our court reporters. And Terry has got this habit -- this daughter who has
a habit of snaking us desserts for our commission. Cherie' hasn't got into that habit yet, but I'm hoping to embarrass
her into it.
With that, we'll move on.
* *The consent agenda. I don't believe -- yeah, we have nothing on our consent agenda, which moves us into
our first item today, which is 10.13, moved to the front, which is the mobility plan. This is a presentation.
The plan itself -- this is an update of the plan. The plan itself is coming to us at a later time. And I guess staff
wanted to just provide us with an update. And we've got Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Nick Casalanguida. And Planning
Commissioners, and welcome, Mr. Brougham, I think you'll find this at least interesting the way Mark runs the
meetings, and we'll go from there.
First of all, Mr. Chairman is correct, this is just an update, a presentation, foster more interaction with the
public, let them know about what we're doing, up to speed, let the Planning Commissioners know and encourage
people to stay involved. It's been a very active project, a lot of people have participated.
It's the Collier County Master Mobility Plan. And I'm going to introduce the project team members. It's
Collier County. And the Lee consultant is Tindale- Oliver and Associates. We have Jeff Perry from
WilsonMiller- Stantec. Bob Mulhere from Mulhere and Associates. And AIM Engineering doing the traffic analysis.
And one more team member that's not named there is the public, because the public has really jumped into this plan.
It has become their plan. Most of the comments and the direction we've taken is from public comment.
Project overview. U.S. Department of Energy grant to develop a conceptual long -range vision of what
Collier County will look like, and then try and work towards reducing the need for asphalt, reduce the need for people
to drive as far as they drive and how often they drive. It's a coordinated resource -- coordination for all resources to
build out, it's a very high level approach.
Why are we doing this? Some people say is it because you're really concerned about just greenhouse gases?
Well, that's one component of it and that's what the grant focuses on. But let's talk about some of the other areas that
were focused on as well.
Your variance and needs plan versus cost feasible. And I'll touch on that a little more later.
Your cost of asset management. Congestion you deal with daily, the value of your time, environmental
conservation.
Now, when you talk about a mobility plan and you say environmental conservation. Why do those two link
together? Because the more you have to build, the more lands you impact, they do go hand in hand. And again, why
we have the grant is pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Interesting, overall needs plan, this is from your 2035 LRTP. And remember, we're talking 2035, not 2080.
So this is just an interim analysis. In present day costs, it's six billion dollars. If you inflated the cost of doing
Page 4 of 89
16 I ' A
October 6, 2011
business over time, it's 10 billion dollars. That's what today you model and you need to spend on infrastructure to get
to 2035. So you can imagine what that number would be in 2080.
Your cost feasible plan. Basically this is what we have projected for revenues going forward out to 2035, in
the year of expenditure, 1.4 billion dollars.
So when you look at a needs of six billion inflated out to 10 and costs of one billion, you see a deficit of five
to almost, you know, nine billion dollars that you can't afford to build based on what you need. That ought to wake
people up a little it.
So the land use that you have today -- I want to repeat this because it's very important -- and the money that
you have projected going forward, you can't meet the need.
So you have two options when you look at something like that. I treat this as a business. You're paying the
growth management division staff to project out and build mobility. And you can't finance that mobility. So that's
one of the key reasons this project also moves forward.
Cost of asset management. We look at three different scenarios: Good, fair and poor, and then actual and
black to your right. We are below poor right now in maintaining our assets. And the bulk of that black line right now
is landscaping that's maintained to the good. Because once landscaping is not maintained, it drops to poor and dead
real quick. But your signal systems, your asphalt, signage, bridges, weirs, are not being maintained to the poor level
right now.
Now, we're not alone. The rest of the country's in the same shape and is struggling to do asset management.
Reducing vehicles miles traveled. Right now your 2035 LRTP indicates 16 million vehicle miles traveled per
day. That's not annually, that's per day, how many people -- how far people will drive in Collier County in 2035. We
haven't interpolated that out or run that model out to 2080 yet. Consider that's a 10 percent reduction, 1.6 million
miles reduction, if we can eliminate that portion of it. Current price of gasoline, $3.50 a gallon; average gas mileage,
20 miles per gallon; savings of 285,000 per day. Overall $104 million saved per year in gas purchases.
Keep going forward. Reducing VMT, less fuel, 81,000 gallons of fuel saved per day, 29 million per year.
So just to give you a feel for what we're doing, in our application we talked about a four percent reduction as
probably more realistic. Ten was just used as an analysis point.
Greenhouse gas emission, pounds of carbon, 1.6 million pounds less per day and 584 million less per year.
Interesting article, in something -- in Rolling Stone about Australia. They're the largest greenhouse gas
producer in the world, largest carbon footprint. Because between automobiles and coal production, and they're
experiencing a tremendous effect on greenhouse gas emissions in their area. So it's a real problem but we're focusing
on all ends of it.
Some of the reduction benefits. I won't go through these in detail. But the health benefits, reduction in need
for foreign oil, reduce the impact of the transportation footprint, encourage people to walk, ride and take transit.
There are three key phases: Data collection; it was done over a year and a half ago. And we're in Phase II
right now: Analysis, plan development and recommendations. Phase III is yet to follow.
Some of the project goals. It started out we're going to do a master plan but, you know, with comments from
the public we changed that to a conceptual mobility vision plan and sub - master plans, conceptual, so things we could
look at in terms of infrastructure, land use, mobility and the environment, with the ultimate goal reducing vehicle
miles traveled.
Then you see a new acronym, VHT, vehicle hours traveled. While, if you want to drive and you're in
congestion, you may not drive that far because you can't get there, but you could be sitting in traffic much longer.
That's your time in traffic. So by providing connectivity, by planning properly you can reduce both of those, VMT
and VHT. VHT is a component of that carbon gas emission, because if you're spending a lot of time in a vehicle,
obviously you're producing more carbon emission.
Project goals continued. Minimize potential environmental impacts, conduct an economic evaluation, VMT
and VHT reduction, and job retention and creation.
Someone said job retention and creation? The Anderson Report that was done a while back where they
looked at what we spent our impact fees on in terms of infrastructure, one of the biggest reasons why people stay
where they are or come to a new location is because you have mobility. You know, you're not going to foster jobs if
someone comes to a community that's congested. And if you look at some of the more metropolitan -- or cities that
have (sic) extremely congested, they lose employment because people say this is not a good place to run a business,
Page 5 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
my employees can't get there, my customers can't get there.
We're talking about memorandums of understanding. And people have talked about that, what are those?
One of the things we've not done a good job at as a community and as Collier County staff is work with our agency
and non - agency partners, the NGOs, non - governmental organizations, Fish & Wildlife, DEP, the U.S. Army Corps.
There's always conflicting interests in what -- in your long -term visions and goals. So these memorandums are to say
we're going work together, we're going to meet on a regular basis, we're going to discuss our needs together and we're
going to plan accordingly together.
A lot of the comments we received from the agencies have said you haven't looked out at the build -out of
Collier County and looked at overall goals to reduce your impact, so that makes us a little nervous.
Project evolution through public involvement. What changed? We originally started asking to see if we could
partner with some private entities. We did not. So there is no developer contribution, this is strictly county time and
effort in the grant that's involved.
As of March 8th, all team meetings were open to the public. We've taped them. They're audiotaped so you
can actually listen to the interaction between staff, the consultants and members of the public that have attended.
Original terminology of master plans have evolved to concept plans. People were concerned if we used the
word master plan it would set things in stone. These are conceptual plans to look at things that we could do.
And conceptual build -out of highway network evolved to policy recommendations. We made pretty much an
agreement with the public that have interacted and said we're not going to take roads off, we're not going to add roads,
because that's really not the goal of the plan. The goal of the plan is to come up with recommendations to reduce the
need and greenhouse gases.
We talked about memorandums of understanding. And we'll talk about public involvement in a little bit. And
I want to read you a quote that we got last night from Nancy Payton. Those of you who know Nancy, I don't know if
she's in the audience this morning. She's not, but I'll read to you what she said.
Debbie, access to the staff and team meetings, along with the ability to participate, is unprecedented.
Unprecedented is what she said. Coming from Nancy, that's a big word.
The website is top notch with materials, documents, minutes and related information easily found, viewed
and retrieved. I appreciate its simplicity. Glad to offer my opinion, Nancy.
So that's a comment from Nancy.
We talked about the public meetings that we have, and we have more scheduled.
Project website. We list all the meeting events, we advertise all the meeting times, places, locations. And
you can review all the documents that we're looking at at the same time as we are because we post them on the
website at the same time.
This is a project website snapshot to look at. And you can submit your comments any time and review the
materials that we have and download them.
I'm going to get into Phase II in a second. I wanted to talk about a couple of important dates. And I believe
October 19th is the day we'll distribute the draft plan. That will be on our website, so everybody will be able to
download it. We don't plan coming back to the Planning Commission until November.
Now, we do have a workshop scheduled with you. We're going to meet with the EAC, CAC and PAC, the
advisory committees of the MPO. That's going to be open to the public and advertised as such. We also have another
nighttime public meeting. I believe those dates are November 1 st and November 9th. Debbie, correct me if I'm
wrong. Okay.
So there are several more opportunities for the public after the draft plan comes out to comment again. And I
believe it's become their plan based on their comments.
I have Mr. Robert Mulhere here, who I'd like to take you through the Phase 11. And then he'll introduce Jeff
Perry to talk about some of the technical data. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you, Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, this was supposed to be a -- the reason we allowed it to be moved up on
the schedule, it was supposed to be brief. We do have questions from both the Planning Commission and the
audience. But brief. And the last time I spoke to you, it was 20 minutes. There are a lot of people here looking at
some other items that are important to them.
So I'm not saying this isn't important, but I need you to keep it as brief as you intended to, because I still want
Page 6 of 89
October 6, 2011
to have adequate time for this Board to ask their questions.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'll be very brief Thank you. Bob Mulhere for the record.
The Phase II project plan includes an analysis of the build -out data. We are continuing to gather input from
public and stakeholders. Then we review that available data, we conduct a preliminary analysis. We are formulating
potential concepts. We've test chosen some VMT reduction strategies and we're evaluating those. And from that we'll
develop preliminary concept plans and then finalize the master mobility plan.
From that there have been some emerging themes. These have come really, as Nick indicated, from the
public. Probably the single most often cited emerging theme has been connectivity and the need for greater
connectivity. The second probably most often cited emerging theme has been that the county can't be looked at as
whole, as a single component, geographic component, that there are sub -areas within the county and all those
sub -areas have unique characteristics.
It's understood that we can affect mobility through land use, through infrastructure and environmental
preservation. We should look at incentives to promote urban infill and redevelopment. And generally incentives
were suggested as an appropriate means of furthering mobility.
We should promote walkable communities. We should emphasize the use of greenways, pedestrian/bicycle
corridors and have enhanced safety and connectivity within those infrastructure elements.
And paramount, to protect the valuable natural resource and ecosystems that this county is blessed with and
to encourage and incentivize, again, transit oriented development.
As I said, there were planning sub -areas emerged as a theme. We've identified six sub - areas, including
environmental protected lands and also by looking at existing development patterns and the unique characteristics and
needs and the development potential of those sub - areas.
And the concepts, there will be some that are countywide but there will also be some that apply to each of the
sub -areas and may apply uniquely to one or several of the sub - areas.
So here are the -- that's the county, and this is the protected and sensitive lands that you see in the light green
color. The first sub -area would be the urban coastal area shown by that orange dotted line there. And then there's the
Immokalee urban area. Golden Gate Estates, really north Golden Gate Estates and urban, there's a little bit of urban
Estates in there. Orangetree. The rural fringe receiving areas, there are four of those shown in purple. And the rural
land stewardship area, which is outlined in the pink there.
From the themes that we discussed, the one of connectivity being most often cited, we're looking at that really
in three components, a regional mobility, major circulation within the sub -areas and local circulation, which is really
at the project level.
So if you think about it, you're talking about roads and transit and connectivity off to Hendry County, to Lee
County, and then between each of the sub - areas. And then as you move down to the next level, transit and bicycle
and even walking become more important, particularly at the project level.
And this exhibit shows the regional mobility concept, shows connectivity from Collier County to its
neighbors.
This slide shows major circulation within the sub - areas. You can see the red arrows indicate the major
roadways and the connectivity that will connect these roadways. And you can see also where it's lacking. And then
local circulation at the project level.
And this just shows an example of where there is a gridded street pattern and there's a lot of connectivity,
people can find multiple ways to get from one point to the other. And there's also sidewalks and so on and so forth.
At this point I'm going to introduce Jeff Perry, who's going to come up and talk about -- briefly talk about
some other items. Thank you.
MR. PERRY: Thank you, Bob. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
One of the challenges we faced early on in considering connectivity was really how to measure it, how to
identify whether or not certain strategies that we came up with might actually make a difference.
We were fortunate enough to have access to the Metropolitan Planning Organization travel demand model,
it's the model that's used in the long -range transportation plan. It goes out to the year 2035.
We took that model and loaded it with a build -out scenario, what we called the baseline condition. That
would be the business as usual land use, what happens if you just simply applied the Future Land Use Map conditions
to the traffic analysis zones within the model, built everything out to the year, we estimate somewhere around 2080,
Page 7 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
based upon previous studies, and then ran the travel model.
With that travel model we can then change different things. We can change the network, we can change the
land use configuration within the model and then we can compare that with the baseline condition.
And while the baseline condition is really a raw guess as to what would be like -- what our world would be
like in the year 2080, what's important is the difference that you get between the base condition and the revised
condition, what we're calling scenario. So it's not so much about what happens in the base condition but what you get
as a result in change by doing something.
In the first example, we took an area that in the model did not have a lot of interconnected roadways. It's out
in the eastern area, we picked an area that was sort of devoid in the model of any sort of interconnections. What we
did was we added some local road interconnections in the model, reran the same dataset, the same land use
configuration, all of the other characteristics the same. And we found that the actual vehicle miles of travel on a
countywide basis went down substantially, 278,000 vehicle miles traveled per day decrease. But we noticed that there
was an increase within what we call the sub -area, this little sub -area that we analyzed.
Correspondingly there was reduction in vehicles hours of travel, again both in the countywide and also in the
sub -area.
And what this means to us is that there are more people choosing to travel within this close knit area where
we've interconnected these zones. People are not traveling longer distances outside of this sub -area, they're actually
traveling more -- or more of their travel is actually staying within the sub -area. So although we had a countywide
decrease, we actually saw an increase where we wanted them, where -- this small compact area of development.
Couple of examples of connectivity, the good and the bad, if you will. And we'll start with the bad first. The
Island Walk community on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We looked at our model and said the model tells us that
Vanderbilt Beach Road we know today is carrying about 16,000 vehicles per day. In the year 2080 or at build -out it
will be carrying almost 50,000 vehicles per day on this particular facility.
The people in Island Walk have to enter and exit basically from one point onto Vanderbilt Beach Road.
There's a shopping center just down the road, the Mission Hills Shopping Center, where they could go to grocery shop
and take care of personal business. They can't get there without getting out onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. There is no
interconnection from Island Walk to a local street system that was identified just for this type of purpose.
Another project that you're probably familiar with, up on Pine Ridge Road, the area between Livingston Road
and Whippoorwill, there is an intergraded, interconnected roadway system planned to allow these parcels -- travel
from these parcels to go between the parcels, actually get all the way from Whippoorwill all the way over to
Livingston Road. So this is sort of an example of how you can at the local level, at the parcel level create
interconnectivity.
On the north side of Pine Ridge Road, those commercial areas there and the residential neighborhoods behind
are not interconnected. You cannot get to those commercial developments immediately across the street, because of
walls, without getting out onto Livingston Road and traveling on Pine Ridge Road to get into the gas station or the
Perkins or whatever the restaurants happen to be there.
Couple of examples of what we would consider well - connected communities, well- interconnected
communities. The Lely Resort development out on the East Trail, fronting on U.S. 41, as well as Collier Boulevard
and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, all with a publicly accessible spine road system that goes throughout the
community. There's schools, there's colleges, there's public facilities inside the communities, as well as commercial
development adjacent to as part of the community.
The last one is the Vineyards development, the portion of the Vineyards DRI that is between Pine Ridge
Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road on the east side of 1 -75. Again, another well - connected community, it has a spine
road that goes from one end to the other. Schools, commercial, hospital, just about everything that someone would
need for a substantial amount of their trip making can be found actually within that development, eliminating the need
to travel along the major highway.
In closing, the sub -area planning connectivity themes I think were probably the most prominent themes that
we learned from our public involvement. The idea of having incentive -based solutions that really deal with trying to
maximize your land uses, integrating your land uses through good mix of developments, interconnections, elevating
transit as opposed to highway to a more important role in the future. And always keeping in mind that environmental
protection is very important to us and needs to be considered in all of our decision- making processes, including this.
Page 8 of 89
161 , .i
ctober k,041
And I think with that, Nick, did you have some closing statements or take any questions that the Commission
has.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and by the way, members of the public will be allowed to speak on this issue
as soon as we finish with the questions from the Planning Commission.
Members of the Planning Commission? Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question on questions. Should we get into the nitty- gritty at this time
or just really stay at the --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd prefer you didn't, I think it's just if you have questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that's in this book is open game, as far as I'm --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, you can talk about it. But I just -- you're going to get a lot more follow -up
when you get into the plan review, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll hold on --
MR. BELLOWS: -- with another hearing. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If you could very briefly, Nick. Concepts are fine, you know, and I
couldn't argue with anything that has been presented this morning at all.
What's the relative time frame when you start to integrate the concepts with land development and
transportation planning, you know, down to the level of one -year, two -year, three -year, PUD reviews and so forth. It
would appear that you have to at some point implerent concepts down into changes in regulations and procedures
and so forth. Well, you're talking about 2080, I won't be here. But what's your perspective?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The completion of this project for Phase II is this December /January, with the
policy recommendations going to the Board of County Commissioners. From there we'll draft language, vet it again
through the public over a six -month period. And then you have to go through another process of the LDC
amendments or GMP amendments to follow through.
So some could be done fairly quickly. I would say six months to nine months, the ones that are simple and
non - controversial. The ones that will require more thoughtful consideration with members of the public and sub -areas
might take 12 months, another 18 months before they actually become a requirement.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more, Mark, if I might?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: With the view in mind that some of these concepts will become changes
in -- regulation changes in LDC code and so forth, are you giving major developers a heads up on these concepts early
on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're also part of the stakeholders. We had 300 stakeholders that were
contacted in terms of that. And all of them -- a lot of them were major landowners as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, let's start with the first foldout in our folder. Just as a statement, you've
mentioned a list of tools that you may be looking at to incorporate under this plan. One of them is HOV -- HOT
lanes. I travel the country in a motor home and I see these lanes on many states. And one thing that I just am shocked
at is how little they're used, and at the, what, huge costs they were to implement, both in road width and additional
asphalt or concrete.
So before we would consider them in Collier County, I hope we would make sure they're something that is a
viable usage. I mean, it's nice to have a lane say it's dedicated for people using multiple passengers, but when nobody
really uses it because that's not the way they go to work and the way they do things, it becomes a really expensive,
useless tool.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Great point. And I think that would not be considered on your Collier County
grid, where I -75 goes through Collier County. Typical like your urban areas, Boston, New York, outside flowing into
a city, you would look at I -75 maybe having an HOV or multi - person lane. But I don't see that on a local Collier
County facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that same page under the environment you listed concept, you listed tools. You
listed three programs or three things under tools: The stewardship program, the TDR program incentive, and then
Page 9 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
incentives preserving open space.
Why did you limit those programs to the tools in that category? There are other -- I mean, the GMP and the
CCME within the GMP, and the Golden Gate Master Plan and the Immokalee -- all those have references to
environmental issues in other parts of the GMP. Why wouldn't we list the GMP as well? Why are we giving
preferential treatment to any particular segment of the community?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not. Those were some of the things we've noted, but we're not restricted in
any way, shape or form at this phase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just would like to see if you're going to use -- if you're going to list one, like
a master plan or one area's overlay, you ought to list the others to be fair. I mean, I think that would be better.
The RLSA. As you know, that was about 2000 or so, 2004 that was put into play. WilsonMiller I believe
were the chief architects of that.
Do you believe that's a competent plan, well done?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it has its merits and it could be improved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the -- well, knowing the planners that did it and knowing their alliances
with other parties in that area, I doubt if there's a line on that boundary that wasn't well thought out. And the reason
I'm pointing it out is on the cover plan it shows the RLSA in a more concise pattern towards the center of the county,
except there's a tail going all the way down and purposely touching I -75.
1 believe that tail was put there and taken down to I -75 for a specific purpose. And I'll show you why that
may be something that this plan could look more closely at when we -- in a couple more pages.
And one of the pages where it starts is you have a page titled Transit Service and Roadways. And on that one
you have an orange triangle, it says potential interchange at Everglades Boulevard and 1 -75. And in my discussions
with you, you said that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be in that location, but if we get the application for that
area, it can be easily slid by an amendment to another portion along that area.
In regards to that, I'd rather we not --just like in the AUIR, we don't start locking ourselves in to a specific
location, especially when we have an overlay such as the RLSA specifically outlined to take its boundaries down to
1 -75, and we have a major developer with a town much bigger than Ave Maria who is proposing to line up an
entrance and an exit on I -75 with this town within the RLSA which is to the east of Everglades Boulevard and would
save us addressing 900 takings of private properties and 700 driveways onto a road system that isn't to the best benefit
of this community or the cost -wise.
So what I would suggest, instead of pinpointing Everglades on this map, that we use an oval or a rectangle
area showing that within this area there's going to be a new interchange, instead of pinpointing singularly one.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to your comments, I think we used the 2035 LRTP, and
we did it for a reason, because we said that takes the subjectivity out of our opinions of where it could be moved, your
opinions or anybody else's. And we said this plan is not going to focus on one specific capital project, nor will it -- in a
positive way or a negative way. We're not going to say we've got to push this project.
I mean, we could have looked at 951, the loop road in Immokalee. We said we're not going to get into those
discussions, because the bulk of the reason we're doing this plan is to lower demand, not to argue about one project or
a specific location. So I'm using the 2035 LRTP as a reference point, and that's all we're using it for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this Board doesn't get to weigh in on the LRTP, we only get to weigh in on
these plans. If in fact we can weigh in on these, I will.
And I also know staff, you have this habit of down the road saying, well, look -it, we've shown this on these
plans all this time, what do you mean move it now? It's been here, we've already spent money on this, now we have
to go forward.
I'm trying to avoid that scenario. Because even if whether you're in your position today or another one or not
even here, some bureaucrat down the road may decide that this signifies where it was supposed to go, you all were
given informed information, and by God, we spent money there and that's how it's going to go. And that's not the way
it needs to go. We need to think it out better than that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm happy to notate the comments you've given as well as note on the plan that it's
in application stage and subject to move. So we're happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That same scenario appears on quite a few other pages with that same
triangle on the same interchange.
Page 10 of 89
16 1 r2 A 4
October 6, 2011
In your master mobility plan complete street series, it's interesting, because the details you show there show a
four -lane and then a two -lane road. And the comment up above, depending on adjacent land uses and traffic
characteristics, a two -lane road with a median turn lane may operate more efficiently than a fouillane road without a
center turn lane.
Yet we have -- and I believe the philosophy of the transportation department is to use six -lane roads.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As its arterial roadway network, not local or collector road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I think is interesting here is that the four -foot bike lanes that are
alongside some of our major roads in this county, that in any opinion are extremely dangerous, are shown only on the
two -lane road. On the four -lane road we had enough sense to move those bike lanes off to the side and over into a
right -of -way that's outside the curbed area of the road.
I think that's a good plan. And I just wanted to comment that if this is the design we're going forward with,
that's a heck of a lot better than the one we're putting where people are traveling 50 and 60 miles an hour next to a
four -lane bike lane with the people trying to ride bikes safely there. I think it's only asking for people to get hurt.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, to that comment, I agree with you, and I think the county
transportation staff, which I also work with, has looked at that, and we are starting to incorporate those greenway
projects into our facility designs and eliminating some of those bike lanes, where it's feasible.
We do have a member of the community that's not represented today, and it is the bicycle /pedestrian
community. And they speak very vocally about the bike lanes. So you balance those two out and we try and
accommodate all the requests.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The people in the bike club that promotes this so heavily, they tend to be a handful
of professional bikers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very vocal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very vocal, right. But that's not the far vast majority of people in Collier County,
nor are those lanes used by the vast majority of people in Collier County, because you put kids and families out there,
they're going to get run over like flies. And it's just not fair to encourage that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We share your concerns, and we definitely take those into account.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your Golden Gate Estates and Orangetree section -- which by the way,
Orangetree is part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan -- you have talked about a proposed Transfer of Development
Rights Program. And it's also in the Watershed Management Plan that's up for discussion, which I doubt we'll get to
today, but it's on today's agenda.
One of the things in there is promote clustering of development. Where is it your intentions are of promoting
clustering of development?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nowhere right now, sir. I think the concept is to vet that and see where it would
be more feasible. It could be in a very sub -area of the Estates, saying from the ones farthest away to a more urban
portion of the Estates. It could be from the Estates to the receiving areas in the rural fringe districts there. That would
take a lot of vetting. We'd have to communicate with the folks and those residents.
But it's come up twice. It's come up on your watershed management plans and the ability to preserve areas.
And for our mobility plan it says, look, you have two and a half acre lots and they're to the extreme east. If you could
take that development right and move it farther west -- and west is yet to be determined, you know. Some people
have expressed concern, are you saying all the way to the coast? No. Are we saying to the urban Estates? Maybe.
Are we saying to the rural Estates? Maybe.
That has to be discussed with the people that would be affected by that. So that's something we would vet
farther out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're coming to us with a plan in 19th October, that means you're going to
have all that vetted out by the 19th?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, that's a policy recommendation. So what I would bring to this
Commission as well as the Board of County Commissioners and say it is a viable option for us to consider, do you
agree that that may be something we want to do. And if you do, take it to the next phase. You'd set up stakeholder
groups that are reflected specifically from that area and work with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you ask that question of someone living in the urban area if they'd care
if the Golden Gate Estates has clustering and more density, they're probably going to say no. But you ask somebody
Page 11 of 89
16 1 2 A4
October 6, 2011
living in the Estates that isn't planning on selling their house and making money off increased densities but wanting to
live there in the tranquility that they moved to, they may not be in the same frame of mind. So I hope you ask the
right people the right question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We will, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your concept tools, you talk about varied development review process, less
stringent in the urban core and more stringent in the outer areas.
Now, it would seem just the opposite. Because the urban core is where you have all the higher intensity
problems and congestion and setbacks and heights and other restrictions, more so than you have those kind of
concerns out in the urban area. And I just -- I'm wondering why that concept is set that way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's more geared towards redevelopment and what I would call infill. Because your
requirements right now for redevelopment, whether to be brought to county standards now, prohibit a lot of this from
happening.
So if you've got a site that's either infill or redevelopment and you can become a little less stringent with some
of your requirements, you'll promote that infill and redevelopment, with the concept of connecting both bike path, and
like we talked about with what Mr. Perry had shown you, the Pineview PUD. That's an urban project.
So if we said you could reduce the buffers a little bit, you might be able to change, but get that connection in,
and that's more important. And that's what we talked about, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your connectivity page. You talk about connectivity, connectivity between
developments.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not all developments want connectivity. In fact, I'm sure we're going to be hearing
from the Orangetree people today, especially in the part of Valencia over there by the golf course. Some of that
interconnectivity, and especially the one to Orange Blossom Ranch, is not desired because it would encroach upon
their security.
So how are you going to analyze or how are you going to suggest we increase connectivity, when it may not
be in the best interest of the neighborhoods that are trying to be interconnected?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I would say to you, sir, and to the folks in the audience, you're retrofitting a
project. That's always more of a challenge. If it was designed that way in the first place, which is our goal, then you
wouldn't have that problem.
But I will tell you, connectivity does not increase crime. It actually has been shown to decrease crime. And
you look at it now, and I'm addressing you but it's to member of the public as well. You're looking at 2011 today. Go
out to 2080 when your major arterial roads are carrying their maximum capacity and then think about connectivity,
your ability to want to be able to get to some services within your development.
And the challenge you have is folks are thinking today, this is how I feel today. But 20, 30 years from now
that connectivity means the difference between getting onto a road that's carrying 50,000 cars, traveling two miles and
being in traffic for an hour versus walking across the street, through a walkable path or driving your car internally to
that shopping center, picking up your milk and going home without ever having to touch that major road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as time goes on and our population increases and our statistics for crime
change -- right now we're fortunate, our Sheriffs doing a good job, he's keeping crime down, but that is going to
change as we grow and grow and Miami spreads and Tampa spreads and everybody starts looking at us as an enclave
that needs to grow as well.
I think a lot of people may prefer security over more traffic running through their neighborhoods and losing
some of that safety, and rather spend more time on the road. So as we get into the plan, I certainly don't think we need
to make the connectivity that's the biggest issue in regards to safety and security of the communities that it involves.
So something I'll be looking at, at least.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talk about employment. And I'm not sure how you rate employment, but I'll be
looking for that in this new plan, because you have details that are predicated upon enough employment, and
employment minimums in towns and villages. So I'm sure you're going to try to figure out some unique way that
needs to be regulated. But I'd be curious to see what that is. I noticed it was in one of our pages.
Also, you spent a lot of time on the mobility plan laying out the employment to population ratio in various
Page 12 of 89
161' A,4,
Oc of er
parts of the county. And I thought that was a little bit strange because some of the statistics and demographics for
Collier County show that we have a large body of retirees, of people who don't necessarily come here seeking
employment, but they come here seeking retirement.
I'm not sure why your employment ratios then become that relevant witho similar analysis as to how
many people in that area of employment you're talking about are really retirees who a e not seeking employment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can probably clarify that. Your employment is just a category term in terms of
transportation analysis. Residential employment. You look at a town, use Ave Maria because it's the newest town in
the RLSA. Employment is also services. We call it employment for the purposes of modeling, but it's services to the
people that are there. Having that mix.
It's the attraction generation. A residential unit is a generator. The attractor or the recipient end is either
employment -- when you talk about employment, it's going to the doctors' office, it's going to purchase your groceries,
it's going to recreate. Those are employment. The closer those relationships are together, the less people drive.
So when you look at future towns or future development, the more the ratio has that component called
employment, which could be recreation destinations, shopping, medical, banking, whatever the things that the people
do that are close to where they are, we categorize it employment for traffic analysis, but they're destinations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but at the same time I would hate to see you, as you have tried to in the past,
use the need for more commercial in areas like Golden Gate Estates as a reason to disrupt the rural character of that
area. And that seems to lend credence as to where this reference to population and employment ratio is trying to go.
And as you just said, if you increase commercial and you increase services in there, you increase the
employment. But that's not why a lot of people may have moved there.
I'm not speaking just for the Estates, people across this county have moved in their communities for specific
reasons. Mobility or not, that's not an excuse to destroy the lifestyles they've chose to move there for.
So I don't know how you've addressed all this in the final draft or these things you're coming forward with,
but I wanted to give you kind of a preview of the things I'm going to be looking at. And I'm sure Debbie's very
grateful that you're standing here today instead of herself.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me address that real quick because it -- we'll go to some of the other questions.
We recognize through the public involvement, we've had many people attend these meetings. One of the key
things that Mr. Mulhere pointed out and Mr. Perry and myself is the themes that have come from public comment.
They said all of Collier County is not the same. They kept saying that over and over again.
Your comment about the Estates echoes with the same comments the public has. While if you were
redrawing the Estates today you would do it differently, we recognize that the character there is special to those
people. And so those concepts have to be tempered with their desires for what they want.
While we may propose things, we're going to take their comments and say, love to do it for planning
purposes, but the group that resides out there and has met with us doesn't appreciate that, so we're going to take that
off the table. That's the whole process that we're working for is to give them a voice in this process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, Nick. And based on what I've heard, the public process has been --
there's been quite a bit of public input. And that's good. But it doesn't mean that this Board's going to let up
necessarily in any of the questions we're going to have.
I did notice there was -- included in our packet were the minutes from the EAC. And I had one comment
there, a couple, at least. Talked about under the staff discussions the following were highlighted. And it's talking
about the master mobility plan as presented by Bob Mulhere and Tim Durham. And it said, consideration should be
given to incorporating existing examples of land use into the plan, i.e., Mercato, Naples Boulevard.
Now, Naples Boulevard I believe is where Costco is and --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- those big boxes. I understand that. And that seems to be a pretty successful
development. They've got a lot of stuff there.
Mercato is built out. But that's a mixed use development, which we wanted in this county as an incentive to
do more mixed use. We use that kind of an example.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how many residential units are actually sold in Mercato?
Because my under -- from what I've heard, there's not that many. So do you have -- how successful was the
Page 13 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
mixed use concept on the first example that you all are considering or someone's considering to use?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, the problem that goes with that is your price points. Mixed use on
41 in residential versus mixed use in other areas, what I consider mixed use is not as much as Mercato price point
wise. The concept is there.
But if you build -- you know, many people grew up, the apartments above or multi - family above commercial,
mixed use, which was reasonably priced, that's very successful. People work, walk, recreate where they live.
Obviously, they put the price points where you say my commercial -- and I'll use the Mercato as an example
-- has paid for a lot of my infrastructure and set me up, the residential is the cream on top, and we're doing extremely
high end, that's their choice as a marketing plan. But mixed use nationwide is a good concept. It works well. Price
points are --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a mixed use, I'd like at some point, if you guys are going to promote this, to
show what a successful mixed use is in this county.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We will do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the other point is the concern on the timing required for construction of
any infrastructure land uses under the standards identified in the plan. An example was cited where a developer
constructed and sold all the housing units, parenthetical, 4,500, in a multi -use project without completing the
commercial uses associated with the project.
Which project was that, just out of curiosity?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, you're looking at minutes. I don't -- I might not have been at that meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob said it, so --
MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I'd be happy to look at it. I really don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the 19th, or whenever we hear it. If you're going to use an example like that, I'd
sure like to know what project it was, because whatever limitations or concerns were involving the lack of
commercial created, it's something this Board needs to consider when we do PUD's.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. Does anybody have any other follow -up?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, are there any members of the public that are registered to speak, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: We have one registered speaker, that's Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
And I know you won't be making any decisions today, but The Conservancy wanted to give you some of our
thoughts, concerns, suggestions so that you can be thinking of those as you start to review the document when it
comes out on the 19th.
Certainly we support the concept of VMT reduction concepts to reduce greenhouse gases. Who wouldn't?
But we have been all along concerned along about some of the fundamental underpinnings of the process. It's so
important to get that foundation right, because upon that you're going to be building new policies that will change the
GMP, the LDC, the LRTP, who knows how far this could go. So just like the Watershed Management Plans, you
have to have that proper foundation.
Nick is correct, there has been a lot of opportunity for the public to comment, to participate, to attend
meetings, and we certainly do appreciate that. Staff and consultants have been very available for questions and
explanations, but we do still have a lot of concerns about some of the underlying fundamentals, and some suggestions
for perhaps adding clarifying language to the final MMP product.
One concern is that the MMP baseline for the modeling uses the 2035 needs plan. And staff has explained
that they use that is because it's the only metric and measuring tool out there. And we understand the rationale behind
this, but we do see it really as a fatal flaw to what we thought the process was going to be, because it assumes that all
these roads will be built, when the bottom line is we can't afford to build all these roads, and some of these roads, due
to environmental and other constraints, may never be permitted. So we do see that as a shortcoming.
Instead of the MMP being a progressive tool, where we sit down and we look at what roads do we need and
what can we do to make changes to take some of those roads off the map, we're assuming all those roads are going to
be built. So a missed opportunity but, you know, we do understand that that's how it's going to be.
Page 14 of 89
161 A4 r
ctober 6, 2011
We've discussed this with Nick, and he has given us some assurance that even though that needs plan is used,
it's not going to be the basis for justifying any roads. And I felt pretty good about that, but we keep seeing other
things popping up that bring that concern back.
And Mark, I think you mentioned a couple of those maps that were used as the storyboards at the August
25th meeting, those concept boards. And one example is the Golden Gate Estates and Orangetree. And if this process
is not supposed to justify any capital improvement project, when you have under concept and tools I -75 interchange
with that interchange clearly marked, we believe that that could inadvertently be used as a way to justify that specific
interchange.
So we are concerned about things like this coming out in those documents. And perhaps if that sort of
information were removed from concept boards in the future, changed so that it's a derstood it isn't meant to justify
that road.
When I had shared our concerns with Nick, he was very kind to write out in an e-mail exactly what the MMP
is and isn't, what it will do and what it won't do. And I won't read all of that e-mail, and I actually left the copies in
the copy machine, so I will e-mail this to you this afternoon, and I'll leave this copy for the record.
But a couple of the points that I think are very relevant to share is that Nick indicated the MMP is not
intended to justify the addition or deletion of any new capital projector the adopted 2035 LRTP. And discussions
over the merits of existing or proposed capital projects should be handled outside the MMP through the LRTP update
or permitting process. And we very much agree with that, which is why we are concerned about documents like this
that could be misused.
I was also a little disturbed at some of the Commissioners' comments at the MPO meeting. I don't doubt
Nick's sincerity that he is not going to use this document to justify any specific capital project, but when the
Commissioners talked about the MMP, they said if it's out there of course we're going to use it as part of our
decision - making process. And that's fine, as long as it isn't being misused and misrepresented.
We believe it could be misused. For example, I'll take this again, if the MMP shows an interchange and if the
MMP is this wonderful VMT reducing tool, then someone could jump to the conclusion that the interchange is not
only needed but it's in the best interest of the environment. So I don't doubt that Nick would not use it in that manner,
but 20, 30 years from now who could use this for what purposes.
So one idea that The Conservancy has is that as part of the introduction in the MMP itself, Nick's e-mail or
some variation of that be included to say this is what the MMP is, this is what it does, this is what it isn't, and what it
won't do. So you can't stop someone from trying to misuse the document but you can certainly point to the
introduction and say no, this isn't intended to support any particular capital improvement project.
So a suggestion that could help clarify and ease some of our concerns that we'd ask you to consider.
Another area of concern was the recent introduction of vehicle hours traveled into this equation. The
Conservancy, generally speaking. Sees vehicle miles traveled and reduction of that as a function of land use planning,
smart growth, those sorts of things, cluster development, so that you don't have to get in your car as often.
And we see vehicle hours traveled as getting your car from point A to point B faster. And oftentimes that's a
function of more roads, expanded roads, extending roads, that sort of thing.
So we want to be careful that this process isn't used to justify more roads. The idea of connectivity is very
good, and in the urban area where you're bound to really retrofitting, perhaps it needs to be considered. But out in
more of the rural areas, I think we need to look at smart growth, better land use planning instead of more roads and
connectivity as that principal caveat.
So one suggestion there is that yes, connectivity is good, but I think the MMP needs to also acknowledge that
there are other factors involved: Environmental, socioeconomic, those sorts of things, and all of that needs to be
wrapped into that process.
One additional thing that I wanted to mention also is the draft of this plan comes out on October 19th. And
there may be enough time for the public to review and to make comments on that before it comes back to you in
November, but will there be enough time for the public, for the Planning Commission, for others to make very
substantive changes or suggestions for changes to this and have those suggestions incorporated into a final draft?
We don't want a document where we're encouraged to make comments, but it's still going to the BCC in
December, therefore we can't retool one portion or another, even though that could make an improvement. We want
to make sure, just like the watershed management plans, if it takes a little longer but it's a better final product, that we
Page 15 of 89
16 1 2 A4
October 6, 2011
take that time to do that.
So, you know, consider that, if there are changes that need to be made, more input, modifications, that we
make sure that we do that.
So four things to wrap up that we're asking to you think about: Adding specific language to the MMP
introduction, stating clearly what the plan is and isn't.
When you review the MMP, make sure that all statements in the plan and all technical support documents
support the intent of the MMP.
Third, making sure that the concept of vehicle hours traveled and connectivity really go towards those smart
land use planning strategies that the DOE energy grant we believe was intended to fulfill.
And fourth, allowing sufficient time to review this plan and for staff to make substantive changes, if they are
necessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole.
And as a follow -up, Nick, I had -- was going to make a suggestion that when we schedule this for the
Planning Commission, we schedule it for a meeting by itself. I mean, this is a 20- minute presentation that's taken
probably -- going to be taking the better part of an hour. So maybe we ought to look at a day when we can meet just
to discuss this plan so we have ample time for the public to participate and this Board to get into every single detail.
Does that seem logical?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's logical. I think we have a date scheduled for a three or four -hour workshop
with you with the public hearing as well.
I think one thing to keep in mind, based on Nicole's comments, you're not getting LDC or GMP language to
review, you're getting policy recommendations.
So what we're looking for from The Conservancy, from the public and this Commission itself is to modify
those based on comments that you get.
So it's not that once the plan's approved; what you're approving is the next phase. These are the things we
like, take them to the next level. There's no policy language that you're approving as part of this phase. There are
recommendations to go into the next phase where you start to meet and you'll hear those again in detail.
So that's the concern, is that you're going to be at a phase where you're just recommending policy language to
proceed forward that you get to see again and again and again before it gets adopted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The policy language is important. I think we learned that in the RLSA. Because the
policy language that we thought we adopted was not interpreted in the manner that many of us thought it was to be,
including yourself, as you know from the testimony we did in court.
So I want to make sure that we understand every facet of the policies as they're put forth. Now, BCC may go
its own direction. But at least this Board will have an ample input as best it can and understand every single one of
the policies so they're much more clear in their -- in their intended interpretation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. And one disclosure that I think needs to be put out there. Right now the
county and the NGOs, The Conservancy, the Audubon, are working really well together on this project, because the
intent of this project is to reduce vehicle miles traveled, smart growth, lower that cost of infrastructure.
The county is applying for an IJR at 1 -75 /Everglades. The Conservancy is opposing that interchange
vigorously. In order to be fair from The Conservancy's perspective and the county's perspective, we said let's leave
that discussion off this table. And it keeps coming up. And I'm doing my end of the bargain and I'm not pushing any
particular capital project by this.
If you took our outline of what we've brought to you at the beginning of this presentation, it makes good
business sense, environmental sense to lower that demand. But to continue to bring back a specific project makes no
sense. That will get us in a quagmire. If we stay focused on the goals of the MMP and leave those discussions for
another opportunity, another discussion, another project, I think that's appropriate. Because we keep getting pulled
back in, while I'm keeping my word on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, she didn't bring it up, I did. And she brought it up as a follow -up after me,
and I will be bringing it up again, again and again.
So I can assure you, and I'm not a member of The Conservancy, and I believe there are other environmental
groups and other people, I'm not a member of any of the groups that are involved in that, I simply don't see it as the
most cost - effective approach and I want to make sure staff doesn't use this plan as an excuse not to be able to look at
Page 16 of 89
16 1 2 A4 *!
October 6, 2011
other alternatives that are more effective for the taxpayers, that's all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Put it on the record, we're not using this plan for I- 75/Everglades.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Nick, one thing I think she brought up and this conversation
brings up too, is be very, very clear somewhere in the beginning what the scope of this thing is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And short and concise and -- to really define what If ople can use this data
for and what they can't.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Otherwise you'll have these conversations throughout.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it's not going to change anything, but I will do that, sir. Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on the mobility
plan before we move on?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, and appreciate it.
We have one -- well, we have two advertised public hearings. One is a continuation from the last meeting --
well, both are continuations from the last meeting, come to think of it. First one will be Orangetree and the second
one will be the boat dock.
* * *So let me read off the first one. 9.A, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608, the Orangetree PUD.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. I'll start with
Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I originally met with Mr. Saunders. I have not met with him for this round.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No ex parte.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, I met with the applicant and his representatives. I've met with the -- some
of the homeowners up in Orangetree, and I've had conversations on the telephone with others. I don't remember all
the names, to be honest with you.
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Saunders twice. And the first time before the last meeting
and also met -- McLean, is it?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. I wrote down Matt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with staff, regional planning, and a couple of the residents in
Orangetree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes, I believe it was Monday I had a meeting with Mr. Saunders, Mr. Mulhere
and Matt, I forgot your last name. Sorry.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's an easy name to forget. That's Matt McLean.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a brief conversation with Mr. Saunders this morning before the
meeting and a brief conversation yesterday with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this particular project involves a rather large area of the county. And in that --
within the PUD there are some different property ownerships. I know there are a lot of individuals that own homes
there, but there are also some larger chunks of land owned by separate departments in Collier County.
In the discussions I've had with people, there's been a lot of concern about one in particular, or maybe two,
but at least the fairgrounds has been mentioned numerous times. So I've asked the County Attorney's Office to be
prepared today to address the extent to which this Board is going to be reviewing the fairgrounds' parcel in regards to
the application in front of us today.
Page 17 of 89
161 2 A 4
October 6, 2011
The application in front of us today is by Mr. Bolt and his representatives. It's for the development area of
Orangetree. The changes that are being requested are for the most part if not all within the residential or developed
part of Orangetree, or the commercial part.
And Ms. Ashton, I'd like for you to please fill us in on the extent to which we should be reviewing this today
in regards to the different ownerships of property there.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The property that you're referencing is in the community use district, and that's not
owned by the applicant, Roberto Bolt. So the sections that we're addressing today relate to the property that is owned
by Mr. Bolt, and that's not one of them. He's -- I think there's also been a letter provided by the applicant that they're
requesting that there not be any changes to that section, and therefore that's not an issue that we're -- we'll be
reviewing and modifying today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I wanted that stated up front is last time when this was
continued, there were some members of the community up there who wanted to discuss the fairgrounds.
Well, you're going to have -- we're going to listen to everybody, everybody has a right to speak today and we
will try to be tolerant with the time. But if you're talking about the fairgrounds, you're talking to a Board that really
has nothing to weigh in on the fairgrounds or cannot at this level, because we're a zoning board. The zoning for the
fairgrounds is not being addressed today.
So I'm trying to caution you ahead of time, please stay -- in your discussions, keep them relative to the
property that's being modified, not go beyond that.
And with that in mind, we'll start out the presentation by the applicant. The Board will ask certain questions,
the staff will make a presentation, and then after that the public will be heard.
Go ahead, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We are aware that some of the members of the community have some issues with
the Collier County Fairgrounds. And our recommendation is to present those issues to the Board of County
Commissioners at one of their meetings at public petition. And we can -- anyone who's willing or interested to fill out
one of the forms, we can assist you in getting those forms so you can get on the Board of County Commissioners'
agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Saunders.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. For the record, my name is Burt Saunders with
the Gray Robinson Law Firm, and I'm representing the petitioner, Orangetree Associates and Roberto Bolt, the
successor trustee.
On that issue of the fairgrounds let me just add one thing to the record, because I think it's clear from the
guidance of the County Attorney that this Board should not consider any items dealing with the fairgrounds.
Mr. Klatzkow issued an e -mail on October 3rd. I want to read that into the record, because I think the
audience needs to hear that so that they know that this Board doesn't have jurisdiction today to hear the issues of the
fairgrounds.
It says: As I have previously discussed with staff, I am not signing off on the PUD changes with respect to
the fairgrounds unless the lessee signs off on them. In addition, since the county owns the lands, these types of
changes are much easier dealt with in a lease amendment than through the PUD process. And that was from Mr.
Klatzkow.
And so for the record it would be our position that we want to be helpful in this regard, but we're not the party
and not the petition under which you should be dealing with the fairgrounds issue. So I want to thank Heidi Ashton
for her comments in reference to that.
Mr. Chairman and members, with me today are Robert Mulhere of Mulhere and Associates, the planner for
the project. Matt McLean, with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, the project civil engineer. Norm Trebilcock with
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions for project transportation, and Jeremy Sterk with Davidson Engineering, dealing
with environmental issues. Also here this morning representing the petitioner is Mr. Steve Lowitz.
And by way of just a very brief introduction, the proposed development consists of 2,138.76 acres of land
that is partially developed. The initially proposed PUD amendment -- and I say initially proposed PUD amendment,
because we do have some very significant changes that we're going to make based on conversations that we've had for
the last several weeks. The initially proposed PUD amendment would have added 1,250 dwelling units to the
Page 18 of 89
October 6, 2011
currently approved 2,100 dwelling units, for an overall density of 1.6 units per acre.
As I go through my presentation, Mr. Mulhere will place on the overhead maps, and he'll point out some of
the things that I'm going to be pointing to and dealing with as I go through this.
For orientation purposes, this petition involves the lands lying along Immokale, oad between Randall
Boulevard on the south and to the north of Oil Well Road. The Orange Blossom Ranch PUD forms part of the eastern
boundary of our project.
The site plan shows four commercial tracts: A mixed use utility site where the utility systems are currently
located, two neighborhood commercial sites and one office commercial site. And all of these four sites consist of
approximately 60 acres of land. And under current zoning, we are permitted to build approximately 60,000 square
feet in the two commercial -- the neighborhood commercial parcels.
The proposed amendment will add 100,000 square feet of office use and 172,000 square feet of retail space,
for a total of 332,000 square feet of combined office and retail space.
I want to make one point of clarification on the proposed ordinance involving environmental commitments of
the petitioner. There's been some concern about the elimination of environmental commitments. The title of the
ordinance provides that the amendment deletes environmental commitments for this project, and this is a bit
misleading. All environmental commitments have been completed by the petitioner or all of those environmental
commitments are contained in other ordinances, and so therefore that language is not needed in this document.
Let me emphasize, no environmental commitments of the petitioner are being eliminated by this petition.
Your planning staff has determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management
Plan. Staff concluded that the petition is compatible with existing or planned development in the area and is also
compatible with existing internal development that's there currently. That's on Page 11 of your staff report.
By way of comparison, the Collier County Commission approved Ordinance 04 -74 known as the Orange
Blossom Ranch PUD with a residential density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre, along with 200,000 square feet of
commercial space on 44 acres of land. And again, that project is the eastern boundary of our project.
It is my understanding that Andrew McElwain with The Conservancy is objecting to the approval of this
PUD amendment because of the alleged reopening of the settlement document that covers this area.
I don't know if The Conservancy itself has fonnally taken a position on this, but I want to talk about the issue
of the opening up, or the alleged opening up, if you will, of the settlement document.
The County Commission determined as part of the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, and I'm going to quote
from that: The subject property is within the settlement area district designation as identified on the Future Land Use
Map, which permits a variety of land uses, including commercial, residential, community facilities and recreation.
And more importantly, the County Commission went on in that PUD document, again quoting: No
maximum densities have been established in the settlement area district.
In Ordinance 05 -42, which amended the Orangetree PUD Ordinance 04 -73, the County Commission again
stated the following, I think it's important for the record: The project's gross density, commercial uses and other
nonresidential uses are consistent with the rural settlement area designation in the Future Land Use Element and
Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan. The rural settlement area district allows the uses
identified in the Orangetree PUD and does not establish maximum densities or intensities.
Again, these are findings of the County Commission over the years in ordinances dealing with the settlement
document.
The settlement document is not being reopened. And so I think that's important as you hear from various
speakers on this issue.
In the staff report before you today, staff makes the following observation: Future zoning changes to add
dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of the district will not be prohibited or
discouraged. And that's on Page 6 of your staff report.
Staff further concludes, and this again dealing with our petition, the density will increase overall, but the areas
that will be developed with additional density should not negatively affect existing development with staffs
recommendation regarding the removal of the resort lodging units within the R -3 and R -4 districts. And that's on Page
10 of your staff report.
There are a couple other commitments requested by staff, and we'll go through those, but for the record, the
petitioner is agreeing to all of the conditions that have been suggested by your staff as a condition of a
Page 19 of 89
161 � b4
October 6, 2011
recommendation for approval.
There are a couple utilities issues that I need to get on the record quickly. An issue was raised by the county
utility division concerning easements that may be required by the county for continued operation of the Orangetree
utility systems until the county develops its own regional systems in that area. For the record, it is intended that the
easements that are granted to the county for utility purposes pursuant to this PUD are to be used only to serve the
existing customers of the Orangetree utility system. Once the regional system is completed and the Orangetree
customers are connected to the county's systems, all those easements that are no longer needed to serve the existing
customers of the Orangetree system will be vacated by the county.
As a condition of the recommendation for approval, staff has made three recommendations for changes. And
as I said, we agree to all three of those.
Staff is requesting that all resort lodging units be located only in the golf course district. Members, we met
with many of the residents in the community and there was a great deal of concern about a hotel -motel operation in
that area. We have agreed to totally eliminate any reference to resort lodging units. There will be no resort lodging
units in this PUD. And the 100 resort lodging units that was part of the 1,250 units that we were requesting, we're
taking those units off the table also.
We're also in agreement with the other two conditions. In the office commercial district we will provide a
20 -foot wide setback to any residential areas. Also in the office commercial district we will provide a Type C buffer
between any uses and residential uses, again, to make sure that our commercial areas are not incompatible and
detrimental to the neighboring residential areas.
In all commercial areas that abut residentially zoned properties, a six -foot wall will be installed with a
landscape buffer being between the wall and the residential uses.
Since September 15th, the petitioner has met with many homeowners. We participated in a public meeting at
Valencia Golf and Country Club and there were well over 100 people that attended that meeting. We listened to
many legitimate complaints and concerns raised by the residents. And based on those complaints and concerns, we're
going to make some very significant changes which I hope will alleviate some of the concerns that you may hear this
morning from some of the speakers.
I want the Planning Commission to understand that it's our goal to develop a plan that will not only be
acceptable to the community but will actually enhance the community. For example, we've had conversations with
Publix and we know for a fact that Publix or some other large grocer will locate in one of those neighborhood
commercial parcels if this zoning is approved and if there are more rooftops in the area.
You just heard the mobility study being presented to you this morning. Part of the goal is to get traffic off the
main arterials in Collier County. With that additional commercial space and again with other uses such as a CVS
Pharmacy that is planned to be out there, residents in that area will no longer have to drive eight or 10 miles to get to
commercial services.
The following changes will be made to the PUD document. And Mr. Mulhere will elaborate on some of
those changes in his comments, and I'm sure we'll have some questions from you.
First again, total elimination of the resort lodging units. There will be no resort lodging units.
Number two, we're going to reduce the requested number of units from 1,250 to 1,050, which will result in an
overall density in this project of 1.4 units per acre. And I will again remind the Planning Commissioners that the
County Commission has approved in the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD densities up to 2.8 units per acre.
Number three, we're going to eliminate some of the R -4 and R -3 zoning adjacent to existing development.
And in those areas adjacent to existing development, we'll have no more than two stories in those areas. And Mr.
Mulhere will elaborate more fully on exactly where we're eliminating those R -4 and R -3 parcels, again, to make this
development compatible with what's already out there.
In the neighborhood commercial area and in the office commercial area, we're going to limit our heights to
two stories. Now, in the mixed use parcel we will still be able to go to three stories on the commercial and the
residential, but that's in an area that is not impacting the current areas that are developed. This is the area between the
two schools north of Oil Well Road.
There was a great deal of concern raised about increased traffic at the existing access point on Randall
Boulevard. As you know, we're going to have one new access point on Oil Well Road. But in response to that, we
met with transportation staff for the county and they've agreed to permit us to have an additional egress and ingress on
Page 20 of 89
A �
1 Oc�oUer 6 2011
Randall Boulevard. And again, Mr. Mulhere will point out the details of that.
There was a great deal of concern raised about the existing homeowners associations being overwhelmed
with a lot of new residents and so that the current residents would lose control of their homeowners associations. In
response to that, we're going to create at least two new homeowners associations so that the new residents will not be
impacting the existing homeowners associations.
There was also a great deal of concern raised about impact on existing recreational facilities. The developers
agreed that the new residents will have their own new recreational facilities so that there won't be any impact on
existing recreational facilities.
And for the audience, Mr. Chairman, if I might, there have been a flurry of rumors floating around the
community. I'd like to talk about a couple of them just real quickly.
First, the rumor that this project will result in low- income subsidized housing. There is nothing in our
documents or any relevant documents where we're asking for any subsidized or low- income housing. That's just not a
correct rumor.
Second, the rumor that there will be a $10,000 water or sewer assessment, there's nothing in our document,
and again, or any relevant documents where there's any request for any increase in fees or assessments of any kind for
the Orangetree system. So that again is a false rumor.
Third, there's been some concern that there may be commercial properties spread out throughout the
community. I mentioned the four commercial parcels. That's the only location where there can be any commercial
development.
And finally, we talked about the fairgrounds. The developer doesn't own the fairgrounds, the county does. It's
subject to a lease. And so we have no interest in anything that occurs on that, we have no control over that, and again
would ask that that not be considered by the Planning Commission today.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take the liberty, and I'll only take just another couple moments. We spent a lot of
time meeting with homeowners, and the staff received a letter, an e-mail from Paul Unsworth that was I believe
forwarded to the Commission members. Mr. Unsworth had asked that that letter be read into the record in his
absence. He could not be here today. There's a couple of paragraphs in that that I want to read into the record real
quickly, because I think it highlights the efforts that we have made to try to eliminate the many problems that had
been presented to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Burt, out of fairness to Mr. Unsworth's letter, he asked me to read it and I told him
that's not something I can do as Chair because I would have to be reading everybody's, and that doesn't work. But if
you are going to read it I don't think you should readjust excerpts from it, I think you should read the entire letter so
that nothing is taken out of context.
Do you have any objection to that?
MR. SAUNDERS: I don't have any objection. It's fairly long. And the last half of it deals with specific items
that he would like to see us do and we're going to do all those. Mr. Mulhere's going to go through those. So I thought
in the interest of time -- but I'm --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, another way to do it might be to put it on the overhead and then you
can read the highlighted portions or the portions you feel are relevant and everybody else can look at balance of it.
But I think out of fairness to him, if you're going to -- just taking pieces of it may not be the right way to go.
MR. SAUNDERS: I understand. And I don't disagree with that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have a -- Cherie'-- no, before I get to Cherie', Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I just wanted to clarify for the record one of the things that Mr. Saunders stated
related to the access points. I want to be clear on the record, the access points are conceptual. Saying we're allowed
one or two access points or we're getting other access points, they will all be determined at time of SDP. So the
number, the location, the direction of going in or out as depicted on the master plan, those are conceptual and it's not
deemed an approval of those points.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made notes of what he said, and everything he said will be questioned. Everything
he said will be asked by staff how they can handle it or how they not can handle it. So we will be getting to that as we
get into it. Every single item will have to be digested.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: All, right, thank you. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before we get into anything else, our court reporter needs a break. She's been
Page 21 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
trying to type as fast as all of us have been talking. So it's 10:22, let's come back at 10:35 from our break and we'll
resume at that point with this letter.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will everybody please take their seats.
And Burt, before you continue, I want to kind of have a discussion announcement. I know a lot of you, or
some of you have wanted to -- some of the members of the public who want to speak have time limitations. Normally
what we do is we try to listen to the applicant and then we have our questions, the applicant responds, and what that
does, it fleshes out a lot of the issues. We get them on the table, you can see from our interaction with the applicant
changes that happen along the way, many of which may mitigate some of the concerns you all have. And staff then
comes into play and we have our same interaction with staff and then finally we go to the public.
And the reason it's set up that way is a lot of times if the public sees the direction that this is going and they
like the changes or the changes that happen, quell their concerns to a point our public discussion is not so intense, is
not so off on issues that may be resolved.
Now, on the premise that some of you have to leave, I was going to suggest a change to the proceedings
today. Definitely let the applicant finish his presentation, but then open it up to public discussion and start the public
process, and then this Board would then interact with questions and with staff after the public input.
Now, that would expedite you all and I'll get your discussions on the table. Or the only problem is you just
won't know what changes or what proposals would already have been made based on our questioning. So it may not
be as, fast this way, but I think it might help most of you.
And the reason -- another reason that's going to happen is today's going to be a very long meeting. This
project will typically -- Hacienda Lakes, for example, took two meetings, six hours each time. I would expect this
project's going to take almost that much.
So we will -- I will doubt if we will get to a complete resolution today where we vote, but we may get to a lot
of recommendations that will come back for a final review next time, if that's the outcome. So we're going to have a
second bite of the apple more or less the next time we come up.
But seeing that's going to happen this way, you all may not even get heard until late this afternoon. So rather
than ask you to sit here all day, as long as the petitioner has no problem with that scenario --
MR. SAUNDERS: We certainly have no objection to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the Planning Commission, any problems?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's what we'll do. As soon as the petitioner finishes his presentation,
I'll ask for all the registered speakers first. Then I'll ask for those that aren't registered.
I ask that you try to keep your discussion to five minutes, although that's not a hard, fast rule. And please
don't be redundant if you can help it. Because if someone before you says something you like, just stand up and say
you support that person's comments. And we get the point.
And this afternoon, probably after lunch, because I'd imagine with as many of you that want to speak, we'll be
here up to lunchtime, if not later, then we'll get into our situation later. And you're more than welcome to stay all day,
but I'm trying to make it convenient for many of you, because I'm assuming, as I know some of you work and have to
leave early.
So with that, Burt, we'll continue with your discussion, then we'll move into public speakers.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the benefit of the court reporter, I will provide her a
copy of the letter so that she'll have all that.
I just wanted to read the first couple of paragraphs of that. The second portion of the letter that I'm not going
to read deals with issues like screening, lighting, potential noise from the commercial areas. And we're going to agree
to all of that. And Mr. Mulhere will go through that.
But this is a letter from Paul Unsworth: Mr. Strain, I am unable to attend the hearing on Thursday but would
like to have this e -mail read into the record. My name is Paul Unsworth. I am a resident of Valencia Lakes and the
chairman of the advisory committee to the developer controlled board for Valencia Lakes Homeowners Association.
While I cannot speak in any official capacity for the board or the members of the HOA, I have had numerous
discussions with various members of our community. The general feeling within our community is that we support
the commercial and residential growth in our area, as long as it is done responsibly. We have a need for
Page 22 of 89
161 P A4
October 6, 2011
neighborhood type commercial and support it if it is done with thoughtful consideration to how it affects the
community.
I have had several meetings with counsel for Orangetree Associates and am pleased with how responsive they
have been with our community's concerns. I look forward to working with them more closely as their project
progresses.
Most of our concerns have been addressed by the developer; however, I do want to make sure that the
Planning Commission is aware as well.
So you have the letter, you also have the paragraphs dealing with again lighting and noise and things of that
nature from the commercial area that we're going to address. But I think this is indicative of the efforts of the
petitioner to meet with homeowners and to try to address the very legitimate concerns that have been raised by them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, we can either have Mr. Mulhere go through the changes real quickly or go to public
comment, whatever is your pleasure on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the changes, Bob, that you would want to go through would be in conjunction
with us as we move through the document, I would assume, which means that's going to take the bulk of the day to
get through that. So I think we ought to go to the public comment first.
MR. MULHERE: I think that makes sense, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we'll do. And I thank you gentlemen for that.
With that, we'll start out with just the registered speakers. And Ray, if you'll start calling them out. You can
use either mic, and he'll call two names out so the second person is ready to come up when the first person is finished.
MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Shirley Cothran, to be followed by Charles Palmer.
MS. COTHRAN: I'm Shirley Cothran, and I'm a resident of Waterways.
And I'm just a little surprised at hearing just now and not having the information earlier that we may have
three -story buildings adjacent to our community, because our community shares a common boundary with the water
utility company.
I have a lot of empathy for the people on the south side of Oil Well Road. They thought they were buying
into a single - family community, and now the nature of that is changing. But that's not what I want to talk about.
What I want to talk about is the expansion of the commercial space, the whole -- the big picture on the
density issue, the land trust agreement that gave Mr. Bolt control over the PUD, and some of his past actions. And I
understand he's a very nice man, so I'm sorry if I'm being negative about him.
But there is a proposed shopping center on the south side of Randall that shows promise of actually being
built. There's a shopping center that was started in the Orangetree PUD north of Randall at the corner of Immokalee
Road. There are some roads, there are some stop signs, there's one slab with some pipes sticking up out of it, and it's
been that way for more than a year, if not a couple years.
This failed shopping center is the first thing that people who are driving from Naples see when they're driving
to the Big Corkscrew Sanctuary or the casino or to Ave Maria.
If this one small shopping center could not get off the ground in Orangetree, why increase the amount of
commercial and retail space?
The next thing I would like to talk about is the big picture on the number of units. The Orangetree PUD
started as between Immokalee Road and the Golden Gate Canal, the canal north of the fairgrounds and Randall Road.
It was just under 2,800 acres. There were supposed to be 2,100 housing units. Then a few years later, or ago, they
came along and created the Orange Blossom PUD with 1,600 housing units. So the number of housing units on that
original 2,800 acres went from 21 to 3,700.
Now they're asking for another, well, until I came here today, I thought it was 1,250. And my numbers are
based on that. They're asking for another 1,250 units, which will bring the total to just under 5,000 units. And that's a
225 percent increase.
Orange Blossom Ranch also added 200,000 square feet of commercial space. With these requested changes,
we'll have 532 (sic) square feet of commercial space, which is almost 900 percent more than the original 60,000
square feet that was set up in Orangetree, on the same 2,800 acres.
The next thing I want to get into is the land trust agreement that was signed on January 27th, 1986, the same
day that the Orangetree PUD came into existence. There is -- one of the trustee's duties in there is -- and I'm going to
quote: If any property shall remain in trust hereunder 20 years from the date hereof, the trustee shall forthwith hold
Page 23 of 89
'r
October 6, 2011
the same at a public sale after reasonable public advertisement.
I don't recall a public sale of land in Orangetree in 2006. And I've checked with neighbors, I've checked with
county staff, with my commissioner, and nobody seems to recall the sale. So I'm assuming that there was no sale. I've
also checked the deeds on the big chunks of land, and they did not change hands in 2006.
If the trustee had held that public sale, who knows what would have happened. The land may have had a
different owner by now. And that could have been The Conservancy, the Audubon Society, South Florida Water
Management, or the county. But -- and if any of those things had happened, we wouldn't be here today.
I also want to talk about some of the other things that have happened with this trustee of this PUD. This is
one example. Another is that he located the business offices of the Orangetree utility in a residential neighborhood,
ignoring the terms of the PUD. That has been corrected.
Another example was that in 2007 his Orangetree utility company sued the county, trying to negate the term
-- convey at no cost provisions of the PUD. And the PUD has been revised to reflect that the county won that lawsuit.
But at the time it was going on it cost them a quarter of a million dollars.
There are more examples, but I want to keep within my five minutes. These examples are evidence that
suggests that one of two things are going on: Either the trustee developer has not done his due diligence in reading
and understanding the PUD and the land trust agreement, or he has chosen to ignore the documents. Either way, he
has not complied with the current documents.
The changes he is requesting shows that he does not have a lot of -- let me take that back on some of the
things they said. I don't believe he should be allowed to cram more residential and more commercial space on top of
the existing residents who have been -- he has profited from them buying into those developments just to increase his
profit margins. And with the decrease in land value, that probably is the only way he can keep the profit margins that
he was making before. And that's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Charles Palmer, to be followed by Troy Bish.
MR. PALMER: Charles Palmer, 1521 Birdie Drive, in Valencia Golf and Country Club.
Thank you, Chairman Strain and members, and Orangetree representatives.
I'm speaking for my wife and myself. We single - family homeowners in Valencia Golf and Country Club --
and I want to make it perfectly clear that we all in Valencia Golf and Country Club have single - family R -2 zoned
homes. We will be receiving approximately 70 percent of the additional 1,050 multi - family, more densely populated,
smaller, some as small as 550 square feet are proposed in the proposal, the amendment before you. And we
homeowners -- I don't see any positive benefits as a result.
Also as background, we learned on the 22nd of September from Orangetree developers that -- and just this
morning that there will be more than one homeowners association. I'll use VGCC is where I live currently, that's
developed with single - family homes, and I'll speak to the other one. Now, there may be two, as was brought up just a
half hour ago. There may be three total HOA's within the area.
Basically I'd like some quid pro quo. And my suggestions are that the current Valencia Golf and Country
Club have its own legally separated and physically separated HOA. And as was stated, we would have our own
clubhouse and pool. They are the only amenities that I'm aware of.
The existing golf course is a public golf course, except that it's gated. I recommend we move the gate to
Double Eagle Trail, and I'll call it west, instead of an approach road that would open up the golf course to the public
without losing our security, which we do on a daily basis. When anyone goes in there, they say I'm going to the golf
course and they can go anywhere within the gated community after that.
They talked about another -- they, the Orangetree developers, talked about a possibility of an additional gate
to relieve some of the traffic on Randall. If Valencia Golf and Country Club had its own gate, we are surviving I
think quite well with one gate. That would be fine, so long as the -- again, Valencia Golf and Country Club had its
own HOA legally separated from whatever is proposed.
Also, along Double Eagle Trail on the west side, I propose that those houses that would, you know, become
lots for development under this PUD not be R -3. They're R -3 now. But to keep compatibility with the rest of a
separate VGCC HOA, that they would be, along with all existing lots within VGCC, R -2 single- family only. And I
stress again, currently there are only single - family dwellings within VGCC currently, Valencia Golf and Country
Club today.
Page 24 of 89
161 A4
"" October 6 2011
And if we have -- if they have separate gates or gate for the other newly developed -- to be developed HOA
and we have our own, I think -- I know I'll be satisfied, my wife will be satisfied, and I believe the majority, the vast
majority of people within our current one - family HOA will be satisfied.
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Troy Bish, to be followed by Patricia Pezza.
MR. BISH: Good morning. I'm Troy Bish at 2212 Vardin Drive, Valencia Golf and Country Club.
Because my time is flexible and I'm available for all day, I'm going to defer my comments to the end and let
our homeowners that are under a time restraint take the spot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: I think Tony will speak for Patricia Pezza.
MR. PEZZA: Hi, my name is Tony Pezza. I'm a resident of Valencia Golf and Country Club.
I had some things I wanted to talk about, but prior to that I have to talk about what counsel had just
mentioned.
I was touched by Mr. Unsworth's letter to the Board. Because the residents of this community have tried to
reach Mr. Unsworth for at least three years unsuccessfully to try to talk about our security issues and the many issues
involved with our homeowners association and how D. R. Horton has squandered our maintenance fees on a lot less
than admirable conditions.
So I was moved by the letter that was sent, because for three years no one can seem to reach this man. So I
just thought I would bring that up that it's funny how a letter just happened to pop up to the board of directors at this
point in time.
In regards to what counsel just said, the County Commissioners have ignored with recent PUD changes this
1986 settlement agreement. They have completely ignored what a judge has put on paper as what is the standard that
has been set. If someone incorrectly -- if someone incorrectly looks at a statement by a judge or a lawyer and
misreads it five or six or seven times, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
We have a settlement agreement on the books that calls for 2,100 single - family units to be built. And we
would expect this planning board to abide by that settlement agreement. Just because it was changed in the past does
not make it correct.
Concerning the hotel concession, I'll tell you, when my kids were small and they would give me a Christmas
wish list of 20 items and, you know, we sort of check them off on the box, I don't call that a concession. Hotel within
a residential community I think was just a far - fetched plan to maybe come at a later date and say, oh, we conceded a
100 hotel room (sic) as part of trying to negotiate with the community.
And the prior lady who spoke, I'm sorry, I don't know her name, we're looking for an additional 320 (sic)
square foot of commercial space. We have an eyesore on the corner of Immokalee and Randall that has paved with
grass six feet high with stop signs that we can't fill. And it's kind of a small lot. We have two already approved
commercial shopping centers that haven't been broken ground for.
So at this point in time I would like to know why can't we fill Orangetree, which already owns that property,
why can't we fill that eyesore first before we're going to grant them additional property. That eyesore has been there.
We had to call the county six or seven times to get the grass cut because the grass is six feet high on that intersection.
So why are we even contemplating additional commercial square footage when you have an eyesore sitting there for
at least three years on fill. Maybe I'm missing something that you guys can inform me at a later date.
As far as what I wanted to discuss, we have two major concerns in this community: The first one is security,
the second one is the many incompatibilities that arise. And I'm just going to address some of the points.
Not more than the width of this room, several years ago a homeowner bought a home that's 4,000 square feet
for $700,000. Now, there's a lot of, I heard the word adjacent flung around this room. Well, maybe adjacent doesn't
mean across the street. Right now Orangetree, across from this 4,000 square foot home, wants to put condominiums
as small as 550 square feet. Across the street, not the width of this room.
How would you like to be a homeowner with 10,050 from Double Eagle all the way stretched around,
10,050. The possibility exists, because Mr. Saunders said at the meeting they will build what the market demands.
550 square foot homes across the street from 4,000 square foot homes. Even if that home sells at $100 a foot, you're
Page 25 of 89
161 2 A 4 x
October 6, 2011
looking $55,000, if I'm correct.
So somewhere along the way that homeowner who spent $700,000 on that home, maybe not five years,
maybe seven years, maybe 10 years, he'd like to recoup some of that money. He's not going to recoup that money on
$55,000 condos built right across the street. As a homeowner he has rights too. This is not -- this is a single - family
gated community, and that's what we bought into. Not for condos as small as 55 -- 550 square feet, excuse me.
The other thing I'd like to bring up with that condo assessment of 550 square feet is what's to stop investors
from coming in at $55,000, buying up lots of these? Is this going to become just another apartment complex?
Because it's kind of thinking -- I mean, we're not in a retirement community. This is 95 percent working class people
that get up at 6:00 in the morning and shower and go to work every day. This is not a retirement community.
These units are not going to be built so somebody from the east coast could fly in and play at this luxurious
golf course on a long weekend and then fly back on a Monday morning. These units are going to be bought by
investors and they're going to rent them out and this 1,050 units are going to become apartment complexes, make no
mistake about it. And someplace on your site plan, you better put a little room for Collier County to put a sheriffs
department substation there, because that's what you're going to need.
He keeps on using the word it's not low- income, it's not subsidized. Well, you tell me what you're going to
get in there at 1,050 units at $55,000? I'm just trying to read into what the documents that were presented to me.
I don't see that we're going to cap out builder investment at say five percent, we're going to allow only five
percent investors to purchase. I don't see anything to that. I see condos, square footage at 550 square feet in a
residential development.
Let's talk about some security issues. Orangetree, through their developer, has -- I'm certain you know this is
why we asked for a continuance. I'm sure you're aware that we have no -- the residents in this room have no
homeowners association. We cannot reach anybody from D. R. Horton to talk about our security concerns repeatedly.
I'm talking hundreds of e- mails. And now he's going to ensure us that the security is not going to be an issue here.
Well, I beg to differ. And I'll use this as an example.
The community is roughly five years old and we have this antiquated gate system where clickers that are
turned in, once people leave, whether it be renters, whether it be old homeowners, you could get three, four, five
clickers depending on how many people in your family. Well, those clickers are still out there and they're still active.
Recently there was vandalism at our clubhouse, which -- because our antiquated security system could actually see
the vandals doing the damage but the system is so poor that you can't even see their -- can't even make out their faces.
We have repeatedly asked for upgraded -- at our cost, at the homeowners' cost, we asked for updated security
cameras. Denied. We have asked for many other improvements to the gating system so that people that leave the
community, whether it be renters coming in and out. Denied.
So now what the Orangetree developer has done is for the past six months after the vandalism was
completed, they have completely locked us out of our clubhouse. None of our cards could get -- we can't get into the
clubhouse. When we have our meetings, we have to wait for some of the turnover committee people to swipe their
cards so we can get access to our clubhouse. That's how good security is in there.
They want to keep the clubhouse as a selling point for the salespeople to come in, to swipe their card and say
look at this beautiful clubhouse. Oh, and by the way, the homeowners have no access to it.
This is what we're into. This is why there's frustration in the room, because our voice has fallen on deaf ears
for such a long time. These are -- all these little tidbits, you people have to understand and decipher as homeowners
without a homeowners association paying our dues that have gone -- I could use examples, I had mentioned examples
of items that our homeowners association has said pay, pay, pay, pay, which shouldn't be our responsibility. We've
recently paid a $23,000 bill that I don't even want to get into because we have no access to anybody from D. R.
Horton.
Our poor gentlemen on the turnover committee, they're on an on again/off again basis whether this turnover is
ever going to happen. One day it's on, one day it's off. One day it's on, one day it's off. Try to review documents and
try to plan for the future as homeowners in this community, not knowing if the turnover is ever going to take place.
Last thing I'd like to mention in conclusion is that I would really like to see one of these meetings, a
gentleman had brought it up, to accommodate -- we have about -- when Mr. Saunders met with us, we had about 150
homeowners there that night. Unemployment is high and people are a little skeptical about taking off from work. I'd
like to see a nighttime meeting somewhere along the way before this is approved so we could have our true figure of
Page 26 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
people in this room that will be able to come out at a 7:00 meeting and not be able to say, you know, there's a chance
I'm going to lose my job because I took off to go to a planning board meeting. I think the gravity of what's happened
here has to and demands a nighttime meeting so we could have our true voices in this room.
In conclusion, I believe that this PUD, if it's allowed to go through, has to be a separate PUD. It cannot be
any way associated with Valencia Golf and Country Club. There definitely has to be a separate entrance, and there
definitely has to be a separate gated part of our community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Sullivan, to be followed by Barry Sullivan.
MS. SULLIVAN: He's going to speak for me.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Unfortunately I'm going to be repeating a lot of the same information, because we all have very much the
same issues. So I will try to make it brief.
For the record, my name is Barry Sullivan. My wife Kathleen and I are full -time residents of Valencia Golf
and Country Club. We are opposed to amending the PUD as proposed.
My wife and I purchased our home in Valencia Golf and County Club in April of 2010. At that time of the
sale we were shown a plan of the neighborhood and we were told that a number of units in Phase I and II would be
some 400 homes. They mentioned additional phases but said the number of units would another 400 or so homes, for
a total of just over 800 homes.
Additionally, we were told these were all single- family homes, and as of this point in time they are, as was
mentioned by other speakers.
The Orangetree developer provided us with a neighborhood master plan and the selection of only
single - family homes to choose from.
The proposed amendment plan is totally incompatible with the information that was provided to us at that
time. There are in fact only single - family homes in Valencia Golf and Country Club. Anything other than a
single - family home would be incompatible with the current neighborhood.
The Valencia Golf and Country Club neighborhood is currently limited to approximately 800 units, 2,100
total for the entire PUD. The revised proposed amendment would increase that number by 1,050. Most of those units
would be crammed into Valencia Golf and Country Club. Essentially we would be more than doubling the number of
residents and the number of vehicles in a relatively small space. This massive increase in density for the
neighborhood would dramatically change the lifestyle that we bought into.
The original settlement agreement from 1985 limited the number of units to 2,100 for the entire PUD. This
proposal would raise that by 1,050. As a third -party beneficiary of the settlement agreement and a property owner
within the PUD, I do not support these changes.
Security has been mentioned by the previous speaker (sic) is a major concern at Valencia Golf and Country
Club. We have had a serious problem with vandalism. The Orangetree developer has been unable to address the
problem, and as a result is resorting to locking up the clubhouse and removing all access to all the residents. And has
been pointed out by the previous speaker, the Orangetree developer continues to show that as a sales gimmick to
prospective buyers but fails to tell them that they will not have access to this once they buy the property.
Since they have been unwilling or unable to address the problem, given only the current 400 homes, adding
1,000 more homes will only exasperate the problem. The result will be a serious degradation of the safety and
welfare of the current residents and taxpayers.
We have been told by Orangetree that the additional commercial space requested is for the benefit of us, the
residents. I would point out that this would be the third commercial development within a few miles. One has
already been approved, the other is in the approval process, and there is no demand for a third commercial site such as
-- and as such, adds no value to us as the residents of that neighborhood.
In fact, from the perspective of a resident and taxpayer, there is no redeeming value to this entire amendment.
We have been told by Orangetree that the residents would not be paying for any additional costs associated with this
additional development. I hope that's true, and I would like to have it clearly stated.
However, I respectfully request the Board not approve the amendment proposed. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 27 of 89
161 2 1 A4
October 6, 2011
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Chet Obieleski, to be followed by Michael Winder.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask if you could refrain from the clapping. Just something we don't
normally do, and it might influence somebody in a direction that is more biased, and I'd rather we keep it
straightforward here today.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. OBIELESKI: Good morning. Chet Obieleski, 1586 Double Eagle, Valencia Golf and Country Club.
Many of the previous speakers have itemized some of the points that I have, and I'll try to, for the sake of
brevity, just go over them very quickly.
The master PUD was attached to the settlement agreement, the capped density at 2,100 units. The PUD is
now largely built out, containing Orangetree, Waterways, Valencia Lakes and Valencia Golf and Country Club. The
increased density is concentrated in a limited area, which is basically Valencia Golf and Country Club.
The intense use of Valencia Golf and Country Club community is incompatible with its surroundings. We
are a single - family community with the lowest square footage of about 11 to 1,200 square feet, as previously
mentioned up to 4,000 square feet dwellings.
Building 550 dwellings will only foster investor purchases and consequent rentals will not be compatible with
the single- family community.
The representatives of Orangetree PUD response to the 550 square feet dwellings is that the market will
decide how many will be built. It appears to me that this concept is opposite of the purpose of a Planning
Commission. What would Collier County look like if you left it up entirely to the market to decide what went where?
In addition, there are no guarantees that Randall Boulevard will be widened to support the increased traffic
with the results of this increase in density. 1,050 new units times two cars is 2,100 cars on a two -lane road. This is
not compatible to the area or the master PUD.
Lastly, our community is in transition. As mentioned before, we have no homeowners HOA. It's builder run.
We have no officers, we do not control our own funds, and in short, we are not legally organized to protect ourselves.
We ask you defer this issue until next year when we will have the means to do so. This action by the Board
will demonstrate its sense of fair play. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Michael Winder, to be followed by Kathleen Raimondi.
MR. WINDER: My name is Michael Winder. I live at 1613 Birdie Drive with my wife and our son.
I appreciate the opportunity to spend a moment and share with you a few concerns; many of which that I have
on my list have already been addressed, so I may briefly mention them as additions to my list. But things around
security and safety, definitely high on my list.
Home values. If we have not taken big enough hits already with the economy to see much, much smaller
potential homes go in, it's only going to hurt what we have already taken major losses with.
The access -- learning today that the -- one potential access point may become two, but they are indeed
conceptual as opposed to approved, I've got huge concerns around that for the safety. I physically watched a pretty
major accident happen on our approach boulevard. I was out working out and literally was a few feet away. We put a
lot more vehicles on that road, I'm very concerned for the welfare of the people driving and potentially those of us
who use that area as a pathway to go on work out walks and runs.
I recognize that the landowner, Mr. Bolt, has a right to make money on his investment. But we as
homeowners also have some rights. And as landowners in a -- to a smaller scale, it is my hope that this Commission
will look at our side of the thing and recognize that we bought into something for a very particular reason. My wife
and I, as many others, bought in specifically because it was single - family, gated. We felt pretty secure, nice
clubhouse.
We specifically did not move closer to town. We came here from a community of 12,000 people, a very
small town, and we felt that the sense of community where we are was much like we left up in Indiana. Now we're
seeing things that would threaten that.
I invest heavily. I have a portfolio that I am moderately proud of. But in my career as an investor I've had
some things that have turned south on me. And I did not look to renegotiate that midstream, per se. And I feel like
Page 28 of 89
161 A4
ctober 6 2011
that's what's happening here is that petitioner has come back and said we're not going to be able to make enough
money and therefore we want to change midstream.
Several people who have spoken before me have talked about 550 square foot es. And I recognize that
would be a minimum allowable. But even if that were doubled, it would still be significan y less in value to what is
currently there, and I believe thus it would be incompatible with existing structures.
The concept of a master homeowners association, and I'm hearing now two additional homeowners
associations potentially, creates a very large concern for me. I am a member of the turnover committee for Valencia
Golf and Country Club, and I have read the covenants document on several occasions. In that document it allows for
the developer to have three votes per lot to each of us and a completed home having one vote. I personally find that
very interesting that the builder, D.R. Horton, would have agreed to such terms. I won't speculate why they did.
But what that creates in my sense of reading those documents is a situation where a developer could come in,
and having three votes per lot, having this way increased density could create a circumstance where we would lose
control of our homeowners association completely with only a few lots developed -- or ready for development on
Phases III and IV.
We're just about to, we think, get the responsibility to manage our own homeowners association with
turnover, if it happens. And to see that potentially go out the door, I'm pretty concerned about that.
So bottom line of that is I would like to see a lot more specific language in what will be done, specific
language about the homeowners associations and how that would be addressed. I would like to see more specific
language. We've been told by the petitioner that it would be family friendly commercial, but that is not listed nor is
there any definition of family friendly in the documentation that I have read.
I would like to see some level of language dealing with the type of architecture of what would be developed.
And again, the homeowners association issues and concerns.
What we've been told to this point, what will be developed will be market driven. And we are looking again
at a mass increase of density from 400 units to over 1,000. That's a huge concern. And if there could be perhaps an
increase in the minimum square footages to make them more compatible to that which is existing, as I understand it in
the entire subdivision, the square footages range from about 14, 1,500 square feet to well over 4,000. If some kind of
minimum that is more realistic, more in conjunction with what already exists, I would be open to that language. But to
see more specifics would be something I would welcome.
To their credit, I am glad the petitioner has made some changes based upon conversations they've had, I
know, with members of the Planning Commission, as well as residents. And I am grateful for that. But I do think that
some negotiation can continue. I would love to see it, as was mentioned before, when we have a board of directors
for our HOA that are in place after turnover. And so I would also ask that we look at some way of continuing this,
even a month or two, to give us an opportunity to get those people in place so that they can act as a unit on behalf of
the residents. Because at this point we do have an HOA but it is builder run and they are not responsive.
Again, my family and I bought into a way of life and a community that we thought was going to be very, very
similar to a great way of life that we left up in Indiana. We do enjoy the neighborhood and we don't want to see
things done that we believe would be incompatible with what exists and create a circumstance that would in essence
make me, and I will only speak for myself, unhappy that I chose to live there.
I don't want to see that change, I'd love to see it continue at least moderately close to where it was originally
platted and planned. And if that can be done and we can negotiate to some semblance of that, I would welcome that
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please?
MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Raimondi, to be followed by Howard Anderson.
MS. RAIMONDI: My name is Kathleen Raimondi. I'm at 4290 8th Street Northeast.
At the previous meeting I handed in a petition with 88 signatures of people who do not live within the
Orangetree PUD but are adjacent to it on the north side.
I heard your comments this morning about not wanting to address the issue with the fairgrounds, but that you
were willing to hear each speaker, and I thank you for that.
I do empathize with the people in Valencia Country Clubs, especially the part of building small square
footage residences, because I do feel this is going to severely impact the environment in that area.
Page 29 of 89
161 Z A4
October 6, 2011
With that said, and not wanting to take up too much more time, I need to ask you to please hear what I have
to say. At the prior meeting you said you could not address certain things about community use. What I was hoping
today before this meeting was that we would see the changes in writing. And there is nothing in writing, it's verbal.
At this particular time I've been told they're taking out the tower height in the fairgrounds, they're talking out
the water drilling and they're taking out the residential unit. And I hope that is true. Because these were changes that
were supposed to be put into the PUD ordinance, and there is no reason for any of those in the fairgrounds, because to
me it just means that would be an expansion of the fairgrounds, which would further be intolerable for the people who
live adjacent to it.
With that said, I would like to try to keep my comments as relevant to the PUD as possible, which you have
asked me to do. And so I will -- I would like to address it this way: Since you are a planning and development board
and your guidelines are with the growth management land use, of which I have very little knowledge, none, okay, I
would like to suggest that you rezone the community use section of the fairgrounds back to agriculture.
I would think that you should use -- that you should take this opportunity and use your power and authority to
put this area back to a zoning that is compatible with the people that are living there versus mixed use or community
use, which is very unclear, which has now turned into commercial use, with selling of beer and making money.
And nobody can answer the question, where's the money for the beer sales going? I may say things that you
might find hard to hear, and I apologize, but I need to speak what I've seen, witnessed and what I live next door to. So
please, if it's hard to hear it, I apologize.
Regarding only addressing the property owned by Mr. Bolt, the zoning department has told me, and I believe
this, any change to the PUD is a change to the whole of the PUD. That includes the general standards and the
environmental commitments.
So please keep that in mind relative to the fairgrounds. Because from what we've seen, and this is factual, the
fairgrounds is riding on the coattails of the Orangetree PUD.
The community -- the gated communities, they're allowed the same things to do as the community use
section, but you would never see huge Budweiser trucks pulling into their community use section and selling beer
next to their homes. You wouldn't see amplifiers next to their homes. I mean, these are people that they bond
together and they support each other because of their lifestyle, but the people adjacent to this PUD are treated as if we
don't even exist. It's time to address the consistency and the compatibility of the rest of the homeowners, whether
you're in it or outside of it.
There has to be some consistence with the Orangetree PUD. The fairgrounds has a lease, we found out, with
Collier County dated November 10th, 1986. This lease is good for 50 years. Apparently when it was discovered that
this lease existed, it's so primitive and so out of date that it appears as if the petition of 88 signatures is now going to
backfire against us and be used against us and we're going to be passed the buck one more time.
We've been told with the disturbances in the fairgrounds, call code enforcement. Code enforcement said call
sheriff. Sheriff said call code enforcement, this is a code issue. Call the sheriff. We can't do anything, they have a
permit. They have a blanket permit, they have a temporary pen-nit. Nobody knew anything. We were passed the
buck from one department to the next, to the next.
And now we're being told that we're going to be passed to -- we went from zoning, now we're going to be
going from County Manager to the Collier County Commissioners and the County Attorney. So we're just being
pushed from one department to the next to the next. And real property. And now we have to be --we have to handle
landlord- tenant issues because the tenant is the fairgrounds, which is the Collier County Fair and Exhibition, which
was meant for 4 -H, which was a wholesome family event, okay. So actually we feel as if the petition's working
against us.
The issues that you do not want to address are the frequency of the events, the type of events --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mrs. Raimondi, I'm sorry right to interrupt you, but you seem to have missed the
point --
MS. RAIMONDI: No, sir, I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not that we do not want to address them, we legally cannot. And you can -- I
mean, you can have a few more minutes to talk about something we cannot address, but I'm asking you to reconsider
your position here today and address the Board that can do the handling of that lease, and that is the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 30 of 89
161 2 A 4
October 6, 2011
You can do a public petition to them and discuss this lease with them. We have no authority over it. And I
tried to make that clear in the beginning so that we would avoid issues that aren't relevant to the zoning issues today.
So -- we just can't do it, ma'am. So I'll give you a few more minutes to wrap up, but you're going, in the wrong
direction, you really are.
MS. RAIMONDI: I understand. But what I'm asking you is to rezone it back to agricultural, and these are
the reasons why --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, there's a Florida Statute called the Burt Harris. You cannot rezone
something without a landowner's permission and his application. Otherwise you threaten a Burt Harris claim in which
all kinds of things can come out of that, both financially for the county and anybody else. We are not in that position.
We cannot do that. That has nothing to do with this Board.
MS. RAIMONDI: And I respect your informing me of this issue that I have no knowledge of But at least
hear at least what I have to say and respect me, because I've gone through five years of this. And there's no way in
three minutes that I can inform you of how you might be able to handle this without just being shut down.
Everybody shuts us down. We have a right to be heard. We're landowners too. So at least hear me out
before I even finish, because I haven't even presented things that you might actually find useful for this Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, please get to the zoning issues. You've been talking for seven minutes.
You have three minutes left. Please get to the zoning issues so we can wrap it up, okay?
MS. RAIMONDI: I think what I'm trying to ask you is to consider the fact of the section of the Orangetree
PUD on the north end is not functionally compatible with the homeowners. It is not. And you have the authority to
change that. I don't know how. That's why you're elected to this. But I do believe you have the authority. The
fairgrounds was never intended for the things that are taking place.
I would like to show you a couple of things, because I believe a picture says 1,000 words. These are pretty
bad pictures, because that's the way they come out when you enlarge them. This is a picture that was taken of the
fairgrounds in February, 2010. It's pretty bad. But you can get the idea of how many --yeah, take all of them. Take
all of them. Especially this one. But put them all up.
(Speaker in audience began to speak.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, the lady has another couple of minutes and then that wraps it up. And I've been
more tolerant than I believe was necessary.
But ma'am, I've pleaded with you not to go in this direction. You've got two minutes to wrap it up and then
I'm going to have to ask you to sit down.
MS. RAIMONDI: I'll sit down now if that's what you want, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am looking -- we're trying to seek information on the zoning issues involving the
application in front of us today. The issues you're talking about have nothing to do with the application in front of us
today.
MS. RAIMONDL• This is an application, Mr. Strain. This was given to the fairgrounds, a temporary use
permit by the Planning and Regulation Department of the Growth Management Division. It was filled out whether or
not there would be alcohol. And it was filled in yes, scratched out and put unknown.
This paragraph reads: The fair will split costs for the beer 60/40 with the Rotary Club of Naples Bay, and
after costs of insurance, et cetera, the split will be 60 percent Collier County Fair and 40 percent Rotary Club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to please sit down. We've had a lot of -- 10 minutes of
your discussion, most of it is irrelevant to the matter we're here for today, so I'm going to ask you to sit down.
MS. RAIMONDI: You should do the courtesy of showing the audience the photographs of what the
Orangetree PUD north section looked like in February, 2010.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, we've already allowed you more than ample time. You've made your point.
Thank you.
MS. RAIMONDI: That's fine. If you choose not to hear anymore, then I hope your decision doesn't give you
infamous credit for having intoxicated drivers going down the street when you're going home.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, thank you for your time today.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Howard Anderson, to be followed by Mark Minor.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Howard Anderson. I'm a resident, 1690
Page 31 of 89
October 6, 2011
Double Eagle Trail, Naples, Florida, Valencia Country Club.
I'm a person of simple words. I'm a firm believer in five simple words: Honesty, integrity, ethics,
commitment and accountability.
We moved here recently from Duluth, Georgia, from a master planned community very similar to what we
have right now. It was zoned in four sections. The first two sections built out fine. Unfortunately something
happened between the builder and the developer and they split company. So sections three and four were built. So it's
very similar to what we're seeing here where we have section one and two already existing and section three and four
a new builder.
What we looked for very specifically in Duluth was a master planned community where we could sit down
and look at plat maps, we could look at convenances, we could look at the houses. We saw compatibility, we saw
consistency. We liked that. I happened to like that. That's why I don't live somewhere else in Florida or somewhere
else in Georgia.
Within those areas we looked at similar homes. We had minimum square footage. We had minimum lot
sizes. We were surrounded by people pretty much in the same income level as we were because that was our choice,
our freedom, to be associated with those people, and at similar income levels.
We moved down to Naples. We're somewhat new to this so I'm learning as we go how Florida works. And
you're pretty much kind of like Georgia. We looked from Sarasota, Venice, Englewood, Marco Island, and we made
our home here in Naples. And we looked specifically for a master planned community. And we were offered -- we
found this nice community called Valencia Golf and Country Club. It offered a 24 by seven gated, guarded facility,
who much to our chagrin I guess that changed to 16 hours gated.
Again, during our process we looked for homes, single- family homes with a certain minimum size; 1,500
square feet is what I thought it was -- and I could be mistaken, but that's what I thought it was -- with a certain amount
of property. Again, this is stuff that you do in due diligence, at a certain cost. Some people talked, the houses actually
at one time went for $620,000.
It had a clubhouse that was open to the members. Not locked at 7:00 at night. It had a pool. It had tennis
courts. Oh, I said tennis courts, I'm sorry, do we have tennis courts?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to direct your questions to us. At least your comments to us.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, sure, okay.
Have you seen any tennis courts out there that were on the master plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly haven't looked. But you need to direct your comments to us, though.
Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll keep it to you guys, thank you.
Well, I'm a real big believer, besides those little simple words, in doing due diligence. What did I buy into? I
went, I looked at my realtor, I said show me the master plan, what is Valencia Golf and Country Club about? With
single - family homes, the prices are roughly from here to here. It has minimum square footage from here to here. All
of those things were within what we were looking for.
So from there we went -- not believing the salesperson, I mean, I'm a salesperson, why should I believe one?
We went to the builder. Same thing. Show us the plat map. Show us the intended use of that property. They did.
They were very convenient, very good. We didn't buy a home from them, we bought something else.
We then came down to the county, took a look at the plat map. It's a master zoned community. This is
approved, it's been legalized, everything is set forth. It's a very simple thing. Everything is going to be consistent and
identical, everything's going to -- you know, you're going to be happy, don't worry about it. Love those words, don't
worry about it.
We entered into a contract in good faith with the developer and the builders, whatever, of that master plan
community.
We took them at their word and at their written word, this is how the community is going to be built.
So I apologize, I'm a little confused as to why we're here today. Quite frankly, I'm outraged. You have no
idea how outraged I am.
We were shown a planned community. It implied -- it is an implied contract in my mind, at least as me, it's
an implied contract. This is how this development is going to look. It's going to be single - family homes. And by the
way, I stand corrected, there was a small section for R -3 or R -4, I guess you call it, for multi- family homes. But again,
Page 32 of 89
16 12 p 4 '`°
October 6, 2011
certain square footage. That's my bad. I take responsibility for my actions, I am accountable.
We are now here because the developer wants to hold us accountable. Sorry, us 4ccountable for his bad
investment. He's a developer. He's a risk taker. You get profit, you get loss on a risk. We call those landowners,
whatever you want to call them, it's an investor. Now you want me to pay for his mistake? No. Sorry guys, I don't
think you would like it.
So he makes a bad investment. I feel like maybe I should go to the TARP fund and ask for money out of that.
Okay.
Our home prices will drop, not because of a recession or a depression, which is a depression and recession.
They're going to be driven down by the greedy developer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask that you got to start wrapping up, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Fine, no problem.
I urge you, the panel, or the committee, to throw this thing out totally. Don't even bother. What are we here
for?
All they're doing is wasting your time, our time and the taxpayers' time. And it puts an undue stress and
strain on the residents of Valencia Country Club. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Mark Minor, to be followed by Robert Davidson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Minor. I was waiting for Mark Minor to come up. You have the same name
as a friend of mine who's an engineer here locally. And I think that's a good thing, but I just -- I wasn't sure who
would stand up.
MR. MINOR: My name is Mark Minor. I live at 1630 Birdie Drive. Many of the things I want to say have
been mentioned by previous speakers, so I'll try to keep this short.
My wife and I bought into Valencia Golf and Country Club about four years ago. We made a commitment to
Collier County. We made a commitment to each other and my daughter to raise her in an environment that we
sought.
Our community, because of the economic times, has already taken a large hit. I've already seen many of my
neighbors have to leave because they were so underwater in their houses there was no hope of them ever recouping
what their investment was.
If this goes forward, it's going to put a neighborhood that's already teetering on a downward slope onto the
fast track of going down. It will make -- many of the conversations we have out on the sidewalk with our neighbors is
if this goes forward I have no hope of ever receiving my investment back and we're just going to fold up our tents and
move on.
My other main concern is we are not in the position to argue for ourselves. This seems to be coming up at a
time when the community is in transition. We need time as a community to get an HOA together that we can speak
collectively, do our due diligence and work together. At the -- and I appreciate them coming out and meeting with the
community, it did answer a lot of questions.
And it was told to us a couple things that are concerning. One is this is in our best interest, with more
rooftops we get more services. Well, as homeowners we knew what we were buying into. We knew the services that
were in the community. I don't need a developer to help me obtain services. I knew where the closest grocery store
was. I was willing to accept that. You know, I just don't buy that that is in our best interest, you know, to add more
roofs to the community so we can attract services. I think they're protecting the developer.
My other concern, as I mentioned, was we need time as a community to put our board together so we can
speak collectively. And I hope that you give consideration to everything that's mentioned here, and I thank you for
your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Robert Davidson, to be followed by the last speaker, David Jeskie.
MR. DAVIDSON: Good evening -- good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's still afternoon. We'll be here in the evening, though, I can tell you.
MR. DAVIDSON: Along morning.
Page 33 of 89
161 2 1 A4
October 6, 2011
I'm Robert Davidson. I live at 1444 Birdie Drive.
I'm one of the newbies. I purchased my home about three months ago. And I'm totally surprised by the
action that's coming down here.
A lot of what's been said, my notes were pretty much similar to everyone else.
One of the things that I -- I've lived in Naples 20 years. I was born in St. Petersburg, as was my dad. And I
was raised in Florida. My dad was too. And I feel a real connection with Florida. I've not lived anywhere else for
any length of time. I've served in the military. I was a medic in the Army, and fortunately the VA helped me buy this
home with my mortgage.
I bought this home to retire in some day. I have a business that's been going for 15 years here in Naples. I've
lived in Naples 20 years. And I drive every day to work and help people with medical issues.
Anyway, I would like to retire in a nice community, a single - family homes with a golf course that I don't
have to have an investment in or pay for, which was quite an amenity when I was told about this, all the benefits of
living in Valencia Golf and Country Club.
And turns out that some of those amenities are going to disappear here shortly. I didn't expect to have condos
in this subdivision that I moved into. I expected them to be single - family homes. And it's turning out to be differently.
We're in Phase II, I believe, and it's not quite finished yet. There are several homes being built after mine. I
was for a while the last one being built, and now there's about 10 more being built simultaneously on Birdie Drive at
the end of Birdie Drive. And apparently Mr. Bolt owns some property that I look out over a lake on that would be
housing there that's not going to take place now. And I'm kind of disappointed in that.
But I'm concerned about the traffic that's going to happen. Our security, as everyone mentioned before, is
next to nothing. People can come into that subdivision by just saying that I'm going to play golf and they're in our
community. So there is really no security there.
So now we're going to have all these condos being built in the same subdivision. And there's only one
entrance in and one entrance out. And it's just going to be chaotic if we leave it that way.
I think the best suggestion, I haven't heard anybody mention it today, would be to have a separate PUD
designed just for this new area that's left over. Instead of putting multi- family homes in Phase III and IV like it was
initially planned for single - family homes, why don't we just take that III and IV phase and just make it a separate
entity and have its own entrances and exits? That's what I think I would be satisfied with. And have the remainder of
the properties in the Valencia Golf and Country Club finished single - family homes and we'd have our own entrance
and security to take care o£
The other thing that's important, and I reiterate what everyone else has said, it's important that we have our
own homeowners association so we can have a spokesperson that will speak to you guys for all of us and put it in a
concise logical manner that would be acceptable.
That's all I have to say. I just think you should not approve it as it is and look at it from a different way.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please?
Cherie', you okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to try to wrap the speakers up and then we'll break for lunch.
MR. JESKIE: Yes, my name is David Jeskie. I live at 1713 Birdie Drive in Valencia Golf and Country
Club.
I guess I'm very surprised to what extent this modification came to the -- came before the Board already. In
my opinion, this is a totally separate and should be addressed as a separate PUD.
If you take a look at what is currently done, three- quarters of the master plan is completed already. Mr.
Saunders so eloquently indicated that, you know, we're only 1.6 homes per acre, okay. The reality of it is, if you take
-- if you exclude the three - quarters of the area that has been completed already, we're more in line of four to five units
per acre. The builder obviously is just trying to cram as much as he could into a small area.
The type of people associated with smaller units are considerably less than what we bought into. Again, we
bought into a single - family community.
Taking a look at some of the literature, we have units in there as large as 5,200 square feet, okay? On average
Page 34 of 89
161 2 A
October 6, 011
the average home in Valencia Golf and Country is approximately 3,000 square feet. What they're proposing here is
just a little larger than some of our garages are, okay?
For the staff to come forward and say that these units are compatible with the existing units in Valencia Golf
and Country is totally misleading and false. You cannot tell me how a 550 square foot multi -unit dwelling is
comparable to a 5,200 square foot unit.
We bought into it with the exception of having a single - family community. I believe the developer
previously pulled out Orange Blossom Ranch and made that a separate PUD. In our opinion, that's what also should
be done here. There is really no reason to entangle it within Valencia Golf and Country. I mean, I know why they're
doing it, as you do, that they're just trying to cram as much in the land that they have.
But in all fairness to everyone, it really would make sense to go forward with a separate PUD, keep our
existing entrance the way it is. And if he needs to cram so many more units in the additional land he has, that's his
rights. But his rights are infringing on ours. He has not filled commitments to any of the existing homeowners. As
you heard from many of my existing neighbors, Mr. Bolt has not been a good neighbor. If you go back and you talk
to Waterways, Valencia Lakes, he has fallen short on all his commitments in each of those communities and he's also
currently falling short on a lot within our communities.
I currently -- my family currently owns two units in Valencia Golf and Country in excess of a million dollars.
I'm not looking for condos, townhouses and multi - family units being put into our community. I mean, it's sheer
developer geed. And I really hope that the Planning Commission takes a step back and looks at this objectively.
I know there's a lot of political things going on right now, but I really hope that the buck stops here and that
you look at it realistically. There's nothing he's doing that is benefiting any of the homeowners in Valencia Golf and
Country. That has been shown by his actions already. He's not here to make our lives better. He's locking up
clubhouse, not fulfilling what has been promised and what we bought into.
Most of the homes that are in Valencia Golf and Country Club far exceed the average living area of most
communities in Collier County. Being compatible with 550 square foot units is not compatible. Obviously staff has
been told to try to make the numbers work.
I really hope that the Planning Commission could look at this is objectively and, you know, he has certain
rights, we have certain rights. I really wish, though, that before you did make any decision that this would be deferred
so we can obtain proper legal counsel, you know, given that the homeowners association is currently getting in
assemblance.
So if possible, you know, this could be deferred anyway till after the first of the year, that would put us in a
much better position to speak about it from a professional level. Because I know there's a lot going on there now that
shouldn't even be proposed.
So we thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just got a comment or two, because you had said somethings that got me thinking
in another direction.
But first of all, let me clarify something. When staff renders their opinion on this, it's strictly on whether or
not it's consistent with code.
MR. JESKIE: Oh, strictly code?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, strictly code. So they can't be faulted for the way they look at it. But it's up to
this Board to take in other parameters, which is why we have asked for your input and why you're speaking.
You said that to separate it out as a separate PUD. Just out of curiosity, based on the coloration on that map,
which area would generally be the area that would -- you can't speak over by that map because you're not on speaker.
MR. JESKIE: Sure, but in general --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That didn't do any good.
MR. JESKIE: I'm going to do it anyway.
Let me just point out, the entrance of Valencia Golf and Country is right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm familiar with that, yes.
MR. JESKIE: Okay. The balance of this, all this area here already has been committed. You have
Waterways, Valencia Lakes. That has all been built out. So any of the proposed new stuff I believe they have here in
orange.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 35 of 89
16I 2 A4
October 6, 2011
MR. JESKIE: Why not make a separate entrance right here, create a whole separate PUD for that there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's kind of what I thought you were getting at.
So your concern is not so much having the uses that to some extent that they're suggesting in the area to the
east, if it was a separate PUD, but it only is if it's part of your PUD. I'm wondering how that changes the
compatibility. Because you're still -- you got the same thing, but the paperwork is different.
MR. JESKIE: Well, not really. Because again, right now, and again I'm strictly guessing, that he wants to
use the same entrance to maximize the use of this land. So as soon as he puts a separate entrance in here, he's also
taking away some of his proposed units. So I think it changes the whole atmosphere of what's here. And I think by
taking that approach, it's also going to eliminate a lot of the concerns of the neighbors.
Because right now he's coming in and saying, okay, right now we're approved for 833 units. He's asking for a
250 percent increase of trying to mix apples with oranges here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You do know there's another entrance proposed on Oil Well?
MR. JESKIE: Yeah, but again, there's currently a public golf course that is privately owned that is utilizing
this entrance, as is the existing 833 units. A lot of the residents have concerns about a gated community with a public
golf course on it using the same entrances.
But I really think you would eliminate a lot of the residents' concerns. Again, he has land here, he has certain
rights. It shouldn't affect what's here. I can't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You made your point. I understand. I'm just trying to understand where the line of
demarcation more or less was being suggested.
Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Ray, any other speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No others registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take our --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's more --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. We're going to take our lunch at around noon, so I'd like to make sure
anybody that wants to speak before we take our lunch has an opportunity if they can't be here afterwards.
And two ladies in the back and Andrew, so that's three -- and four. Okay, four more speakers and --
MR. McELWAINE: I'm not going to take the full five minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure, Cherie', is that good for you?
THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine. 1 just want to know if they've been sworn in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they're all people that --so we have four more speakers. Then we're going to
take a break for lunch.
Andrew, go ahead.
MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andrew McElwaine.
I won't repeat what I said to you two weeks ago. The -- I will note that when I worked in Washington, I
distinctly remember 25 years ago Senator Bob Packwood suggesting that every time a new entitlement program was
created that we should celebrate it with some kind of formal ceremony. He suggested an ice cream eating contest so
that we could all get our stomachs upset beforehand rather than after the new entitlement was created.
There is a new entitlement being created here. And once -- as a very wise columnist in the Collier Citizen
once said: Once given cannot be taken away. The -- there is not a vested interest in this additional development, and
you will create one by doing this. So from a Conservancy perspective, that is a concern to us as an organization.
Second is the PUD, the way it's been put together. We talked about Hacienda Lakes a little earlier. And I
love to quote Yogi Berra: It's deja vu all over again.
What we're seeing from the Conservancy perspective are PUD's coming in before you that are not really
PUD's, they're not conceptual plans for future development, they're laundry lists. And really without the kind of
specificity people from the public have spoken here today, and they require you who are volunteers here and giving of
your time to serve the community, well, they're putting you through a lot of extra service by bringing you these
proposals that are really more wish lists than PUD's in my opinion.
And one hopes that people will get the message by the amount of time and effort that you put into this that
that's just not the way to do business, and certainly it's, I think, a significant deterioration in the way we do business in
this county.
Page 36 of 89
1612 A4
October 6, 2011
Finally, someone mentioned that the -- at the public meeting the applicant said the market will decide what
goes into these developments. And indeed under this PUD that's darn right. There will not be much limitation other
than what the market decides.
But if we're going to go that way, your services would no longer be needed if the market's just going to
decide what goes where. And indeed, Mr. Casalanguida would have a lot of new things to work on, because a whole
bunch of this stuff would not need to be worked on if the just market decides. We could put an oil well in the middle
of this place.
So I would say we really need to, from a Conservancy perspective, really tighten this up. And I regret that
you're going to be the ones to do that rather than the applicant.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, some of the folks have mentioned concerns, and I just want to say that sounds like
there's some real issues with the development standards here. And so that's something to be looked at. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
And the two ladies in the back will go first. I'm sure the gentleman wants that too. So --
MS. JOHNSON: Hi, my name is Carolyn Johnson. I live at 1709 Birdie Drive.
And I'm not the most eloquent speaker. I don't have a law degree. I don't know much about real estate. I
moved here from New York City three years ago. And I have -- I'm a single mother with four children. I moved to
Valencia Golf and Country Club in the hopes of having all the things that D.R. Horton promised me.
I had the brochure that I was given when we moved here and it says that I'm supposed to have 24 -hour guard
at my gate. I don't have that. The guard lets anyone in.
The other day I was traveling and the guard called me while I was sitting at the airport and said well,
somebody called proposing that they were you, and we let them in, and now there's like 27 kids at the pool under your
name.
And I said, well, I didn't call, and I let nobody in. And then I had to call the police from the airport. I was not
home. And I really don't know what the outcome was because the sheriffs department never called me. So I don't
know if these children were trespassed. I don't know what happened. The guard lets anyone in. You could be
Charles Manson and they will let you in.
On this list we were promised a tot lot. We were promised a tennis court. And my children are very active,
and I like to keep them outside, and that's one of the reasons I moved here, so that we would have good weather and,
you know, knowing that I have a lot of area around any home that my children can play that is safe.
And I did not know that Mr. Bolt owned my street. I did not know he owned my sprinklers. And D.R.
Horton never disclosed any of this information to me when I bought my home.
I am so upside down in my home that I don't even know -- I can't leave and I don't know what to do. And I'm
so upset with what's going on, because this is only going to impact our area further and bring more desirable -- no, not
at all, it's not going to bring anything desirable to the neighborhood.
I agree with David and some of my other neighbors that maybe if they decided to take this, make it a separate
entity, a lot of people would be happier with that. Because if we can't see what goes on beyond the treeline maybe it
would be more compatible because it's not in our faces.
I think that we need to really make a decision here, a very informed decision for the Board, to take into
consideration that people moved here for a reason. And we moved here for a better lifestyle. I didn't want to live in
crime ridden New York anymore, I wanted to give my children a better life. And I don't know if this is the better life
that I was looking for. But thank you for listening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
And you fooled me. You didn't look like you'd even know Charles Manson's time frame.
MS. FEELY: I'm Barb Feely (phonetic), and my husband and I live at 2157 Garden Place.
I echo what my neighbors have said. I just have a real quick thing to say to you, and that is we moved here a
year ago from Ohio because my husband has tenninal cancer. And he wanted to make sure I lived in a safe
neighborhood.
So please, the limited access, even though she had a difficult time with the guard, that's fixable. What's not
fixable is to put 1,000 more units, so much smaller, so much lower cost, at least 2,000 more cars going in and out that
you can't keep control of.
Page 37 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
The second thing I would say is please, we need representation. This is too soon for our group, since we're
sort of in flex here. Please give us time to be able to respond in kind. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much.
Next speaker and last speaker. Yes, sir.
MR. PEARL: Thanks, I'm happy to be the last speaker.
Hi. My name's Ian Andrew Pearl. I'm one of the original owners in Valencia Golf and Country Club. There
was another one here -- is any of the -- there's another group of us. There's several of us that are here.
I'm not going to bore you with the issues that we've had with builders or Bolt or any of that other stuff. But
what I will say to you is, one question -- how many lawyers are in the room?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're going to have to address your attention to us. I'm sorry.
MR. PEARL: Can I ask how many lawyers are in the room?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no idea. That's not relevant.
MR. PEARL: Well, it is. It is gennane to this.
We have a situation here which we already have precedent for. When they wanted to build Orange Blossom,
what did they do? They created a new PUD. We can create a new PUD here, and that eliminates some of the issues, a
great deal of the issues that the people that live in Valencia Golf and Country Club have. Because some of those were
created at the very beginning when Bolt started the process. By owning the street that enters, approach is owned by
Mr. Bolt. Approach is also -- the guardhouse that's there is owned by Mr. Bolt. The lakes, that's fine, he can own the
lakes. The point being is that you're creating greater density in a neighborhood that doesn't need anymore density.
You know, when we were told what this neighborhood was going to be, some of us understood some of the
things that were going on, the golf course was owned by somebody. But to take something that we really believe was
going to be an additional 400 homes and turn it into another 1,100 or 1,200 or 1,000 using the same egress and ingress
that we have coming in now, which is going to cause nothing but traffic and additional issues, and then when you
come down to the corner of Randall and Immokalee. Now, I understand they're going to have a four -lane road or
six -lane road there. When?
Up until that point and while they're building it with another 12 or 1,300 homes, what you're going to have
there is nothing but chaos. Total chaos. I ask that everybody here on this Board please think about it. Think about
what's going on here.
You know, Mr. Bolt has the right to do what he wishes with his property. I ask that he builds a PUD, a whole
separate one. Because unfortunately Mr. Bolt is a Christmas tree of lawsuits already. He's not going to be disturbed
by another one or two or three. Thanks for listening to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay, with that we will take a break and we'll resume at 1:05. So we'll see you all then.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our lunch break. And we had before lunch
heard from the public speakers involving the Orangetree PUD. In order to hear the public speakers, we left off with
the applicant being cut short in their presentation so we could fit everybody in.
Couple of things have come up I want to mention to you. Today's agenda did not contain just Orangetree, but
it's obvious that Orangetree could take and will take all of our time today that we can spare for it plus more time in
two weeks or whenever we can get back to it. So we do have another item on today's agenda, and it's a boat dock
item that was continued from previous week. We cannot out of fairness see that continued again.
So we will hear that boat dock item no later than 4:00. And Burt, if your team finishes up early, which I
seriously doubt, we can hear the boat dock item early. But we will hear it -- wherever we are at 4:00 will be our
cut -off point for your item.
So from the Planning Commission's perspective, from now until 4:00 it's going to be more like a workshop
environment where we're just doing interaction back and forth to get things to some points, if possible, of a
compromise, or if possible not. But at least we'll leave the applicant with instructions on how to come back next time.
Okay, Burt?
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just one real quick cleanup item. On Page 30 of our PUD application, or proposed PUD, there was some
language under paragraph five that was inadvertently deleted. I just want to read into the record what that language is.
Page 38 of 89
A 4
161 2 October 6, 2011
And then we're going to strike through it anyway. So the language is going to come out. But I just need to put it back
in so we can strike it out. It was inadvertently left out.
It's the language in the second paragraph of sub -part five --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said Page 30, because we're --
MR. SAUNDERS: I'm song, Page 48. I'm sorry. But it's the paragraph that starts off. At such time as
Collier County discontinues operation of the on -site water or sewer plants, and then ends with the phrase, pursuant to
paragraph six. We want to put that -- that language would go back in that was in the original PUD, and then we're
striking through it because that language is coming out.
Staff understands what that all means. Doesn't affect what you're doing, because the language is coming out
anyway. I can read the whole thing, if you want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's wait till we got -- that's 48 pages ahead of where we're at. We're going to get
there I believe on a page -by -page basis, so let's just deal with it when we get there.
MR. SAUNDERS: Okay, fine.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, we listened to the public comment, and there
seemed to be a couple general themes throughout the presentations. There was concern that there would be a plethora
of 550 square foot units. We're in agreement to have the minimum sized unit will be 1,000 feet. Under the current
PUD document the units can be 750 square feet. So we're going to raise the minimum square footage for any unit to
1,000, which is better than what is in the document currently.
There was another area of concern, and that was the specter of having multi- family units or small units
adjacent to residential communities that are already in existence. So if you look at the overhead, there's an R -4 parcel.
We're going to change that to R -2. That's what it currently is today.
Just below that is an R -3 that we had proposed. We're going to change that to R -2. That again is what is
currently approved in the existing PUD.
And just to the east of that is another parcel that is designated as R -4. We're going to change that to R -2 also.
So those three parcels that are adjacent to and actually do impact an existing community are going to be
changed back in our proposal to R -2, so they'll be totally consistent with what's out there.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you run those by one more time? I was a little behind.
MR. SAUNDERS: There's three parcels. There's an R -4 parcel.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Got that one.
MR. SAUNDERS: There's an R -3 parcel just below that. And then just to the east of that is another R -4
parcel. Those three parcels will be designated as R -2, so that they will be totally consistent with what is currently out
there. Because there was a lot of concern about having multi- family or small units adjacent to that. That's what's
already -- that's what's there, and so we're going to change that zoning to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, just so this Board understands, especially for Phil and anybody else that
might be new to this process, whatever discussions we have today will not be decided on today. But the applicant will
come back at the next meeting or whenever they can with all the suggested revisions that they're going to make, and
we will again walk through it to make sure on whether or not they're better or worse or we agree or disagree.
So we're going to have a second meeting that that's going to then take a look and organize everything that the
applicant has -- I've got 11 items or more that they've already changed. But we haven't seen the impact of those on a
plan or in the language. So that's all got to come back for us to re- review and hash over again.
But I wanted you to know we're going to have a second bite at the apple more or less to make sure that
whatever direction they agreed to or we supplied or the public input emphasized was addressed.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman and members, there was another general theme and that was security,
concerns of break -ins and things of that nature. What I would propose is after this meeting -- obviously we're going to
be in front of the Planning Commission again for a subsequent meeting -- in between this meeting and that meeting, I
would propose to meet with the representatives of the homeowners out there so we could take a look at the internal
security issues and see how we can place additional gates and things to really separate the new development from the
existing development and to hopefully enhance security and to alleviate the concerns that there are going to be a lot of
people that are going to be flooding this area and creating security concerns.
So I don't know if the homeowners have representatives, but I would like to meet with five or six or seven of
their representatives after this meeting before the next one to talk about how we can properly deal with the security
Page 39 of 89
�4 I' =i
16 ' ctober 6 2011
issue. And I think we can resolve that. I think we can resolve everyone's concerns with that.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I'd like to turn this over to Bob Mulhere to go through in a little bit more detail the
significant changes that we're making in addition to the ones that I've already outlined to the Planning Commission.
And then we'll go through, Mr. Chairman, the issues that will be raised by Planning Commission members. We can
go through those I think rather quickly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay and Ray, as they go through their recommended -- or their suggested
changes, I want to make sure from a staff perspective everything that's being suggested is less intensive rather than
more so that we don't have an issue with a re- review through the county departments, if it needs to go that far.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere.
I'm going to ask Jane to pass out a list of commitments that we were prepared to make. We would have
already shared these with you, but since we're going after the public speakers, some of these have already changed in
light of what Burt already put on the record.
But I'll still go over each of these, and I know there's even going to be more changes as we go through your
comments. So maybe if I start, some of these might answer some of your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want this Board to question you as you go along --
MR. MULHERE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- instead of waiting till the end? Okay.
So I'll do my best to catch your signals that you want to speak. But let's just --we'll start --you're going to
take a bullet at a time?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. So starting with the first set of bullets I've noted or headed under as a result of
meeting at Valencia Golf and Country Club, that was definitely an interesting meeting.
The first bullet is we had proposed the elimination of the R -4 designation, converting it to R -2 and to R -3 in
other locations except for the one location close to the clubhouse. So we've already changed that as a result of hearing
public comment today. So as Burt said, we're going to take this down to R -2, we're going to take this down to R -2,
and we're going to take this down to R -2. So this existing Valencia Golf and Country Club will have all R -2 zoning,
and so those issues will be addressed.
The remaining R -4 that we've always been asking for, we're still asking for that. That would be in this new
development area.
We had agreed to reduce the height from our requested three stories in R -3 to 35 feet zoned and 42 feet actual
and limiting it to two stories. And that really -- I don't know that that applies very much anymore with this -- if that's
really a concern anymore with this changing down to R -2, because we would live by the R -2 standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but your R -3 in the east, you're still going to have these limitations on it.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it does apply in the sense that it limits --
MR. MULHERE: Two story. Yes, 35 feet.
We also agreed to limit the height in the neighborhood commercial and office commercial districts to 35 feet
zoned and 42 actual, and limit it to no more than two stories.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the MU /U?
MR. MULHERE: That allows -- refers you back to the R -4 development standards. That is mixed use, so
we do wish to retain three stories in height in that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the area that's adjacent to Waterways? Because that was a speaker's
concern, and it was one I had raised to you as well at one point. You got that neck going up to Waterways, so there
needs to be --
MR. MULHERE: We can limit it -- we'll come back with a treatment of that that limits it to two story within
proximity to that area. Because otherwise it's got the elementary school and middle school and high school here. So
it's a good location otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. MULHERE: We already mentioned that we're entirely eliminating the request for resort lodging units,
whether they were in a hotel or something different. They're gone.
We are agreeing to provide separate recreational facilities for the new development area. So when I use the
word new development area, I'm talking about this area in here. There are lots obviously still in here that would be
Page 40 of 89
161 A4 x.
c 2011
O o er 6 ,
new development, but that's not what I'm referring to when I say the new development area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the recreation area became a strong discussion with many people that spoke
here today. What are your intentions with the current recreation areas, or where are the current recreation areas that
service the existing development? So that we know where the new ones are being thought of
MR. MULHERE: Well, we have to actually locate the new ones somewhere within the new area. We
haven't done that yet. We will have to locate them somewhere within the new area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll do that before the next meeting?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can find a location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean the clubhouse and the facilities in the clubhouse are recreation areas
considered for the balance of the community?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean you're going to be allowing the residents of the new section to the
east in the R -3 access to that clubhouse as well?
MR. MULHERE: I need to talk to my --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are answers you can come back with. But I think it's important to address
these. I'm saying them on the record so that members of the public who can speak next time after they hear more can
decide if this is better or worse --
MR. MULHERE: I think that we can, but I definitely want to ask that question of my client.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The capacity is what I'm worried about. When you're adding units, you're adding
capacity. If facilities weren't built for the ultimate capacity, you've got additional problems.
MR. MULHERE: Presumably the new recreational facilities would be primarily used by people that live
close to them in the new area. I just didn't know, for example, if there was -- there was a mention of tennis courts,
let's say there were some tennis courts built, I didn't know if those would be shared facilities. I do need to clarify that
with my client before we come back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Are you going to address the issue that was brought up earlier when you
come back as to access to the existing clubhouse? I'll term that part of the existing recreational facilities. That
seemed to be an issue this morning as well.
MR. MULHERE: That's something we really don't have any control over. That is either -- between the
existing HOA and D.R. Horton. I mean, maybe we can find some answers, but we don't have control over --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I've got to caution you on, Bob, you know that in most PUD's there
is a recreational component. In many PUD's we insist on recreational facilities if they're not shown. Well, if you've
got them and they're not usable, that's the same as being not shown. So, I mean, that needs to be addressed. So when
you come back next time it would be good to address that issue.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's exactly what I was going to say. We'll try to find out what all the facts are and try
to solve that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made notes while the members of the public were speaking. And every one of
those issues we'll probably be asking about and seeing how it was addressed.
MR. MULHERE: We already mentioned that we were reducing the total requested additional density by 200
units. We are agreeing to establish a separate homeowners association for the new development area. That came up
at our meeting out at Valencia Golf and Country Club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you show lines of demarcation when you come back within the plan?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, now that you dropped these other R -3, R -4's into R -2, do you think it
might make sense to have those segments join the existing homeowners and then amenities could be part of that?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's the intent. Thank you. Yes, it would.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that won't be independent --
Page 41 of 89
2,tober A4
1 6 1 6, 2011
MR. MULHERE: No. I'm glad you asked that question. It was specifically asked of us but the intent is that
these folks and these folks and these folks would all be part of the -- this -- you know, the existing Valencia Golf and
Country Club HOA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As R -2 units.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, right --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which was originally designated and originally planned.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And that the new homeowners association would be generally configured, you
know, as that.
We'll come back with an exhibit. We'll show it to you. But generally the one I referred to as the new area.
The next set of bullets were probably also mentioned in the meeting out at Valencia Golf and Country Club,
but I've classified those as coming out of a meeting that we had with Paul Unsworth. And they deal with primarily the
commercial components. And I'm going to put a different exhibit up that shows that a little bit better.
So we're talking about primarily these three, the two neighborhood commercial and the office commercial
locations. We've agreed to a Type C buffer with enhanced plantings and a wall where the neighborhood commercial
abuts residential lots, and a 20 -foot buffer and a wall where the office commercial is abutting residential lots.
There's already been some platting as was referenced in this area down here. And so those landscape buffers
are already provided in accordance -- in terms of the width they're provided in accordance with the code requirements.
But there can be enhanced plantings put into those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the Florida Community Bank site that the residents talked about earlier, that
was a slab with the rebar standing up, I believe that was purchased by your developer?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can apply the new standards to that piece since it is owned by the --
MR. MULHERE: Yes. My point was they've already platted to meet these standards in terms of width, but
we need to provide for additional plantings. And that's something we can do.
I have some exhibits that depict these, I just want to take a moment to make sure I get the right ones up.
Neighborhood commercial. That's the northern one. That's the office.
Okay, so here is an exhibit that deals with the commercial tract that is located neighborhood commercial right
here. And we'll make these exhibits part of the PUD. You can see it's a Type C buffer elevation with enhanced
plantings, including these palm clusters.
And here's a different perspective that shows the wall, the trees and the hedges. And those would be on the
side of the buffer facing the residential lots.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, what setback are you showing for the existing residential?
MR. MULHERE: Can you tell me what the setback is for existing residential?
He's going to find that, both for the residential and the commercial.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this just shows the residential.
MR. MULHERE: That's just the buffer. Yes, you're right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And where is this buffer going, at the NC or at the office?
MR. MULHERE: No, that one is for NC in this location here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And I'm going to show you the office one momentarily.
We'll just move from here on up. I guess that's east, that direction, or north.
This is the buffer and the cross - section for the office. It's a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer. That was
suggested that that is a new commercial location and therefore it should have a larger buffer area. And so we've got
enhanced plantings and a wider buffer width as well there.
And then the last one is the northernmost -- and this is the last of the landscape buffer exhibits. This is also
showing an enhanced buffer plantings in a Type -- in a 15 -foot wide landscape buffer. So the setback is 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on that one you've got an edge of pavement on a right side, and then it says
existing sidewalk there on the left. And in between you have how much space?
Page 42 of 89
16 1 Ztob kr,411
MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for the -- I see the edge of pavement right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now where's this going to go?
MR. MULHERE: This is in the neighborhood commercial right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're trying to show us there is the community road. It's actually a
county road, but it's a road --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the east -- the east side of that property.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's already in place.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the slash pines, normally when they're disturbed they don't live very long.
And if those are still alive that's a good sign.
MR. MULHERE: Those are there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, could you go back to the slide before that? It would be the --
MR. MULHERE: Office?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- office, yes.
And the intent here is you're going to put the wall on the office side of the --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- buffer. But was there going to be any landscaping after that wall on the
office side?
MR. MULHERE: You know, I assume that there will be. We really were more concerned in buffering with
vegetation the residential neighbors. But depending on the location -- if it was just a parking lot there, there may not
be a whole lot of landscaping there because the wall would butt up right against to the parking lot. If there was
something else there, there probably would be. If your concern is that we landscape both sides of the wall, I'm sure
that's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, could you move the wall like five feet over towards the
people, would that -- because you're going to maintain that anyway, you're going to have access to that. They're not
going to be able to, you know, put a side yard fence up to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think if there's any code application to that too in regards to the
landscaping on the inside of that commercial wall, maybe when staff gets up here we can get a comment on that too.
And if not, then we'll have to see what else needs to be done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think it's nice giving the neighbors the effect of the distance.
MR. MULHERE: So what you're suggesting is that we offset the wall enough that we can have at least a
five -foot planting strip on the office side.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because there's aesthetics on both side of that wall.
MR. MULHERE: I would think we'd be able to accommodate that, yeah.
We'll have to revise those when we come back and show you.
I think that's it for the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you aware of the agreement between E's store and the north commercial -- I
mean an Oil Well Road expansion where they limited the buffer to --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we're actually a party to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the buffers that you have on Oil Well Road may not be what you've
culled out. When we get to them -- I didn't know if you were going to show them. It doesn't look like you have,
because you addressed the buffers going to the interior of the project.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at some point later on we'll have to talk about the one on Oil Well Road, so --
MR. MULHERE: Right here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
Page 43 of 89
16 1 2 A4
October 6, 2011
COMMISSIONER EBERT: First, Ray, I have a question for you. This is not a DRI; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: If it were a DRI, they do not mix neighborhood commercial and office for
transportation purposes the same way. And I really understand that this is not a DRI, but I'll tell you what, there's a lot
of strip malls here, and you're putting that office right in the middle of a residential area. It's on the edge, but that was
supposed to be all residential.
When we get further along and I get into it, you not only have those three, but now you want to take that MU
and U and make that also some office and stuff. And just down the street from you, and we cannot forget Orange
Blossom, they have 200,000 square feet of commercial.
I'll read you some vesting things later and maybe we can get these answered.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I would, if I could, I mean, I'd just throw a couple of comments out. One, these
locations along Immokalee Road are very different from a commercial perspective than Orange Blossom Ranch
which, you know, doesn't have that kind of exposure, although it does have some exposure on Oil Well Road. And
the uses that are allowed in that, if you look in that PUD, it has a some C -5 uses and a lot of C -4 uses.
We're actually limiting our uses to almost entirely C -1 to C -3 with some C -4, but it's more neighborhood
commercial. And we'd go over those -- we're going to go over those, you know, item by item.
Also, I would let you know that within the office commercial we do allow for up to 15,000 square feet of
neighborhood center uses, just so that there could be some mixture of uses in that district as well.
In going to the MU/U, I think that's why I put the aerial on, I just want to, you know, remind the Planning
Commission of the -- you know, this is separated by Oil Well Road, which is going to be four lanes and maybe six
lanes at that location. There's a high school here, there's the elementary school and a middle school here.
This presently houses the utility offices. I don't know when that utility -- those utility offices will no longer
be necessary, I don't think anybody does. But eventually Collier County will take over the utility and will relocate the
function of that to another location, to the regional utility site. Then this becomes available for development. That's
probably anywhere between 10 and more likely 20 years from now.
It does make sense as a mixed use location. It does. And that road is going to have a lot of traffic on it 20
years from now. So it's a good location sandwiched between those two schools. I just wanted to share that, since you
raised the issue.
So we agreed also to limit -- we got a suggestion to look at the Estates Shopping Center PUD, which had a lot
of restrictions in it, and so we did do that.
And this next bullet, the second bullet says limiting outdoor dining to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as within the
Estates Shopping Center. And I've added this, and that is: In locating outdoor dining between Immokalee Road and
the commercial buildings, which would separate it the furthest away from the residential, which to me makes sense.
We also are borrowing the same language about limiting amplification devices, servicing drive - through
facilities to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Which is the same restriction that's in the Estates PUD.
We're agreeing to limit parking lot lighting to a maximum of 25 feet in height, utilizing low pressure sodium
or similar bulbs and shielding the lights from the residential uses also. That's provided for in that Estates Shopping
Center PUD.
We're agreeing to prohibit outdoor music. Again, same condition in the Estates Shopping Center.
And these last two bullets, the first one is reducing the list of uses to C -1 and C -3 and certain specific C -4
uses.
Now, I know that when we get to it the Chairman is going to go over those uses, so we'll have that
opportunity. It will be much fewer than the almost several hundred uses that are in the PUD right now.
And the last one in this category here is, Mr. Unsworth in his letter said there was a concern about big box
stores. And we are not requesting the SIC codes for these big box home improvement stores such as Lowes or Home
Depot. Those are not -- to my knowledge they're not in there. If we come across them we can discuss them. But I'in
pretty sure they're not in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you believe there's an SIC Code that's specific to a big box rather than an
SIC Code that's specific to a use, you need to kind of help me understand that.
MR. MUL14ERE: No, you know, I think it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Because it's the use that SIC Code is attained to. I think the limitation on the
Page 44 of 89
1612obeA, 20 1
size of the use has to be what we put actually in the PUD. Because I don't think the SIC Code tells you a certain use
over a certain feet changes the SIC Code.
MR. MULHERE: No, it doesn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think what we need to do is when we get to this section, get into the maximum
size of any particular one building or one use of one building or one establishment.
MR. MULHERE: So we -- okay. And we can be thinking about that too between now and the next meeting.
A couple of other issues that I think are important. Put a different exhibit up there for this.
I'm going to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this doesn't even match what you've told us --
MR. MULHERE: No, I know, because we developed this before we acquiesced to a number of other
different things. But I'm putting it on there for the purpose of talking about a point of ingress -- another point of
ingress and egress.
We heard that comment at the meeting out at Valencia Golf and Country Club and so we met with
transportation planning staff and they concurred that we could have another point of ingress and egress east of the
existing point of ingress and egress, which would be generally in this location here.
I'm just going to make sure -- I'm going to look to Norm, make sure I get this right. But that would be a
right -in and right -out and left -in.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: So it would suffice to serve this new community.
We also had always proposed a new access point onto Oil Well Road, which now we're beginning to get
some multiple ways in and out of the development. Obviously there will need to be a gate here and here for security
purposes. And as Burt said, we'd like to meet with representatives of the Valencia Golf and Country Club so that we
can address the internal security issues and try to resolve those issues as well.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What are your plans if this gets approved and you go into construction
for a construction traffic entrance?
MR. MULHERE: That's a very good question. I believe we are talking about using access from Oil Well
Road for construction. Because we won't build this -- this won't be built, you know, up front, this access to Oil Well
Road. That's designed I think to occur later as part of the roadway improvements.
But we can come into the development this way for construction purposes. So that will avoid people using
the main entrance or even a secondary entrance for construction purposes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As an alternative is it viable at all to use the potential additional entrance
off of Randall?
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Because that would keep that construction traffic even further away from
existing.
MR. MULHERE: Sure. Yep. And then we could -- we probably would -- that would -- we'd _probably need
to have some sort of an agreement that in the interim to the degree that something's developed and this becomes
construction only we still get to use some other point of ingress and egress until we can complete it. But yeah, that
should be easy to deal with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to be looking at internal security points to isolate the eastern portion
of Valencia's area --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, like right here probably --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I would suggest that right where your pointed, the road that you have
connecting to that cul -de -sac, you move that to the east so you could have some room before you would need to get a
security point.
Because right now you have to go too far out to use it there. But I think that's something you could work out
in your land plan --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we need to look at that. And I think probably also right in here so that that becomes
Page 45 of 89
161 2f,;;A 14
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that one's easy down in the south.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
We had another request from the county to change the designation on certain ag. designated lands to public
facility and CU. And I want to go back to a different exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, if we're getting into territory that's going to increase the intensity uses,
you're opening up a can of worms. You don't want to go there.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, Bob, my understanding is that those were withdrawn.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. We're good with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if the county decides it wants to change anything out there, in fairness to the
people in the north of the Estates they can come in and do their PUD --
MR. MULHERE: Does that also apply to the request for additional access points, which is my last point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So that -- I think that summarizes the changes that we made between our original
submittal, which is the 9/7 version that you have, our meeting and after our meeting with residents, several meetings
with residents, and then what we heard today. We made some additional changes based on what we heard today over
a very hurried and not very enjoyable lunch. Okay.
Open for questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad. Well, first of all from the -- let's just -- if there's any general questions,
that's fine. Then we're going to go through page -by -page of the PUD.
Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a general one.
And just to be clear, Bob, the OC, what is the current zoned use of that, R -2?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is -- the other two were existing in the prior PUD?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is a brand new use for this parcel.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: General question. Maybe you can help.
There are four different areas within Orangetree PUD, like Waterways. Is that -- that's one of them?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And can you tell me the mix of homes in there?
MR. MULHERE: All of Waterways is single- family.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Single - family.
And build -out, how far are they built out? Are they --
MR. MULHERE: They're built out. I don't know if every single lot is built but, I mean, they are -- all of the
infrastructure's in and most of the lots are built out.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to say 90 percent. Is this one that has their own homeowners,
that they're going to get their own homeowners?
MR. MULHERE: No, they're a totally separate project. They're not anywhere -- they're not even related to
us at this point.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Waterways is built out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, that's -- go ahead.
MR. McLEAN: For the record, Matt McLean with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage.
This is Waterways that encompasses this area, which is entirely built out. I can walk through the rest of the
HOA's that exist today if you'd like. I think that's where you're leading with the question.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I am trying to get the big picture on these four squares.
Page 46 of 89
A4
16 ' 2 October 6, 2011
MR. McLEAN: Sure. This is --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you have Waterways, which is all single - family and it's, I'm going to say,
90 percent built out?
MR. McLEAN: Correct, it's built out.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then there is Valencia Lakes. Can you tell me the mix of homes and
multi- family in there? 9
MR. McLEAN: Valencia Lakes currently is all single - family. It effectively starts at this location, wraps
around and includes this entire area.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then --
MR. McLEAN: There are some lots within Valencia Lakes that are currently not constructed --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure.
MR. McLEAN: -- as you can see by the aerial.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And how about Valencia Golf Course, can you tell me the mix in there?
MR. McLEAN: Valencia Golf and Country Club, as well today, the lots that have been built in there are all
single- family.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: All single, okay.
MR. McLEAN: The ones that have been built today, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Is there another one called Orangetree?
MR. McLEAN: No, there's nothing called Orangetree, per se. There is one called Citrus Greens, which
Citrus Greens effectively was -- the initial portion was constructed here. Again, those are all single- family.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, is that a separate little area in there, Citrus Greens?
MR. McLEAN: Citrus Greens is not gated. It is part of the overall Orangetree PUD, but it is a separate area
within the overall.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And can you tell me the mix in there, please.
MR. McLEAN: Those are all currently existing single - family homes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. McLEAN: There are two areas within Citrus Greens that are immediately adjacent to it. There's a
recreational facility in this location defined by the SP and there are some additional lots to be developed immediately
adjacent here that butt up to the edge of Citrus Greens as well that have not been built.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Can you tell me in the whole PUD approximately how many homes
have COs, have been completed, how far built out out of the 2,100 are you?
MR. MUL1 ERE: About 1,470.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
Are there any that have been turned over to the homeowners associations yet? And how many homeowners
associations at this point do you have?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think there's -- are there any? Waterways. There's four.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You have four.
MR. NIUL14ERE: And Waterways has been turned over.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Waterways has been turned over? Okay.
The clubhouse, it was kind of interesting listening. Is the clubhouse available for everyone who lives in this
PUD or is that for a certain area only?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, the clubhouse that's being discussed is the one that's being used by Valencia
Golf and Country Club. No, it's not accessible to everyone, I don't think, because the folks that live over here in this
area here, you know, they're not going into -- unless they're playing golf. I guess because this is a public golf course,
they could go in and play golf.
So it's intended to be for the residents of Valencia Golf and Country Club.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Interesting.
Okay. Very good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me follow up on that a second. I'll wait till Bob --
Page 47 of 89
161
October 6, 2011
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, my client was just telling me that the other areas have their own recreational
amenities.
COMMISSIONER SCHIIFER: Bob, are there any low - rising garden apartments built that are part of the
existing development standards? Are there any built out?
MR. MULHERE: Are you asking if any have been built to date? It's all single - family to date.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there is no multi - family existing now.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Can you show on here where the existing clubhouse is?
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record.
The existing clubhouse facility for Valencia Golf and Country Club is right in this location here, which is also
the location for the -- they dually share the parking area for both the public golf course and their clubhouse facility.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So there's no homes in front of that from the main entrance.
MR. McLEAN: No, that's correct. It comes directly into the main entrance and kind of T's directly into that
location.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Was there any intent to move the gate past that to where people going to the
clubhouse to play golf do not have to enter the area where the homes are located?
MR. McLEAN: The existing gate today is before that location, right in this area.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct.
MR. McLEAN: So you have to go through the gate to get to the public golf course or within Valencia Golf
and Country Club today.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. And I'm asking, was there ever an intent to move that to where you
would not have to go through the gate?
MR. McLEAN: There's been a lot of discussion about that today, but to my knowledge our client hasn't had
any discussions or thought process on providing any additional gate internal to that. However, we do want to meet
with those residents and talk about internal gating and that sort of security issues.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So it could be possible.
MR. McLEAN: Absolutely, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody? Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, you said we were going through page -by -page of
the PUD. Does that start with the staff report, Mark, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we'll jump into -- because the staff report is questions we would mostly ask of
staff. But wait till they do their presentation.
But when we go through the PUD, and we will do this typically, a lot of documents, we'll open two pages at a
time that open on a page and we'll go that way, so -- anybody else have any general questions at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one.
The letter that you put on the visualizer from Unsworth suggested a -- and it was a good one because the
Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center acquiesced to this requirement too, and that is the refuse containers, showing
those locations and their limitations on the commercial plan. I know you don't have a commercial plan on where the
buildings go, but you can tell us where you won't put refuse containers by the time you come back.
That's important, because they make a lot of noise in the mornings, and that's become an issue on almost
every PUD we have.
MR. MULHERE: We'll be prepared to come back and talk about a separation or where they can't go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: One other quick question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you please tell me when Mr. Bolt bought this property?
MR. MULHERE: 1986? 1985? 1986.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1986, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll start into the PUD.
Page 48 of 89
16 1 � ctober 2011
And Bob, as we go through it, if you want to tell us the changes you know about on the pages before we
bring up ours, it might just save a lot of questioning, so -- but let's make sure we're on the same page of the document.
The revision document that we should be using was dated 9/7/11 on the lower left -hand corner. There should
be a -- it would say Orangetree MPUD, PUDA, revised 9/7/11. So everybody should be working from that one.
The first couple of pages of that document are i, ii and iii, and then iv. And then the first full page is titled
Section 1. So let's just take all the way up through page number one, which is Section 1 of the PUD and see if there
are any issues there.
There have been some changes. They'll be highlighted and crossed -- and underlined and crossed through.
As you can see, some of that stuff basically is to update referencing the right codes and things.
Bob, anything on those that are --
MR. MULHERE: No, nomenclature, cleaning up the language. There's a lot of that in this -- since this PUD
was very old.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on -- let's move to Pages 2 and 3. Anybody have any issues on Pages 2
and 3?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I guess I was waiting for these people to finish and then the staff report
coming up, because that's where I really kind of went into this. And I have a lot to say and I don't know if doing this
first and saying do you have any questions and go back and then I have all these questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've been doing the PUD's during the presentation since we -- since 10 years
I've been on this Board --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then I will wait --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a -- it's their presentation. If we don't ask them about the PUD while they're up
here we're going to have --
MR. MULHERE: I'm happy to try to answer any questions --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can --
MR. MULHERE: If I can, I'll defer to Rick --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go back and forth as much as you want, Diane. I mean, really, that's why
we're here, to flush all this out, so --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 3, and it appears probably subsequent to that, you're going to be
revising the 3,350 to reduce based upon your commitment?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes, yes.
Maybe could I just take two minutes to talk about the process --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd assume you'd start out if you had any issues on those pages --
MR. MULHERE: It's not an issue. It's just I wanted to talk about the process. It's changed a little bit
recently, just so that everybody understands.
We will not control this document from this point forward. The document will be controlled by the County
Attorney's Office. So they will make all the changes. They will make notes, we will make notes, we'll share our
notes, and of course we'd come back to you ultimately and you can determine whether or not we adequately or
actually or properly captured the changes.
But I just wanted you to know we won't -- but we'll get with them and make sure --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Someone will.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3, the references to the R -3, R -4 and resort, all those are going to have to
be changed --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you're intending to do that, okay.
And of course where Phil pointed out, the quantity of units and all that will have to change.
Pages 4 and 5. Go ahead, Ms. -- Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 5, everything is struck out. But the total acreage, there's a notation
that it's based on the actual survey acreage.
Page 49 of 89
1 61 2 h4
October 6, 2011
And then on the next page, six, the total is two acres more. So I was just wondering where that two acres is,
as I can't figure it out.
MR. MULHERE: Updated survey, more accurate.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that is the correct number now?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. That's based on a boundary survey.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I thought it came off the golf course, that they reduced that by two acres.
MR. MUL14ERE: No, because that's the total acreage; that includes the golf course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 4 and 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on Page 4, the reference to fill material from lakes, it's in 2. 1, Lake Sighting, to
be utilized within the project. However, excess fill material may be utilized off -site subject to revisions of the
excavation ordinance in effect at the time permits are sought.
We have the Land Development Code that regulates excavation within PUD's. The excavation ordinance
comes in if we're doing standalone excavations or how to excavate once you meet the requirements of the Land
Development Code. So wouldn't you really want to reference the -- it will be to the extent allowed by the Land
Development Code?
Ray, do you have any problem with that?
MR. BELLOWS: It's now in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, the excavation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it?
MR. MUL1 ERE: It still would be okay to say --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd still be the Land Development Code that regulates the quantity that a PUD can
pull off -site, isn't it? Isn't it limited to 20,000 or something like that?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe that's all been moved to the Code of Laws and Ordinances. But it's still subject to
those provisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well maybe we just make sure that reads right then. That under Roads, 2. -- I
think it's 1.2 or -- the way it changes: Collector roads will be public roads. And it says: Developer shall detennine
whether local roads within development may be either public or private roads.
I think the county shares in that determination, don't they?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I had a comment made on your previous comment. If we could just real quick
go back to that.
I guess that there's a lake -- the lake that either is going to be or already has been donated to the county, the
county will be wanting to use the fill from that lake for the roadway improvements out in this area.
Oh, this lake right here. You're talking about the -- okay. So there's a lake that we're going to provide them
for right -of -way improvements, and that fill will be used in the roadway.
I guess we could just structure it, maybe put an exclusion in there for the lake to provide stormwater
management for Randall Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I don't think the quantity -- even if they're going to use a quantity out of
that lake that's any -- of significance? I mean, it doesn't look like that large of a lake.
MR. MULHERE: I'm pretty sure they'll --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you take a look at it, and if we need to tweak the language so that that
works, that's agreeable.
Under the road section, I think the county and the developer both will make a decision whether roads within a
development will be public or private in regards to whether or not they meet the criteria of the county standards.
My concern or my caution to you is if you decide you want a road to be county road, you got to be real
careful how you decide you're going to do your security. Because we don't want to run into a Barefoot Beach again.
If you remember, they put a guardhouse --
MR. MULHERE: On a road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on a public road, yeah, and you can't do that. So you need to be careful what road
you decide to make public and which ones you're going to put security on.
MR. MULHERE: I had the same concerns. I had that reading: Collector roads will be public roads, period.
Local roads within the development will either be public or private roads, period.
Page 50 of 89
161 a4
ctober 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that loop road around the golf course, the one that you're going to put the
security site, that would be classified more or less as a collector because it's a loop road collecting off all the
cul -de -sacs --
MR. MULHERE: So you want to maintain that as a private --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you might want to be real careful as you go further.
Pages 6 and 7, anybody have on 6 and 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight and nine?
Go ahead Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 6, just for clarification, that 62.1 acres, schools and parks,
where is that located? I should probably know that, but I don't.
MR. MULHERE: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: There's another one. I'm looking for the other piece.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just south across Oil Well Road.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 8 and 9 is the ag. sections of the land.
Are they still owned by your developer?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's not up for discussion today. And the changes that you -- in there are
MR. MULHERE: We own part of the ag. So let me let Matt answer that question.
MR. McLEAN: Yes, our client still does own today the portion of the property that's ag. that is this T piece.
MR. MULHERE: That's the piece we were discussing before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember now.
Okay, anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 10 and 11?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, you're eliminating R -1 because you're building on that land. R -2, why
do you have multi - family in there?
MR. MULHERE: Can you -- where exactly are you pointing to?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the third line down. You've added multi- family dwelling units.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, okay, under R -2. Yeah, we've agreed today here to -- I think part of the reason was
that, as you can see by the existing language, cluster homes, triplex units, right, we're allowed, cluster homes we're
allowed, villas and patio homes we're allowed and town homes, we're allowed. You can see that those were allowed,
right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. MULHERE: Those are defined by our LDC as multi- family.
So in going through the process, it was suggested that we use the word multi- family, because it's a defined
term.
Now, we're agreeing to go back to R -2 in the existing development area. And as a result it's perfectly fine
with us if we just leave the language the way that it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, the concern I have is in these other lots in R -2, they're
going to be governed by this, so somebody could buy two lots, tear it down and put up a multi- family.
MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. So, I mean, we're okay with -- we're perfectly fine with taking that
multi- family dwelling units out and leaving it as it was, which was cluster homes, zero lot line, villas, patio homes,
townhouses. That's what exists in R -2. And we've agreed to go back to that language.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm good with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
Page 51 of 89
1.61 2 A4
October 6, 2011
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 10 and 11?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few. I'm going to make sure -- try to figure out which ones have not been
addressed. But I think quite a few of them have.
All the changes involving the things we already talked about that occur on these two pages you're going to go
ahead and correct for the next submittal, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Mr. Strain, one thing I'll put on the record is on these two pages, on 405, which is on Page 11 of 54, we will
add a reference to the section of the LDC that deals with guesthouses to make it more clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And under 406.A, you're going to reference the right document there --
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- versus -- okay.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And of course the whole reference to resort lodging, it comes out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, your R -2 is basically the existing areas of Orangetree, so you don't have a
need -- do you have recreation facilities -- yes, you do -- to the extent that you need them to address them in the R -2?
Because you're not adding recreational facilities there, you're adding them in R -3, right?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for -- the R -3 section that we have here has to include the language that would
allow that to happen as well as any park or tot lots or anything else you may want to plan to use in there.
All units permitted in the R -2 designation. So that would really cover it.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 12 and 13? It's all crossed through because you've replaced all those tables
with new tables. So let's move to those, Pages 14 and 15.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's -- are your floor area minimums changing?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. We're going to go 1,000 across the board.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so your chart here is incorrect.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. It's incorrect, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's better numbers than this.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Brad's done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm good, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The R -2 tables, your maximum building height. In the original agreement it is
25 feet. What you are trying to do with this revisions is to now raise that?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, if I could, a lot of single - family homes are built with very high ceilings and
they're a lot taller than 25 or 30 feet. You know, if somebody has an objection -- I don't know that anybody's really
objecting, as long as we keep it to two stories and 35 feet, it gives more design flexibility in these homes.
But, you know, if that's a concern and that needs to stay at what it's at, again we'd only be affecting those
areas that we already agreed to take back to R -2.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On both of those tables, the rear yard setback for accessories, I think you need to
address that.
that.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll leave it up to you to come back at the next meeting with something. We'll look at
MR. MULHERE: We'll come back -- yep.
Page 52 of 89
Octo1A 64, l l
16 I 2
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the distance between principal structures as well.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you have the ability to do guest homes, I know yo on't do them in these
small ones because they wouldn't fit on the property, but they become an accessory structur And to put them close to
the back lot line is not really realistic, so -- assuming that being the worst case scenario.
MR. MULHERE: I also note that we neglected to put the footnote regarding the 23 -foot minimum distance
under that table. We need to add that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. But that is -- you can't apply that in the existing facility, so that's --
MR. MULHERE: We'll say new --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it would have to be new construction.
MR. MULHERE: New construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the second table, the second footnote, could you explain that? Because the
building distance may be reduced to 10 feet between garages. Oh, I know why. That's right. I'm trying to think way
back why my notes were written the way they were.
The distance between the principal structures up on top is I 1 feet.
MR. MULHERE: That needs to be changed to 12.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve feet, that's right. And that will take care of it.
MR. MULHERE: And I think that second sentence, instead of saying building distance, should read distance
between principal structures --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Then it's clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 16 and 17, anybody have any questions there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Minimum floor area, is that still 1,000, or what are we going to do here?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is no more R -4, is there? Oh, yes, you have --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, there's one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one lot. Okay.
Sorry, Brad. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The same questions I had in the previous one apply to this table as well. Same
23 -foot, the same footnote number two, the same rear yard setbacks.
MR. MULHERE: There was -- yes. Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your side yard setbacks should be half the sum of the building height, no less than
15 feet for your multi - family structures. Your front yard setback needs to be greater than half the sum of the setback
of -- for your three -story, your 20 foot, that's pretty tight. I think I mentioned it to you and you were going to look at
it.
MR. MULHERE: I think we proposed to you to add under multi - family whatever we have there to include
one -half the sum of the building height, whichever is greater.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's distance between buildings.
MR. MULHERE: That's on --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For multi.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's on front yard, side yard, rear yard and distance between structures. So the
setback will be greater the taller the building. Those are minimums, but you go by one -half the sum of the building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Table 2.13, which is your recreational facilities, you were going to add a
parcel boundary setback?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
Page 53 of 89
16 l 2-14
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you can bring it next time, but that was one of the things I mentioned.
MR. MULHERE: Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Buffers between these facilities and adjoining residential, if it does, your height was
to go down --
MR. MULHERE: To 35 and 42, consistent with the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And your distance between principal structures was to have a minimum.
MR. MULHERE: Fifteen feet or one -half the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whichever is greater.
MR. MULHERE: -- sum of the building height. You're right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, do you think it's clear that -- or maybe Heidi should answer this -- that
if they don't mention which height, that it should be zoned height? Actual height kind of snuck in.
MR. MULHERE: I think we should put zoned height.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I think you ought to clarify.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I think that's a very good question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 18 and 19. We're going to be a while on the next few pages, so -- Pages
18 and 19 are neighborhood commercial center. And basically it starts really on Page 19. And from what I
understand, you're agreeing to just say C -1 to C -3 uses, then you're going to specify which C -4 uses you feel are right
for neighborhood commercial. And we'll look at those more closely. Why don't you start working up the list.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: That's C -1 through C -3 at the time of permitting?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, you don't have to say that. Just, I mean, that's the way it is. C -1 through C -3, you
don't put a date in there, it's whatever is allowed in C -1 through C -3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adding asphalt plants to C -3, aren't we?
MR. MULHERE: I thought it was well -- oil well drilling.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's about allowed anywhere in this county the way it looks.
Okay. Well, let's take a look at the uses then. If we go to C -1 to C -3 for uses -- and what SIC codes are you
looking to keep?
MR. MULHERE: I have a list of them here. And if -- I'll use the same number that's on yours and tell you
which ones we want to keep. Does that work?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's start there at least.
MR. MULHERE: So we already talked about number one, and we would then retain number five and
number six, but specifying SIC Code 7999.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know about those 99's now. If we're going to play with that --
MR. MULHERE: No, no, we'll look at it. We'll look at it and come back with specific uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so the audience knows, 7999 in the SIC Code is virtually unlimited. So
what you have to do is you got to list the number and then list the specific parts of it that you want. So instead of
having 100 uses there's whatever the limitation is.
MR. MULHERE: There's only one or two that we're going to ask for. And we'll come back with those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you jump to five, does that mean you're not going to ask for two,
three, four?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you don't want accounting, you don't want --
MR. MULHERE: They're already permitted under C -1 through C -3.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, that's really confusing.
Page 54 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll, he's just going to tell us which ones he's asking for in addition to C -1 and C -3.
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. That was my --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All you got to remember is all C -1, C -3, and here are the additional ones we're
looking for that are impacts above and beyond what is C -1 and C -3.
MR. MULHERE: My thought was that limits the number down and you can really look at those that we're
asking for now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder if we can make this any harder.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess I could try to make it easier --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can put all these up like I did --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, we could print it upside down --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to admit, Bob, this is --
MR. MULHERE: It's a shorter list of the ones we're asking for than the ones we're eliminating.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did the Hacienda Lakes one too, didn't you?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have -- these are the two most difficult projects I have seen in the 10 years on
this Board.
MR. MULHERE: Well, there's nobody else here to point a finger at, so, you know --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just make sure, you're still going to have architectural services, right,
that's the only one that --
MR. MULHERE: It's permitted. Generally office uses are permitted in C -1 through C -3.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can go back to sleep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're looking at five, you're looking at six with limitations.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the next one?
MR. MULHERE: Nine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's apparel and accessory stores.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Twelve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: We can jump all the way down to 25. And on 25 -- I don't know if somebody has an SIC
Code, because I didn't bring one with me, but we're only asking for business services, 7381. We've got to find 7381.
We don't have numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the 7389 can be dropped.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's -- I'm not sure there would be a real call for it but detective agencies, private
investigators, lie detection service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is security on there?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah.
We are asking for 26 but only cable and other pay television services, 4841. I have an SIC Code here too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means you're dropping the reference to communication towers?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
MR. MULHERE: The next one we're requesting is number 28, car washes. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I notice that you have additional language in there that says provided that car
washes abutting residential zoning district shall be subject to Section 5.05.11 of the LDC.
You know, if you do a car wash, why would you need it on a neighborhood commercial and not possibly the
MU/U? Car washes are notorious for being noisy, so --
MR. MULHERE: I think you have for example the -- is it E's General Store --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: -- that's existing? I don't think there's a car wash there, but if that was bought by Mobil.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but then it would be an accessory --
Page 55 of 89
ML
12, A 4
2
October 6, 2011
MR. MULHERE: They're going to want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the --
MR. MULHERE: And that's I think what we're after.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you've got it under principal uses.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, maybe we could agree to language that says if accessory to a convenience
store or service station.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Or just car washes listed under accessory uses, and that would -- if you have
an accessory -- yeah, you have permitted and accessory uses. I would suggest that you list it there. Then it's not
confusing to be under principal.
MR. MULHERE: That's fine. That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, members of the Planning Commission, if you have any issues on any of
the uses, just kind of chime in.
Go ahead, what's the next ones?
MR. MULHERE: I'm on Page 21, all the way down to number 38, computer and computer software stores,
5734. It's really a retail use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thirty, churches, isn't that a conditional use in those C zonings?
MR. MUL14ERE: No, it's a permitted use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, never mind.
MR. MULHERE: I did skip one, though, so you helped me. Number 32, coin operated laundries and dry
cleaning, number 7215.
And, I'm sorry, number 36, commercial printing, 2752. My eyes must be going bad. It says excluding
newspapers. That's business forms, cards, circulars, color guards, lithography, coupons. It's like a printing shop.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, are there any of these that are orphaned, or if you skip it it's guaranteed
to be available in the C -1 or C -2?
MR. MULHERE: No. If we're skipping it it's either available there or we're not asking for it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you could be orphaning some?
MR. MULHERE: We are. There are some uses here that are -- we felt were inappropriate, just, you know.
I'm sure that if we didn't strike through them, somebody else --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He had a pile of them that were inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right, you could make it harder.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Thank you. That was my thought. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, all the uses that we're talking about though, you still are going to be adding a
square foot limitation as a maximum for any particular use?
MR. MULHERE: You had suggested that we look at that. We don't have that here, and we will --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure so we haven't got to keep bringing it backup every time.
MR. MULHERE: I understand. There was a concern about a big box. So we have to look at --there's two
issues that we're concerned about: One is was making sure we have adequate square footage for a grocery, and then
the second is some ancillary uses in the size of those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you look at -- the toughest commercial parcel or PUD I ever saw was the
one we did in Golden Gate Estates.
MR. MULHERE: I did look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that one had an exception for a grocery store. But other than that --
okay. Because you may want to look at some of that language. I think it was in -- especially in the Estates as it is in
Orangetree, it's -- the place is very quiet so sound travels real fast. So we try to be real careful about how that was
handled, so --
MR. MULHERE: I agree. And I think there's -- neighborhood commercial uses is what we're focusing on,
so that allows us, I think. But, you know, there is a difference being on Immokalee Road versus being on -- totally
Page 56 of 89
16 1`2 A 4
October 6, 2011
internalized to Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- I'm on number 40, I think, dance studios, schools and halls indoors, 7911.
Which is just the dance studios and halls.
Department stores, number 41, 5311. Number 46, we're listing eating and drinking establishments but we're
striking through 5813. We're striking through the following words: And 5813, excluding bottle clubs. So we're
limiting it to restaurants, which is 5812.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then you're just going to simply say restaurants, 5812. So you're just
going to take that whole paragraph and just revise it and just put restaurants, 5812, right?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I could -- I mean, I could leave that: All establishments engaged in retail sale of
alcoholic beverages for on- premise consumption subject to locational requirements.
THE COURT REPORTER: Bob, could you say that again?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We could leave in the paragraph that says: All establishments engaged in the retail
sale of alcoholic beverages for on- premise consumption.
It's already in the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if we -- so you're telling me if you didn't put that in you wouldn't have to abide
by it?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, take it out.
MR. MULHERE: No problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got to do it anyway, so there's no sense in having to repeat the entire code if
you start with that process.
MR. MULHERE: I'm good with that.
Number 47, educational services, 8221 and 8222.
Number 48, electrical and electronic repair shops, 7622 through 7629.
And now we go to the next page, number 52, facilities support management services, 8744.
And then 54 is food stores, group 5411 through 5499.
And 58 is general merchandise stores, 5331 through 5339.
Fifty -nine is glass stores, 5231.
Sixty -one is hardware stores, 5251.
We had two 61's, so let's call the second 6162. And that's health services, miscellaneous, 8092 through 8099.
Number 64, home furnishings and furnishing stores, 5712 through 5719.
Number 67, household appliance stores, 5722.
And we're at a new page. Next page, number 78, medical and dental laboratories, 8071 and 8072.
Number 79, medical equipment rental and leasing, 7352.
Number 83, motion picture theatres, 7832.
Number 84, motorcycle dealers, 5571.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not against motorcycles, I used to ride motorcycles. In fact I'm considering
doing that again, but --
MR. MULHERE: It's dangerous around these here parts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you do a motorcycle dealer -- I mean, the one over on Naples Boulevard I
think it's called, next to Best Buy, they do motorcycles. But out back, and everywhere else they have motorcycles and
people using motorcycles. It becomes a rather noisier place than might be considered neighborhood commercial. So
I'm not sure it's a good one to keep in.
MR. MULHERE: We'll strike through number 84, motorcycle dealers. Try to keep the neighborhood
commercial. I think that goes a little bit beyond that.
Eighty -six is musical instrument stores, 5736.
Eighty -seven is news syndicates, 7383. It's newspaper, periodical stores.
Eighty -eight is nursing and professional care facilities, 8051 through 8059.
Eighty -nine is outdoor advertising services, 7312.
Ninety is paint stores, 5231.
Page 57 of 89
16 12 A4
October 6, 2011
Ninety -one is passenger car leasing, 7515.
And for some odd reason 92 is passenger car rental. I'm not sure there's a great deal of difference between the
two. I'd imagine they operate out of the same facility. That's 7514.
Ninety -four is personal services, miscellaneous, that's 7299. And we'll take a look at that to make sure that
that is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 24 and 25?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, go all the way down to 106. I'm trying to speak slow.
106 is radio, television and consumer electronic stores, 5731.
108 is radio and television broadcasting stations, 4832 and 4833.
109 is real estate, 6512 and 6531 through 6552.
110 is record and pre - recorded tape stores, 5735, excluding adult oriented sales and rentals.
112 is repair services, miscellaneous. That's 7699. And that excludes a whole bunch of uses. It's pretty
limiting. But we will also look at that so you know exactly what we're asking for.
114 is miscellaneous retail. It's 5921 through 5963, and 5992 through 5999. Let's just make the standing
note that we're going to look at anything that's a 99 and be sure that you understand those uses when we come back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, to move along without having Cherie' to write down all these numbers,
if you just read the names. If a number is missing, we can ask for it. Because we have them all here.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, fine. That's fine.
115 is retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores.
116 is re upholstery and furniture repair.
119 is security service systems.
121 is social services, individual and family, except homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
125 is telephone communications.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 125 is excluding communication towers, though.
MR. MULHERE: It says including but I think we are fine with saying excluding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
129 is veterinary services, excluding outside kenneling.
131 is vocational schools.
133 is watch and jewelry repair.
And 134 is that standard language that exists in all the PUD's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions?
Go ahead, Tom.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bob, can you please clarify that the educational facilities listed in the SIC Code, either they include public
schools or public schools are allowed in the C -1 through C -3 uses? Because the school district does own substantial
property in the PUD.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's a good question. I'll do that. I don't want to make a statement here if it is
permitted in C -1 through C -3. But I'll check. I believe it is public schools but --
MR. EASTMAN: Could we just as a complete clarification just add public schools to the list?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
centers?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to put a public school in one of the neighborhood commercial
MR. EASTMAN: I thought this was all of the uses listed in the -- oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MULHERE: It's only for NC, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you withdraw your request?
MR. EASTMAN: Yes, yes, sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back on -- okay. Pages 26 and 27?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think let's start talking about the distance from the residential. In the
Page 58 of 89
161 A 4
October 6, 2011
old thing they had 35 feet. And you're not carrying that forward. Could you -- and I guess we have a 15 -foot buffer,
right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Built up with a wall. Twenty -five feet -- no, it's actually 15 feet. So in other
words, you would I guess use that wall where you located it to be the wall of the building.
But what would be -- you know, one thing is that the area of your commercial and the area of the site you
have put you at a floor area ratio, I quickly came up with like .22. So you're not really under a lot of pressure for area.
So in other words you could build a one -story building, you really don't have to even go to two- story.
So can't you -- go ahead -- I was going to say, can't you pull it away from the residences?
MR. MULHERE: I think we can.
Let's talk about practically where the roads are so that they understand -- I mean, do we want to have a
minimum distance from residential?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're setting up a nice buffer, so you're doing the best you can there. But
then why do you -- you know, and you're not under pressure with the amount of area with the size of the site, so why
you're trying to get it so close, it isn't that necessary.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think it is either, particularly since you can put parking and other nonstructural
facilities in there. I'm just --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You would certainly utilize it --
MR. MULHERE: Let me wait till they confer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing, Bob, you know, one of the problems is you get too
close, like we have some problems in our district in North Naples where the back of these shopping centers got close
to residential and the door out of a bar or something, you open the door to take the trash out and the music comes with
you.
Is there a way we could put some sort of a clause in here that if you do have live music inside you have a
vestibule arrangement? Which is --in the design of a bar that's just a storage room where you open one door, close it
and then go out the back door. I mean, because that -- we should be very careful on anything with live music inside,
to let them have the live music and not disturb the neighborhood.
Once they build it without that, it's difficult.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't -- first of all, we eliminated drinking places, but the only restaurants
you're going to be able to have are buffered by the commercial. Because it can only be between the --
MR. MULHERE: Outdoor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, outdoor.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Outdoor's on the front.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you could still have an enclosed facility.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm worried about the back door --
MR. MULHERE: He's talking about opening a door --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to take out the trash --
MR. MULHERE: -- to empty the trash and having a loud volume of music or something spill out.
Did you want to take a break or something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was just thinking, you guys are talking anyway, you can gurgitate (sic) on
Brad's question. Why don't we take a 15- minute break and come back at 2:40 and resume.
But before we do, Ray, I don't see any chance of us getting to the Watershed Management Plan today.
MR. BELLOWS: We already took care of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we didn't publicly.
Anybody here for the Watershed Management Plan? We're not going to hear it today. We will continue that
to our next meeting or --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, next meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next meeting. Okay, thank you. We'll take a break till 2:40.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from the break. We left off with Brad was working
on questions on Pages 26 and 27.
Page 59 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
Brad, we'll let you continue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I guess Bob, you guys are trying to figure out what would be an
appropriate building setback from a residential property.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And what I suggest is that we insert in that table a setback from residentially zoned
lots of 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why did you come up with 30 feet? Because what does that really give
you? You have a 15 -foot --
MR. MULHERE: There's a 15 -foot landscape buffer with a wall, or 20 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And then what are you going to have there then? The building's
going to be -- it's not going to be five foot or 15 foot of no man's land.
MR. MULHERE: Well, there could be in some locations just landscaping. But in most locations, there will
either be parking or an access way around --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or an alleyway behind --
MR. MULHERE: Or water management. And that's where you could use that 15 -- that extra 15 foot, for
water management.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because again, remember, you have a low floor area ratio. I mean, you
could really push it back and maybe put --
MR. MULHERE: You don't think 30 feet is sufficient with a wall and a landscaped area?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's -- the building can be 35 feet, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- you know.
MR. MULHERE: If 35 makes it better, I think we could accommodate that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just thinking, you know, in reality how you would ever lay the
thing out. I mean, you may have 64 feet of parking after that too. I mean, there's a lot of different layouts you would
do. I mean, that could be your service alley. But in -- maybe that's really good up against the neighbors either.
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record.
I agree with you, Brad. We could easily accommodate 30 or 35 feet in there because we're going to have the
15 feet of landscape buffer and then we're going have either a combination of water management, dry detention or
something along those lines. It could actually be part of an access alleyway though in the back and help service the
rear of that property. So the building is going to be set back easily 30, 35 feet from the property line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You really get some benefit of fire department access behind it and stuff
like that. So I'm saying you really could throw a nice number and never be hurting your planning.
MR. McLEAN: With respect to the fire department access, it would have to be a minimum of 20 feet. So we
could easily, with the 15 -foot landscape buffer, add 20 feet if that was the access alleyway, take it to a minimum 35.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that 20 feet has to be 10 foot off the building. The fire department
doesn't want to be on top of the building. So we have 30, 15 --
MR. MULHERE: So 35 would work, 35 would work.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do I hear 45? And here's the logic of 45. Fifteen feet, 20 feet for the fire
lane, 10 feet --
MR. McLEAN: The part where that gets sticky is where we've got residential right -of -way and not actual
residential lots. Are we differentiating between residential lot and residential right -of -way? Because some of these --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lot.
MR. McLEAN: -- commercial components come up to the edge. So we're talking lots.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lot. Pure lot.
MR. McLEAN: Pure lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somebody's home could be built --
MR. McLEAN: So where we have sections with respect to, for example, the NC up on the north section
where we've got -- where it does not back up to -- there aren't residential lots that back up directly to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's fine. That's fine. I think the word lot is an important part of that.
MR. McLEAN: I understand.
So yeah, if we're talking about specifically lot, we could do the 45 to be able to have the ability for the fire
Page 60 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
access. So if we limit that to the residential lot setback, 45 feet.
MR. MULHERE: The way that I propose to word it then, we'll just change it to 45. But it would be set back
from residential zoned lots 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And just maybe say lot lines to even make it clearer for you. And
that's not going to hurt you. You know, most of your designs will maybe have parking in the back and have a lot
more than that.
MR. MULHERE: It's only in that one location where it -- one or two locations where it applies.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
But you know I'm going to do it on the next one too.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -six and 27, anybody else? Anything else on those two pages, Brad?
MR. McLEAN: Once again, Matt McLean for the record.
One thing I do want to comment on that though, still, Brad, is we do have an existing SDP which is approved
on the NC piece of property down at Randall that already has a building permit that was pulled for the bank building,
which has subsequently been -- there's a building pad there that I think it would be in conflict with that 45 feet that
we're talking about. I need to look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can look at it by the next meeting and get back to us?
MR. McLEAN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you know by -- it can't be closer than 35 feet by the existing, according
to --
MR. McLEAN: Right, but I'm just saying that it maybe closer than the 45. We'll look into that and get back
to you on that with that specific location.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I guess the only other question is the distance between principal
structures, none. So if you have no distance between a principal structure, unless you're treating it like a firewall or a
lot line, that's a common wall, so I guess that makes sense. Then the six feet -- or five feet, what is that? I mean, you
have a 45 -foot height limit, zoned height. Or you change that to 35; 35 foot, but you have five foot between the
buildings.
MR. MUL14ERE: Two stories.
Well, there's two options there. We could increase that number of separation between principal structures or
we -- the same as we have before, which is a sum of the building heights, or we can just reference the fire code
requirements.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the building code has separation requirements. I mean, there's no --
and there's nothing that says you can't be one building either.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, it's a game we're playing. But the point is, a five -foot cavity
between the buildings, I'm not sure why.
MR. MULHERE: So how about if we say none or a minimum of 10 feet or one -half the sum of the building
heights, which is what we use typically anyway, whichever is greater.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's enough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, same page.
Bob, you said that there are no lots adjacent to the north NC. There is. If you blow it up, you'll see in the
southeast corner. So you do have an applicable lot there. I'm assuming we're going to look at the same language for
the office commercial --
MR. MULHERE: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we'll deal with that.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The building height. When we talked I believe you were going to use 25 feet as a
zoned height because the homes adjacent to it were under the old R -2 zoning which allowed 25 feet maximum and 35
feet for actual.
Page 61 of 89
1612 A4
October 6, 2011
I notice in your handout you seemed to have changed that a bit from our discussion.
MR. MULHERE: I was under the impression we were going to ask for 35 feet not to exceed two stories.
But, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as the two -story -- because it says three stories here. I can't
remember all of the conversation we had, but if --
MR. MULHERE: Two stories in all the commercial, except for the MU.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Except.
MR. MULHERE: That's so far from now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The footnote number two about your reduction in frontages, that north
commercial actually has three frontages, because the road in the back is a public road.
So based on that, so you really want parcels with two or more frontages may reduce one front yard by 10 feet.
MR. MULHERE: I think we just strike through that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so too. Because I'm not sure how we reword it to accommodate that third
road that's in there. Okay.
The kiosks. You -- how many maximum for each area? Because you've got they may be smaller than 500,
but are they unlimited in volume -- or quantity?
MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, you might have some of these kiosk type things that sit in front of a
commercial retail outlet that -- I mean, I'm happy to put a limiting number in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure if it's a big issue, but think about it. I just want to make sure we
don't get out of hand on that.
MR. MULHERE: I would say not to exceed five in any --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Per center, yeah.
Okay, on Page 26, the reference A, the maximum, isn't that language that might be better into your
introductory paragraph, since it outlines the quantity of square footage that you're talking about?
MR. MULHERE: We could add a -- well, basically renumber everything so that 5.A.02 becomes maximum
square footage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: And then take it out of this section here and put it up there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It just makes it simpler. Then your development standards become your
table and you're done.
I had asked when we met that you consider capping the square footages that you're looking at for your --
because you have four commercial parcels. And I would -- and I'm looking at NC's and OC, any excess not used on
those to MU/U.
Did you look at that at all or did you think about that?
MR. MULHERE: We did. And we kind of concluded that using the typically used rule of thumb for retail of
10,000 square feet per acre would make sense. We've already got 100,000 on the office capped. So we'll need two
NC's. We could put that in here, that actual language that no more than 10,000 square feet per acre shall be pennitted.
Why don't we take a look at it and maybe we come up with an actual number --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, come back with something. It just -- it becomes a known quantity --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can come up with a number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- next pages will be 28 and 29. Anybody have any questions? Well,
we've got to go start this process over again.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, here we go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is office commercial, so --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, this should be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's different.
Okay, anybody have any questions on 28 and 29?
(No response.)
MR. MULHERE: I think there was a -- I'm not sure where it came from, but I have a note here about that we
really wouldn't probably need number six, which would be automobile parking lots only. I don't know where that
came from, but we're good with that.
Page 62 of 89
S�
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had mentioned that to you because 50 -- 7521 is something I dbiA think you need
in a neighborhood -- in an office parcel at all. I'm not sure if there's any others that -- no, most of them are all passive.
Pages 30 and 31, anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, we'll put the same stuff we talked about before into here, okay?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the 45 from a residential lot.
And I guess one thing just to be clear is that we are bringing in the ability to have 15,000 square feet of the
other use built on this lot, correct?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anywhere.
MR. MULHERE: If you didn't use all 100,000, if you used 85,000 or 80,000, you could then build up to
15,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses in the office center.
And the reason for that is that if you have 80 or 70,000 square feet of office, and I suspect this is quite a bit
down the road, you might want some personal services in there. You might want a restaurant in there or something
Iike that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think it's good. And it's still a low FAR even with that in it.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the deal also is, though, the only commercial they're going to get in the
mixed use is what's left over from these things. Like you say, it's way down the road, so they'll carry that balance
forward, way forward.
The -- you know, the side yard thing, we're going to -- or the between buildings and everything, we're going
to do that again.
MR. MULHERE: We're going to use the same language. And also just to make a note, we do have to
change the height. This presently I think in here reflects 45 feet, so that's going down to 35 and two stories.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I assume on Page 31, item 603.A.4, that's either going to come out or be
significantly revised with respect to the lodging units?
MR. MULHERE: That whole thing comes out, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, on Page 30 the -- something Brad just said then you just said is if you were
only to use 85,000 square feet of the office you could put 15,000 of the NC district on there.
The way that reads, it looks like you could use 100,000 square feet of the office and then add 15,000 square
feet. Are you talking 115 then total for that parcel?
MR. MULHERE: No, that is the intent, what you just -- I misspoke. Because really the intent was to allow
for up to 15,000 square feet of gross floor area from the NC commercial. So it's still limited. It's still a cap. But if
you use any of that you don't get to use it in the NC district.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So it's 115,000 square feet.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. That's different than what I think you started out saying.
MR. MULHERE: It is different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just remember, if you look at a per acre cap we got to make sure -- I don't know
what size that parcel is --
MR. MULHERE: Well, office I would go higher. I would say 15,000 as a rule of thumb for office because
you can go two stories. We're not likely to go two stories in retail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you could go two stories in retail.
MR. MULHERE: We could, but we're not likely to. Because of the parking demand, you know, you will get
Page 63 of 89
16 1 2 A4
October 6, 2011
-- the parking demand will reduce the footprint. But parking is much less for office. We'll take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be curious to see what you come back with.
Page 31 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me just say something --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that follows up on that, while you're doing that.
But because of the uses, we could still have office on the NC sites too.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, you do have the ability to drop that parking ratio.
MR. MULHERE: You do, if you put a mixture of office in, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I hope you do.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, there could be a scenario where you might see retail and office on the second
floor, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 31, 603.A, you start talking about recreation clubs, clubhouses and
facilities. Those are non - residential, so they sometimes tend to be disruptive depending on where they're located.
You currently have a golf club there and you're going to come back with a proposed location for recreational
clubs or a club or a recreational center for the new section. What I'm suggesting is that wherever you show those,
that's kind of where they'll be, subject to where they're shown on the master plan.
I didn't know if you have any problems with that or not. I just didn't --want to make sure they didn't just pop
up everywhere as a permitted use in any portion of the golf course, because some of those portions of the golf course
will be up against residential areas that may not have expected that as a use next door to them.
I don't think -- if you know where it's going, I don't see why you'd have a concern with that.
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think we would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 32 and 33.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couple.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 32, Item B.3, my assumption is the golf course exists today,
therefore the maintenance shop is located where currently?
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record.
The current maintenance facility for the golf course is right in this location.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm following the moving display.
MR. McLEAN: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And a second. I was just curious as to where it is in relationship to the
residential.
MR. McLEAN: It's across the street from existing residential houses today.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Existing?
MR. McLEAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And you haven't had any issues with noise and pollution and that type of
thing?
MR. McLEAN: Not to my knowledge. Bear in mind though that there is still the R -3 section that we've now
committed to go back down to R -2 that there's a little bit of a buffer between the existing maintenance facility and that
new proposed R -2 section. There's a golf tee that's in between those two pieces that's on the same side of the road.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's something we can take a look at at a later date.
MR. MULHERE: And also that's undeveloped. So those buyers will see the golf maintenance and know
what's -- and be reflected in also in what they pay for the lots that are immediately adjacent to that.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And also, you need to revise item number six, resort lodging units. That's
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 32, 33?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The changes on 33, this is the area of the community use where the fairgrounds is.
Page 64 of 89
16 1 A 4
October 6, 2011
The only changes that will be allowed are ones to designate the correct new references to the code or something like
that.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's going to be the same on Page 34. So the changes you have on 34 will not
be in effect, they --
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- will not be considered, they'll be cleaned up in the next submittal.
Anybody on Page 35?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's -- 35 is the school system so that's again not -- and 36, 37 is the PF
section, which is not part of this application.
The changes on that, there's only one that was added. That needs to be taken back out again, because it's not
considered.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's move to the mixed use utility site which starts on Page 39. Anybody
have any questions on Page 39?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess it's not so much a question. But Bob, just explain what the
intention here is. Because, I mean, we don't want the Orangetree utility and multi - family side -by -side, so --
MR. MULHERE: No. And that's not the intent. The mixed use residential and commercial will only occur --
is intended to occur when the county no longer -- well, when the county takes over the utility or when the utility is no
longer managed from that location.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then they pare it down or they reuse the buildings and they --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, they'll -- there's a whole, I'm sure -- let me let Burt talk to you because there's a
whole detailed settlement on it.
MR. SAUNDERS: Actually, the water and sewer billing operations and administrative operations are in an
off -site location. This is just the utility facilities. When the county takes over that system and connects all the
customers to the county's regional system, which we think won't be for another 10 to 20 years, those facilities will be
torn down and the land will be available for a mixed use development.
But nothing can happen until the county takes over the system and then removes the existing wastewater and
water facilities there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that is the actual treatment -- or the treatment plant is that site?
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So yeah, we really don't want anybody living there then. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 39, anybody else?
MR. MULHERE: I just did want to make one comment there. I do note that we're not properly referencing
the tract. It needs to say MU /U. So we'll make that change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages --
MR. NIUL1 ERE: Thirty-nine in the first paragraph, throughout the first paragraph. It says MU but it doesn't
say MU /U.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 40 and 41, anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are -- under your conditional uses on Page 40, you're going to have some
limitations for the C.2 reference?
MR. MUL14ERE: I'm not sure where you're at. You're talking about number five?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, actually, if you go to Page 40, it's C.2.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, C.2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pennitted uses within the C -4. So you're saying under a conditional use you could
apply for any of the uses within the C-4. Okay, but you'd have to come through public process to do it.
MR. NIUL1 ERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And development standards for the reference under 1003.A refers to
Page 65 of 89
161 2 Ai4
October 6, 2011
development standards for our four multi - family.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to leave R -4 in for that one piece that you have. So that's still
applicable then.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I do think on paragraph five at the top, the way it reads, we said: All uses permitted by
right in the C -3 zoning district as defined in the Land Development Code. And we think it's a whole lot simpler just
to say all uses permitted in the NC district of this PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which ends up being the same thing.
MR. MULHERE: It's about the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it makes it clearer, though. Okay.
Pages 42 and 43, anybody have any issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 44 and 45?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: May I go back to Page 42. And there was references to this in other
places, I forget where.
The accommodation for a CAT shelter, can you be more specific on that?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, is that on 42?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I see reference to -- yeah, 2.13.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Cooperation locating bus stops --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Page 44.5 addresses more detail.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be where you might want to --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine.
MR. MULHERE: I'm glad you brought that up, though. One of the things we said we would look at was
how that was treated in this Estates shopping center conditions in terms of the timing, I think, more than anything else.
I'm going to look for that, bus shelters.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, it's just that I read in A.2.13, you know, cooperation in locating is
very vague.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the language that's in this PUD is as follows. I'll just read it. It says -- this is the
Estates shopping center: At the request of Collier County the developer shall install or make payment in lieu of
construction at the discretion of the county for a Collier Area Transit, CAT, bus stop with shelter. The exact location
will be determined during site development plan review for Phase II of the project.
If constructed by the county, owner shall convey to the county an easement for the bus shelter at no cost to
the county.
I think we could use similar language. We'll go ahead and leave in the size, 10 by 20, because that was
agreed to with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your location and some detail is on the next page, on number five. You're
talking about a location near Randall Boulevard --
MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm talking about in number five. But I think the question was when did this
have to occur.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The when and the cooperation point is what were the two things that I --
MR. MULHERE: And I think the cooperation is that at any time that the -- we probably need to put -- we
could put a square footage. At the time that we get a CO for 50,000 square foot of commercial, that's when we build
it. Or if the county wants to build it, then we just give them the easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that John -- John, can you address this? is this something that you've
had a chance to take a look at?
Page 66 of 89
161'2 A 4
October 6, 2011
MR. MULHERE: Because if I look at the Golden Gate one, it was at Phase II. So obviously you got to have
some development before the shelter has one.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podezerwinsky, Transportation Planning.
Honestly, no, I have not had an opportunity to dig very deep on this yet. I haven't had a chance to check
against the Collier Area Transit alternative transportation modes, their plans for this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you do it by next meeting?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I can, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will work.
Okay, we're Page 44 and 45. Any questions, anyone?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess one more item. Up on top, number two, it talks about a comprehensive
network of sidewalks and greenways within future areas of development. You can't do anything with what you've
already built. So I want to make sure that you're not imposing something on the existing residences of Orangetree that
they couldn't do.
So by future areas of development, are you referring to what, just the R -3?
MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah, we're referring to the new development area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we just need to make sure that this isn't construed to mean anything
other than that area. So maybe in the future R -3 development areas or something to that effect.
MR. MULHERE: Got you. Because now that's very limiting, we can use that term.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't want to put something on the backs of the people living out there
already, so --
Pages 46 and 47?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that thing before.
Where is the sidewalks going to be, on the public property or on private property?
MR. MUL14ERE: They could be on either. They could be on either. A typical cross - section will have the
sidewalk within the right -of -way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So wouldn't it be nice --
MR. MULHERE: But you could have greenway -- I'm sorry. You could have a greenway that, you know,
connects the golf course to the clubhouse or connects, you know, some pedestrian pathways that might be not within
the right -of -way, there would probably be an easement for them, but it would be private property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how about like on Immokalee Road, is there a way we could have that
on your property? I mean, it's going to be tough with some of the residential.
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, when you did Hacienda Lakes this issue came up and you provided
a pathways plan -- or pathways and you showed the transit for the -- why don't we do the same thing here?
MR. MULHERE: I think what Brad is talking about is a sidewalk along the public right -of -way on
Immokalee Road. That's already part of their design. I wish Nick was here. That's already part of their design. We
don't need to give them more right -of -way, we're already giving them right -of -way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just thought it would be nice if you pulled it into your property
again. But anyway --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's the concern I have with this language, and that's why I pointed it out. It
says in the third sentence, this network -- and the network they're referring to is greenways and sidewalks -- will
provide non - vehicular access to the commercial and community use portions from residential areas within the PUD.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you going to accomplish that? I think that's what Brad's asking, is how are
you going to get there?
MR. MULHERE: It's for the people within the PUD, that access.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So how are you -- do you have access from within the PUD to the NC
center, the OC -- the two NC's, the OC and a future MU /U?
MR. MUL14ERE: Well, do we have it right now?
Page 67 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Do you have the ability to have it in the future? I think that's what the
concern is. You're putting language inhere. I'm not sure you can meet the language.
You want to trap yourself? Because at some point that could be asked for. We ran into the same problem in
other PUD's.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I mean, I guess that's a good point. We'd end up having to come out to Randall to
make that connection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. But I think you ought to check it to make sure you can meet that
commitment --
MR. MUL14ERE: I believe this language --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or you'd need to make the commitment realistic so the people living there aren't
caught into a bind because of language in their PUD from days past.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I believe this language came from the staff. But, I mean, we can take a look at it
and try to make it clear that it doesn't apply to existing development areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to be careful how that third sentence is worded. That's what I'm
trying to say. And whatever staffs intentions are, I think you ought to find it out and make sure that the community
can meet that intention. That's all I'm suggesting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, kind of while you're on that same topic, you have a vehicle access
into the OC site, the office site?
MR. MULHERE: Do we?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have a little arrow that gave the impression.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think it necessarily means vehicular, it could be bicycle and pedestrian.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I don't think it would be a good idea to have vehicular.
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think these folks would like that very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be a short circuit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 46 and 47?
(No response.)
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SAUNDERS: On Page 48 is where that language, the utility language that was deleted needs to be put
back in and then stricken out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that on the overhead just so we can see it instead of trying to read it? It
might be easier, Burt.
MR. SAUNDERS: It's the language that I've kind of written through there. That has to be added back in and
then we're striking it out. So it's just a technical problem the County Attorney wanted us to clarify the record.
That language just did not show upon the document. It should be placed back into the document and then
stricken through so that the public knows that that language has been stricken out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. I agree. Thank you. I just wanted to see it.
Pages 50 and 51, anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the fire protection stuff.
Other than two, Bob, isn't this pretty much building code, you're going to have to do that anyway? I mean,
you're not going to be able to open a building that doesn't have the required fire flow, unless you want to commit
who's responsible to provide that fire flow.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think -- I agree with what you're saying, but the fire district wanted that language
in there. We met with them on three or four occasions and they -- the chief asked for it.
Is it redundant? Possibly. But I know they specifically asked for it. And particularly as it relates to the first
item, because there are multiple ways I guess that you could achieve -- there probably is more than one way that you
could achieve adequate fire flow availability. I mean, there could be wells or tanks or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then number three, what you're saying is you're requiring
non - combustible roofing if it's a zero lot line? I mean, there is some requirement in the building how you build it to
Page 68 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
protect it, but -- and it's not exactly always the tile.
MR. MULHERE: That came from their concern that the fire would spread from one roof to another in a
connected situation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the actual roofing -- okay, I mean, it's your bye, go ahead, you can have
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but why does that make any sense when the distance between principal
structures, whether it's zero lot line, single - family or duplex or detached are all the same? So why are they picking on
zero, I don't get it? What difference does it make?
If the distance between principal structures is the same, who cares what the roof of one type structure is
compared to the other?
MR. MULHERE: So what you're saying is you should simply say attached dwelling.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what you should is strike it. It's covered by code. Why confuse the issue by
throwing stuff in here that's going to be reinterpreted by somebody else down the road in a totally different way,
especially when you deal with fire departments? They -- each one has a separate interpretation.
MR. MULHERE: I'm perfectly fine to take your direction on that.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree, really it's a building code issue, not a zoning issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the building code does protect the spread of fire on zero lot line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fire departments have way too much authority anyway. When stuff comes
through your department that they add, if it's code, just take it out. Why even bring it to the Board when it's not
something that needs to be in? It would be like you repeating the entire building code, entire LDC in every PUD. It
makes no sense.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree, and we do endeavor to do that, and sometimes some slip through.
MR. MULHERE: I think maybe just as a sidebar observation, what needs to happen is we need to educate
the districts to that effect. Because what happens is the developer gets held hostage. You gotta get the -- you can't
move forward in the review process until you get the comments from the district. And if you're waiting months to
make that happen and they just want a requirement, we put it in the document, you know. So I think we just need to
work together to educate them that any redundancy is not going to be tolerated at this level. And we probably won't
see it quite so often.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they'll fight even harder because --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, here's the thing is that, you know, if it's according to code there's no
problem, we have to build it to code. If we have -- there's ways to have a local amendment, but you would have that
local amendment. Adding it to PUD's is not a way of getting a local amendment to the fire code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 50 and 51?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under A, I I .A? Bob, I LA is the one issue I found that might be in conflict with
the Oil Well Road provisions because of the expansion and the taking for I think E's in particular, as well as the
remainder of the NC that you have that's outside E's. Have you guys checked that?
MR. MULHERE: That language comes from that agreement. That language is --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, that's not true. That's the 10 -foot buffer along the Orangetree on the north side
of the road. That's what it addresses.
MR. MULHERE: It's from the right -of -way taking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the agreement somewhere in here, because I read it and it looked to me like
it was a different width, but --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, this is not related to the south side, this is related to the north side of Oil Well
Road. The south side is not addressed by this language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so this is -- okay, good. So the south side of Oil Well Road then is
determined by that agreement that already is in place? Okay.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And we can take out that comma. I'll take that out so that doesn't create any
confusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, pages -- the rest of the pages are Pages 52 and 53. Anybody have any other
issues?
Page 69 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
(No response.)
MR. MULHERE: I think Burt had something he wanted to add.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: There's been some conversation obviously with the security. And there's an access point
to the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD interconnection, and we may want to talk about whether that is appropriate in
light of the security concerns that have been raised by the general public in terms of this petition.
That's something that was requested by the transportation staff. If the Board feels that we should take that
out, that certainly is acceptable to us. I think that would satisfy some of the concerns in the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you're going to meet with the neighborhood between now and the next
meeting on security issues --
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you could bring that up to them. I mean, I don't see why we need to keep
having these interconnections if the neighborhood -- if they're not going to help the security in the neighborhood, so --
but I think it's something you should discuss, and if there's an issue there, we'll certainly discuss it.
John, did you have something you wanted to add?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. I just want to caution that removal of interconnections that are required
by the LDC in many cases and recommended in other cases in the Growth Management Plan. It sometimes could
have an effect on the traffic impact study that we do.
We do have reductions in the traffic study for internal capture, meaning when the local residential
neighborhood is able to access directly to the commercial areas without using the local roadway network they go
through those interconnections. So by removing those or closing those off, it does affect the impact on the local
roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did the county decide to close off the back entrance to this very facility we're
sitting to from the neighborhood behind us and then meet the needs and the criteria you just stated? Because what the
public is required to do should be no different than what the county is required to do.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't agree, sir. That was done outside of the zoning process as a response to
neighborhood complaints.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the zoning process, I was here for all that. And there is no -- there was no
determination through the DRI process that I know of that allowed that to be eliminated. So when the county wants to
start cleaning its own house, then they can start talking about people cleaning their houses.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Understood, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
That takes us through the PUD language. And I know, Ms. Ebert, you're waiting for us to get to the staff
report. I want to make sure we're done so far with the comments of the developer. There certainly is opportunity for
more, but I know we have to go on to the staff report, and then we can get into the issues that you've been patiently
waiting for.
So with that, does anybody have any other issues of the developer at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe the County Attorney can answer the best.
The reference to the settlement agreement, some people have provided testimony that we don't have the
ability to add more units due to that settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, I've pulled all the excerpts from the settlement agreement that apply to that
question. Would you want me to attempt it first --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Or you want to give me a half hour to read it? No.
You're not limited to the density that's set forth in the settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So everything we discussed here is available --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, you certainly have to look at the criteria in our Land Development Code
about amending PUD's, but we're not contractually restricting your ability to exercise the county's zoning powers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since we are coming back, and if the folks that feel the settlement agreement is a
Page 70 of 89
16 A 4
�ctoze 6 2011
substantial impact on this, and negatively or doesn't allow us to do this, I certainly will put on the table what I found
so that you have time to think about it. And if you want to still bring it up when we come back, you're more than
welcome to.
But the settlement agreement includes a series of exhibits as part of the agreement. One of those is the
existing PUD. The existing PUD certainly allows it to be amended. It says so right in the document.
If you go into it a little bit further -- and then if you go into our -- they have another exhibit that talks about
vested area two. And vested area two becomes part of the at that time the GMP. It's called PUD by settlement zoning
granted by the county.
Vested area two was further moved into our GMP as we see it today in the FLUE under rural settlement area
district. And there it says for that -- and it lists the sections of the development, of Orangetree. And it says: Refer to
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for allowable uses and standards.
Then you go to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan -- it takes four documents to figure this out. It has a section
called Agricultural Rural Designation, and it starts out with the rural settlement area district, which is the Orangetree
district. It goes through, references the settlement agreement, and then it has this sentence in it that seems to be the
sentence that allows what we're doing here today, at least what I thought it did.
It says -- this is in the GMP: Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the
geographic boundaries of this district will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above referenced vested
status.
So even though the settlement agreement and the binding letters of interpretation did provide vesting, it didn't
limit them to come back in like any other piece of property in the Collier County to ask for more density. And by that
reason I don't think we're limited to the settlement agreement.
Now that doesn't mean we're not limited in what they can ask for and what we can approve, but the settlement
agreement I don't think ties their hands as others may have indicated.
If the County Attorney disagrees, just speak out, otherwise we'll move forward.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You stated it well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I just hate to see the confusion that all these documents bring into play.
Unfortunately it's way too much.
We've been through the PUD. Burt, if you have nothing else for your presentation, we will then go to staff
and then I'll have -- then we'll actually probably stop until next week when we get the revised documents.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. And we'll wait to hear from the staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Kay, I'd say good morning, but I know it's afternoon.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Good afternoon --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get all the hard PUD's, I've noticed.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, yeah -- oh well.
For the record, my name is Kay Deselem and I'm a Principal Planner in zoning.
You do have the staff report that has been submitted to you. It's last revised 9/7/11. And obviously many
things have changed from what we originally reviewed based on the applicant's presentation today and things that
have been agreed upon between the applicant and the neighborhood.
We -- I won't go into great detail. Lord knows you've had enough detail for this morning. I would just
suffice to say that staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
We've provided an analysis of the Growth Management Plan issues, both future land use and the other elements such
as the traffic, transportation and environmental issues. We have provided findings of fact in support of our
recommendation, both from a PUD standpoint and a rezone standpoint.
We did recommend several stipulations. The applicant has acquiesced to acceptance of those. And staff is
continuing to recommend that it be found consistent, and continuing to recommend approval with the changes that
were proposed today.
Other than that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. And I have one general -- two general questions before Ms. Ebert
gets into hers.
The first one is, does anything that you heard from the applicant today as far as the changes go reflect a more
Page 71 of 89
�. 6 12 A4
October 6, 2011
intense instance where you would have to re- review it from a higher intensity?
MS. DESELEM: No, I believe everything is a lower intensity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing is, I know that we've had a lot of members of the public
express concerns over their HOA, whether they have it, whether they don't, whether they like it, whether they don't,
whether the people are responsive or not. I don't believe the Planning Commission from a zoning perspective can do
anything with HOA's. Do you have a -- have we ever done anything with HOA's that you know of?
MS. DESELEM: It might be a question better directed to the County Attorney's Office. But from my
experience of 20 some years of planning, no, an HOA is a civil issue between the parties that have agreed to it, and
the county is usually not a party to that, therefore you are not and neither is staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, are you in agreement with that?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, our preference would be not to include anything related to the creations of
HOA's in the PUD documents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I wanted to make that point is for the members of the public
who are concerned over their HOA situation there. That happens in a lot of communities and it's really a matter
between you, the developer and the real estate people there. It's not a zoning matter, and so it's kind of outside again
the review of this particular board.
And with that, Ms. Ebert, did you want to go into your series of questions that you had of staff? Because
earlier you indicated you had questions from the staff report.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did.
First of all, what I tried to do with this, this was supposed to be heard when I wasn't here last time. But what I
tried to do was go in and look at the history of this. And the history goes way back to '67 and 1970 with the original
person.
I crossed out in reading the settlement what areas they originally owned, which were quite a few more areas
than what is shown here. They had seven different tracts. And then a Mr. Golan was the trustee and he had
contracted with the GAC Liquidating Trust to take over -- there was a lawsuit. But if the county agreed to a
settlement and he could do this, he would take it over and do low density out there. He did not want to be a DRI,
apparently.
And so there was an agreement with the county, and it was done a PUD by settlement on August 27th, 1985.
And I just asked today when Mr. Bolt bought the property, and that was in'86. So he's really been in there from the
beginning.
And to show the area, can we put up the last -- one of the last maps that kind of shows the area where you
could also see Orange Blossom in there?
And see, I read the vesting also and I interpreted differently than Mark did. They got a binding letter from the
state and yet they did not want to be a DRI. And the binding letter had said to them that this would be -- and this was
the April 8th of 1986, that the developer had vested rights to develop the original North Golden Gate subdivision, and
that changes to the vested DRI development plan approved by Collier County, subsequently known as the Orangetree
PUD, would result in substantially less development than the North Golden Gate vested development plan and would
result in a reduction of regional impacts.
And it also says: As those changes described in your application for this letter have been approved by local
government and incorporated into a new development order, which is the Orangetree PUD, they constitute the vested
plan of development for the North Golden Gate and must be followed by you, the developer.
In the original letter it was stated that the maximum amount of units were to be 2,100 units, and that was in
the 2,800 -- approximately 2,800 thousand (sic) square feet of property, the four squares.
They did change, and there was to be -- two -story was the maximum and 25 feet height was also the
maximum. And it's -- they also had 22 acres of neighborhood commercial, not to exceed that.
They also changed from urban to agriculture rural. And then in '89 with the adoption of the Growth
Management Plan is when they did that.
And then in 1991, it's 91 -43, they amended changes from 2,798 acres down to 2,752, which was 45 acres,
don't know where it went, and to delete one residential classification, which I believe they did.
There's been a lot of back and forth on acreage for schools, agriculture; it just seems to be changing all the
time.
Page 72 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
Then there was another 11 acres added for parks.
In going through all this -- then we have a huge problem with utilities out there, which has been a big
problem for everyone.
Also in that change of 2001 it says in here on your report that it is unknown for certain but appears that the
DCA was not consulted about some of these changes. However, there are no increases to a DRI threshold. But this is
not a DRI, because they didn't want to be. But it still is limited.
In reading the vested areas and everything, I think this portion is -- which you put in there was very good. It
says: Subsequently two private sector initiated amendments to this district were approved, 2001 and 2003. The
purpose of the first amendment was to clarify allowed uses. And second was to clarify the ability to increase the use
intensity beyond that which is vested, 2,100 acre units and 22 acres of neighborhood commercial.
In 2004 two amendments to the Orangetree PUD were approved. The first was to add the schools and the
school facilities, and allowed use on lands designated agriculture on the PUD master plan. And the second was to
remove approximately 616 acres from the Orangetree PUD as a companion to a rezone of those 616 acres to the
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
In looking this over, the way I feel, that the county has followed through on every agreement that was made
in the settle (sic) agreement and more so. Because what they wrote in the April 8th letter was on 2,800 acres. And
they added 1,600 more homes to the Orange Blossom Ranch. That land should never have been separated. That was
Mr. Bolt's choice, he made that choice. Those people added the 1,600 very conveniently in 2004 after those two
amendments were made. And now you're ending up with 3,700 homes already in here, which was supposed to be
2,100.
They also added 44 acres of commercial at 200,000 square feet. Which is more industrial. In the vested area
of area one, because they knew it was going to be so far out, they needed essential services. And they also said as far
as convenience commercial would be the following criteria met: The size of the parcels is no smaller than 2.25 acres
and no larger than five acres. It does not promote strip commercialization.
And number five, the service area is generally considered as a surrounding area within a radius of two miles
of the site, and no closer than four miles to the nearest commercially zoned site within the vested area.
The site is adequately buffered from surrounding residents.
And you're right, the number -- vested area two, which is also in this, it talks about the sections, 13, 14, 23
and 24, which is the Golden Gate subdivision, and that was between'67 and'70 with the settlement, and the property
was vested, they got that letter.
By designating this area in the Comprehensive Plan as vested area two, the plan recognizes the property as an
area of defined potential population growth located in a section of the county which is currently far removed from
supportive services and facilities. It lies outside of the urban area and its expansion in terms of additional lands or
dwelling units should and should be discouraged. Its existence will have no precedental value effect so far as
justifying similar uses on surrounding or adjacent property.
The vested area two land use designation is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a
land use designation for any other property in the county.
The permitted uses are agricultural uses and related facilities. The residential uses, not to exceed two living
levels in height and a maximum number of 2,100 dwelling units, neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel and
transient lodging facilities, not to exceed 22 acres in size.
In going over and looking at this, here's what I kind of come up with. Orangetree is already okayed for 2,100
units. They wanted to add another 1,250. Today it was 1,050.
Orange Blossom Ranch has 1,600 units. You put those two together, which were in the original letter for the
settlement, and you have 4,750 units within that area.
You have 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, and I think our new regulations are 100, around
that. And they fell far below that, 60,000 was fine on 22 acres. But Orange Blossom Ranch put in 44 acres with
200,000 square feet. So already in the vested area you have 66 acres.
Now you want to add 172,000 more in neighborhood commercial, bringing it to a total with the 60 of 232
square total feet (sic). You also want to add 11.3 acres and put 100,000 square feet into office, making it 33.3 acres,
which is way against the settlement record, making a total of 332,000 square feet just for Orangetree as it is. And
with the other 200,000, that gives you 532,000 square feet of office and commercial, and 4,750 dwelling units.
Page 73 of 89
161 2 AA
October 6, 2011
I am wondering how the utilities will take care of this. The roads have pretty much been put around there.
But then you look at the area right around there, because they're talking about radiuses. You have the Miromar, which
I believe is just kitty- corner from this, that's 20,000 square feet, tiny. But you have Randall Boulevard, which was
approved for 425,000. That is a total of 977,000 square feet of office and commercial area. And then you can go
within four miles and I believe the Golden Gate Center that was just approved for 150, you have over a million square
feet.
This is excess. I mean, to me this is -- this is way above normal. I feel the county has paid their obligation,
did what they were told to do. Mr. Bolt, to me, has the problem. Because if you write the state and tell them that you
reduced that area and that really you already have 3,700 on there, I'm sure you would get a different answer now.
I even looked at another area similar to this, which was Heritage Bay, and they have 2,600, approximately,
acres. Their total dwelling units is only 3,400. They have 73 acres of commercial, when this one has 77 within the
Orangetree area. And their gross density is 1.3 per acre. And they only have 200,000 square feet of commercial.
To me this is excess way above and beyond. I feel that -- and it's all single - family in there now. I can see
where the residents are very unhappy, because if you're in a single - family and all of a sudden you want to be putting
in multi - family, I can see where people are very upset as to that.
I feel that the 1,600 dwelling units that Mr. Bolt gave Mr. Ryan or whatever his name is, the time to build,
that more than satisfied the county's obligation, and everything should just be put to sleep at this point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that was a statement, not a question. So I know you were probably
wondering what do I say.
MS. DESELEM: I was waiting for the question, but I never heard it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way Diane phrased it, it was more of a statement for the record than it
was a question to you.
Is that right, Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it was. But there are questions because there's conflicting things in here.
They want to increase agricul -- none of the maps show the -- all the acreages change in here constantly. They said
they want to add -- increase acreage by 67 acres, and it shows that the agriculture is only 67 acres in one of these
maps. And I'm going, they keep moving the agriculture and the SP around. They just kind of keep changing things
within that whole area. And that's --
MS. DESELEM: If I may attempt to address some of your concerns? I know it seems convoluted, because
we have the agreement from way back when that seems to say this is it and you can't do any more. But yet we can
because of the amendments that were passed for the rural settlement area, as Mark said, that clearly stated that we can
increase it. There are no limitations. That 2,100 units and 22 acres of commercial is not the top end. They are
allowed to come in and ask for more.
And I know that Ray Bellows worked on the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD and he went through the process
with DCA and got a letter, a binding letter of interpretation from DCA saying that that one wasn't a DRI. I think he
knows some detail of it but it would have to be taken off the top of his head but he may be able to respond in part.
And the applicant in this petition also went to DCA. And I believe in your packet you'll find a letter from
DCA saying that it is not a DRI, that it satisfies all the state requirements, it's not in conflict with any state law. That
brings it down to the local level.
It is consistent with the Growth Management Plan because of the changes that have been done to that
settlement area where it allows them to seek increases. Then it becomes a matter of compatibility and whether it can
meet concurrency later on.
The road issues have been evaluated as far as transportation. Utility issues have been and will continue to be
evaluated. In any case, building permits will not be issued if any particular use can't have adequate facilities available
to it. It just won't happen. That's how it's controlled later on.
That's why at the zoning process it's kind of hard to know all those things, especially when you have a project
that's in excess of 2,000 acres. You know what's there now, but it's hard to guess what might occur elsewhere in the
area in addition to or in spite of or instead of this.
So that's why we have a double check system where concurrency will kick in later and that ensures that
adequate facilities will be available to serve the proposed uses.
And other than that, like I said, we continue to recommend that it be found consistent.
Page 74 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
And I'm not a proponent for the applicant. It's his petition to convince you that it's wise and wonderful the
way he's proposing it. And he may wish to respond to you as well, since a lot of it he might wish to respond to.
But that's all I can offer. If you have additional questions, I'd be happy to try to address them.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I'm just looking at what it says in the vested areas and stuff, and they just
seem to be going against what was in there.
MS. DESELEM: But we can because the settlement agreement was amended to allow that to be changed.
And like Commissioner Stone (sic) stated earlier in that PUD that was adopted by settlement, I don't
remember -- Stone, did I say Stone?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You got somebody new on this board.
MS. DESELEM: It's that empty chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, we've been working together all these years and you don't even know my
name.
MS. DESELEM: That Commissioner Strain, corrected, had noted, that that amendment itself that was
adopted by the settlement agreement allows for amendments to it. I don't remember the specific citation, but it is
there within that PUD document that's part of that settlement agreement. So I think to us it's clear that they are
allowed to make changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In view of all that --
MS. DESELEM: His name is Strain, it really is.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mr. Strain.
Kay, I understand what you -- I think I understand what you said, and I understood what Diane spoke about,
because I had some of the same issues as I read through here. You know, it starts out as 21 all encompassing Orange
Blossom Ranch and they split off and now we have 21 and we're going more and more and there's no limitation,
there's no restriction against more.
What is the physical limit? I mean, is this the last -- since we can't discourage or prohibit, are we limited by
the acres?
I mean, if you look forward into the future and there is no restriction against adding more and more dwelling
units, is there ever any restriction outside of the acreage, per se?
I should probably know that answer too, but I don't.
MS. DESELEM: No, you can view it in several different ways. At some point they're going to propose a
density, if they continue to ask for increased density, that may be determined to no longer be compatible, to be
excessive and not in concert with what is approved in the area.
And again, like I said, concurrency will control a lot of it. If there's no traffic capacity, if there's no facility
capacity, they can't go forward regardless of what they're approved for, as far as number of units or commercial
square footage. It will be limited by other constraints.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So I guess theoretically down the road if this were to be approved and
the single families were built and all the acres consumed, at a point in the future someone could say that didn't work
too well so we're going to buy up all those single - family homes, we're going to come back through the process, we're
going to clear them out and ask to build apartment complexes.
MS. DESELEM: Redevelopment is always the potential.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, good. Just wondering where the limitation is. Doesn't seem to be
any but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The limitation is basically our Land Development Code and the creativity that's
allowed by zoning and to a point where it becomes unrealistic for the compatibility requirements of the code.
Meaning you can't have six -story buildings next to single - family homes, things like that. So that will -- and that is set
up so the future can vary according to the needs.
And if someone comes in and buys up a whole village and bulldozes down the houses and decide they want
to try to put something else there, they have a right to ask for it. But they don't necessarily need to get it if
compatibility is not worked out.
MS. DESELEM: Most requests for amendments to PUD documents would require public hearings whereby
it's just like this process, it's done through public hearings where it's advertised and people get the opportunity to
Page 75 of 89
161 2 A%+
October 6, 2011
evaluate it and voice their opinions.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, it's actually for Rob, Bob Mulhere or maybe Burt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay, I think that's probably all we got.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since you've gone through and you like clipped a bunch of the higher
density residential lots, are you going to still be asking for the same amount of units?
MR. SAUNDERS: At this point, yes. We've dropped it down to 1,050. We think we can build that many
even with the R -4 and R -3 being reduced to R -2 in the existing areas, even with the new access road.
We'll take a look at whether that's physically possible, but at this point, yes, we're requesting the 1,050 units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think what that will mean is that the new R -3 area is going to have a lot
more multi - family.
MR. SAUNDERS: No, the R -3 area will be R -2. That will permit some multi - family, but we're going to be
limited in the number of units you can build there, just by virtue of the fact that it's R -2.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I meant the -- see up on the chart? You're keeping the easterly R -3, I
believe. I didn't think you dropped that.
MR. SAUNDERS: That is correct.
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean for the record.
We have done some general preliminary designs on unit counts and such on that and we feel confident that
we can -- you know, we're comfortable with the 1,050, even with the reductions that we've done today on laying lots
out through the balance of the R -2 and R -3 sections at the core.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the minimum 1,000 square foot unit?
MR. McLEAN: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, if I may. For the record, Kay Deselem.
John Podczerwinsky has some things that he needs to mention as well. So if you would allow him to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. John?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. Just very briefly on the record, this is in response to one of the
comments that I had received from my administrator before he had to leave our meeting today.
There is an absorption schedule for the development that's listed in the traffic study that talks about build -out
percentages of the PUD as it evolves over time. My administrator had asked that I require that to be a stipulation in
the PUD.
At this point the applicant and myself and other staff members will be working on that before it returns. I just
wanted to make sure that we have it on the record that we are working on it together.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a very good point, because the last two projects that came through, last
three, including Tuscany and Heritage Bay, were requested to provide absorption schedules for future planning. They
were estimates. They were not something that are going to bind your hands or requirements, they were just estimates.
And they were done -- they were required for future planning purposes.
And I think that's a good move. And as long as the applicant has no problem with that, I would like to see
that happen. If they do have a problem, we still would like to see it happen.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I do want to put on the record, if I could -- Bob Mulhere -- that we're happy to take a
look at it.
My concern is exactly what you just said, we have an absorption schedule that is our best estimate. It's not --
doesn't push it to a shorter time period. But if the market is very strong in one five -year period and you can build
twice as many units as you would typically be able to build because the market's there and you don't have concurrency
issues, is there any reason we'd want somebody to have to wait another five years to build those just because --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the purpose, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm hearing --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce Anderson represented the other two projects where this issue came up. And
Page 76 of 89
1 tober 6, 2011
he phrased it in a manner that provided it. So you might want to get with Bruce and just -- and it's just -- it's a future
planning tool that Nick had opined on it would be very useful for his department to have.
MR. MULHERE: I'm probably misunderstanding. We'll get it figured out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And John, there's one other thing. One of the issues that Orangetree has had for a
while from some of the residents there is that the children going to the north to get to the school have a difficult time
in where they cross or how they cross Oil Well Road.
When you come back in a couple weeks when an applicant comes back, would you have the information as
far as how crosswalks and lights and everything else is handled for that issue?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
And I'll tell you now, it will be handled specifically as SDP, per the Land Development Code. But if there's a
special provision that you'd like to see added now or to discuss with the applicant at this time, now would be a good
time for us to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that if we need to address it, it's addressed. Because that is a
concern. I knew that when the light goes in or an interchange goes in or intersection goes in, that something will be
done. I'd just like to know what our standards are to make sure it is done.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I'll take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this point before we continue this one until -- well, Burt, do
you have anything you wanted to say in closing?
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you. And in reference to your last comment, I've
already spoken to Mr. Lowitz about the school crossing issue. And we will work with staff to make sure that you
have the most efficient access there for the schools.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this Board would entertain a recommendation to continue this item to our
next regularly scheduled meeting or the one immediately thereafter, depending on how fast you can get your --
MR. SAUNDERS: What is the date of the next meeting?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 20th.
MR. SAUNDERS: October 20th?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The next one after that would be the first week in November.
MR. SAUNDERS: We will be ready on October 20th. I will meet with the homeowners next week on the
internal security issue. We will get with Heidi Ashton and make sure that all these changes are taken care of We'll
do that early next week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to allow the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. How's that? I heard her voice first. I was looking at you and heard her.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We'll continue to next meeting.
Okay, let's take a 10- minute break and then we'll wrap up when we get back. We'll resume at 4:03.
(A recess was taken.)
Page 77 of 89
16 I A'4
October 6, 2011
(At which time, Commissioner Ahern is absent.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We're going to try to wrap up.
The last advertised public hearing is a boat dock petition that was continued from the last meeting. It's
BDPL- 2010 -1473 266 Third Street West, lot eight.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission.
Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No ex parte.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. None for me.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Sir, go ahead.
MR. TURLEY: For the record, I'm David Turley, and I'm returning to satisfy some comments that were
asked of me at the last meeting.
One was I'm here representing Greg Orick, Naples Barge Rental in a petition to extend 25.5 feet beyond the
allowed 20 feet for two boatlifts.
There was a question, I believe -- well, I'll let you go with the questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, you just want to have us ask questions.
Does anybody have any questions on this application?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess what it was, we were looking for -- to get some soundings, some
depths underneath the boats area. But did you get that? I mean, the drawing --
MR. TURLEY: Yes, I did. It should have been. I thought it was -- might have been submitted. I have --
here, this is bigger.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I guess, you know, the question I had is that it's the -- it's actually
the same drawing you showed us last time.
MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is. Except actually this one has a boat drawn in it and it has the water depths.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it does have a boat. Does have some more depths.
Okay, we'll go with that. That's -- the other question is in the affidavit it states, and at the end he says that
he's aware of the fact that they're going to comply with the Land Development Code and that the rental of boat slips
are strictly prohibited.
MR. TURLEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern we also had was that he would be renting the boats
themselves.
MR. TURLEY: No, no. This is noncommercial, strictly noncommercial.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's what we want it to be. But the concern is the way he
worded it, it just -- you know, he worded it that it's the rental of the boat slips, not the rental of --
MR. TURLEY: Excuse me, I'm sorry, that was -- I put that in there that he could not rent either slip. That
the vessel occupying those slips had to be in his name. And that's the way I understand it's been for quite a while.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But he couldn't rent it to me to go take the boat out.
MR. TURLEY: No. That would be considered commercial.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, if everybody, code enforcement would be comfortable with
that, I'm good with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, I have some questions, but now I'm not sure whether the questions
were covered in the previous hearing or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you weren't here so it doesn't matter. So you can ask them.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine, fire away.
Page 78 of 89
1,2 A 4`
October 6, 2011
The first one I had is on your affidavit. You're referring to requirements of Section 2.6.21 of the LDC. And
further on we have references to 5.03.06. And I'm not -- I get -- trying to figure out which is the applicable.
MR. TURLEY: The 5.03.06 is basically for commercial multi - family marinas where you have to abide to a
Manatee -- standard Manatee Protection Plan.
And the other was rezoning of these boat dock lots back in 1999 -- actually the north side of the road was
done in'88. Let me find my paper - -'88. And this was rezoned again in -- there's a -- setbacks were changed in
Resolution 2000 -51 for that particular project. And I believe it references -- is that 91? That's the wrong one. Bear
with me. Where's my staff report?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It may be more of a question for staff after I look at where I've --
MR. TURLEY: The resolution -- oh, here it is. The rezoning for that particular side, Block H, was in number
99 -236, to make those boat dock lots.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. TURLEY: And then in 2000 there was another resolution minimizing the seven and a half foot setbacks
to zero setbacks because of the size of the lot and allowing for two boats for a single - family residence.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The reason I bring that up is on Page 4 of 7 of staff comments they say it
has been reviewed in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following. That's sort of where I hung my hat.
And if that's not appropriate, I don't understand why it's in there, but --
MR. TURLEY: Probably because it said Naples Barge Rental and a commercial entity. Could be.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Ray, can you help me with that?
MR. BELLOWS: Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code contains the provisions for dock
extensions for all types of docks. And within there there's different types of docks that are -- whether it's multi - family
or single - family or commercial.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So on Page 4 of 7 where you say you have -- your staff has
reviewed in accordance with 5.03.06 --
MR. BELLOWS: That's the general category.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's the general category.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. So on the affidavit where it says comply with the requirements
of Section 2.6.21, all I'm trying to look for is the linkage between what I perceive to be two sections of the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, this one was a boat dock extension, so isn't it supposed to go by 99 -236, the
others that refer to the old LDC language?
And that may be where the discrepancy is. We have two LDC's. One was repealed and replaced in'04. So
the reference to the 2.06.21 sections, and I have those, those are from the old LDC, 91 -102. And when we repealed it
in 04 -42 with the new number, 04 -42, we changed the numbers. That may be part of the confusion.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I'm trying to find where it says the old language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got all that in these documents in front of me.
MR. TURLEY: That was probably my fault. When I started digging for information, I don't completely read
it 100 percent and it was a resolution, and I just happened --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, if staffs okay with it. I'm looking at an affidavit dated September
16--
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it just appears we got a reference to an old LDC section. But it's basically the same
language.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I trust you, I guess, because I don't have the old.
Now, I have some other questions here further on in the staff report, if appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have the applicant now, so if there are questions involving the applicant,
we should ask him first, then we'll go to the staff report.
Do you have any others of the applicant, Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just -- the concern we had last time is we tried -- you were trying
to push the thing in and you had these little wings on it that was holding the boat back. The elevations in the --
Page 79 of 89
161 A4
October 6, 2011
underneath the boat, you're not really giving us any.
MR. TURLEY: Well, on the drawing, Brad, in the front of the -- unfortunately the surveyor had to offset all
measurements. But to the west or to the left of the smaller boatlift you have the measurements at the head of the slip
is -1.57 feet. At the beam or at the start of the lift it's -2.86. About in the center it's a -3.93. And in the back it drops
off. This is a dredged trench, it drops back to 5.89. And then it starts to come back up to the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I guess what you're saying is that -- because remember we were
looking at the section and it looked like you had enough water at just about where that wing system comes back onto
the four -foot wide dock.
MR. TURLEY: Right. I went back to the surveyor and I kind of let him know that unfortunately he did not
draw that particularly to scale. He tried to reference it with the various points on the dock. And he said if he tried to
draw it out, lengthen it, it would be a real long piece of paper.
And I had another survey he had done that had an offset five feet vertically -- or five feet horizontally, 10 feet
vertically. And that would really have been confusing if I'd have submitted it to you all. Mark probably would have
been able to make drift of it, but I'll tell you what, I didn't like it because I was going to submit it to the state for a
rip -rap permit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern is looking at the thing and forgetting the fact that it's not to
scale, it does appear that at the lift you have quite a bit of water. And we try to keep everybody about four feet, that's
been our guideline. And you're down, you know, five, six feet at that point where the lift is.
MR. TURLEY: In that situation it was a dredged trench. If you notice how quickly it drops off on the actual
topo, not the bathymetric -- I got that in there someplace -- I had these all nice and neat a little while ago. That didn't
work.
If you notice, up at the top of the bank -- or actually the top of the property line, you have a 4.37 -- 3.4. And
this has been used as a boat ramp for over 30 years or longer. Everything's been pushed down in the water. And I
have some pictures of that as well. That it's really gradual. It's going from -- in the center of the lot from 2.88 and
then you're getting down to mean high water, which is probably only about another seven feet. That's a 1.4. And then
you're going probably close to 10 feet out to come to a positive .21. And then another five feet of negative .40. So it's
just a situation where everything has been sloughed in and then it just drops off drastically.
And my 20 feet is just about to the angled portion of what I was calling the bow access area. That is 20 feet.
And it's still very shallow there. It's less than a foot deep.
If we go back to the screen, I can show you pretty much what I'm talking about. Fifteen feet from mean high
water to the -- this bow access where it starts coming out, it's -.40. So you're looking at five inches. And then
approximately halfway between the back of it and let's say the angle you have a -1.57. So you just divide it in half.
We're going to be looking at 10 inches of water, eight- tenths.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right.
MR. TURLEY: So all this is -- this winged area is high and dry, with the exception of the actual dredged
area -- that's how that bank sits, that dredged area sits. And that's the acceptable water depth.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You ginned me out. I'm fine, we'll go with it.
Mark, done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one more.
Is there an existing boat dock there today?
MR. TURLEY: No, there isn't. It was taken out -- oh, when was it, around the first of January this year.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, that explains it.
MR. TURLEY: Yeah. Originally, see, I started this over a year ago. And it was --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I got a look -see at the appraiser's GIS of that area. Shows a boat dock
and a boat sitting there.
Okay, thank you.
MR. TURLEY: Well, this past appraiser's aerial on that shows a 43 -foot boathouse.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
Page 80 of 89
16 A4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple questions.
The aerial that's on Page 3 of 7, could you put the aerial on the overhead, Ray?
That little yellow spot in the center is the lot you're talking about. And if you look at it there's a huge boat
there right now.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what I was referring to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whose boat is that?
MR. TURLEY: Well, we never really did figure out whose boat that was. The lot belongs to a Donald Chu
(phonetic) Trust.
Now, I don't know. These two dock areas or these lots have been used by commercial fishermen during run
season for the last -- since that thing was put in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that boat there is longer than what the dock probably accommodates. It's
over the setback, which probably when the dock was permitted didn't allow that to happen. I'm just wondering how it
got there. And it's a pretty large boat.
But it also shows that your boat can be docked right up to the property line. And I don't see a survey of
where the mangroves are. But yet I notice in the requirements, in the primary and secondary criteria, the basis for the
criteria, and it says criteria met. According to the petitioner's application there are existing mangroves along the
shoreline and water depth at the site is not adequate to accommodate the 25 -foot vessel described in the petitioner's
application without an extension.
In the past we've requested these mangrove lines to be surveyed. So if that's a defense that you're using, we
can actually see where the mangroves are.
Do you have anything that shows us where those mangroves are? Because this doesn't look like you got a
problem with mangroves.
MR. TURLEY: I have pictures. But these mangroves, there's quite a bit of canopy there. And that one you
can't see it because the guy came in and cut out that mangrove canopy so he could get his boat up in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a -- you can't cut mangroves, can you?
MR. TURLEY: Oh, no, absolutely not. Well, you can get a permit to trim 25 percent from the DEP. It's an
ongoing type of permit.
But this guy, whoever brought that houseboat in, like I say, I don't have a clue. He was kind of homeless,
because it looked pretty rough. He had defoliated that lot, which was then lot number seven.
MR. BELLOWS: It's no longer there though. Is that boat there still?
MR. TURLEY: No, no. That boat probably disappeared, oh, I'd say I think in April, March or April.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you survey the mangroves and supply us with a survey of the mangroves?
MR. TURLEY: Well, it was a vague survey that -- this is -- let me back up. The only thing that the
surveyors provided to me was the canopy of the mangroves, the upland canopy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that doesn't provide any kind of use for you in arguing that you need an
extension. So the mangroves don't seem to be a reason as a need for the extension. Is that a fair assumption, based on
what I've just seen on that picture?
MR. TURLEY: In -- I wish I had -- I tried to print up some quick past aerials the last few years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't help us though because the aerials wouldn't show your property line.
So we need -- in the past when the mangroves have been in our criteria for someone to ask for an extension, they've
actually brought in a surveyor's notation showing where the mangroves approximately extend to. In this case we don't
have that information.
MR. TURLEY: 1 do have -- and this is post trimming. This is a picture I took not too long ago. This is that
area where the houseboat was. This is mean high water, which is about four feet back from the platted property line.
The edge of these mangroves exceed over 15 feet, or actually to the side of the walkway that's going to extend out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you happen to have -- any of your plans show accurately where the docks on
both sides of you are located in relationship to their water -ward extension?
You're asking for 45 feet. Do your neighbors need 45 feet? Have they used 45 feet?
MR. TURLEY: The neighbor to the west has extended out 40 feet. I have a -- I thought you may be asking
similar to that. This is an aerial showing these docks in line. This particular dock is out 50 feet from mean high
water. This one is out 38 feet. This is a 2007 aerial. And you can see the canopy of the mangroves extending out.
Page 81 of 89
A-4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which lot is the one that you're dealing with?
MR. TURLEY: This is the lot I'm dealing with. Unfortunately the property appraiser's aerial doesn't plat it
out right. But right here's -- and a canopy of the mangroves were out there quite a ways, this one especially.
This dock here is 43. And the best I could measure, this dock here is 48 feet from mean high water. And
that's 40 feet. That's just going from the property appraiser's aerial and their measurement device.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where's the boat ramp in relation to this picture?
MR. TURLEY: The boat ramp is right here. It's just to the west of this particular dock. That's the boat ramp.
And a lot of the aerials will show that. I have another aerial in which there are a couple of fishing boats. This is a
2005 aerial. There are a couple mullet skiffs there on both sides.
Right here, that's the dock in question. And that's the ramp in front of this skiff that had been launched there.
It's gravel, shell, it's just whatever's been pushed down in the water over the years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Brad, is that the only question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just -- it really would be nice to see on that how far out this
layout's going. I mean, one of the problems we have is we normally have a lot of examples of adjoining docks and
drawings and photographs of the CAD work, you know, with the CAD on top, you know. This application we're just
not getting.
MR. TURLEY: This? This --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I guess --
MR. TURLEY: That depicts the ramp right there. And it runs, you can see how far. It does run down --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's your property, the property that you're dealing with?
MR. TURLEY: This is the east property line. West property line is in these mangroves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where's the mangroves that you're needing the extension for? This is kind of
like showing just the opposite. You've got a pretty clear shot at the water there.
MR. TURLEY: Well, that's the open area. That's only about 12 feet wide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the east side is on the left and the west side is on the right, how can you be
much further --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing you said is that the dock was to the east of the ramp. So
that means it would be coming out right through that -- those are pretty tall skinny mangroves.
MR. TURLEY: That was defoliated for that boat to come in. Because I told the owner, I said you're going to
get in trouble trimming these. He said, I didn't touch it, that guy. He just pointed his fingers like -- and I don't think
he actually knew who.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your proposed lot lies between the stake on the left with the flag on it and the
boat on the right; is that correct?
MR. TURLEY: That's correct. I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other concern I have is that you show that you want at least gravel,
I don't know if it's paved, at least 28 feet of that area. And why would you need three cars being able to park there?
MR. TURLEY: Three?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, nine, nine, nine.
MR. TURLEY: Two. The walkway's going to come halfway in that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Walkway from where?
MR. TURLEY: On that dock. In my survey site plan, you can see where the end of the walkway is, just
about in the middle of that lot. So you're going to be able to park on one side or the other without parking in the
easement. Which I know everybody does on that street anyway. But that was the initial idea, not to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any -- Brad, did you finish your question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, this the second time I finished it.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
Page 82 of 89
161 2 A4
October 6, 2011
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Leave this picture up, if you would, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the one that's up?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I thought I was following this. Now I'm not at all sure. If I look straight
ahead, you've got what you call the mangroves.
MR. TURLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And they trimmed the mangroves.
MR. TURLEY: They've been trimmed seriously.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And if this drawing depicts, where would the walkway to your proposed
dock go? Right through --
MR. TURLEY: It would be right at the edge -- right at this edge of the mangroves. I mean, right at the edge.
And then it extends five feet to the west.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you really won't have any boat ramp, quote, unquote.
MR. TURLEY: No. This is going to get rip- rapped. I have a permit to rip -rap it. I got it from the state.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The way I was looking at that, the walkway would be going right
through the skinny little mangroves. But okay. So you're basically not going to have a ramp.
MR. TURLEY: No, absolutely not. This is what we're trying to do, protect that bank by putting a rip -rap in
and trying to plant and propagate those mangroves in that rip -rap. And I know I have a --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, you're -- glad you're here today. Is that a mangrove? Does that look
like any mangrove?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Whatever, but no. Maybe it used to be when it was young --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, unless there's a species called shack --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have to stop talking out of turn, please. She's trying to type and she's
looking frantically.
Mr. Lorenz?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. LORENZ: Yes. Chris D'Arco here is the environmental specialist who is doing the review. I'll have
him answer the question for you, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
MR. D'ARCO: Good afternoon.
I was not on site, I'm covering this for Summer Araque. But by looking at the photograph, it does look like a
mangrove tree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, does anybody else have any questions?
Go ahead, Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're going to leave those wings in there?
MR. TURLEY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: How's the boat going to launch?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not.
MR. TURLEY: The boat will be on boatlifts, and that will be the access to get to the bow of the boat --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: To get it into the water, how are you going to get in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not launching here. They go to a marina and once they're in the water that's
not -- he's going to rip -rap all that, that's not a boat launch.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's going to be rip -rap there?
The old boat launch. That's where you launched the boat before, right, with that driveway looking --
MR. TURLEY: That's where some of the locals and fishermen from Fantasy -- and I've known some of
them, unfortunately.
MR. BELLOWS: I think the question is once this dock is -- if it's approved and installed, the boat ramp will
Page 83 of 89
1612 a4
October 6, 2011
not be usable anymore.
MR. TURLEY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We'll go to staff report.
Mike, come on up. You're not a shy person.
MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon. For the record, Mike Sawyer with Growth Management Zoning Services.
Between the last meeting we did receive a letter of objection. It was due to the business, Naples Barge, being
listed as the owner of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they the owner of the property?
MR. SAWYER: Naples Barge is listed as the owner of the property, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the objection? I don't understand.
MR. SAWYER: They're objecting to it being a business use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ownership --
MR. SAWYER: Perceived --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of the property -- someone suspects because a company owns it it's a business
use?
MR. SAWYER: Exactly, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I understand, thank you.
MR. SAWYER: We did provide some additional information as a follow -up to the previous meeting. The
affidavit that was mentioned, which does in fact have the old 2.6.21 LDC reference, that's the old code before
codification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the problem I think there is, is resolution 99 -236 says the following: All
boat docks erected on the subject lot shall comply with the requirements of Section 2.6.21 of the Land Development
Code.
Now, it doesn't say as amended or it changes in the future, it just says 2.6.21 of the Land Development Code.
And I'm just -- that is different than what we normally see when you can refer to a section of the LDC and as it's
updated you get the updated benefit.
I'll probably ask Heidi if there's an issue there. But she's busy with Ray.
Heidi, that resolution or that I just -- the section I just read does not have an as amended, it's Resolution
99 -236. Is an amendment automatically assumed or does it have to say as amended, as we've had language in PUD's
with the same kind of references? But some have said as amended and some haven't. And some of the applicants
have argued when it doesn't it locks it into the standards at the time.
What is this?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the better drafting would have been to say or, you know, as amended from
time to time. And staff is telling me that they're -- that they've interpreted those resolutions historically to mean it
meant the current boat dock standards.
So to be consistent they've interpreted it to mean the 5.03.06 standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we're consistent. If that's the way staffs interpreting them, I
have no problem --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The same discussion came up on the previous boat dock extension in this
area, and that's the conclusion reached at that time too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will probably come up again. It's hard to remember all these things.
Thank you, Heidi.
Any questions -- was that your presentation?
MR. SAWYER: That was it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of Mike?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, this issue, I have two issues that concern me. Mangroves weren't proven and
by the photographs doesn't appear to be a reason for an extension need. Doesn't seem there's anything that's shown in
Page 84 of 89
6 L_�
1 Q4
October 6, 2011
4
the canopy over the water, and the pictures clearly show clear access without disturbing mangroves. Plus they seem
to be back by the shoreline.
The other thing that bothers me is there's no reference to how this overlays to the other docks in the area. We
generally see that on all the applications so we get a gist of where the reality is for water depths and things like that,
including not only the surveys but also how the other boat docks have fit in.
I notice the write -up for the staff comments in the secondary and primary criteria note that the mangroves are
part of the reason for the meeting of the criteria. You still feel that's a comfortable position to take after seeing or
hearing what we don't have in regards to evidence?
MR. SAWYER: As far as is it a great reason? I would say no. Is it a somewhat weak reason? Yes. Is it a
primary reason for the need to go out as far as they're proposing to do? No. But it is a consideration. Because
certainly we want to keep the mangroves that are there. And I believe the application pointed out more of the
condition where they wanted to avoid further damage to the mangroves.
Again, bit of a stretch, but we tend to try and be as careful as we can when it comes to mangroves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike, appreciate it.
Anything else? Anybody else have any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I certainly don't see any public here to -- different than the first one we had.
Is there anybody wish to make a motion? Don't all jump at the plate at once.
Ray, you want to make a motion, go right ahead.
MR. BELLOWS: Just I wanted to make a -- clarify a point on -- and I think it's a good point that you made
about whether this is in regard to the secondary criteria number one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And primary criteria as well.
MR. BELLOWS: I think that we should revise that staff finding to say that it doesn't appear to protrude
approximately 12 feet into the waterway. And, you know, I'm almost willing to say that the criterion has not been met
but they still meet the other criterions which qualify for recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of why I asked the question.
But if you have to have four out of the six of the secondary criteria, number one is dismissed, number two is
not applicable. And let's see, and number six is not applicable --
MR. BELLOWS: We would still say it meets the criteria, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It meets -- well, what meets criteria?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, you don't say it doesn't meet criteria, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start -- is the criterion met for number one?
MR. BELLOWS: I would say based on the recent photographs, I would say no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the criteria met for number three?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's not applicable in this case, but it shouldn't count against the applicant in meeting
the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my concern is if it doesn't count against him and he's got to meet four
out of the six, but some don't count against him, how does he meet the one that counts against in order to qualify for
the four?
MR. BELLOWS: He's not inconsistent with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not my question. Let me read what is says: It must be determined that at
least four of the five primary criteria or four of the six secondary criteria have been met.
So let me rephrase my question. Has he met the criteria of number one?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has he met the criteria number five -- number three, I'm sorry.
MR. BELLOWS: No, because it's not applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has he met the criteria number six?
MR. BELLOWS: That's not applicable.
Page 85 of 89
16 1 2 A4
October 6, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's my concern. If you take out the mangrove issue, what do we end up
with? Do we end up enough?
And I guess maybe the County Attorney needs to opine on it. But do we -- because criteria are not applicable
or they're not subject to the -- like number six says criterion met. Then it says the proposed facility consists of two
boat slips and therefore is not subject to the provisions of this section.
So does that -- I guess he meets -- doesn't --
MR. BELLOWS: I think historically we've said if it's not applicable it's still -- the criterion is met. That's
historically how we've interpreted it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Comment on that comment.
Then why wouldn't you revise for the future and clarify that particular condition if it's encountered in the
future?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you cannot believe how many times we tried to get that done, and they're still
working on that, yeah.
Ray, we've -- Phil, we have numerous times commented about the -- and the County Attorney's Office has
equally commented that this criteria are badly outdated. But we just haven't had the time to get them into an LDC
amendment to make the change. And I think that's still on staffs plate to do at some point.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and there's a lot of other alternatives to some things in regard to some people think
it's like a point system or whether it's general guidelines or whether this could be done administratively. There's a lot
of ways to -- or look at percentages of -- if you exceed a certain amount of distance greater than 20 feet, as long as
there's certain conditions met then you can do it administratively, but if you go out further distance, then those always
require a more stringent review.
There area lot of different options we were studying. But as you noted, we just didn't have time to really do
an LDC amendment. But we are now starting new amendment cycles and we can look at this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, for the new, if you read it it doesn't say that if you meet these criteria
you get it, it says in order to be approved. So this threshold means that if you don't meet the threshold you can't
consider approving it. But it doesn't tell you you have to approve it. That's the controversial part of the way this is
written too.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's how we've interpreted it, that you can't approve it unless you meet those
criteria, but you don't have to approve it. Because there can always be health, safety and welfare reasons that require
you deny --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the applicant can't meet some of the criteria because they're not applicable, in
this case out of the secondary we have four that can apply to this site, of the four one of them doesn't -- is not -- the
criterion is not met. So that means he meets the criteria of three. What are we allowed to do at this point?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think the whole point of number three is does it have an adverse effect on
navigation. And don't think you can say it has an adverse effect on navigation. I mean, it does refer to marked
channels and so forth, but I would read that broadly as to adverse effect on navigation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three, where are you -- no, no, I'm talking about secondary criteria --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The primary criteria number --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, secondary. In the secondary they have to meet four of the six. Two of the six
are disqualified for not applicable to this site. Number one has been found to be not met. So that leaves three met.
What are we allowed to do?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My guess, I think in the past if it doesn't apply we've given it to them as
being met --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, you have not held it against them --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's met by not having --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just want to make sure we're right. But no one's making a motion. Does anybody
wish to make a motion?
Barry?
Page 86 of 89
161 2
A4
October 6, 2011
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll make the motion that we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use your mic, sir. Cherie's going to get really upset.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I don't have the number in front of me or anything, but I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BDPL- 2010 -1473.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yeah. And I move that we grant his request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: First time out of the box. But this whole presentation has been very
poorly handled, in my opinion. It's poorly organized. I wasn't here for the first time. It's confusing. Staff comments
and what I see written material in front of me are contradictory and confusing. It wasn't a good application as far as I
was concerned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I don't think I disagree with you a bit. But through the process of the
application we've got to decide whether or not the criteria have been met. And the motion has been made to
recommend approval because even though it took an unusual effort to get there, looks like the criteria may be
considered to have been met, based on the County Attorney's findings that even though some of the secondary don't
apply they're still considered valid in regards to meeting the need.
So with that in mind, unless someone knows why they -- specific reasons to turn it down when they can state
them for the record, we may be heading down a path of approval. So Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I just want to say, Phil, I agree with you, this is --that's why we
brought it back, because we were trying to get more information. It didn't happen. So it doesn't quite meet it. But
again, being in the district and knowing that area, I think this is going to be okay. I really don't want to vote for it
because of the fact it wasn't there, but I'm going to support it because my leap of faith and any analysis of the thing, I
think he's probably right that -- could he move it in a couple feet further? Probably. But the motion wasn't for less.
One thing, Phil, by the way, this is the only thing the Planning Commission does that's a final judgment. It
doesn't go to the Commission unless he would appeal with us denying it. So this is our big moment in making a final
decision for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I share the same sentiments, and that's why I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as my part of the discussion, this is another difficult application for boat
docks. Second time you've come to one where we've had a problem. I remember the first time.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yeah, Hickory Harbor was interesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, you know, the only saving grace in this one is it's a boat dock lot and the
criteria -- it's a little different in regards to how it fits, and it's set into a large body of water, so it makes it a little easier
to kind of forgive some of the mistakes that appear to have been made.
But you keep doing this, it's going to be harder and harder to get through the system. And you ought to try to
fix it next time you come around, so --
MR. TURLEY: Could I make one brief statement? On secondary criteria one, originally -- I probably typed
up this application I don't know how many different times and spelled it out. The mangroves wouldn't be a factor but
the fact is the size of the lot and with the dimensions of the docks on both sides, that it would be very difficult to moor
a vessel in there with a dock that's parallel with the property instead of perpendicular.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we understand that. We're not trying -- your length is what I think became the
question, reasoning for the length. That's the only issue. And this is discussion for the motion, not necessarily
interaction for the applicant. So let us finish our discussion and have our vote.
Anybody else got anything to say?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 87 of 89
161 Z A4
October 6, 2011
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. We're running out of people here today. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, there are a lot of people suspicious of this guy. Be careful that he's
not renting boats and stuff, okay?
I mean, it's fair for us to accuse him --
MR. TURLEY: He's not. He's my godson.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the thing to me is a guy that works on barges all day, why he would
take a boat out on the weekend seems strange to me, so -- but my suspicions are uncalled for.
MR. TURLEY: He actually owns Greg Orick Marine Construction. He has another barge for that one. This
one was his father's original barge, and he was having difficulty selling it so he figured well, I'll start another
company, call it Naples Barge Rental.
Well, it turns out that he's been using it to haul material. There's a long story but it's -- he tried to sell it to the
county, I think.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
MR. TURLEY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it.
* *Okay, that wraps up the public hearings. Old business. Both items -- let's see, we've continued the
Watershed Management Plan till the next meeting, Ray? And from there it will be continued, what, again and again
and again.
Master mobility we heard this morning. That's it for old.
** *New business is election of officers for the upcoming year for the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we elect Mark Strain as president and allow him to pick his
secretary.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you. I'll accept. And I had an interesting thought come to mind. And
first of all, Ms. Homiak is doing a great job as position of secretary, so I'd like to see that remain.
Ms. Caron had done an excellent job as vice chair but she's not here anymore. And since Melissa Ahern is
not here, I'd like to nominate her for vice chair.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Melissa?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is that the criteria for the future?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I'd like to surprise her with that when she shows up again.
Everybody --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. It's your call.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody -- it's my call, then we're good to go. And I appreciate all of you for the
support for the next coming year.
And one of the reasons I suggested Melissa is that she just got reelected for a new term, so she will be here
for an extended amount of time in case I'm not. And this next year coming up it will be possibly my last year here
with this Board. So I want to make sure that someone is in a chair who is going to be here for a length of time and
can sit close enough to see what's happening and continue on when I leave, if that's the way the Board sees it.
So thank you, Brad.
Page 88 of 89
161'? a4
October 6, 2011
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, a good Chairman would actually call a vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0.
I'm glad you reminded me, Brad, thank you.
I'll let staff break the sad news to Melissa when they see her.
Any other business?
** *Public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Ms. Ebert, second by --
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Barry.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We're out of here. Thank you all very much.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 4:51 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
o,� `
MA P. STRAIN, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on �(y �'� , as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,
BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM
Page 89 of 89
161
2 A5
October 5, 2011
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING
October 5, 2011 NOIJ ?Ol i
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Misc. Corres:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian Date: ' < 16 11
Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Item #: %U-X '2. S
` Ray Allain
Fiala James Boughton Conies to:
Biller Clay Brooker
!-lens ing L Spurgeon DeJohn
Cv�le ✓" aura
Coletta �G — Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
Reagan Henry
George Hermanson
David Hurst
Robert Mulhere
Reed Jarvi
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD Planning & Regulation
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison
Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management
Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities
Darryl Richard, Project Manager — Golden Gate MSTU
Michele Arnold, Director - Alternative Transportation Modes
1612 A5
October 5, 2011
I. Call to Order:
Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the
procedures to be observed during the meeting.
A quorum was established. Thirteen members were present.
II. Approval of Agenda:
Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by George Hermanson
Carried unanimously, 13 — 0.
III. Approval of Minutes — September 7, 2011 Meeting:
Blair Foley moved to approve the Minutes for the September 7, 2011 meeting as
presented. Second by Laura Spurgeon DeJohn. Carried unanimously, 12 — 0.
(Note: David Dunnavant did not vote because he did not attend the August meeting.)
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements/Updates:
A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities
• New policy: for Wastewater gravity mains — adding to "Standards" — to be
effective immediately
• Maximum depth: 10 feet
• Will be vetted and brought to DSAC at a future meeting
Comment:
David Dunnavant will pursue options (through other groups) concerning fire line
charges/billing issue.
(3: 06 PM— Dalas Disney arrived.)
B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
• Monthly Activity Report for August was submitted.
o Plan Reviews conducted: 899 (July total — 807)
Comment:
Chairman Varian noted the Report cited 7.0 hours for two "overtime" reviews
and Contractors reimbursed the cost.
C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation
Engineering
• Davis /Collier Project: Notice to Proceed was issued on September 26, 2011
o $30M construction project
• Oil Well Road (middle section): Board of County Commissioners awarded a
$1.7M Contract for safety improvements
o Designed improvements:
■ from 10 to 12 -foot lanes
■ 5 -ft. shoulder on south side and 3 -ft. shoulder on north side
• Taylor Road (MSTU Project — Pine Ridge Industrial Park) — will recommend to
BCC to award $1.5M Contract to Quality Enterprises
161"2. A5
October 5, 2011
Blair Foley asked when the DOT Project at Davis would begin.
Mr. Ahmad replied the project is in the Final Design stage and ready to send to bid.
(3:09 PM— Robert Mulhere arrived.)
D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory
Management
• "CityView" — 100% `Live' as of Monday, October 3
• Building Department applications have been rolled out
o There are approximately 50 issues — will work through
"C /D- PLUS" — remains working in parallel
o New permits will no longer be issued
Staff has been trained
Mr. French introduced Todd Zeiller, Dianna Perryman, and Claudine Auclair — Business
Center Manager. Todd Zeiller is a Principal Planner who will handle Site Development
Plans and Insubstantial Changes at the Business Center's Front Counter. The goal is to
reduce review time from 10 to 7 days.
• Permit/Building Plan Reviews Statistics:
• "down" for September (figures not available until mid - month)
• Permits issued: from 2,000 to approximately 1,500
• Building Inspections: approximately 4,000 — scheduled times have not
been missed
• IVR ( "Interactive Voice Recognition" system): is running and fully
functional
Land Development Statistics:
• Pre - Application Meetings: below 20
• Zoning: Letter Verification and Temporary Use Permits — increased
• SDP -A: "steady" but minimal in comparison to earlier years
Chairman Varian questioned the number of inspections completed per day per
Inspector.
Mr. French stated he will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to
approve a contract with NOVA Engineering to hire a contract Inspector ; $100,000 has
been set aside in the budget for this purpose. He stated another option is to contact
former Inspectors (laid off) to work as needed.
Clay Brooker asked when the next LDC Amendments Cycle will begin.
Jamie French stated:
White -Smith was hired to separate the Administrative Code from the Land
Development Code
Industry has vetted and noted several issues with the Code — CBIA has
submitted suggested Amendments
A new Staff member (Caroline Brigham) was hired to "fast track" review
161 12 A 5
October 5, 2011
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD Planning & Regulation:
• New Code Book should be completed by the end of the month
• Will be distributed to DSAC for review and comments
Met with Industry and various groups in forum settings
Asked DSAC to think about what "makes sense" for Administrative Process
• Code will not solve every situation and must be as flexible as possible —
there is no "magic bullet"
• Checks and balances are necessary — a single Staff member should not be
allowed final approval on Administrative variance application — too
excessive
• Sending every variance application through Planning Commission and the
BCC is too cumbersome
• Staff. Will research and review of "Best Practices" from other Counties
Proposals:
• County Engineer, Zoning Director, and County Attorney will sign off
on Administrative variance (with Notice)
• Place Administrative variance on Consent Agenda for BCC — allowing
public to comment during BCC meeting
• Hearing Examiner to review application at Hearing ( "transparency ")
• Abbreviated Planning Commission review (with published Notice)
Bob Mulhere stated Bonita Springs and Lee County have "a wide spectrum of
Administrative approvals."
• Goal: time frame — 30 to 45 days
• Suggested co- presentation (Staff and DSAC) to BCC
• After Book has been reviewed for errors /omissions, it will be distributed to
DSAC during December
• Presentation to BCC — scheduled for January 2012
Mr. Casalanguida requested DSAC members to focus not only on the LDC
Amendments but also on making the Administrative Process as "nimble" as possible.
Dalas Disney stated he received emails concerning LDC which attributed changes to a
"scrivener's error."
Q. Since it has been a long time since the re- codification — at what point is the
"scrivener's error" considered to be a change?
A. The County Attorney's position is if the error was just found, it is still a scrivener's
error — it was overlooked during a previous review.
Re: "CityView"
Q. Is the Portal functioning — can I look at my review comments no?
A. (Jamie French) If the Permit was issued in "City View" — yes — but not if it was
issued in "C/D- PLUS." "CityView" permit applications begin with an Alpha prefix.
1612 A5
October 5, 2011
David Dunnavant noted "C /D- PLUS" was able to recognize previously entered PL
numbers but "CityView" does not. He asked if the programming could be revised or
adapted to recognize the numbers.
Jamie French stated no. He further stated the "C /D -Plus" legacy will always exist but
it could not be brought over.
Mr. Dunnavant stated "C /D -Plus" brings up all 2011 Permit application numbers and
he can pick the one he needs but with "City View," he must remember the number
assigned to particular permit.
Claudine Auclair, Business Center Manager, stated she would research the issue and
report to DSAC at a future meeting.
Mr. Dunnavant questioned Mr. French concerning the Plan Review process and the
anticipated reduced time frames.
Nick Casalanguida explained Staff's perspective regarding changes, i.e, SDP -A or
SDP -I, if only a form is needed, the application will not be routed again to all reviewers
— "judgment calls" will be made.
He further stated the website will contain information concerning the re- submittal
process.
Jamie French stated "SIRE" and the other programs should be fully functional and in
place by the end of the first quarter of 2012.
Re: Contractor Licensing
Chairman Varian asked if there was a Portal or place for a license holder to check
concerning his business /occupational license or insurance status.
Jamie French stated the County could internally — he will research the issue and report
to DSAC at a future meeting.
Chairman Varian questioned the support services (i.e., facilities, IT, legal) paid to
other departments and the amounts for same in the Budget. He requested a presentation
of the information at a future meeting.
(Chairman Varian noted Mr. Riley was present.)
V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements/Updates:
B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
• August was the busiest month in the past two years. Turn- around times were
maintained.
• Some Contractors needed overnight reviews and were willing to pay for the
expedited service.
VI. Old Business:
A. Golden Gate MSTU Master Plan — Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager
(A copy of the proposed, revised Beautification Master Plan for the Golden Gate
MSTU was distributed to the Members.)
• Master Plan contains a great deal of operational information
o Example cited: thematic paver pattern (color- coded) for narrow
medians where landscaping is not appropriate
• Purpose: Update /address the cost estimates to complete the Hunter and
Coronado Parkway projects — the original figures were not relevant
161 2 A5
October 5, 2011
Mr. Richard noted a comment made during DSAC's September meeting:
• There was a concern regarding the MSTU Advisory Committee's request to
the BCC for an opportunity to review and provide recommendations for
proposed development landscape plans in order to share coordination with the
Community's roadway landscape master plan.
He explained the purpose of the MSTU Committee's request was not to add steps to
the SDP Review process but to allow input on the relevant portions of a Site
Development Plan that was within the MSTU's boundaries. He assured the DSAC
members the request would not add any steps to the existing Site Development Plan
review process.
Clay Brooker referenced "Summary and Recommendations for County Codes" —
specifically the phrase "should monitor and be permitted ...." His concern was after an
SDP was submitted, another "body" would be able to review it.
Michele Arnold, Director - Alternative Transportation Modes, stated the purpose
of the statement was to allow for coordination between the Master Plan and any
development within the Golden Gate Parkway area. She stated the wording may be
awkward because the intent was not conveyed and suggested it should be re- written.
Dalas Disney referred to:
• Page 4 -2, "the Right of Way should be guided by" — he suggested substituting
"shall."
• Page 5 -3, under "Roadway and Pedestrian Decorative Lighting" — "....
Installation should be reviewed ...." He again suggested substituting the word
"shall."
Michele Arnold stated a word search of the document will be performed and each
instance where "should" was found will be analyzed.
Page 7 -4, "Table 10"
Dalas Disney noted operating costs automatically increased at 3% per year.
which he stated was a substantial amount for 17 years. He asked for an
explanation, and reiterated his comment from the September meeting:
Q. Is not the goal to reduce the MSTU tax, long -term and reduce burden to the
public now that the area is built out?
Michele Arnold replied the intent was to review the maintenance schedule for the
roadways and to reduce the millage after the construction projects were completed. In
Golden Gate, there is a continuing maintenance responsibility for interior roadways.
She noted the Committee implemented alternative planting designs to reduce the costs.
She stated the consultant may not have estimated the costs appropriately for the years
cited. The actual cost is determined by the bids received on an annual basis.
Mr. Disney objected to the use of the "baseline" approach and automatic annual
increases.
Ms. Arnold noted the figures have decreased on an annual basis and stated the
comments were noted and the consultant will be asked to review the figures.
161 ` 5
OctoTer 5, 20 1
George Hermanson objected to changing the language — "should" versus "shall" —
asked if the document was intended to be adopted as an Ordinance or a Master Plan.
He continued Master Plans have recommendations, not "hard and fast rules." He also
suggested revising the paragraph on Page 3 -28 and restricting the Committee's
purview solely to just the area or areas contained within the MSTU district.
Michele Arnold clarified the Master Plan is adopted by reference in the LDC and is
intended to be a guide — not a Code. The title of the section is "Summary of
Recommendations for County Codes."
Chairman Varian asked Mr. Richard if a recommendation to the BCC was required.
(His comments were made off -mike — not audible.)
Clay Brooker moved to recommend approving the proposed Golden Gate Community
Roadways Beautification Master Plan as revised, except for the previously
referenced paragraph on Page 3 -28 which is to be clarified. Staff should be advised
the paragraph exists and it should be consulted during their review(s) of SDP
submittals that affect areas within the Golden Gate MSTU. Second by Mario Valle.
(Comments by an unidentified speaker were made off -mike and not audible.)
Michele Arnold: "It is addressed on an annual basis."
Chairman Varian called for a vote. Carried unanimously, 15 — 0.
VII. New Business:
• Chairman Varian noted six Committee members were notified that their terms
will expire on December 14th. The members may reapply for their positions.
Information and forms will be available on the County's website..
• Judy Puig stated large documents will be posted on the website for review by the
DSAC Committee members. Members will be notified via email when a document
has been posted.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
• David Dunnavant inquired about the Health Department Septic Standards. He
asked if the new Standards from the State were implemented.
• Mario Valle noted the new Standards were implemented and will be adhered to
until notified by the State.
• Judy Puig stated she emails to Kenneth Rech on a monthly basis but his response
has been "there is nothing to report."
• Consensus: An update is necessary and Mr. Rech will be requested to appear.
Next Meeting Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.)
November 2, 2011
December 7, 2011
January 4, 2012
February 1, 2012
16 12�' A 5
October 5, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chairman at 4:02 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
.J-- Ave
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on
"as submitted" [_] OR "as amended" U.
V jam% —
<.+,Nt zr,r/\Ar--1
2011,
r
t6 1 2 A6
November 18, 2011
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
EMERGENCY MEETING
November 18, 2011
Naples, Florida
o s eon
BY: .......................
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 PM
in EMERGENCY MEETING SESSION, at the Neighborhood Health Clinic,
12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Fiala,
Hiller
Henning =9
Coyle ✓
Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Chairman: James Talano, M.D.
Vice Chair: Chief Robert Metzger
Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher
Rosemary LeBailly, RN
(Vacancy)
Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director
Walter Kopka, Interim Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services
Maria Franco, EMS Administrative Assistant
Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Comntlations
t1�tW: ► 1►0 l i �
11M�st tom 2 r9 1-0
Caput b:
6I 2 6 '
November 18, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman James Talano called the meeting to order at 4:07 PM.
A quorum was established. Four members were present.
(Note: Jerry Pinto's term of office expired.)
Chairman Talano noted the emergency meeting was called to comply with a directive from
the Board of County Commissioners.
Chief Kopka stated the Commissioners asked if the EMS Policy Advisory Board had reviewed
and voted on the COPCN application from Ambitran. When it was noted the EMS Board had
only reviewed and discussed the Ordinance, the BCC requested the Board to review it again and
take a vote.
Chairman Talano expressed concern that approving a contract was not within the scope of the
Policy Advisory Board's responsibilities.
Vice Chairman Metzger stated the EMS Board was asked to review the changes to the
Ordinance, which is not a contract. He further stated the EMS Board has previously reviewed
other Ordinance drafts that related to EMS services.
Chief Kopka confirmed it was within the Policy Advisory Board's purview to review all factors
that relate to pre- hospital emergency care.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES:
A. Approval of Agenda
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Battalion
Chief Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0.
B. Approval of Minutes: November 4, 2011
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the minutes of the November 4,2-011 meeting
as submitted. Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0.
3. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Ambitran's COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Application
Review and Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
Chief Kopka reviewed the changes to the enabling Ordinance as follows:
• Page 2, "K ": (The item was added.)
Chief Kopka stated Ambitran was issued a Permit in October 2011. The
Ordinance was changed because Ambitran did not fall into any of the categories
within the COPCN. He noted the COPCN allowed inter - hospital transport services.
Ambitran is a private company that provides transport services but is not hospital -
based.
fff, 4thic stated Commissioner Hiller asked for data concerning how the new
service, Ambitran) would affect the current service, i.e., how many ambulances
"vmvitfi' e needed, how many patients Ambitran would transport. She wanted to
W eol
161 2 A6
November 18, 2011
know what NCH had done, what was EMS doing, and what would be done by
Ambitran.
Chairman Talano stated his understanding that NCH provided only facility -to-
facility transfers, and Ambitran would provide transfers only from facility to
facility.
Chief Kopka stated EMS was still providing transfers to Physicians' Regional
Hospital.
Chairman Talano asked if Ambitran would provide service to both NCH and
HMA.
Chief Kopka confirmed that was the goal although EMS realizes there will be
occasions when Ambitran will not be available and EMS will provide the
necessary service.
Vice Chairman Metzger stated the Ordinance opened the door for a private
sector transport company, which would not be problematic as long as the provider
remained viable. His concern was that the EMS system would be altered to
accommodate the private sector and, if the provider failed, EMS would be
required to alter its system again to absorb the absence of the private sector
provider.
Chief Kopka reminded the Board that EMS was forced into providing service on
October 22, 2011 when NCH sent an email at 4:00 PM announcing it would no
longer provide facility -to- facility transports.
• Page 2, Section Two. "B ":
Chief Kopka stated Paragraph "B" summarized and combined the two stricken
subparagraphs (2 and 3.) on Page 3 in an effort to simplify the document.
• The "Class -2" will provide post- hospital inter - facility medical transfer
services within and outside the County.
• If requested by a Class 1 -ALS Rescue Operator (i.e., EMS), the "Class -2"
will also provide emergency pre - hospital backup service.
• The "Class -2" may provide their Medical Director who will work
cooperatively with the County's Office of the Medical Director.
• The "Class -2" will comply with all guidelines and policies approved by the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners.
• The "Class -2" will notify all hospitals and facilities of the services it provides
and will work cooperatively with them.
Chairman Talano pointed out the reference to Florida Statutes, Section 401.265
and to the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 64J- 1.004(4)(a) had been eliminated.
Suggestion: Insert a comma and the phrase, "as set forth in Florida Statutes,
Section 401.265 and the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 64J - 1.004(4) (a)"
following the word "utilized" at the end of the last sentence in Paragraph B.
(Dr. Robert Tober arrived at 4:25 PM.)
A 616 I ro
November 18, 2011
• Paragraph G - "Certification: "
Chief Kopka noted clarification was needed. He suggested changing the
underlined portion of the second sentence to read as follows: "Each Collier
County EMS Paramedic and Class -2 Operator Paramedic who contracts with
County for Medical Director services must work ..."
• Page Four, Section Sixteen:
Chief Kopka noted the word "Central" had been stricken from the title "Place of
Business" as well as from the first sentence of the paragraph.
Public Sneaker:
Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera stated North Naples concern was Item "K" on Page 2. He
referred to the current Ordinance and cited from Section Seven:
"The Board of County Commissioners shall not grant a Certificate unless
it shall find, after public hearings and based on competent evidence, that
each of the following Standards has been satisfied: (a) that there is a public
necessity for the service.
In making such determination, the Board of County Commissioners shall
consider as a minimum the following factors:
1. The extent to which the proposed service is needed to improve the
overall Emergency Medical Services capabilities of the County;
2. The effect of the proposed service on existing services with respect
to the quality of service and cost of service;
3. The effect of the proposed service on the overall cost of EMS service
in the County;
4. The effect of the proposed service on the existing hospitals and other
health care facilities; and
5. The effect of the proposed service on the personnel of the existing
service and the availability of sufficient, qualified personnel in the local
area to adequately staff all existing services."
He stated the information requested in Item "K" already exists within the Ordinance. He
stated he was not sure if Commissioner Hiller was aware of this section within the
Ordinance.
He further stated the Applicant did not respond to the questions in the COPCN application,
nor did it provide any evidence.
He continued Item "K" was redundant since there were several other sections within the
Ordinance which required the Applicant to produce evidence.
161 2 A6
November 18, 2011
He reiterated North Naples' objection and noted the reason for revising the original
Ordinance was to clarify that the provider was not associated with any local hospitals. The
initial Ordinance specified that the private provider must be associated with a local hospital
in order to provide transport services.
He concluded North Naples requested deletion of Item "K" since it had no bearing on the
reasons why the Ordinance was revised.
He also suggested requesting a review of one of the changes, i.e., the inclusion of the
reference to the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, by the County
Attorney's Office since it may be problematic for the COPCN provider under its quality
assurance program because it required sharing documents with the County. He stated it was
a problem when North Naples applied for its COPCN.
It was noted that Ambitran was issued a Certificate to Operate despite not answering the
questions.
Vice Chairman Metzger stated he supported removing Item "K" from the revised
Ordinance.
Battalion Chief Butcher asked if Ambitran was required to provide ride time.
Chief Kopka confirmed it was not required to do so.
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the revisions to the draft Ordinance as amended
by discussion by the Policy Advisory Board, to wit:
• To strike Item "K" on Page 2;
• To insert a comma and the phrase "as set forth in Florida Statutes, Section
401.265, and Chapter 64J- 1.004(4)(a) of the Florida Administrative Code."
following the word "utilized" at the end of the last sentence in Paragraph B
o Interim Chief Kopka will submit the revision to the County
Attorney's Office for review.
• Paragraph G, "Certification:" The underlined portion of the second sentence is
changed to: "Each Collier County EMS paramedic and Class -2 Operator's
paramedic that contracts with the County for Medical Director services must
work with a ...."
• Paragraph H, "Ride Time Requirement:" the underlined portion of the first
sentence is changed to: "that has entered into a contract with the County for
Medical Director services ..."
• Section Sixteen: Strike the word "Central" from the title "Place of Business" as
well as from the first sentence.
Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0.
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve providing advance approval of the revised
Ordinance pending the determination by the County Attorney's Office and any changes
suggested by the County Attorney's Office relative to the portions concerning inclusion of
the reference to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code.
Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0.
5
161 2 A6 r
November 18, 2011
4. NEW BUSINESS:
(None)
5. STAFF REPORTS:
(None)
6. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(None)
7. BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION:
Chairman Talano:
• suggested changing the meeting time during "Season" from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM.
Dr. Tober concurred, stating it would be impossible for him to arrive earlier than
5:00 PM.
Consensus: Meeting will begin at 5:00 PM only during "Season."
Chief Kop ka:
• noted Jerry Pinto's term as a member of the Policy Advisory Board has expired and
he has not submitted an application to renew his membership.
• He suggested changing the representative category from "Pharmacist" to "Physician"
or "ER Physician."
• It was noted nominations would be made by the Medical Society.
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve revising the Committee's composition by
replacing the position of "Pharmacist" by a "Physician Trained in Emergency Medicine"
as nominated by the Medical Society. Second by Rosemary LeBailly.
Carried unanimously, 4 — 0.
Chairman Talano suggested contacting Margaret Eddington at the Medical Society for
potential candidates.
Staff will prepare a notification letter to the Board of County Commissioners petitioning for
a change of composition of the Policy Advisory Board.
Consensus: The Committee approved allowing the Chairman to sign the letter to the
Board of County Commissioners without their prior review.
Vice Chairman Metzger:
• Stated there was an error of interpretation in the Minutes of the November 4th
meeting concerning the use of 12 -lead technology by North Naples.
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve authorizing North Naples to use 12 -lead
technology under its protocol. Second by Battalion Chief Butcher.
Carried unanimously, 12 — 0.
31
161 2 A6
November 18, 2011
8. NEXT MEETING DATE: Friday, January 20, 2012 at 5:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by
order of the Chair at 4:45 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY
BOARD
James Talano, M.D., Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on , 2011,
"as submitted" [_] OR "as amended" [_]
ibie iA
Please find enclosed the signed minutes for the 6 -17 -11 Horizon Oversight Committee along
with the signed resolution 09 -38, which created the ad -hoc committee. Please contact me at 252-
6819 if you have any questions.
Thank -you,
Mike Bosi,
Staff Liaison to the Oversight Committee.
sawnvsl
BY: ..................... **
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle ✓ _
Coletta
Misc. Corres:
Deb. 1111 011:?,
Item 0 :1 Lo= 2 �c
Codes to:
1612 a7
Horizon Study Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes June 17, 2011
9:08 A.M. Meeting Called to order.
9:12 Roll Call, Eckhardt, Humphries, Teaters present.
9:15 Approval of Agenda motion by Pat Humphries
9:17 Mark Teaters was appointed Chair motion by Pat Humphries
9:18 Eckhardt pointed out that the Committee was a non jurisdictional committee and not fully
subject to sunshine laws
9:20 Chair wanted the minutes from April 81i meeting clarified to note that the Committee did
not authorize the former Chair to discuss presentation with individual Commissioners.
9:30 Discussion centered on question of whether members e-mail accounts were subject to
public records request.
9:35 Committee requested clarification from the County Attorney's office regarding the
Committee and the Sunshine Laws
9:39 Motion to modify the minutes to reflect the direction to former chair was to discuss the
expansion of the CIGM with the County Manager and Administrators, but not Commissioners.
The motion passed unanimously.
9:42 Staff liaison Bosi indicated that he need to come away from the meeting with the specific
concerns expressed by Chair in the e-mail read into the record at the May 241i Public Hearing
regarding the retraction of the support the CIGM expansion
9:45 Chair explained that Jim Flanagan had questions, but he could not make it to today's
meeting. The Chair clarified that no political motivations behind withdraw of support of the
expansion of the CIGM_ The Chair then explained that it was the actions of the former Chair
that created to issue. Members of the community were present in the meeting of Commissioner
Hiller and Chairman McDaniel and in that meeting; Mr. Teaters indicated that
misrepresentations were made regarding the CIGM and that created the questions which
motivated the change in support for the expansion of the CIGM
161.2A 7
9:55 Eckhardt spoke about the characteristics of Growth Models and gave an example and gave
an example of floor areas and what they would show compared against reality. It was clarified
that vacancy rate was not a major component of the CIGM.
10:00 Eckhardt clarified that the Committee wasn't just about the Golden Gate Estates.
10: 14 Jack Sullivan, member of the public felt the CIGM was used inappropriately in regard to a
specific GMP amendment and felt that wasn't the specific purpose of the CIGM
10:17 Staff clarified that the only output of the CIGM was dwelling units and the population
associated with those units.
10:20 Discussion of Growth Modeling and how it takes the long term perspective.
10:25 Discussion on the market area analysis of the GMP analysis the role of the CIGM within
that analysis and the relationship between long range planning and short term projects.
10:30 Commercial vacancy rates for the County discussed in detail.
10:35 Humpries felt there was no need for more commercial square footage due to oversupply in
market.
10:40 Jack Sullivan pointed out that the CIGM did not support the two applications for
commercial in Golden Gate Estates.
10:45 Michael Ramsey of the public in attendance felt the Committee was way off base from
purpose of creation. Felt that the CIGM has a business bias and only use population as the factor
in demand, but left out other important components. The Model is silent to natural resources
limitation and that the Committee has missed opportunities to offer input on important issues
contemplated by the Phase Two Committee and accepted as position points.
10:45 Humphries read written statement relating to CIGM and the Golden Gate Estates.
Included as scanned attachment to these minutes.
10: 50 Chair pointed out that the CIGM leaves out greenspace and that other factors need to be
considered regarding applications that the CIGM does not contemplate. Also CIGM based upon
urban standards.
10:54 Chair would like to see stricter guidelines for how the CIGM is utilized within the County.
10:58 Discussion centered upon what's best for the citizens, is not considered by the CIGM.
11:00 Ramsey pointed out that the Golden Gate Estates aren't protected like individual
developments
11:04 Discussion centered upon the CIGM was being claimed to do much more than simply
project population by the development community.
1612 A 7
11:07 Discussion concerning that the BCC may not understand the limitations of the CIGM
based upon claims made by individuals as to what it does.
11:10 Discussion upon how the State and the federal agencies do not provide the protection the
Estates that should be afforded.
11:15 Staff provided a summarization of the concerns over the CIGM that were expressed during
the meeting:
The role of the vacancy rate in the CIGM.
2. Incorrect representations of exactly what the CIGM does and what it doesn't do.
3. That the benchmarks or standards in the CIGM are based upon Urban standards and
doesn't fit the rural areas of the County.
4. No guidelines for how the BCC was to utilize the CIGM.
5. The CIGM only considers population and felt that this limitation is not fully understood
and misrepresented by certain parties.
11:20 Motion to have staff summarize the motion and send to Committee for their approval
11:25 Motion to adjourn was passed unanimously.
/o
Mark Tea ers, Chairman, Horizon Oversight Committee Date
161 z a7
RESOLUTION 2009- 38
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ESTABLISH THE HORIZON STUDY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AS AN AD -HOC COMMITTEE; PROVIDING
FOR CREATION AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR TERMS,
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS;
PROVIDING FOR OFFICERS, QUORUM, AND COMPENSATION;
PROVIDING FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES, AND PROVIDING FOR
DISSOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the Collier
County East of County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study and directed staff to act
upon the contained recommendations; and
WHEREAS, one of the recommendations approved by the Board was the establishment of an
ad -hoc oversight committee to ensure for the utilization and updating of the Collier Inter- Active
Growth Model (CIGM) and to prioritize the position points established within the Study during the
public participation phase; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish an ad -hoc oversight committee to ensure the Horizon
study is acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: Creation and Purpose of the Horizon Study Oversight Committee.
Pursuant to the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, as amended, the Board of
County Commissioners (Board) hereby establishes the Horizon Study Oversight Committee
(Committee) as an ad -hoc committee to assist the Board in maintaining the CIGM as an appropriate
additional planning tool and ensuring that the position points identified in the East of County Road
951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study are appropriately acted upon.
Page 1 of 3
161 2 A 7 4
SECTION TWO: Terms of Office, Appointment of Members; Failure to Attend Meetings.
The Oversight Committee is hereby created as an ad -hoc Committee for a period to expire
three years from the effective date of the resolution appointing its members. Membership of the
Committee shall be sought and appointed in accordance with Collier County Ordinance
No. 2001 -55, as it may be amended or by its successor ordinance, and shall serve the full three year
term.
The Committee shall be comprised of three (3) members and one (1) alternative member, and
shall represent the citizens, business owners and property owners within the Study area. The
members shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The County Manager shall select a staff liaison to
attend the Committee meetings and assist the Committee.
If any member of the Committee is absent from two (2) or more consecutive meetings without
a satisfactory excuse, such member's position may be declared vacant by the Board as prescribed by
Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, as it may be amended or by its successor ordinance.
SECTION THREE: Officers, Quorum; and Compensation.
At the Committee's first meeting, the membership shall elect a Chair and Vice - Chair. The
presence of a majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum. The Committee shall adopt
rules and procedures for the transaction of business and shall keep the records of meetings, findings
and determinations. The members of the Committee shall serve without compensation, but may be
reimbursed for travel, mileage and/or per diem expenses only if approved in advance by the Board.
SECTION FOUR: Functions, Powers, and Duties of the Committee.
The functions, powers, and duties of this Committee shall be to further the goals of the East of
County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study. This may include the following:
1) Providing for the prioritizing of position points established within the Collier County East of
County Road 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study.
Page 2 of 3
161 2 A7
2) Ensuring that the position points and areas of concern expressed by the public are acted upon
by general purpose County government in a logical and timely manner.
3) Providing for the monitoring of the annual updating of the Collier Inter - Active Growth Model.
4) Providing for recommendations upon the appropriate and beneficial utilization of the Growth
Model as a supplemental planning tool, as well as identify areas for the potential additional
areas of application.
All meetings shall be open to the public and shall be governed by the Florida Government in
the Sunshine Law. All meetings shall be held after reasonable public notice is provided as to the
location, time, and subject matter of the meetings.
SECTION FIVE: Dissolution of Committee.
At the conclusion of three years from the effective date of the resolution appointing the
committee members, the Committee's services shall be dissolved; however if the Board, by
resolution, extends the term of the Committee, dissolution shall occur at the end of the extended
term.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and majority vote, this of
f,bruarY 312004.
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
(Q�J W'
Ott' as LQ u y Clerk
twit tlf't �: r'
b ,
Approved w ta. fb�m
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
9
By: C�/ 91
DO A FIALA, CHAIRMAN
Page 3 of 3
161 2 A8
NIMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
July 27, 2011
Minutes
N 0 V �7 7.01
I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:30 p.m.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman,
Carrie Williams (Absent)
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Landscape
Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Weldon Walker -Code
Enforcement
Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Sonya Carnes -Ag
Tronix, Johnny Limbaugh -FDT, Trinity Scott, FDIT, Brad Muckel -C ,,,'�
Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff i A
III. Approval of Agenda
Add. Vl. C. FDOT Update
William Deyo moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - June 29, 2011
Andrea Halman moved to approve the June 29, 2011 minutes as
submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously
3 -0.
V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker reported:
o The Neighborhood Cleanup was successful
- Conducted on Lake Trafford to North 9t" Street
- 10 dumpsters were filled with construction Debris, Tree
trimmings, and tires
VI. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report (See attached) " 3c. Carer
161'2 A 8
FDOT Update
Darryl Richard reviewed a letter to the CAC (Citizens Advisory
Committee) with the MSTU Committee recommendation to designate
an interim alternate route for truck traffic. (See attached)
Johnny Limbaugh reported the following:
• County approval is need to divert State traffic (Hwy 29) to New
Market as it is not a State road
• Collier County has the ability to create a local Truck or Business
Route
• Hwy 29 is classified as an emerging SIS Facility (Strategic
Intermodal System) and has the potential to receive Funds to
complete the loop road
• Noted if truck traffic is diverted from Hwy 29 prior to the next
review it may potentially be eliminated as an SIS Facility
- Additionally Funding would be impacted
• Traffic Speed Study is required
- To downsize Hwy 29 from four lanes to two lanes
- To reduce the current (35) mph speed limit
- Perceived that the posted (35) mph speed limit will not be
reduced on a State roadway
4:42 p.m. Lucy Ortiz arrived
Discussion ensued on a speed limit reduction, pedestrian safety, and
automobile accidents.
Trinity Scott stated:
• Crash reports will be obtained to review the cause of accidents
- Speed is not the number one source of accidents (on
Hwy 29)
• Educating the Community on proper locations and time to cross
the roadway is necessary for pedestrian safety
Cherryle Thomas deemed that a mother with (3 -4) children and a
stroller will continue to cross the road via the medians in lieu of walking
to the intersection (pedestrian Signal crossing.) She questioned if
other options were available to provide safety for pedestrian families.
Trinity Scott noted pedestrian improvements were installed to provide
safe crossing locations:
• 1St and 9th
• 5t" and 7t"
• Installation of Flashing Signals to alert motorists are scheduled
• Reiterated a Traffic Study will be conducted
2 :4
161 2A8
Lucy Ortiz suggested the FDOT provide Educational videos to the
various Agencies in Immokalee.
Trinity Scott gave the following information on the White Bollards:
• Bollards were installed to prevent left hand turns as they created
an unsafe condition
• The State determined installing a (2 ft) traffic separator will
address the white Bollards and unsafe conditions
- Estimated Cost $63,000.00
• State will provide Funding to the Immokalee MSTU to remove
the white Bollards and install a (2ft) traffic separator
- Recommended incorporating the work into the Main
Street Conceptual Plan Project by JRL
Lucy Ortiz moved to direct Staff to coordinate this Project with
FDOT. Second by Andrea Haman. Motion carried unanimously
4 -0.
Trinity Scott announced the Funding for Carson Street Sidewalk
Project was advanced to FY12 -FY13. FDOT will coordinate with
Collier County on the Project.
Michelle Arnold noted the CRA does not hold LAP Certification for the
Project and coordination with the County is required due to the transfer
of MSTU Services to the CRA.
Trinity Scott responded that the FDOT agreement will be with Collier
County Board of County Commissioners.
Darryl Richard advised Trinity Scott that an extension request (for
December) will be submitted to FDOT. (Staff Action Item)
Darryl Richard reviewed the Budget Report and Carry Forward
Analysis Report: (See attached)
• Available Operating Expense $32,449.31
• FY11 Immokalee Carry Forward variance - $89,359.00
- Monies will be available Fiscal year 2012 (October 1S9
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
Darryl Richard reviewed the following Projects:
Immokalee Main Street Irridation Svstem Imarovements
• JRL Opinion of Probable Cost estimate $127,002.55
• Estimate includes labor and Electrical Materials
Richard Tindell noted Item No. 3 and No. 8 are work items by CLM.
o Final cost estimate will be submitted to the Committee for
review and approval (Staff Action Item)
3
161 2 A 8
I I th Street Extension Lighting
• Area consists of Hwy 29 to Roberts Ave.
• RWA Proposal $12,250.00 (See attached)
• Estimate includes the Design, Construction Inspection, and
Permitting
• Anticipate construction will commence January 2012
Discussion ensued on the type of Light pole to install for the 11 th Street
Extension Project and cost of the Poles.
The Committee agreed to install functional Light Posts that are cost
effective (decorative blue Poles are not required.)
William Deyo moved to approve the Proposal by RWA (Consulting
Services for the 11th Street Lighting Project) not to exceed
$12,250.00. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried
unanimously 4 -0.
Palm Tree removal
• Traffic Operations recommended removing the Palm Trees
concurrently
• Southern Signal Quote $71,100.00 is based on the original
single unit removal price (See attached)
Cherryle Thomas questioned the original recommendation to install
the Palm Trees by the previous Landscape Architect (McGee and
Associates.)
Darryl Richard replied that Staff will review the Plans that were Bid
out and Project Notes. (Staff Action Item)
Cherryle Thomas requested Staff draft an article for the Immokalee
Bulletin to update residents on the Palm Tree Project.
Michelle Arnold suggested including information on the new Project
(Bulbout and Sable Palms.)
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve Southern Signal Proposal in the
amount of $71,000.00. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried
unanimously 4 -0.
C. FDOT Update- Previously discussed under Vl. A.
VII. Transportation Maintenance Report -CLM
Robert Kindelan gave the following information:
• Irrigation leaks were repaired
• Flowers were planted in front of the Cemetery
4
161 2 A R
VIII. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design
Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed Field Report (No. 36): (See
attached))
• Dead Pine Tree (by the Casino)
• Cemetery needs a general cleanup of trash
Staff will contact Parks and Recreation regarding the Cemetery clean up.
(Staff Action Item)
The condition of the Cemetery sign was discussed.
After discussion it was deemed that the Cemetery is a historical element
of Immokalee and replacing the sign was an option (by the MSTU.)
William Deyo moved for JRL Design to look into the cost for
replacing the sign in the Cemetery. Second by Andrea Haman.
Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
IX. Community Redevelopment Agency
Brad Muckel presented a Project Manger Fee schedule and Class
descriptions:
Associate Position — Pay grade 19
• Annual Salary $48,000.00
• Annual Total with Benefits package $62,000.00
Full Time Position - Pay grade 22
• Annual Salary $55,700.00
• Annual Total with Benefits package $72,533.50
Discussion ensued on the Project Manager Fee Schedule and job
functions.
The following was noted:
• Annual cost for Collier County Staff time is $33,600.00
• Additional cost may be incurred as CEI Services (Construction
Engineering Inspection) are required for select Projects
After much discussion the Committee concluded a Full Time Project
Manager was needed.
Lucy Ortiz moved to direct the CRA to hire a Project Manger Full
time. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
X. Old Business -None
XI. New Business -None
5
161 2 A-8
XII. Public Comment-None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 6:02 PM.
Immokalee, Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee
Cherryle Thoniis, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented Y or amended
! A
71 �7� ne7-,A is Au-v -nt 24, 2011 7 1 A-30 r.m.
nlls�,',op ': ,ireer Cep" m.r
ej
7r,-0 South stn ILM
FL 3?11142-e
6 6
161 7 A8
IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 28, 2011 7 D
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes — July 27, 2011
V. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker
VI. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report
B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard
VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM
VIII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design
IX. Community Redevelopment Agency
X. Old Business
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Ar1i���rmm�r.+
BY......... .......
Fiala
Hiller
Henning"T` - -`
Coyle
Coletta —
Misc. Corres;
Date: ',�d \ ►Z,
IfF,n;�:llcT2 g
to:
The next meeting is October 26, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.
South Florida Works
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
MMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 28, 2011
Minutes
NOV fl 7 2011
BY:.......................
I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:45 p.m.
No quorum was established.
The meeting was held for informational purposes.
II. Attendance
Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo (Excused), Lucy Ortiz
(Excused), Andrea Halman
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Landscape
Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Weldon Walker -Code
Enforcement
Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Penny Phillippe -CRA,
Robert Halman- Public, Darlene Laffe rty-J u ri staff
Ill. Approval of Agenda - None
IV. Approval of Minutes - July 27, 2011 - None
V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker reported a Neighborhood Cleanup is
scheduled on October 12th in the Fruit Belt Area.
i =iaia
VI. Transportation Services Report Hiller
A. Budget Report (See attached) Henning _
Darryl Richard reviewed the following: Coyle �-
• Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax $56,558.51 °leita
• Available Capital Improvements $375,631.24
B. Project Manager Report- Darryl Richard
Darryl Richard reviewed the following Projects:
(IMM -04) Carson Street Sidewalk (FDOT LAP Project)
• FDOT Funding for the Project was confirmed
• Q. Grady Minor Scope for Consulting work (See attached)
�C' Doff" o LAP Certification is held through the Collier County Growth
Management Division hereby requiring the Division to manage
Date: l I the Project
Item* IUM 2+r9S - All correspondence will be provided to the CRA
,I_
Staff announced that Carrie Williams tendered her resignation from the
MSTU Committee. (See attached)
Darryl Richard continued reviewing the Carson Street Project:
o Q. Grady Minor Scope includes services during Construction
• Total amount of the Proposal $39,544.00
- Task Item No. 6 - monies were allocated to JRL for
Project Plan(s) review
VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM
Robert Kindelan gave the following information:
• Irrigation Sleeve installation (Immokalee Road) - Complete
• Fertilization is scheduled in October
• Recommended reinstating Street Sweeping to clear the sand
buildup along the curbs
Cherryle Thomas reported the sprinklers are running continuously on
State Route 846.
Robert Kindelan will verify the Irrigation programming with Roger Dick.
Michelle Arnold noted that the CRA does not have the capability to
monitor the Irrigation as it is connected to the County System and
suggested that the CRA initiate a separate Contract with Ag Tronix to
monitor the Irrigation.
Robert Kindelan reviewed the responsibilities of monitoring the Irrigation
System that are beyond the Scope of Services by CLM:
• Programming
• Run time adjustments
o Schedules
o Alarm notification
VIII. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design
Richard Tindell gave the following reports: (See attached)
Phntn Nn 1
o FDOT regulations were changed to allow Lighted Strips at
crossings
- An Addendum will be submitted to include the Lighted
Strip(s) at crossings in the Project Scope
Main Street Sight Line Proiect Conceptual Perspective and Furnishings
Recommendations (See attached)
• Triangle area - Planting area size was extended
• Bench - Mosaic tile decorative seat (cohesive with the CRA Master
Plan)
• Sculptural Bike Rack
2
• Variety of decorative Trash Receptacles
• Aerial Map of Main Street Project Scope
• Recommended locations to transplant 40 -50 Crape Myrtle
- Along the Airport fence line (with the approval of Parks and
Recreation)
- In the swale located by the west Median on Hwy 29
- Future proposed Park on 9th Street
Penny Phillippe suggested the corner of Main Street and 1St Street.
IX. Community Redevelopment Agency
Penny Phillippe reported:
• The CRA Immokalee Trademark is presently on the Banners
• The Consultant requested information from the CRA for a Walk
Ability Study
Darryl Richard responded the locations for sidewalks were previously
identified and prioritized (by JRL) and the information will be emailed to
the CRA.
o An Executive Summary was drafted for BCC approval to transfer
the MSTU Administrative functions to the CRA
X. Old Business
Darryl Richard stated the Taxable Value for the Original and Expanded
Boundary areas is included in the meeting packet. (See attached)
E / ►I:�: - -ff11 " 7=1,1fre iT_
XII. Public Comment -None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.
The next meeting is October 26, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.
One Stop Career Center
750 South 5t" Street
Immokalee, FL 34142
3
1612 A$
Report Date: September 28, 2011
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative
Transportation Modes
Immokalee MSTU Project Status
(IMM -01) —IQ Water Supply Project
9- 28 -11: Information from Immokalee Water & Sewage indicates the project is on hold.
(IMM -02) — Cross -Walks & Sightline Study; Bulbout Modifications
09- 28 -11: 60% Design Plans are under review with FDOT for FDOT ROW Permit. Upon
receipt of comments design will progress to 90% plans and therafter 100% plans.
(IMM -03) — I It" Street Lighting Project
09- 28 -11: LCEC has been paid $3,450.00 for installation. Construction schedule is
contingent upon LCEC crew mobilization. Construction date has not been confirmed.
(IMM -04) — Carson Street Sidewalk (FDOT LAP Project)
09- 28 -11: Revised scope received from Q. Grady Minor (see handout)
Note: Transportation/ATM Dept. staff will have to manage this project as it is
Transportation/Collier County that has the LAP Certification. Final project responsibility
will rest with Growth Management Division on this project. CRA staff will be copied on
correspondence and related project information so that information is distributed to the
CRA.
(IMM- ongoing) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting
Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services
09- 28 -11: Ongoing Services from JRL Design
(IMM- ongoing) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #09 -5264
09- 28 -11: Contract #09 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance"
7
161 2 A8
Carrie Williams
1300 North 15" Street, Suite #1
Immokalee, FL. 34142
August 24, 2011
Cherryle Thomas
Chairperson — Immokalee Beautification MSTU
1205 Orchid Ave.
Immokalee, Fl. 34142
Dear Cherryle:
It is with regret that I must resign from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Board. I am
grateful to have had the opportunity to serve on the MSTU board, but because of personal
matters, I feel I cannot devote the time and energy needed to be an affective board
member. I will still be in the area and will try to remain involved in issues that are related
to the Immokalee community but at this time I must tender my resignation, effective
immediately.
Sincerely,
Carrie Williams
!44
r (l7
N�C N CAD
O,0
N Q1 LO
O *Rt
++ V o
Vi C z
i O
d
C
.y
C
E
O
L
Q
E
CD
C
Jtm
Jsd
t
d
d
O
E
ZtA
t7O
tn�
w4
Gin
16 1,2
■
H
Q
Y D
Ow
otS cl)
CO Z
J
Q J
Q
H LL.
O
2U
�w
zm
- m
D =
HU)
Cl) w
J Q
w Cn m
gwp N
W U-
5OI U_o
11
Q Y - �
2 - w
z >
Q
Q v
W a W
.G
Q Q O
� -j
ILL.
c1 Q w c
-'w� m
Q U
H 0
W
ZOOQ*
0
000000Ln000L000OOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v
a
m
0
CD
o
O
co
Ln
m0C)Nrf
mOo0C
0m0MLnMChCDm(5
r �o
oovC
ti
do
a
N
J
Q
r
E9
E9
�
69
E9
EA
E!)
N
E!3
CO
E9
E9
�-
E9
esi
O
E9
N
d3
M
E9
N
E9
69
V
C
v
C
r'
ME9
M
E9
O
z°z°
w
0000000000000000
Vf
Ur
0
0
R
Ln
Ln
o
0
o
0
UC
o
o
R
0
V
�CM'olc)o
N�CDOCN
'i
000,
649,69
69
69
O
c
69
�
69
N
69
�
69
�
69
69.69
O
N
O
Ul)
O
O
69
d
64
Z
LL
LL
LL
LL
co
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
v
v
v
w
Z
Q05
co
co
EUJJfnJJfn
6
CO
O
CO
O
N
0(0
or
J
co
z
O
c o
O
m�
O0
O�
CV)
L LO
LL
O
N
N
0��
N
C+-0
E
Z
O
o
d
c
�
yY
7
(p
O
'.C-.+
L
a
w
Q
m
3
7
c
o
W
CO
L
o
OT
O
~
0
C
>
Q
CO
4?
N
a
`
UUQ�r
3
O
O
vi
C
`
C7
c
o
m
,
Y
`
c
C
c
C
�=
>>
m
N
N�
f00
N
J
nv,LnnyE
pau>>
Y�o
00
X
w
X
w
X
w
X
w
0
c
N
3
0
0
Lo
m�
c
0
U-
µ-
c
U
a:
m
La
m
H
m
o
c
O
00000
Ua����a�a�mL""o0o
+-
•00000LL
+±
�+
:-
-
0
O`
7
0
a
7
7
7
f0
V
cu
E
E
E
E
E-
`~000
E
E
E._
c
c
�conl
o�
o_
->
ta-LLLL
i0CDU
-�
Z
2
�
N
Co
'l,
LO
Co
ti
00
O
O
r
N
CO
M
O
.-
t`
CO
W
F
■
H
Q
Y D
Ow
otS cl)
CO Z
J
Q J
Q
H LL.
O
2U
�w
zm
- m
D =
HU)
Cl) w
J Q
w Cn m
gwp N
W U-
5OI U_o
11
Q Y - �
2 - w
z >
Q
Q v
W a W
.G
Q Q O
� -j
ILL.
c1 Q w c
-'w� m
Q U
H 0
W
ZOOQ*
161 2 A'8 I'
GradyMinor
Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
September 28, 2011
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Collier County Dept. of Alternative Transportation Modes
2885 S. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
RE: Proposal for Professional Services
Carson Road Sidewalk (from Westclox St to Lake Trafford Rd.)
Immokalee, Collier County
Dear Mr. Richard:
Per your request, Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. is pleased to provide this Proposal to
provide Professional Engineering and Surveying Services for design and permitting of a
proposed sidewalk along Carson Road from Westclox St. to Lake Trafford Road. in Immokalee,
Collier County. This sidewalk would interconnect to existing sidewalks and would be about
2,640± lineal feet on the west side of the street. We understand this work will be undertaken for
the MSTU with your office as lead in the project.
This project will receive State fiuiding and will therefore be subject to Florida Dept. of
Transportation review and approval. The proposed sidewalk is to be located on the west side of
the street, to be 5 feet in width and generally 3' or more from the edge of the existing pavement
to provide a clear zone. hi some locations, it may be necessary to meander the sidewalk to avoid
existing conflicts. Driveway aprons shall be constructed where non- existent and replaced when
not ADA compliant.
The following is the proposed scope of services:
1. Engineering Survey & Reconnaissance — Based upon proposed conceptual and
routing plan prepared by your office (that shall represent the 30% plans), we will
perform limited engineering survey and reconnaissance to determine right-of-way
location, identify additional driveways and obstructions not identified on aerial
mapping and obtain elevations. Reconnaissance and limited engineering survey shall
be fiom Right -of -Way to edge of pavement and will also include additional data at
road intersections. Data obtained shall be sufficient to identify existing drainage and
driveway elevations and to establish proposed drainage and driveway elevations
where necessary to alter.
2. 60% Desimffllans — Based upon the field reconnaissance and limited engineering
survey, prepare Preliminary Design and Plans of the proposed sidewalk
improvements. This will represent 60% Design. Plans will be typically at a 1" = 40'
(11 "x17" plan sheets) scale consisting of plan view only with existing and proposed to
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239 -947 -1144 • IN: 239 -947 -0375
3800 Via Del Rey 613 0005151 • LB 0005151 • LC 26000266
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com
161 2 A8
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Re: Carson Road Sidewalk
September 28, 2011
Page 2
spot elevations as needed for design and construction. Cross sections will generally
be limited to "typical" only. As necessary, specific cross sections will be provided.
We anticipate the following plans:
• Title Sheet/Index of Drawings
• General Note Sheet
• Overall Location Map
• Plan Views (7 sheets)
• Details Sheets (2 sheets)
• Maintenance of Traffic (1 sheet)
We will submit 5 sets for review and comment from Collier County staff. We will
also forward review sets to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Lee
County Electric Coop, Immokalee Water and Sewer District, telephone and cable TV
providers for their use. We will prepare a Preliminary Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost.
3. Final Design/Plans — Based upon the 60% Plan Review comments and permit review
comments (if any), we will finalize the Plans for Bidding and subsequent
construction. This will represent 100% Design. We will submit these plans to the
FDOT for final review and approval. Upon review of Plans by FDOT and Collier
County, we will revise plans as requested for County and FDOT final approval.
4. Permitting — We will take the lead in obtaining Permits for the Project. We
anticipate the following Permits:
• FDEP Stormwater Construction Permit (NOI — General Permit)
• Collier County Right of Way Permit
No Environmental or Collier County Development Services Permitting is anticipated
or included. This project, as conceptualized, should be exempt from South Florida
Water Management District permitting. The MSTU shall pay all Application/Review
Fees if needed.
5. Bidding Assistance — Assist Collier County in Bidding of the proposed Project. We
will prepare the Technical Specifications and assist in preparation of Bid Documents
(we assume Collier County Purchasing Department will take the lead in this item).
We will prepare the Bid Form including the listing of bid items and quantities in
accordance with Purchasing Department requirements. We will utilize Standard
Collier County and FDOT Specifications as applicable. We will update the Opinion
of Probable Construction Cost. We will provide 5 sets for review* by Collier County
staff and 5 sets for review by FDOT. County shall be responsible for reproduction of
all Bid Specifications and Plan sets and in their distribution to Bidders. We will
GAPROPOSAUCTollier County X M1DR10928 Lunt Side%%mlk (Carson).doc It
16I 2 a8
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Re: Carson Road Sidewalk
September 28, 2011
Page 3
attend Pre -Bid Conference, respond to Bidders' questions through written Addenda
(Purchasing Department to distribute Addenda), attend Bid Opening, review Bids and
issue Recommendation of Award.
6. MSTU Landscape Architect Coordination -- We will coordinate review of 60% and
Final plans with the MSTU Landscape Architect.
7. Construction Contract Administration Assistance — We will assist Collier County
during construction with attendance at weekly progress meetings, once a week
construction observation by our project manager (to be performed prior to progress
meeting), review change orders, as needed, and review pay applications. We assume
a 120 -day construction period.
We propose to provide these services for the following time and material amounts:
Task
Description
T/M Fee Amount
1
Engineering Survey & Reconnaissance
$8,741.00
2
60% Design/Plans
$9,092.00
3
Final Design/Plans
$6,159.00
4
Permitting
$2,437.00
5
Bidding Assistance
$2,107.00
6
MSTU LA Coordination
$1,500.00
7
Construction Contract Assistance
$8,808.00
Reimbursable Expenses
$700.00
TOTAL
$39,544.00
This proposal only includes those items specifically identified above and does not include any
other environmental assessments, title and encumbrance reports, resident inspection during
construction, testing, geotechnical investigation or permitting beyond that identified. Collier
County shall be responsible for all application fees.
Any services requested beyond the scope of the Proposal will be performed at the approved
Collier County Fixed Term Agreement (Contract #09 -5262) hourly rate schedule (attached). We
have also attached a supplemental fee schedule for survey.
Invoices will be issued monthly, payable per the applicable Collier County Purchasing Policy.
Any government imposed sales taxes or fees shall be added to our fees for services under this
Proposal. This Proposal is subject to the Standard Provisions of the Collier County Fixed Term
Engineering Services Contract (FT09 -5262) and the attached Survey Rate Sheet.
GAPROPOSAUCToliier County ATMOR109281mm Sidewalk (Carson).doc 12M
161 2 A 8
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Re: Carson Road Sidewalk
September 28, 2011
Page 4
This Proposal is void if no Task Authorization or Purchase Order is issued within 90 days of this
date.
Very trnuz
�
Michael J. Delate, P.E.
Encls
G- OROPOSAI.\C1Collier County ATADRI0928 Imm Sidewalk (Carson).doc
15
v, p
�m
c�
o_
s z
o Z �° D
aG v
— n
x
K � �
W N �
m �
m —
v
m �
4�1Q��, '' t1 •
Or
`� *� ■ ■■ e• «arcs
r�r' r `,��ur♦�I
■� ■�f� ♦��y ♦�1� =ice
�A
■sar,i ����r tie: r, ���.�
rw e
arw,
■rx
■
0
3
3
Q
CD
a
cn
#-I:
CD
161 2 A$
W
0
0
CD
0
0
0'
cam'
r
c�
cv
CD
0
o'
En
cn
r
m
0
EvIn
t
I
oC' �+o
�m
cam,
o_
j y b
2
b N
Wns@ D
mm� m
N
�I
A
W U �
0 (n
m �
v
N
ro
T
0
r+
N
CD
0
N
�D
O
r:
v
CD
0
O
Sv
Cm
^W,
W
C
00
�CL
n
m fl°,
X. Co
M
r �
X
c N
CD
�;o
o(D
0 C
n
fD
0
O
O
0
cD
CD
(n
cD
0
r.
a)
0
0
m wir,
N
X
CD
n
ro
r*
0
0
0
v
0
0
N
fD
rah
1612 ..A 8
;u v
a
a'
0_ �.
0
0
0
CD
N
�7
0
rt
v
O
k�
v
ro
C7
ro
s.:
O
o'
tv�
e
i7
CD
0
N
_0 '
Al
r*
O
T
O
r+
N
;h
s=
.r
3
O
ro
ro
cn
C
cn
rh
ro
ro
P+
cn
.0
_r
ro
T
O
ro
TA
ro
N•
5,
cc
O
O�
N
CD
N
ro
e
i7
CD
0
N
_0 '
Al
r*
O
T
O
r+
N
;h
s=
.r
3
O
ro
ro
cn
C
cn
rh
ro
ro
P+
cn
.0
_r
ro
T
O
ro
TA
ro
N•
5,
cc
O
O�
N
�o
�m
o_
Oc'
�z
�a o
o
CA
�s� r
nr v
oz n
m
n
w U)
N U)
m
0 < CD
a
CD W
X.
N CD
c4 n
_r T
La -0
_S O
O cro
CD
N n
O
a�
CD
1+
O
� r
O
cD
x cD
N .Zi
n
CQ �-
r v
O
-0 a
O CCD
fD 0
N O
v
c
(D
O
M
O
0
l<
0
CD
a-
_0
v
N
P
n
v
N
_D
_
3
_
-n
a�
m
Co
CD
n
7•
W
O
n
cD
0
co
W
n
pry:
C
..
S n
cncD �
x W
CC! CD
r ;u
to v
0
O O
CD g
N a
cD
0
O
as
co
CD
0
o
0
CD
n
O
0
CD cD
" c
N
Co
O
r X
ca �
O -o
O
CL
cD
0
O
a)
03
_
(D
O O
(n =
a) 0
n' cD
O'
CD
O .+
C7 fu
N �
C*, O
O n
cc
v
N 'C3
w ^F
rr O
O :3
O
G)
O
_
N '+
C7 ig
� v
co
O c�
N f7
T
O
CL
n
O
w
rh
03
_
CD
O
n
X
N'
_rt
s
s
l a
1
LIJ
x
CD
0
77
O
O
N
W
CD
C)
O
.0
r+
O�
N
O
X,
90
CD
CD
9
cn
C
cn
r*
I
CD
CD
rr
_U)
to
r*
r
CD
.0.
rf
CD
C
VTI•
J
O
O�
�v
"Im
c�
O_
OC)
�zr
�m D
z
m � p
Y N
cn d ro m
J �
o�c ,Z7
d c
1
Nm
m �
m ?
O
X,
m
CD
U)
—I
C
v
U)
P+
CD
(n
Q'
r
CD
T
I
O
CD
0
a
CD
v'
O
"h
9
�ee
,J '
V )
rT'h
V
O
CD
f"P
U)
0
O
CD
161 2 A9
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON OCTOBER 12; 2011
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District
Caleb Morris, Captain, Ochopee Fire Control District
Linda Swisher, Administrative Secretary, Ochopee Fire Control District
Ronald Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member
Anthony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member
The meeting came to order at 4PM.
OLD BUSINESS
Approval of the Bond Letter
o 3 01E N IE
NOV 1 5
BY:.......................
f"iala
H,Iler
Henning =T �
C0letta
Ron Gilbert — Noticed that the specific amounts and the years of repayment had been left out
of the revised letter was that purposely done?
Chief McLaughlin — Yes, that information was left out because I don't know who is going to set
the amount and time of repayment.
Ron,Gilbert — Will you have any input to it.
Chief McLaughlin — No I don't believe I do that will be set by someone at the County. I believe it
is going to be the tax appraiser. The budget office will recommend what that set rate will be.
The final approval for that when the bond comes back has to go by recommendation of the
budget office to the Board of County Commissioners when it goes up for the bond to be placed
on the ballot.
Ron Gilbert — He wants to make sure it was stretched out at least four years so the payment
won't be high.
Chief McLaughlin — They might even want to stretch it even longer than that more like five or
six years. He remarked that Isles of Capri Fire District had a bond and repayment was stretched
over seven years.
Page 1
Misc. Corres:
D*. k116112-
Ikon * C.oT 2J4
Copies b:
16 12 A49 ti'
Ron Gilbert -- But we will get the money up front.
Chief McLaughlin — Yes, that's why he was told to approach it as a bond issue because the
money comes upfront and then payment is regulated over so many years.
Approval of September 29, 2011 Minutes
A motion was made, seconded and passed to accept the minutes of 9 -30 -11 as read.
Back to the Bond Letter
Chief McLaughlin — Everyone needs to review the bond letter from Ron Gilbert then if you
approve the letter he will attach it to a Request for Legal Services Form so it can be sent on to
the County Attorney's Office. Facility Maintenance will probably check the building again to see
if the amount needed to remodel is sufficient. If the job is done for less than the bond the
difference would be returned so the bond payment and time could fluctuate.
James Simmons — Asked wasn't the presidential preferential ballot moved up to January?
Chief McLaughlin — He was not sure but he thinks it has been moved to January.
The month of February was removed from the bond letter.
Chief McLaughlin — He said that the whole process takes approximately 90 days to get it on the
ballot.
Anthony Davis made a motion to approve and present the bond letter to the County Attorney's
Office. It was seconded by Jim Simmons the motion was passed and the Chairman Ronald
Gilbert signed the bond letter.
NEW BUSINESS
Chief McLaughlin — The union contract was signed and approved. The County Attorney's Office,
Human Resources and the Budget Office signed off on this contract then when it came time to
adjust the payroll to conform to the contract it turned out that it will cost $2 6,000 more to
implement the changes. So to correct the problem he created a furlough calendar. It works
out to four furlough days per person someone is off every Tuesday starting 10 -25 -11 to 9- 18 -12.
There is an easy correction for this problem he made an attempt but the union turned it down.
He thinks there is a possibility that the contract could be reopened specifically pertaining to the
articles that relate to the payroll. Per Human Resources we can no longer average the Fire
Personnel's payroll so per the contract we would have to pay 19 hours of overtime each week
there is 72 hours.
Page 2`J
:sit M0
161 2 A 9 '
Chief McLaughlin — But per FLSA we could figure they payroll on a 21 day cycle at 159 hours
with 9 hours over time this action will not have to go to the Board we are just amending an
article. The impact to the budget without furloughing people would be an extra $26,000
because it not only raised the overtime rate it raises FICA, Social Security, Retirement Benefits
everything across the board. He was waiting for the official language from the County
Attorney's Office so that he can circulate the information to the union members. This re-
opening would only be an amendment to the contract to fix this problem.
Chief McLaughlin — The water tender will have a midpoint inspection in January which means in
less than 90 days the vehicle could be completed with possible delivery at the end of February
or early March.
Anthony Davis — He asked if Mayor Hamilton had appointed any one from Everglades City to
the Advisory Board.
Chief McLaughlin — No, we need to move forward.
Anthony Davis — He has not seen Bob Miller for the last two weeks. He will hopefully see him
one day this week. He will talk to Bob Miller to see if he is still interested or if he wants to meet
with Sammy or do this on his own.
Chief McLaughlin — He received an e-mail from Jan Mitchell asking if Frank Hawkins was in or
out. You can move forward with Frank Hawkins if he is still interested.
Ron Gilbert — Frank Hawkins is still interested in serving on the advisory board.
Anthony Davis — He was holding off to see if Bob Miller wanted to pursue a position on the
board either as a nominee of the Mayor or on his own. But this goes back to the board do we
want to do something with Frank Hawkins.
Chief McLaughlin — You can make that recommendation as a board to approve both Frank
Hawkins and Bob Miller for the Advisory Board. Franks paper work is already in they are just
waiting for you to recommend him for the advisory board.
Linda Swisher — You just need to put a letter together recommending him then the advisory
board approves it and the Chairman signs it.
Anthony Davis — He was hoping Bob Miler would just come on but he wanted to go through the
Mayor.
Ron Gilbert — He told Anthony Davis to continue to pursue Bob Miller as a candidate for the
Advisory Board.
Page 3
161 2 A9 ,
Anthony Davis — He said he would. A board member from Everglades City does that have to be
a City employee or is that just someone from the City that the Mayor appoints. So Bob Miller
could still be on the board even if we recommend frank Hawkins.
Chief McLaughlin — Just someone from the City of Everglades.
Anthony Davis — It does not have to be a City employee. We could add Frank Hawkins if the
board wanted to do that and he could still work with Bob Miller. Bob Miller could still work
with Mayor Hamilton and become his appointee from Everglades City.
Ron Gilbert — He made a recommendation to proceed with admitting Frank Hawkins to the
Advisory Board and see what pans out in regards to Bob Miller getting on the board because we
still need two members.
Chief McLaughlin — The paperwork for Frank Hawkins is on hold but the board can submit a
letter recommending him then Ian Mitchell can move forward with the nomination for BCC
approval
James Simmons — He asked about Frank Hawkins.
Ron Gilbert — He is a resident at Sunset Cay Villas at Port of the Islands.
Anthony Davis — The reason we held up on this application was to try and get someone who
wasn't from Port of the Islands keep their options open.
Ron Gilbert — We didn't move forward right away with Frank Hawkins in order to show our
good will by giving them plenty of time to find a candidate from another area so that Port of the
Islands is not dominating the Ochopee Fire Control Advisory Board but we can't .find people to
serve on it.
Chief McLaughlin — That open slot has been advertised for over six months now and we have
had no one apply for it other than Frank Hawkins from Port of the Islands.
Anthony Davis — I think from your view point you can tell anyone from the District or the City
here that we can bump a member if there is somebody from the City that wants to be on the
Advisory Board but nobody applied. We still have the one seat for Bob Miller if he wants to get
in.
Chief McLaughlin —Yes.
Page 4
r
1612- '19 04
Ron Gilbert made a recommendation to accept Frank Hawkins to the Ochopee Advisory Board it
was seconded and passed.
James Simmons — I wonder if your union members know what happened to East Naples they
cut their wages and now they are going to lay off four firefighters.
Chief McLaughlin — They are aware of what is going on it was rumored that Golden Gate Fire
District is laying off 12 personnel but this is going on all over the State.
Ron Gilbert — It's said though it is going to take a major catastrophe for them to realize they
need those people.
Chief McLaughlin — As the property appraiser continues to devaluate properties aggressively
due to the recession the impact will be the public services are going away.
Anthony Davis — Property appraisal is an arbitrary number.
Chief McLaughlin — Big Corkscrew Islands Fire District lost approximately 70% of their budget
due to devaluation of property, short sales and foreclosures.
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting it was seconded then passed ending at 4:30PM.
Ronald Gilbert, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 5
1612 A10
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday,
October 5, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The
following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman
John P. Chandler absent
Geoffrey S. Gibson
John Iaizzo
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
Michael Levy absent
Susan O'Brien appointed 911311 TM fm II
Dave Trecker
Mary Anne Womble NOV 4) O�
John Baron absent
Hunter H. Hansen absent
BY:.. .....................
W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary
Also Present
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Fiala
Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Hiller
Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Henning
C, y I
AGENDA Colet?a
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Approval
3. Approval of September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
4. Administrator's Report
a. Community Crosswalks
b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive
C. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways
d. South Berm Restoration Project Status
e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing
i. Status Report
ii. Bicycle Lane Survey (J. Chandler)
f Community Landscaping
g. Monthly Financial Report
h. Update on Health of Mangroves
i. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach
j. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Update
5. Chairman's Report
a. Reconstitute and Appoint Members to the Clam Bay Committee
b. Clam Bay Update
C. Announcements Misc. Corres:
6. Committee Reports
7. Old Business Date: 1 d ( l 2
8. New Business
9. Audience Comments Item #: I
10. Miscellaneous Correspondence
11. Adjournment COpI @S to:
ROLL CALL
Seven members present and quorum established. Messrs. Baron, Chandler, Hansen, and Levy were absent.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as presentee!
The Board voted unanimous ly in favor, passing the motion.
8501
161 2 A 10
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 MINUTES
F an Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to approve the September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay
sion Board Regular Session meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS
Mr. Dorrill reported that the community crosswalks project is underway. To avoid conflicts with the FDOT project,
the starting location was moved to the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. Staff processed an
approximate $6,000 change order to remove a tree causing root upheaval and to level and re -grade the existing area.
ALL WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE
Mr. Dorrill reported that despite failing to meet the warrants analysis criteria, County staff is recommending to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to approve installing an all -way stop at the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and
Pelican Bay Boulevard.
Mr. Lukasz reported that County staff would recommend BCC approval on the BCC October 25 consent agenda.
Mr. James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage said following BCC approval, his firm will obtain a right -of-
way (ROW) permit.
PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD ASPHALT PATHWAYS
Mr. Carr revised and completed the pathways plans, submitted a minor modification to the surface water permit to
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and upon approval by the County and SFWMD, expects his firm to
apply for a right of way permit in November for construction of eight foot wide, non - permeable asphalt pathways on Pelican
Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station. Construction will not encroach, and includes installation of a
rigid root barrier to the existing base to prevent future root upheaval.
Mr. Dorrill confirmed that a right of way permit is good for six months and the project would take ninety days and
any unexpected delays could cause it to expire before completion, as well as work being done during high season. He asked
the Board whether to apply for the right of way permit now, or defer until January. The Board directed staff to find out if the
contractor, if offered incentives, could complete a demonstration area of this project before Christmas.
SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PROJECT STATUS
Mr. Dorrill reported that prior to the pre - application presentation to Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), Mr. Hall and Wilson Miller Stantec are reviewing historical data to state their case that the south berm restoration
project is maintenance work that qualifies for a letter of exemption.
Mr. Hall explained that the size of the swale on the west side of the berm is smaller now that when originally built
because over time swales fill in. The swale is a working part of the current water management system and there is an
exemption to maintain it. The swale is also part of a functioning operational system and therefore the Services Division has
an obligation to maintain it. FDEP has confirmed that the work within the swale itself is an exempt activity. The Army
Corps of Engineers is deciding whether to authorize a nationwide permit for minor maintenance activities, or issue a new
permit for what they would consider new wetland impacts and mitigation review, which is a longer process. In his opinion,
the south berm restoration project to restore the berm to its original condition as built should be considered maintenance
covered under the nationwide permit.
8502
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
1612 p10
Mr. Dorrill would distribute to the Board the south berm restoration project's preliminary engineering report,
dimension sketch, and information about additional fill material.
UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES
Mr. Hall anticipates that the Clam Bay annual report should be available for distribution in November and
discussion at the December meeting. The report would include an oblique aerial photographic analysis of the mangroves and
preliminary results from today's photos do not indicate die -off. He will monitor black mangroves located near the Sandpiper
that except for some dead top material, are alive.
UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH
Mr. Hall reported that he did not have an update on whether there are funds available from Coastal Zone
Management. He explained that the new permit references that the Services Division is responsible for removing exotics
within the areas of the NRPA boundary to the mean high tide line, however, the State recognizes that it is impossible to
remove exotics completely, and removal of 95 %, including Australian Pines on the beach is acceptable.
PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING
STATUS REPORT
Mr. Dorrill reported that staff does not have any new information from the County regarding the Services Division's
possible loan agreement with the County to finance the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard in 2012.
BICYCLE LANE SURVEY
Mr. Dorrill requested that the Board direct staff to either move forward or postpone implementing a scientific survey
that would measure the community's position relating to installing bicycle lanes in the roadway.
The Board discussed prior surveys done to gauge community sentiment regarding bicycle lanes in the roadway and
agreed that the methods used were flawed. The Board agreed that if the Services Division administers a survey, the process
should be free from potential criticism and carried out by the scientific method. However, consensus was to defer
implementation of a survey until the Board decides whether to move forward with loaning the County funds to resurface
Pelican Bay Boulevard in 2012.
In regards to loaning the County funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard, members expressed concerns about the
County's creditworthiness, and that the Services Division would possibly set a precedent by initiating and funding a project
that is the County's responsibility.
In the meantime, Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Chandler would continue negotiations with County officials refining the
details of the loan agreement and acceptable repayment terms.
COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING
Mr. Dorrill reported that in the next two weeks, Mr. Lukasz will begin selecting plants from a wholesale nursery
service that specializes in quality-grade material and container size. As the contractor completes the crosswalks, Services
Division staff will install the plants. The cost estimate for plant material and supplies for all of the crosswalk locations that
the Services Division is responsible is $150,000.
Mr. Gerald Moffatt, Ms. Mollie Moffatt, and Ms. Marcia Cravens were concerned about the process that the
Services Division used to select the landscape architect Goetz +Stropes and are unhappy with the firm's recommendations.
Mr. Dorrill explained that the County predetermines the value of landscape architect design services and eligible
firms. Staff recommended and the Board approved Goetz +Stropes primarily because of the historic relationship with Mr.
Jack Lieber, Pelican Bay's original landscape architect.
8503
161 2 A10
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dorrill reported that the unaudited, preliminary September financial report ending Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 shows
that the Services Division's overall fiscal condition is "quite healthy ". Three categories of expenses were over budget
including 1) tree trimming; 2) fleet (vehicle) maintenance and parts; and 3) other (environmental/engineering) contractual
services. However, horticultural debris expenses were under budget and overall operating expenses were about $190,000
below forecast. FY 2012 began October 1 and the budget was adopted as presented by the Board of County Commissioners.
Ms. Cravens expressed disapproval that the assessment increased. She alleged that funds were transferred from
Clam Bay Fund 320 into other funds; and according to Crystal Kinzel, the Clerk's Finance Director this is not allowed.
Chairman Dallas explained that the assessment was increased to start saving for future Community Improvement
Plan projects, including street lighting.
Mr. Dorrill explained that the large cash carry forward is in part due to County policy requiring two months of
operating funds on hand for cash flow purposes and unanticipated expenses, i.e., storm- related cleanup.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
RECONSTITUTE AND APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE
Chairman Dallas appointed Vice Chairman Cravens, Ms. O'Brien, Dr. Trecker, and Ms. Womble to the newly
reconstituted Clam Bay Sub - committee and members would choose the Chairman.
LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUB - COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Landscape Water Management Sub - committee members are Vice Chairman Cravens (Chairman), Mr. Gibson, and
Dr. Trecker.
BUDGET SUB - COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Budget Committee members are Mr. Levy (Chairman), Chairman Dallas, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Iaizzo.
Ms. O'Brien expressed interest in becoming a member of the Budget Sub - committee and to accommodate, Mr.
Gibson offered to step down, but no changes were made.
CLAM BAY UPDATE
Chairman Dallas did not have any new information to report regarding the Clam Bay markers and dredging permits.
Ms. Cravens reported that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is setting new rules for water
quality and nutrient standards. FDEP 1) designated Clam Bay a unique Water Body Identification (WBID); 2) recommended
that water quality monitoring protocol complies with Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA /QC) standard; and 3) prefers
long -term water quality data sets and alleged the County was misinformed when it determined that the Services Division's
historical water quality data was not acceptable.
Ms. Kathy Worley clarified FDEP determines on a case -by -case basis whether to accept water quality data that does
not meet QA /QC standards.
Ms. Cravens added that FDEP designated the Clam Bay as a "coastal creek system" and PBS &J /Atkins Site Specific
Alternative Criteria (SSAC) to determine water quality standards is inapplicable.
Mr. James Hoppensteadt clarified that the Foundation did not accept the Services Division's historical water quality
data because QA /QC water quality monitoring protocol was not used.
Vice Chairman Cravens suggested that Mr. Hall make a presentation to the Clam Bay and Landscape Water
Management Sub - committees about historical water quality monitoring studies in Clam Bay.
8504
1612 p10
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
Mr. Hall agreed to make a presentation to both sub - committees regarding historical water quality monitoring studies
in Clam Bay. Services Division employees are trained and certified in QA /QC water quality monitoring protocol and on a
monthly basis, collect samples west of the berm, submit the samples to the County's Pollution Control Lab, and the results
are sent to Turrell Hall for analysis. Also, Turrell Hall is developing a nutrient management plan for the Foundation and
currently, collecting samples east of the berm to map nutrients as they move through the system to identify locations where
high levels of nutrients exist.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Dallas announced that the Coastal Advisory Committee meets October 13; Pelican Bay Foundation meets
October 28; and the Services Division's next meeting is November 2.
The Board directed staff to schedule a Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Sub - committees meeting for
Mr. Hall to make a presentation regarding before November 2.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Ms. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee has not met, so there is no information to report.
OLD BUSINESS
Dr. Trecker acknowledged that as the Services Division had recommended, the BCC approved Commission District
Map 1.
NEW BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ms. Linda Roth is concerned that the PBS &J /Atkins SSAC standards are too strict and unattainable.
Ms. Cravens urged the Board to provide feedback regarding the proposed PBS &J /Atkins SSAC to assess water
quality in Clam Bay.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in
avor and the meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
K itl : Dallas, Chair,+
8505
Minutes by LRJ / 10/14/201110:51:04 AM
aw A—
161 � A'
p �C��II�I� D
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION m
1 N1 J .� � ?01
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
BY........................
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011
THE CLAM BAY & LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUB-
COMMITTEES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL
MEET IN JOINT SESSION, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26 AT 1:00 PM, AT
THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960
HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108.
V/
Fiala
AGENDA Hiller
Henning y-
Coyle
The agenda includes, but is not limited: Coletta r�
1.
2.
3.
M
Roll Call
Elect Clam Bay Sub - committee Chairman
Surface Water Sampling & Monitoring Protocol Presentation
by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall &,W6 q;qs, Inc.
Question & Answer Session
5. Public Comments
6. Adjournment
Date: 11011-Z
Item #: i CCE 2 )9'1.0
Copies to:
ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3)
MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO
THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN
WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION
OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON
WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749.
10/20/20119:05:29 AM
161 2 A10
CLAM BAY NUTRIENT STANDARDS (10/26/11)
Dr. David Tomasko, with apparent FDEP concurrence, proposes the
following:
- "Healthy systems" approach: Clam Bay is not on 303(d) list of impaired
waters. It is, by Tomasko's measures, healthy. FDEP agrees. The
approach is to set standards to keep it that way.
- Tomasko proposes standards based on "swath" of nutrient
concentrations as a function of conductivity (salinity). [Values initially
proposed for Florida estuaries by FDEP /EPA were TN 1.0 mg /L and TP
0.19 mg /L.]
The "swath" is drawn around data taken from Clam Bay in 2009 -2011.
Clam Bay only. Not Estero Bay. Not Moorings Bay.
Upper and lower limits are desirable to guard against too much or too
little dissolved nitrogen and dissolved phosphorus.
- Compliance testing data are proposed to be taken from six sites once a
month (Hoppensteadt).
If a number of values (Tomasko suggests more than 13 %) fall outside of
the "swath," there may be a problem.
Testing would then be carried out (by the county ?) to see if water clarity
(phytoplankton levels) and /or dissolved oxygen was affected.
Even if Clam Bay were to be declared "impaired," the current EPA
proposal allows up to 15 years for remediation. This could be correction
at point of pollution, i.e., back - tracking from point(s) where nutrients
enter Clam Bay to find and correct source of pollution. It doesn't have to
be dredging.
- To that end, Tim Hall is currently measuring nutrient concentrations at
44 sites that empty into Clam Bay (Hoppensteadt). That will establish
the basis for a point- source early- warning system.
Timeline for setting nutrient standards for Florida estuaries
10/18/11 Deadline for public comments to FDEP
11/3/11 FDEP presents proposed standards to Environment
Regulation Commission (ERC)
12/1/11 ERC adopts standards
2/12 FL legislature ratifies standards and FDEP submits to EPA
3/15/12 EPA proposes nutrient standards for estuaries and coastal
waters
11/15/12 EPA finalizes standards, which will be implemented within
18 months, i.e., by 5/15/14.
O
CU
Every year, TN vs. salinity "distribution"
compared to current data set
2
1.5
E
C
v
a
rno
M 0.5
M
IN
Q Upper 1 Dh
percentile
o • �"�� prediction
Q limit
0 0,
0.81 mq,/L N M
0 �..
i EFl
7D
42,453 pS
0 20000 40000 60000
Conductivity (uS)
N
Z
C
42
0
•o
Same for TP
0.2
0.15
0
0.1
0
M
IL
0.05
0
t-
0
0
LJ
�? upper 1 Oh
❑ 0 0 percentile
0 0 o prediction
0.055 mg/L F limit
42,453 pS
0 20000 40000 50000
COndudivity (uS)
;I11i
kA
Z
G
43
1> III il7l� CLASS II SAMPLING LOCATIONS
CLASS Itl SAMPLING LOCATIONS
HI 111 COLUER COUNTY SAMPLING LOCATIONS 11
WATER QUALITY
a 140
m e"
gx, V4
• DO (Dissolved Oxygen)*
How much life the water can support
• NO3 (Nitrate)
Indicator of fertilizer runoff
• OPO4 (Orthophosphate) N1
Indicator of fertilizer runoff
• TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)
Indicator of salinity
Temperature
Conductivity V
Salinity
Turbidity
Silica
Chlorophyll -A V
Ammonia Nitrogen Phaeophytin V
Nitrite V
BOD5
PH
Changed to Diel Study
Total Organic Carbon
Total Phosphorus V
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. V
V Required in new permit for mangrove maintenance
Nariu, M
CSnP,phnsphate (P)
Phosphorus- Total
` :irate -Nano, (N')
N mogcn- Total KKldahl
Ammonia
Silica (SiOZ)
Chiwophy0 a
Phenphytin
Rcudncs- Fdternbte (TUS)
Example Lab Report
SMIB450it 12B
0.002 U
SM784500 -FF
0.010 j
SMI84iwpE(P
0030
IFYA 353 2
0 044
SM204500 -Norg t)
0059 U
EPA 350.1
0.160
SM204500 -Si02C
2.3 1
SMI81020011
3.0 U
SMI910200N
10 13
Will 25440
37420
mp1T.
0602
0.01 1
W 18.259 07:00 09,19,2009 07:00
mDl
0.064
0,02 1
091182009 07:00 09,`182009 07M
mDJT
0,004
0.02 1
09,212009 07:00 09X2212009 07:00
meL
0.002
0,010 1
09.25,2009 09:31 09252009 09.31
mg+l.
0.059
0195 1
09,77x2009 08:00 092 &2009 10:36
mgt.
(1012
0.06 1
09252009 09:31 092512009 04:31
mgt.
1
5 1
49282009 14 :00 09128.2009 14:00
mg/m3
3
3 1
09117!2009 15;15 10.'052009 13:04
mD'm3
3
3 1
0911",2009 15:15 1OP452009 13:00
m;/L
2
10 1
0972412009 09:30 091242009 0930
Location: PU -11 PrNd lD: I'll-If Lab ID: AD49494 Collett DateWme. 9117)09 11: t5.
Analytc Namc
Method
Result
Qoalifirr Units
tIDL
PQL DF
Prep Datrfflmo Analysis Dat"me
�,ttaEC AnnsctN)
ePA35.e2
0U10
marl
+1,702
0010 C
MZ ,2t.8i9 04:31 09292009 0931
NAWC(N)
SMi94500 -NO2B
0,014
atwlL
0.002
0.01 1
09118/2009 07:40 09fInD49 4MOO
CRtiwphnsplmae(P)
SM1943MPE
0.093
mgli
0.004
002 1
09/1&2009 07,-M 4911$'2009 07:00
Plmsphoms.Twat
SM184100 -PE(P
0A14
m,44-
000
0.02 1
0912 rIM 07'N 09!'t.210D9 07;00
Amman
EPA 350.1
0.182
mg7_
0..012
0.06 1
0925,2069 09;31 09,252009 09;31
Nttregm Total K9eldahl
SM204500•Norg1)
1,396
MgX
0059
0.295 t
09272" 08:00 091292009 10:36
IU11,1 cs- F.11—bk(tD$)
SM182540C
800
m8/1,
a
10 1
0%24x2009 09:30 09242009 4930
Location: 91. ILUCLA
20240
i%ld lD:
B-12
Lab ]D.- AD49495
Callrcr Dafel7imc: 9(17109 11 :40
Analyte Name
Method
Result
Qua! er Units
SIDE
PQL DF
Prep Dater"1'ime Analysis DatefTimc
\mato-Vnntc(N,
LPA3532
1).002
L mgel
0xa12
0.010 1
0925,2009 1:1,71 09i25i2609 09;31
NtOer (N)
SM184500 -NO213
0.008
1 MG,1
0.002
0.01 l
09182009 07:5 09%1 &2(109 07:00
' Ammonia
EPA 350.1
0.094
mg/L
0012
0.06 1
09252009 09:31 09:25iNot) 09,31
(Mhsphospharc(1)
SM 184500 -PE
0.470
mg'I
0044
0.02 1
09,18'2009 07:00 09M'2009 07:00
Phosphrww -T'otal
SMI845MPE(P
0.519
Mg4.
0004
0.02 1
09/21/2009 07:00 091222009 07:00
Nittogee- Tout Kjcldahl
SM20 43VI -Noig D
1.540
mg,1..
0,059
112" 1
09,2712009 08:00 09120009 10:36
Residues Fdtarabte f IDS)
SMI82540C
820
M&L
2
t0 1
09212009 09'30 09!242009 0930
Lecath": -
20240
held ID:
PH-13
LablD: AD-19496
092412009 09:30 09242009 09:30
Collett DeteWme: 9117109 11:35
AnalyltName
Method
Prank Qualifier Units
MDL
PQL DF
Prep Dateflime AnalysbDattfime
�" s Nluetc(N)
SMI840UNU1B
0 -007 1
Inevt.
0.(ki2
OOI i
09,182009 07:5 (Nd182UtPt 0711(1
.,.:._.�.... �.. Nitraw .,,t to (all
EPA 353.2
0010
mF"L
0.002
0010 1
09125,2'009 09:31 09,2572009 09:31
. Ammwua
EPA 350 ..1
0.079
mp/t.
0.012
0.06 1
0925,2009 0931 09252009 09:31
Orth.rh sphatc(P)
S%4184500-PE
0,114
mg9
0OrA
0 -02 1
O9fI82009 (17:00 09118,12009 07:00
1'1n.Phorus -Tow
SMI945MP E(P
OA35
MPJL
0004
0.02 1
O9i21,2009 07 :00 09122,2009 07:5
5ilica(Si02)
SM204500 -Si02C
LO L'
ativt
1
3 1
09282DD9 14:00 0912 &2009 14:00
Narogcm Total Kjcldaht
SM20 451)Morg D
U715
m &2.
1) 059
0.295 1
0927t2DD9 08:00 0952&2009 10:36
Residua.,. Filterable (TDS)
SMIS 2540 C
20240
mp)L.
2
10 1
092412009 09:30 09242009 09:30
phtophrat
SMI1 10200 it
51
mgrm3
3
3 1
69517/2009 15:15 10.105,2009 13.00
Chlorophyll
SAI1810100if
91
m4`n
3
3 1
69117120(1) 15:)5 1O,'0512009 1360
Loealion: f,, -PB -13
bieldlD. PO -16
Lab 7D: A049497
Collect Dotwlt-Ime: 9117109 11:'5
Anal-stetame
Method
Result
Qualifier Units
MDL
P%
DF PrepDatefrime AnalysisDate/fime
Nurte(N)
SMIIt 4500 -NO2 it
U. 016
enD;l_
11,%32
001
1 09,19 :2009 07:00 021 &2(9)9 (7704)
Nhrato-Nitntc IN)
FPA 3532
0.190
mg1L
0.002
0010
1 09125!259 09:31 09232009 09:31
Ammonia
EPA 354.1
0.232
mWL
0,012
006
1 09,292009 09:31 09252009 09131
Onwphosphate(P)
SM1E4500-PE
0,270
mgA
0,004
0.02
1 09'182009 07:00 09/1 &2009 07:00
Phosphorus- Total
Stsii&4500-PE(P
0.309
mgVL
0004
002
1 09212009 07;00 0922MO9 07:00
Namgen -Total K)cldahl
SM204500•Norg0
1.620
mV1
0,059
0195
1 0927:2009 08;00 09/2 &,2009 10:36
Rcs,dues- Fdterahlc(TDS)
SMIS1140C
980
mg11.
2
10
1 0924,2009 09:30 (1924,2009 D9:30
MM F r � v
o Dissolved Oxygen — Average Annual
9.00
N
8.00
W6
T`4
\V
7.00
PB -11
VA
FSt. Lucia
6.00
P B -13
W -7
Ma
E
5.00
Glenview
—
W -1
0
4.00
UCB
N Seagate
o
0
3.00
E PB13
2.00
1.00
0.00
1978 1980 1982 1984
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
CD Orthophosphate — Avera a Annual
%--I g
W
0.35
0.30
-P
W6
B-11
0.25
-
-
-°FSt. Lucia
PB -13
W -7
0.20
--
Glenview
J
UCB
N Seagate
O
a
0.15
O
E PB13
e
u
h
0.10 -
0.05 - --
0.00 -
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Avnratvc, Annnal
Mangrove Restoration
Benthic Observations Clam Bay
Southern hard Clam
Shoal Grass
Florida horse Conch
N
0%
A
CD
Issues Around The Community
x �
90.08.2011
10.0.20111
N)
,:rs_�:�°,s�•'.,��`�:__. .r,....�.... �.e ?'gs°,...�_�°;�,iAS�..r.�ws .,.� .e:. e� <.., � `.,_�,b_w.�+.�..� �...g<:�a�a`,� '.e�..,.:°��„,r — ... s •.�. �„a�'*'�.,�:,s` :�,.��� .e
ill
gt, ., r.,a%*n,a
Sa
�:a3'^
=�� shy
�
,,,e.�
.,_,
.p
�`•
'+ <..
n'
.� S
y
:,,,
�
i-I
y%'
Shoreline Vegetation
��r e
v
-v►
0
a-=
1--b
f
V
V
4
t A10 161 z-
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY,
LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. O �a ya nn
AGENDA NOV 7 ��)1
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call BY...... ..................
2. Agenda Approval
3. Approval of October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes
4. Administrator's Report
a. Community Crosswalks
b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive
c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways Fiala
d. South Berm Restoration Project Status Hiller
e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Henning -I'– bk
f. Community Landscaping Coyle ✓-
Coletta
g. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach
h. The Phil's "Thank You Myra" Dedication and Temporary Banners
i. Upland Surface Water Management
j. Monthly Financial Report
i. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 54 Reporting
5. Chairman's Report
a. Clam Bay Update
b. Announcements
6. Committee Reports Misc. Corres:
7. Old Business Date. , �' 6 I ( �
8. New Business
9. Audience Comments Item #:
so. Miscellaneous Correspondence
11. Adjournment Copies to:
ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3)
MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO
THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN
WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION
OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON
WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749.
10/28/20119:36:33 AM
161
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday,
October 5, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The
following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman
John P. Chandler absent
Geoffrey S. Gibson
John Iaizzo
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator
Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager
Michael Levy absent
Susan O'Brien appointed 9113111
Dave Trecker
Mary Anne Womble
John Baron absent
Hunter H. Hansen absent
Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst
Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary
Also Present
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation
AGENDA APPROVAL
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by ecke ro the agenda as presented.
th
The Board voted unanimously in favor. nassinn e
8501
1612 1
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 MINUTES
Al 01
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mrs. Womble to approve the September 7, 2011 Pelican Bay
Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the
motion.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS
Mr. Dorrill reported that the community crosswalks project is underway. To avoid conflicts with the FDOT project,
the starting location was moved to the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. Staff processed an
approximate $6,000 change order to remove a tree causing root upheaval and to level and re -grade the existing area.
ALL WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE
Mr. Dorrill reported that despite failing to meet the warrants analysis criteria, County staff is recommending to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to approve installing an all -way stop at the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and
Pelican Bay Boulevard.
Mr. Lukasz reported that County staff would recommend BCC approval on the BCC October 25 consent agenda.
Mr. James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage said following BCC approval, his firm will obtain a right -of-
way (ROW) permit.
8502
. 16 f
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
8503
161 2r ' 'A
10
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dorrill reported that the unaudited, preliminary September financial report ending Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 shows
that the Services Division's overall fiscal condition is "quite healthy ". Three categories of expenses were over budget
including 1) tree trimming; 2) fleet (vehicle) maintenance and parts; and 3) other (environmental /engineering) contractual
services. However, horticultural debris expenses were under budget and overall operating expenses were about $190,000
below forecast. FY 2012 began October 1 and the budget was adopted as presented by the Board of County Commissioners.
Ms. Cravens expressed disapproval that the assessment increased. She alleged that funds were transferred from
Clam Bay Fund 320 into other funds; and according to Crystal Kinzel, the Clerk's Finance Director this is not allowed.
Chairman Dallas explained that the assessment was increased to start saving for future Community Improvement
Plan projects, including street lighting.
Mr. Dorrill explained that the large cash carry forward is in part due to County policy requiring two months of
operating funds on hand for cash flow purposes and unanticipated expenses, i.e., storm- related cleanup.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
RECONSTITUTE AND APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE
Chairman Dallas appointed Vice Chairman Cravens, Ms. O'Brien, Dr. Trecker, and Ms. Womble to the newly
reconstituted Clam Bay Sub - committee and members would choose the Chairman.
LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUB - COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Landscape Water Management Sub - committee members are Vice Chairman Cravens (Chairman), Mr. Gibson, and
Dr. Trecker.
BUDGET SUB - COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Budget Committee members are Mr. Levy (Chairman), Chairman Dallas, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Iaizzo.
Ms. O'Brien expressed interest in becoming a member of the Budget Sub - committee and to accommodate, Mr.
Gibson offered to step down, but no changes were made.
CLAM BAY UPDATE
Chairman Dallas did not have any new information to report regarding the Clam Bay markers and dredging permits.
8504
1612 p10 ,
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
October 5, 2011
Mr. Hall agreed to make a presentation to both sub - committees regarding historical water quality monitoring studies
in Clam Bay. Services Division employees are trained and certified in QA /QC water quality monitoring protocol and on a
monthly basis, collect samples west of the berm, submit the samples to the County' Pollution Control Lab, and the results
are sent to Turr ell Hall for analysis. Also, Turrell Hall is developing a nutrient management plan for the Foundation and
currently, collecting samples east of the berm to map nutrients as they move through the system to identify locations where
high levels of nutrients exist.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Dallas announced that the Coastal Advisory Committee meets October 13; Pelican Bay Foundation meets
October 28; and the Services Division's next meeting is November 2.
The Board directed staff to schedule a Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Sub - committees meeting for
Mr. Hall to make a presentation regarding before November 2.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Ms. Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee has not met, so there is no information to report.
OLD BUSINESS
Dr. Trecker acknowledged that as the Services Division had recommended, the BCC approved Commission District
Map 1.
NEW BUSINESS
None
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ms. Linda Roth is concerned that the PBS &J /Atkins SSAC standards are too strict and unattainable.
Ms. Cravens urged the Board to provide feedback regarding the proposed PBS &J /Atkins SSAC to assess water
quality in Clam Bay.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in
favor and the meeting adiourned at 3:04 n.m.
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
8505
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Statu
Page 1 of 15
16 11;�, AC
,
WlboffMiller
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Laney, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
FROM: Dan Waters, PE
DATE: November 24, 2010
SUBJECT: Pelican Bay South Berm
Erosion Considerations t Side Slope Restoration
Permittina History
The 1,200 acre Pelican Bay subdivision was originally permitted by the SFWMD as Permit No.
04178 -C in August 1978 and by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The original permit
approvals authorized the construction of a 50 foot wide berm and spreader swale from Seagate
Drive along the western boundary of the developed areas of Pelican Bay northward to what is
now the Montenero condominium. The berm was designed to serve both as a recreational
facility and as part of the infrastructure of the Pelican Bay surface water management system.
The berm was permitted to have a ten foot asphalt path on its top; the asphalt path remains in
place and serves as a shared -use pedestrian trail as well as the travel way for trams conveying
residents and visitors to the beaches. The berm also acts as the perimeter containment that
allows for stormwater to be stored within the detention areas on the east side of the berm while
stormwater control structures that are placed intermittently along the berm's length discharge
the runoff from the developed areas west to the existing wetland areas adjacent to Clam Bay at
a controlled rate.
The permitted berm cross section consisted of a four foot high berm with four to one side
slopes, a ten foot wide asphalt path on top of the berm, and an eight foot wide spreader Swale
on the western side of the berm. A copy of the permitted berm section is shown in the center of
sheet 41 of the Water Management Plan attached to this memorandum as Attachment A. The
permitted section consists of a 50 foot wide envelope (a 42 foot wide berm and an eight foot
spreader swale).
Current Permitting Requirements / D„psian Standards
The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) contains standards for berm and
embankment slopes and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation
Manual provides standards for sideslopes for pedestrian facilities.
LDC Section 4.06.05.) provides for the required treatment of slopes (a copy of the LDC Section
has been included as Attachment B). For slopes of four to one (horizontal to vertical) or flatter,
grass groundcover may be used as stabilization. Embankments with slopes no steeper than
three to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize trees, groundcover (pinestraw, mulch, etc.),
ornamental grasses, and shrubs as stabilization. Embankment slopes that are not steeper than
two to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize rip -rap or other forms of scour protection.
Section 8.6 of the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual provides the criteria for Shared Use Paths
(a copy of Section 8.6 has been provided as Attachment C). Section 8.6.5 of the FDOT
standards suggests that a two foot wide flat area be provided adjacent to paths that are typically
Jt"aIMI-IW613 Ve 014- VNATEA5
0533
05175- bd0Od2 ECOp. 29E:K
Pelican Bay South Berm
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 2 of 15
1.6
Page 2 of 4
utilized by pedestrians, joggers, in -line, skaters, and bicyclists. The intent of this two foot wide
flat area is to provide an area of relief and recovery outside of the pathway for pedestrian users
prior to the steeper side slope back to existing grade. This two foot flat area for recovery was
not proposed as part of the original design of the berm / pathway system, however we
recommend that it be added as a part of the improvements to bring the path to the current
-required standards.
Problem Statement / Existing Condition
Based on several site reviews and the compilation of survey information for the berm, the most
significant maintenance problem on the south berm is the erosion of the sideslopes on the
western side of the berm adjacent to the preserved wetland areas. As a part of this evaluation,
WilsonMiller Stantec performed topographic survey cross sections of the berm at 200 foot
intervals; the existing- condition survey information was then interpolated to create cross
sections at 50 foot intervals for use in evaluating the current condition of the berm. The plan
containing the existing condition survey information is included with this memorandum.
A review of the existing- condition survey indicates that severe erosion of the side slopes has
occurred along the western side of the berm. In contrast, the eastern side of the berm has not
experienced significant erosion from the original design standard. It appears that the erosion
has occurred from the toe of slope of the berm and proceeded up the slope toward the pathway.
In this case, the erosion appears to have potentially been caused by either storm surge or grass
die off / lack of slope stabilization instead of wash outs from stormwater runoff.
Some of the concerns created by the eroded condition of the berm are as follows:
• Drop Off Hazard: As stated above, the design plan and existing condition do not
provide any flat area for relief from the side of the path to the bottom of the berm. This
could potentially create an unsafe condition for tram operation, bikers, in -tine skaters,
or pedestrians. The lack of the flat area to provide relief for someone that inadvertently
leaves the path Is exacerbated by the fact that the eroded slopes are extremely steep
in some areas and make recovery difficult.
• Maintenance Difficulties: Generally, a four to one (horizontal to vertical) side slope or
flatter is required to allow for the use of riding mowers for maintenance. Based on
conversation with Pelican Bay Foundation staff and Pelican Bay Services Division staff,
the deficient portions of the berm are currently too steep to be cut with a mower and
11143(M10. 2W471 - Vw 1 - OWATERS
0
N01030W -ECOR Um
Cif' i.1
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status O
Page 3 of 15
i 16 112
Pelican Bay South Berm
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
Page 3 of 4
maintenance is currently performed with weed whackers.
• Aesthetics: As stated above, the severe erosion makes maintenance of the grass
difficult and therefore creates aesthetic issues.
• Berm Stability: The continued erosion of the berm side slopes is likely to continue and
could eventually undermine the integrity of the*berm and pathl' ay.
Proposed Remedies
The correction of the erosion obviously requires that the berm sideslopes be restored and that
the appropriate slope coverage be provided to provide stabilization and prevent future erosion.
Potential stabilization options that have been investigated include the following;
Option 1 - Rip Rap at Toe -of- Slope: An on -site investigation indicated that the vast
majority of the erosion occurred at the toe of slope of the berm along the western side.
This erosion at the toe of slope may be caused either by the movement of the tidal
waters within the wetland areas or could be a result of the die -off of grasses at the toe of
slope that are not tolerant of water with high salinity. The placement of rip rap at the
base of the restored slope would provide a maintenance free solution and provide the
stability for the portions of the slope above the mean high water levels. Reference sheet
two of the plans for two typical cross sections depicting the restored berm with rip rap
protection at the toe of slope. The two sections evaluated for Option 1 are as follows:
• Restoration of the berm to its original cross section with four feet of rip rap at the
toe of slope on the western side and a sodded four to one slopes to the top of
berm. This alternative would include placing additional along the west side of the
berm to "reclaim" the original berm footprint and would include trimming of
vegetation to allow for the construction to occur.
• Restoration of the berm within its existing footprint with eight feet of rip -rap at a
two to one slope from the existing toe of slope to the top of the berm. This
alternative would either eliminate the need to trim the existing vegetation or
require only minimal trimming. It would also preserve the tow areas that currently
hold water adjacent to the existing toe of slope at their existing elevation.
Option 2 - Slope Stabilization Product at Toe -_of- 1 oe: There are a wide variety of slope
stabilization products available for use in this type of application. These systems are
typically high strength cellular confinement systems that can be filled with soil material
and planted with sod to provide stable slope protection from concentrated flows and long
term erosion. If, as suspected, the high salinity levels in the brackish water within the
preserved wetlands are responsible for the die -off of the grasses at the toe -of- slope, the
grasses would continue to die -off if planted on the cellular confinement system and
periodic replacement of the sod would be required. A picture of a typical cellular
confinement system is provided below.
1 V21200, 220471 - Vie 1, QWAtERS
" 10a�OW020- ECOR-=15
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 4 of 15
161 2 A40
Pelican Bay South Berm Page 4 of 4
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
Oation 3 - Different Sod Varieties: If neither of the above two methods are utilized for the
slope restoration, it would be advisable to test and observe the performance of a variety
of sod types in small areas prior to installing the best sold alternative along the entire
length of the restored berm. Typically a berm of this type, where irrigation is not
available, would have been planted with bahia sod. Bahia has poor tolerance to shade
and saltwater, and in light of the fact that the erosion has generally occurred on the
western side of the berm, the influence of the brackish water in Clam Bay and the lack of
sunlight due to the shading provided by the encroachment of vegetation on the western
side of the berm, have likely been detrimental to the Bahia sod planted on the western
side of the berm. The ideal sod to be planted along the western side of the berm should
have a combination of good drought tolerance (because no irrigation is available), good
shade tolerance (because the vegetation along the western side of the berm blocks
sunlight), and a high tolerance to salinity.
Due to the uncertainties associated with the survivability of grasses in options two and three, it
is our suggestion that one of the alternatives shown on sheet two the plan for Option 1 be
pursued.
Construction Considerations
As a part of this evaluation, we conducted a site visit to review the existing berm with an
earthwork contractor to receive an evaluation of the existing conditions and considerations
related to access and staging of materials.
it is anticipated that two weeks will be required to complete the construction of the berm
restoration. The two week timeframe assumes that the work could be completed in the end of
the dry season (April or May) to avoid delays as a result of washouts caused by heavy rains
during the construction. To ensure safety during construction, access to the berm by
pedestrians and tram traffic would have to be eliminated or restricted to early morning and
evening hours (periods during which work is not occurring).
The construction work could be completed using small rubber -tired vehicles that would not
damage the existing asphalt path and require repairs. An Opinion of Probable Cost has been
prepared for the two alternative cross sections for Option 1 (shown on sheet two of the plans).
The unit costs included in the attached Opinion of Probable Cost (Reference Attachment D)
assume the following:
• The parking lot at the Pelican Bay Foundation can be used for storage and staging of
materials (rip -rap, filter fabric, fill material, vehicles, etc.);
• The turnarounds on the berm, specifically adjacent to Heron Point, the Glenview, and
the boardwalk, can be utilized for staging of materials;
• Construction traffic traveling along the berm will be able to drop off material at locations
along the berm and exit at the southern end of the berm through the county park
(instead of having to turn around and travel back north to the Pelican Bay Foundation
site);
M212010- 22N?l1 Vtl I.OWATEQS
.'1W -amK D�ECOR,=IS
a
0
U) U)
U)
72
m ft
0 r
0
j5
co 0
co in
C t�
U 0
C.)
0
O
CD .2
N Lo
cq
'o 0
E a LO
(u
>
0.6
cl,
z (L
Is,
us]
0
O
lV
zr
VARkiltx —
Z
0
lU
LLJ
to
0
cr.
0
Z
0
R
LAJ
0
17)
LLI
Z
M.
ftmi ,
161F2 A10
La
Cie
din
Zt
ui
21
law
Jo
cr
ui
VARkiltx —
Z
0
lU
LLJ
to
0
cr.
0
Z
0
R
LAJ
0
17)
LLI
Z
M.
ftmi ,
161F2 A10
La
ui
ui
CL
cr
LL
LL
0
N
N
U) co
7
_@ 2
D
O1 _
Q' O
N
'O O
ca o a
m C
0
c 'Z-
0 m
N o
N
N
m
U) w
m N
C
U O
d
r N
O O
c'4 Ep
N N
m
> Q o,
O p f6
zva
X14 O O_
m N t
a
m t0 m0 C
u
u
azoo c
fit
N (nn u
d �k
a
U emu,
IM c
CL
to LL -
m zi
ca O F
v it
4) OF
0
f C
C
161 2p3�0
e
¢¢= R
R
N
O
LO
v
rn
o
C.
°
c°�
W
cm
E
°v
N
O O
N
t°O
°
°
w
.N-
-
O O
O)
V
at
O
N
v
m v
n
w E
3 m
CL
w E
6
N
413�
t2
U3 d�4
r-_
d9
fA
�
N
Ni
u
u
u
O
J co
J
J
U)
U
N
m
C
m
O O
N
O
tO
N
C
0 o
m
o
o
n
co
0
0
0 o
°o_
o
�
vi
an
U
►
Q
o
r
ee
e
N EO
O)
691 69
EH
N
r
°
c
o
o
N
O
N
-
V
N
'
V1
161 2p3�0
e
¢¢= R
R
N
O
O_
C.
E
°v
c
c
E
uh
w
rn
c—
v
v
°a
w
v
m v
n
w E
3 m
CL
w E
161 2p3�0
e
¢¢= R
R
r_
0
U)
'
)§
.0
.(J)
m
0 :3
co
ca U)
m
L) 0
p .2
CN M
--
0
E I-
a) a)
>
z Q-
co
0 cu
io0
cm
11
Ll 3; 3: i a a Li 1�21�
ca
CL 0 c
CL
cc w
E c.0
0
M cr-
(L
0 �.
UL c
Z Li
c c
00
(a
00
0
LI
0 CD v
CD 0 0 q 0 " �:
CD cm 0 -T in
C> 6 G 0 0
C� cq to m co v!
In Cli 'd r-
m N
C) to I!, a) co co fA C-i
R 68. W EO U% W
ce
It It U- It
m
w U) En 0 r-
to CD In -6 co w
0 co 0 'IT I'l 0
6 �: 6 (d ui L)
CD 61) �2 m Z,-
4D ua
69 %
0)
cm
fn w U. -A
co 0 co - N 0 !
C\! cq I
C',
16 112 A'1 0
\}
S
0
c
0
E
0
C,
E
E
to
C
0
C:
>
4
to
CL
ca
a:
0
co
x
LU
ff
16 112 A'1 0
\}
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 8 of 15
161`2
ResnickLisa
Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Southern Berm and Swale
Attachments: October 2011.docx
Summary of Items to present to agencies
From: Miller, Stuart rmailto: Stuart. MillerCabstantec.coml
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 20114:01 PM
To: LukaszKyle; neil(Urnafl.com
Cc: Durham, Tim; English, John
Subject: Pelican Bay Southern Berm and Swale
Kyle and Neil,
A'l 0'�
Attached please find a copy of the "draft" executive summary related to the berm and swale. It would be helpful, after you
have had the opportunity to review, to have a teleconference to discuss, prior to meeting with SFWMD, and meeting with
the Corps.
Thank you
Stuart Miller
Senior Project Manager, Environmental Management
Stantec
3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200
Naples FL 34105
Ph: (239) 649 -4040 Ext. 5175
Fx: (239) 643 -5716
Stuart.Miller @stantec.com
stantec.com
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except
with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 9 of 15 n
16112 U 1
Draft
To: Kyle Lukasz, Pelican Bay Services District
From: Stuart Miller, AICP, WilsonMiller Stantec
Subject: Pelican Bay South Berm Maintenance and Proposed Improvements Executive Summary
Cc: Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group
Tim Durham, PE, WilsonMiller Stantec
John English, PE, WilsonMiller Stantec
Tim Hall, Turrell- Hall and Associates
Date: October 20, 2011
Subject: Pelican Bay South Berm and Swale Executive Summary
Permitting history: The original Pelican Bay project was permitted by the SFWMD as ERP Permit No.
04178 -C in 1978 and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Attached is a copy of the
SFWMD ERP Permit permitted section of the berm. No Corps permit drawings were available. The
Corps permit has expired.
Maintenance history:
Based on the attached photo documentation provided by the Pelican Bay Foundation and Turrell -Hall
and Associates, mangroves, which expanded east into the existing swale and berm, have been removed
so that the western stormwater Swale continues to function properly.
Existing Conditions :
Attached is a copy of typical cross sections and photo documentation of the existing Pelican Bay South
berm and swale (4,250 +/- linear feet). Based on photo documentation, cross sections, and visual
observation the overall berm width varies. In some areas, there is a four to one (4 horizontal to 1
vertical) side slope on the western side but in other areas, either due to erosion and /or the original
berm slope construction the slope varies from 3 to 4 horizontal to 1 vertical.
Based on the site conditions it appears that is has been many years since the swale has been excavated
to it's originally permitted design.
Reasons for maintaining/ re- establishing the permitted side slope (safety, mowing/ maintenance,
aesthetics, and berm stability):
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 10 of 15 6 I 2''A
1
It is desired that the berm and swale be maintained for the health safety and welfare for the residents
and guests of Pelican Bay. The path is used by walkers, joggers, roller skaters and golf carts. Without
maintenance and improvements, there is a drop - off hazard for path users. In addition, the erosion has
now also caused an aesthetic and maintenance issue.
Due to either storm surge or grass die off / lack of stabilization erosion has occurred on the west side of
the berm. Generally a four to one side slope is necessary for mowing. If no maintenance
improvements occur the integrity of the berm and pathway would be undermined.
In addition, from an environmental and water quality perspective a sodded or planted side slope will
reduce or eliminate potential turbidity from occurring where erosion has taken place and bare ground
exists.
Agency Contacts and SFWMD and Corps permitting requirements:
On November 10, 2010, a site visit was conducted with SFWMD representative Steve Nagle and former
WilsonMiller Stantec representative Dan Waters and WilsonMiller Stantec representative Stuart Miller.
SFWMD thanked us for contacting them and requested that we contact them prior to mangrove
trimming and berm maintenance. The proposed improvements would reduce the width of the swale.
with the heightened concern of mangrove health, it is recommended that something in writing, or
permit modification be obtained from SFWMD.
On January 7, 2011, Tunis McElwaine' Section Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Ft.
Myers Regulatory office was contacted regarding the proposed maintenance activities. Tunis provided
email correspondence dated January 10, 2011 that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit
would be needed if fill is proposed in Waters of the United States. He indicated if only mangrove
trimming were to occur, and no fill within wetlands or Waters of the U.S., there would be no need for a
Corps permit.
The Corps Nationwide Permit Number 3 for Maintenance activities limits fill in wetlands or Waters of
the U.S. to 50 cubic yards. It is anticipated, based on the length of the berm, that improvements to the
western portion of the berm would exceed Nationwide Permit thresholds and result in the need for an
Individual Permit. The option to use a Nationwide Permit would also not achieve the client's goal to
have a consistent berm condition along the western edge of the site.
It is anticipated that a Corps Individual Permit application could be prepared and submitted within two
months. Since a Biological Opinion is not anticipated to be required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, a Corps permit could be issued in a 7 to 11 month review time period. It is recommended that
a permit application include improvement or replacement of the rip -rap splash pad and baffle used to
reduce the velocity of the water coming from the reinforced concrete pipes that cross the berm.
Originally Proposed Alternatives:
The following are two alternatives designs that were proposed in the WilsonMiller November 2010
Memorandum:
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Projec tatus
Page 11 of 15
16 I 410
Originally as proposed in the November 2010 report from WilsonMiller memorandum wa)to reclaim
the slope by placing rip -rap at the base of the restored slope.
The first option showed a 4:1 grassed slope with 4' of rip rap at toe of slope. This option would require
a significant amount of surveying and a detailed construction plan set so that the contractor could
construct the berm at each of the areas where erosion occurred. This option would require greater than
50 cubic yards of fill material into Waters of the U.S. and thus a Section 404 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Individual Permit.
The second option would consist of both a 4:1 grass slope with the remaining 2:1 slope to the toe of
slope to be rip -rap material. This option would require much more rip -rap, and thus be more
expensive, and would have a steeper slope. This option would minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S.,
but the associated steep slope does not meet one of the berm improvement goals to have a gentle
slope. This option could be completed with a simple Corps Nationwide Permit.
Recommended option:
The third and recommended option would require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
Individual Permit and may require a SFWMD ERP Permit modification. This option proposes that all
work take place within the original 50' limit of construction. The proposed section provides a 2'
minimum shoulder on each side of the cart path and a 4: 1 side slope. To minimize construction costs
and environmental impacts one could propose to reduce the western swale width.
Considerations during permitting:
In order to provide public interest support during the permitting process the project design could
include educational kiosk(s) for the path users and /or vegetated buffers (i.e. ) a row of cordgrass AKA
Spartina, along the toe of slope of the pathway.
As an environmental feature for the public benefit test one could provide additional an educational
kiosk with an environmental message. Spartina bakerii could be proposed along the waters edge/ toe
of slope of the berm. This row of spartina could help provide a buffer from the manicured sod to more
of a natural area along the waters edge.
A Corps Permit and either an exemption from SFWMD permitting or a SFWMD ERP modification is
recommended, in order to obtain the client's desired berm improvements.
Attachments:
• November 24, 2010 report and exhibits from WilsonMiller to the Pelican Bay Foundation.
• WilsonMiller August 2010 Pelican Bay South Berm Evaluation with survey cross sections
• Typical berm x- section from Sheet 41 of 43 of 1978 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Set
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 12 of 15
161
• Typical photo showing were erosion occurred along the western side of the berm
• Typical photos showing past maintenance activities and the original photo after the berm was
constructed.
• Copy of email January 2010 email correspondence from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• November 24, 2010 report and exhibits from WilsonMiller to the Pelican Bay Foundation.
• February 23, 2010 report from Hole Montes and Associates to the Pelican Bay Services Division.
• Photos provided by Tim Hall and Kyle Lukasz of ongoing maintenance
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status Ail Page 13 of 15 1 6 1 [2
ResnickLisa
Subject: Pelican Bay Berrm And Swale Improvement And Maintenance Pre Application Meeting
Attachments: 20111006142211.tif
Pelican Bay Berrm And Swale Improvement And Maintenance Pre Application Meeting Requests
From: Miller, Stuart rmailto :Stuart.Miller(a)stantec.coml
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 20112:36 PM
To: LukaszKyle
Cc: Durham, Tim
Subject: Pelican Bay Berrm And Swale Improvement And Maintenance Pre Application Meeting
Hi Kyle,
Attached are the pre application meeting requests for the SFWMD and the Corps. It may be helpful if Tim Hall could also
attend so he can provide a historic perspective regarding maintenance trimming. The photos that were provided should
be very helpful.
Please review and contact me to discuss and we will contact SFWMD and the Corps to request a meeting.
What are some dates /times where you would be available the week of the 17th' and 24th of October and the first week in
November to attend a pre - application meeting with SFWMD and then a separate pre - application meeting with the Corps
? If Neil is also going to attend please let us know.
Thank you
Stuart Miller
Senior Project Manager, Environmental Management
Stantec
3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200
Naples FL 34105
Ph: (239) 649 -4040 Ext. 5175
Fx: (239) 643-5716
Stuart. MillerCcDstantec.com
stantec.com
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except
with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
( Please consider the environment before printing this email.
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
Page 14 of 15
16 ItZ
Pre - Application Meeting Request
TO: IpPW
ii-
FROM: Date 10 b
Name STvPN-T M1l�L1��11.JJ�
�3O M, GC\z_(901L WQ
Phone Number 230,)
9361 o1
Email Address.�1`�d�CT. p�:�,P( @' S�an��L.
REQUIRED INFORMATION w,.k. ;44.A ,.,;4K n,o .n ,,cm 1
L iocauon
Project Name
Project Location:
County ! O
❑ New Project
Permit Number
❑ Permit Modification
Li �'? Q'I ^ C-
S'vatiT M11•LEfL
South Florida Water Management District Basin
Section
Township
Range
City tp�r
W cS T Cot,-... qrl _
If YES, please name:
4 I
2
�V C• C�
Special Drainage District ff
Parcel Identification (if available)
Address VLSI latpy
0(A
NAl WZS >.. 3410
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (including project acreage)
Please describe the proposed land use, surface water management system and receiving system. and wetland impacts.
B am CwD 6\')AV_; —T N' L'i—, _s J\h A i L{ 0 L�
PFCIFIC CONCERNSIISSUES This information will help to make the meeting more productive and will assist in determining whether other
District units should PalliciPSte i.e. Com rehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, r ht -of -wa , water use. hand stewardshi .
1�(LM Glab �W06VC r-. MQnO.i� rA 2-r' ± t'�f�l1r� 1 �N F1rl( ci�
L INFORMATION
r,DDt 110NA
1 an ..,....,..+ ,.,,...-
Affiliation
❑ YES
17f NO
Are there historic basin stora a /flood lain issues?
p dA _6f Dl V,
S'vatiT M11•LEfL
5 i /►r�it+�
❑ YES
[;� NO
Does this project discharge into or is it in close proximity to an Outstanding Florida Water Aquatic Preserve?
If YES, please name:
VYES
❑ NO
Does the site contain wetlands or other surface waters?
❑ YES
❑ NO
Has District staff performed a wetland determination?
If YES, please provide name of staff person: and Date
❑ YES
❑ NO
If NO, would you like to request one now?
WYES
❑ NO
Does the site contain or is it agacent to, state -owned sovereign, submerged lands?
lo nelp us reserve the appiopiiatu 53m
Name/Quantity
1 an ..,....,..+ ,.,,...-
Affiliation
.... -- ._- _..._... -- ... -- . —. -- _ -- -_
Name/Quantity
Affiliation
ky l (a
p dA _6f Dl V,
S'vatiT M11•LEfL
5 i /►r�it+�
'T +�`• 1�IA1..
iwnnEt_�. 4-tAw,.,
.�SfVfia'1. tl.,�SL'1!�
Form 1274 (0512011} Page 1 oft
A110
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4d. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration Project Status
' Page 15 of 15
161 2 AilC
PREAPPLICATION WORKSHEET
Applicant:
Project Name: PE.U\C -80 aFlLj 4� fLM `-� .st,��lt.�: i`�1 Rtr3T—�N�1NL
Project Location(S /T /R and parcel ID /s): 7 Li 01 � Js-
Project Type (Mine esidential Commercial /Mixed /Marina /Dredge:
Project Size: L�rq OC Z
Estimated Project Impacts: i�t�s �� t �Lf> o'
Potential ESA Concerns (if Known):
Formal or Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Requested: _ N b
Previous DA Permits /JD Determinations provide# /Dates): % q K— 0121 N OV. 111 Mi
Meeting Attendee Name:
1. k, \?LC �-uk P15Z,
2. -I M �If1Lti.
J• -TI M ' US 0 p, r,,
4. STQN(\-r M1L\E�
5.
important Note:
Capacity /Affiliation:
,S C-L
S i 11Ni .L
The Corps does not routinely find that the applicant requires representation by an attorney at the pre -
application meeting but must be informed if the applicant intends to have legal counsel present during
the meeting.
if the applicant will be represented by official legal counsel you must provide the name (and firm) of the
attorney to be present. The Corps may need to make arrangements for legal representation by Corps
legal counsel if the applicant's counsel will be present in an advisory capacity. Supplemental
arrangements may cause delay in scheduling your requested meeting due to limited availability of Corps
OC staff. If adequate arrangements have not been made for Corps counsel and the applicant's attorney
is present the meeting may be rescheduled.
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Se 1n
4e. Administrator's Report, Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Stat
Page 1 of 1 612 A 6,
ResnickLisa
Subject: 4e. Administrator's Report. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status
Attachments: bond ratings 10242011.pdf
From: John Chandler jmailto :iohnchandler219Lagmaii.coml
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:57 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Cc: neilCajdm fc l.com
Subject: Fwd:
Lisa,
Please include the attachment in the 1112 packet. This relates to the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Blvd.
John Chandler
Sent from my Wad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Dwight E. Brock" <Dwight.Brock @collierclerk.com>
Date: October 27, 20114:34:34 PM EDT
To: <0ohnchandler219 @GMAIL.COM>
Stu cssua�naj t3J,,v s
A42- ArT
Public Financial Management, Inc. t
Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds
A2
AA-
AA-
Gas Tax Revenue Bonds
A2
AA-
A
mited General Obligation Bonds
Aa2
-
AA
ater and Sewer Revenue Bonds
E
Aa2
AA+
Stu cssua�naj t3J,,v s
A42- ArT
Public Financial Management, Inc. t
,i
a
M
M
O
.I
rI
O
N
O
November 2
2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4h. The Phil's "Thank You Myra" Dedication ROW Permit
161 2
PERMIT TO PERFORM WORK AND /OR MAINTENANCE
_ , A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION /ROW PERMITTING & INSPECTION
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 ROW Section Telephone 252 -5767
A COPY OF THIS PERMIT MUST BE ON THE JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY
CAUSE JOB SHUT DOWN.
Date Issued: 10/25/2011
SDP /AR /PSP Number:
Project Name: COMMUNITY DAY 1 -14 -12 & 1 -15 -12
Project Address: 5833 PELICAN BAY BLVD.
Rigff -Way Permit Number: PRROW2011100550701
Buil ng Permit Number:
Subdivision: Lot: Block: Unit: Tract:
Folio No: Section: Township: Range:
Type of Construction: ROW Residential
Detail: INSTALL LIGHT POLE BANNERS & BLDG BANNERS
The work herein described and ermi ed is to be commenced on or about %� And
completed no later than ,�i cam-- Expiration date for work described: 01/16/12
Property Owner /Applicant: Contractor:
PHILHARMONIC CENTER FOR THE ARTS, INC.
ATTN: JOSEPH CROWLEY Telephone Number:
5833 PELICAN BAY BLVD.
NAPLES, FL 34108
Telephone Number: 239- 254 -2725
Notes: To Schedule your Inspection call 239 -252 -3726. Your Inspection Number is 800, to request a Courtesy Inspection follow the promts
and leave a message for the inspector
1. Work shall be performed in accordance with approved
plan, Conditions of Permit appearing on reverse side,
stipulations specified as part of this permit and in
accordance with Collier County Ordinance # 09 -19 and
the "Public Right -of -Way Construction Standards
Handbook," latest edition.
Applicant declares that prior to filing this application
has ascertained the location of all existing utilities,
,th aerial and underground. Any changes to any utility
all be the responsibility of the Permittee for all cost.
If right -of -way permit is issued in conjunction with a
ilding permit, the right -of -way permit expires upon
mpletion of the buildino.
PERMIT STATUS: ISSUED MB
If the application is made by any person or firm other
in the owner of the property involved, a written consent
m the property owner shall be required prior to
scessing of the application.
Transportation Services Division approval does not
empt the permittee from gaining approval from any
ate, Federal or Local Agencies having jurisdiction over
proposed work.
This permit is contingent upon Permittee obtaining
cessary rights of entry for construction and maintenance
sere required right -of -way for public use has not been
dicated and accepted by Collier County.
Condition: The Permittee shall notify this office 72 hours prior to commencement of the actual construction under this Permit
Failure to comply may cause iob shut down. If there are any sidewalk closures sidewalk rental fees will apply.
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CONDITIONS
Page 1 of 3
Al
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session'
CONDITIONS OF PERMIT 4h. The Phil's "Thank You Myra" Dedication ROW Permit
1. This permit must be kept on the work site and be available upon request or prominently displayed. 161 2 a.
2. Permits are required for all work performed in any rights -of -way or easements provided for public use in the unincorporated area of Collier County and
in those public rights -of -way or easements, which are maintained by Collier County, but lie within municipal boundaries.
3. When permitted facilities are placed within a public right -of -way or easement, the installation is for permissive use only and placing of facilities shall
not operate to create or vest any property right in the associated right -of -way or easement to the permittee. Furthermore, the permittee shall be
responsible for maintenance of such facilities until they are removed, unless otherwise specified.
4. All materials and equipment, including Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) and equipment placement, shall be subject to inspection by the Growth
Management Division.
5. Requests for pre - inspections shall be made 72 hours prior to commencing work requiring inspection.
6. No lane closures will be permitted between the hours of 7:00 — 9:00 A. M. and 3:30 — 6:30 P.M.
7. Prior to construction, the Contractor /Permittee shall submit a Maintenance of Traffic plan (MOT) for any construction project involving work or activity
that may affect traffic on any County street, roadway or bikepath /sidewalk. The MOT must be signed by either a Professional Engineer or person
certified by the International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) if affecting Arterial or Collector Roadways, unless waived by the Growth
Management Division, Road Maintenance Department. The driveway fill and driveway culvert including soil erosion /sedimentation control measures
must be installed prior to the start of any earth moving construction activity with drainage plans, culvert size, soil erosion/sedimentation controls,
elevation offset, and ditch slope designed and certified by a licensed engineer for all commercial projects.
8. During construction the Contractor / Permittee shall comply with the "State of Florida Manual of Traffic Control and Safe Practices for Street and
Highway Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Operations" and with the "Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices' and with all other governing
safety regulations and shall maintain the approved site drainage plan and soil erosion /sedimentation control plan.
9. The Permittee shall hold the County harmless and the County shall be relieved of all responsibility for any damage or liability of any nature arising
from work authorized and performed under this permit.
10. All crossings of existing pavement shall be made by jacking and boring at a minimum depth of thirty -six inches (36 "), unless otherwise authorized by
the Growth Management Division for good cause shown.
11. All overhead installations must meet a minimum four foot separation to communication lines (both vertically and horizontally), minimum seven foot
separation to guys (both vertically and horizontally) and minimum ten foot separation to neutrals (both vertically and horizontally), and meet and /or
exceed all other OSHA requirements as may be determined by OSHA clearance requirements and /or formulas relevant to overhead lines clearances
and /or separations requirements (both vertically and horizontally), and all underground crossings shall be placed at a minimum depth of thirty -six
inches (36 ") below the pavement and /or a minimum depth of twenty -four inches (24 ") below the designed roadside ditch or swale invert. Primary
cable (voltage exceeding 500 volts) shall have minimum thirty -six inch (36 ") cover. Secondary cable (voltages less than 500 volts) shall have a
minimum thirty -inch (30 ") cover. Exception may be made by authority of the Growth Management Division for good cause shown.
12. Two prints of the proposed work covering details of this installation shall be made a part of this permit. If additional plans are required, they shall
become a part of this permit.
13. Following completion of all permitted work, grassing and /or seeding shall be required for any disturbed rights -of -way.
14. All property disturbed by work authorized by this permit must be restored to better than, or equal to, it's original condition, and to the satisfaction of the
County.
15. Whenever deemed necessary by the County for the construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, alteration or relocation of applicable right -of -way
or easement and when so notified by the County, any or all poles, wires, pipes, culverts, cables, sod, landscaping, driveways, sprinklers, or other
facilities and appurtenances authorized shall be removed from said right -of -way or easement, or reset or relocated thereon as required, to be installed
by this Permit, and at the expense of the permittee, his successor, or assign.
16. When the permittee, or his successor, or assign is notified of a need for construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, alteration of or relocation
within the right -of -way or easement and no action is taken by the responsible party within the time frame specified by the County, the County shall
cause the permitted work to be altered, relocated, or removed, with the total expense being borne solely by the permittee or the responsible party.
17. Permits shall generally be in a form approved by the Board of County Commissioners and shall include the time of commencement, the number of
days the job is expected to take, and the approximate date of completion. The permit will expire ninety (90) days after the designated completion
date, unless authorized in the specific instance for a longer or shorter period. If the work has not been completed by the expiration date, there will be
a renewal fee, set by Resolution, payable upon extending the expiration date for an additional ninety (90) days.
18...AAII_correSpondence regarding construction_procedures wiILI:e througb the permittee his - _authorized agent or consultant, and not through any
- --
contractor or subcontractor.
19. If there are any lane closures or work that will impede normal traffic flow. The permit holders are obligated to inform the road alert coordinator at 239-
252 -8192 and the ROW Permit Section at 239 - 252 -5767, three working days prior to construction.
20. Collier County Traffic Operations Department Inspection Staff shall be notified in writing either via form letter (To: Collier County Traffic Operations,
o At: 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples FL 34104) or e-mail (TrafficOps @colliergov.net) a minimum of 72 Hours prior to the commencement of jobs
o that include overhead or underground work that will be conducted as part of construction or maintenance projects within Collier County or State road
X rights -of -way within Collier County and 12 hours prior to any and all daily work to be performed throughout the entire length of construction or
Maintenance projects. Any rescheduling of work shall be provided in writing. All underground facilities must be located prior to construction.
0 21. Prior to acceptance by the County (including issuance of Certificate of Occupancy), the ROW Permitting Section shall be notified by mailing or
delivering a request for a final inspection to the, ROW Permitting Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104, or by phone, 239 -252-
0 2417, upon completion of authorized work. All as built surveys shall be submitted in GIS format following Collier County Growth Management
Division Standard for Design and As -Built Electronic Drawings (APPENDIX B) in addition to signed and sealed copies of the as -built survey.
0
i Page 2 of 3
' ,-r County
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4h. The Phil's "Thank You Myra" De di ca tion 1 tion 2 ROW Permi O
I 6
Growth Management Division
2800 Horseshoe Drive N.
Naples, FL
34104
239 -252 -2400
RECEIPT OF AYMENT
Receipt Number:
2011045185
Transaction Number:
2011- 015345
Date Paid:
10/25/2011
Amount Due:
$200.00
Payment Details:
Payment Method
Amount Paid Check Number
Check
$200.00 110911
Amount Paid:
$200.00
Change / Overage:
$0.00
Contact:
Philharmonic Center For The Arts, Inc.
Attn: Joseph Crowley
Naples, FL 34108
FEE DETAILS:
Fee Description
Reference Number
Original Amount GL Account
Fee Paid
ROW Residential Special
PRROW2011100550
$200.00 $200.00 102 - 163641- 329200
Events
7
Cashier Name: corzo_m
Batch Number: 2281
Entered By: kander-j
m
0
0
E
a
<r
m
0
0
N
�-I
O
1
Page 3 of 3
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4h. Administrator's Report. The Phil's "Thank you Myra" Dedication & Temporary Banners
Page 1 of 2
16112I A0
ResnickLisa
Subject: 11/2/11 4h. The Phil's "Thank you Myra Dedication" & Temporary Banners
The Philharmonic has obtained temporary County Right -of -Way (ROW) permits to post "Thank you Myra" Dedication
banners on street light poles at seven Pelican Bay locations, January 8 -16, 2012.
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4h. Administrator's Report. The Phil's "Thank you Myra" Dedication & Temporary Banners
Page 2 of 2 ' All 161 21
16 1 z A 10
_0 :Et Z
W • O
co D <
CD CL CD
m
A ,N.,. N
N
O N
� O
N �
CDC
fD CD
0
O
� d
7
C p,
N `�G
7 Cf)
Q
CD
cf) z
C 0
v (D
n N
(D
G.
(D
co
O
7 fl1
D) a
CD
3 m
CD (c
7 �
(D
N
Co
O
7
jo
TITITT-
A
A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A��
v
vwi
A w
vwi
A w
to
A w
r
d ^
A
O^
r+0
m
d 6
b
6 699999
b
6 b
o o
b o
b o
o
b
b
6 6
6 6
b
b b
b b
b
b b
b b
o
b b
b b
b b
o b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
6 b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
3
oso
of
NwA
Nb:,
t6i
m 3
3 �
m
m
o w
A
N �
V
c
3
m
n
tnD
mot"
b z
3 �
�
Owl
z z
3
> >�
� 3<�
=��
o
a��
o
v v
p1 d
d n
n n
3 �
�
z°
V
3
� o
v �
a
_
D
°
.
A
d
6R6
b6
b�
O
A
A
A
A A
ttOi
V
CO
Oo b
W b
W b
w b
p
S
O1 b
V tO
W Qo
<
D
rO
O
O 'Z
o+
w
o o
A
A
G G
A
N
w
b
w 0
Doi
r
r
2 D
03
o
o
S
O
O
O
....
i
W
N
v
Oo r
A
A S
W W
N W
G to°
W A
o
Of A
.
N b
O..
w
r
W.w
A .
O o
r A
ro a b
OA o O r
Oo b
N m
m 0A p
N w N A
O
Z
,
N
n
n
0 o
n
n n
n n
n n
no
n n
n 0
o
n n
n
n
n 0
0 n o"
n n
n
n n
n
n
n
n n 0
on
s
n 0
n
s
n n 0
n o
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
< n
z m n o
n o
s
s s
n
n 0
s n 0
n n
n n
n
n o
n 0
n 0 s
n o
n o
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 A
3
D
m^
`A..
---m
m
m m.
m
—
—
- --
—
—
_m
m m
%3
w,.d
o m
v
m o
3].
3 ..
a. .
7. 337.
v
v
v a
m m
v
m
�•
7.
7,7.7.7.
7.
7. a,�a.3
7, a,�3�7.
a,��7.
m m
�. <_.
o
a. a,
a, a.
a.3
�.33373a,
a,�
<_,
7. <_
<_. 7,
<_. 7,
<_. ],
<_. 7.
<_. 7.
<_ _
<_. a.
<_ _
_ <_.
A
m�nm�m�m�mvm�mmm�mmmm�
3
v o
d
-
0 -
--
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 0
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
0 3
0 3
0 3
0 3
0 0
0 3
0 --
o
L1>
j G1
LI
LIB
Ll�
cl�
n
L1
G10
�.'.
Llx
cl n
c�
ci o
m s
0 S
S
3
o
O
O
O n
ci
O
O
n
°
m O
m 3
0
3
3 0
n n
n n
n n
n ci
m
S
v
3
d 3
o
n
3 n
'm n
om 3
3
z...
3 3
3
3 3
3
3 3
3 p1
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3—
3
3 --
3
3—
3—
3
v 3=
3
01
of 3
—_
2L _
_
_ _
_
_
_
__
_ _
_ _
_
_ ?
y v
_ _
j 3
v Rl
_
3
3
3
3 >
>
3
3
�
3
3
3
3
'3
3
0 0
3
3
B.
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
"°-1,3
3
3
3
3
.o- 3
3
3
3
3
m
3
3
m
m
3
O»
3
O
3
a 0
3
0
a
3
a
3
a
3
0
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3,
3
3
3
3
o
o
o
°o. 3:
'
K
o
o
l
3
oo
m
oo d
m
o d
o 0
^
m m
^^
m
o
o
o
o m
o
0
o
m m
o o
o
oa o
oo
oQ
`�°
`�°
oo
'°
'
`°
ro
m 3
m 3
m
_
"'
m
'^°
.
�, °
0
m
N
o
3i
3i o
- o
d
a
- -
0 0
3
o 0
o- 3
0 0
3 g
0 -_,
_
_
_
_
v
___
_
_
�'
_
_
_
_
3 3
x_
_ _
_
_
~, n
3
»� °
_.
_
_. 3
_
3 a
_
a 3
_
»�
3 3
°
3 ?;
o'
3
3 3
°o. °o.
3 3
°o_ °o.
3 3
°o_ o
3 o
o E
3 x
o _
3 3
3 2
3 @@
3
3
°o_
» 3
x 3
°
3@
-
_
o
0. 0.
a u
w w
w n
o
o 3
n o
o.
o.d
a
oo
o>
> 05
a
ao'
n
o'
-
0 3
_
o 3
o'
0 3
5'
3 a 3
°o
_ _
3
a
_
0 3
o
6
5'
6,
_ _
_
5' _
_
_
_
o
D
g
D D
g�aa
D D
D D
:aaa�aaaaZ
D D
D D
D D
D D
D
D
Z
D D
D
D
Z
D
Z
D D
7�Z7
D D
D
Z
D D
D D
D
D D
gaaZaaaZg7gg<<aa
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
ggga�aaaaaga�a��
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D
D D
aaaa�ag
D D
D D
D
D
S
DA
<
m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
<
m
<
m
77Z
< <
m m
<
m
<
m
<
m
< <
m m
< <
m m
<
m
ZZ
< m
m
:z
< <
m m
<
m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
-----------
< <<
< <
< <
< <
-< <
< <
m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
-----
<a
< <
<
< <
m m
< <
m m
< <
m m
<
m
<
m
3
N y
~
Ot
N ^
3
D
3 0'
o
'
'^
—
v-
'
0
3
'vz
z
o
F
3
N<
—_
z w
x-
_�
wo
0 3
c�
on
o Ta
3
°'
S m
—°'
v
w w
n
' —m'
N
--
-
N
vSvsyv
m m
�
N s
—�
3 3
nm_
°^
~'�c�.'.
m3
3
wa
v
0 v
v
v v
v
a
d
-=
'
n
w
? D
m
G v—
D
D
w G
G
.D. o
a v
o °'
v�
vi
__
_
o
_'
o
°'
H
°—
o_ 3
'
D
z
_
3
3
u 3
3 3
3 d
O., s
s
oa
o
m^
o
T ti
3
z
n
w° u°
_
_
m
c
D
w
3 n
o<
mDw��w�
w w
°' z
u
S N°
o
w °o0
»
u' n
3 3
a
3 3
x
013
'3
.ND.
o 00
D
O m
°.-,
n
ion
n cl'
�o
moo°
3
_ 'o
o
'o
o
'o
_
w
Tci
m
`m
D
o
x
x
w
,'-»
v �,o
o"
n m
n
o o
d o
n
0 0
n
°_ N
3
3
3
3
is
0
°
o—
m
m
m'_ n
v
3
3^
n
n
m
m
3 m
c
' 3
3
m
3
3 3
3 n
o
o _n
n
A
a
3
c
n 'w
c
»»
m
d=—
N
-'
n'
N
'^
.ND.
O m
D
°
n
a n
d^
--
+, g
a
o
>
>
>>
>>
w
w
-�'
? n
—
n `°
m D
o o'
.°°
d
o
°'
0 3
2
A
-
m
_—
m
S»
m
' D
m m
v '�
n
z
>
T m
=
n°
z'
F
3
3
o
_
z
T
m 3°
o
0
v
m w'
a d
z
T
_
O
-
v
o
o
-
-
n
-
m
3
c
_
3
x 3
3 2
x
D
n
A
-
j
o
-
<
D
s D
n o
N
D
3 D
a
4
c
_ m °c�
K
_ _
c��
_
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
m n
'm 'm
n
n�
x x
n —x
nx
x n —
x
—Qx
x
nx
g
nE
nom%
T
O..
3.
3
5, 5.
_
- �
_
�
3
-
>
> >
».3
3 3
3 3
a a
3 s.3
a
3
>
».3
3 a
_
>
3 a
•-'"• 'm
3 �.
-`—� 3
=
_- -
-_ -
—
.�.
Q
R.-
3N3333^
22
2
2
^
^
3
O
�
� �
>
> >
a °
m
d
> >
>
>
e
> m
>
>
°
a
3
33
W
° m
m
.
.o
�
<
Z
3
�.,
,,,
f
3a
<
N
NN
NN
F
N
f
F i
t i
F�
F F
<���°
F
F
F -�F
i
F°
F
NN
F
"' F
Nad
3
�
c
o
o 0^
^
.^
i d
n
d
^
3
v
n
^
3-
^ N
v
o
d
^
w a
^^
3 v
N n^
a
4 3
^ N
3 3
N N
3 3
N N
3
N
3 3
N N
-
3 3
3
3
3 ?
3 3
N
3
3 w
N^
d 3
w o
n
< x
w
o
x
o
d
^
3
^
o
^$
3
m
3
3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
0
X
33
-
�"»�
n
n
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
99
3
3
3
d
3
o
a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
1
3
n 3
3
3
�
o
3
3
m
3 N
3
3
3
3 3
3
`,
3
3
w°
u
3
3
3
Ra
_
3
3
3
3
3
_
3
n
3
3
3
A
zs
"
m
o
n
o
z n
a
z 3 n
'z " x
3 n s
on S
s s
s
S o
S o
m
z
n
n
^ z
n o
o
d
a f
m
a
m
_
3
m
3 3
3
m
m
3
3
3o
3
3 3
3
3
3 m
3
u
° 3
3
3n
3
3 3
3 a
3
? 33
a
3 f
—
ri
ri
n ri
ii ri
ci ri
fi
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ _
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
_
_
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_
_
w _F
=
_
_ _
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
c
3 3
c
3
-
-
-
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
_
—
_0 :Et Z
W • O
co D <
CD CL CD
m
A ,N.,. N
N
O N
� O
N �
CDC
fD CD
0
O
� d
7
C p,
N `�G
7 Cf)
Q
CD
cf) z
C 0
v (D
n N
(D
G.
(D
co
O
7 fl1
D) a
CD
3 m
CD (c
7 �
(D
N
Co
O
7
jo
1612 A10 '
01 A O
QO D <
m ❑ m
N33
o cr
_. m
? N
N
O N
O
CD C
fD N
'O
O
--j N
7
511 K
7
Q cn
N
c Z
C
::1 (D
O N
CD p
K'
01 N
�p O
7
co
7 01
0) d
O
fD
3 c
O C
7
CD
41
U1
O
7
A
O
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
b b
6 6
66
6 66
6
6 6
66
6 6
6 6
6 b
b bo
bo b
6 6
6 6
6 6
66
p o
6 6
6 6
6 6
b 6
b b
b b
b
b
b 6
6 b
b b
2 �
0 3
d -
d
y
3 f
L1�6
&1
6
6 In
ASIbb5151
b�bSi
b inb�
W
aGN
eoN�a
m 3
3 �
o Oa
m
p
v
3 v
O
F
b
°•
2b
d
o m
m
� R
v
<w2o
C g
R
$
°
7
Oo
w
pppppppp''
A
A A
A A
A
V W
W Oo
W W
b
O O
b b
b
�°
10 b
b
pVp
O
O
O ^�
OI
b
O
O O
O
O O
O
2 D
A
w
G A
m
0 9
O
2
W O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
o 0
0 0
o m
0 01
V Oo
1.
.
Oo Oo
Oo W
N
O
N nI
N 0
tN.
N
o
A
m b
O
W O
N
OND N
OI
W
loll
n-
n
m
W
Oo b
W N
m D•
�+
Y b
b r
A 61
b A
4 m
m A
W W
W W
N to
V W
D
y
w
W
A V.1
.1
W b
w
A
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
0
n n
n n
n n
0 0
n n
0 0
n n
0 0
n n
0 0
n n
0 0
n n
0
n
0 0
n
S o
n
o s
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n o
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n
n
n n
n n
n n
Y
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
y
C
]. 7.
m
7.
omommmmomomoomom
mom
mom
mmmomommmmm
v
3
n m
m m
m m
n m
m m
m m
m A
m m
m m
m m
m m
m rt
m
ry
m ry
io m
m m
m m
m m
n m
m m
m m
n rt
m m
m io
m m
m m
m m
m
m A
m m
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
m
3 3
m m
3 3
3 3
3 3
m m
3 3
m
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
z
4 o
nn
a o
nn
0
nnnnn
0 0
3 3
nn
3 3
nn
3 0
nn
3 3
n
3
nn
o°
nn
o a
51nn
3
nn
o o°
nv
o
n51
bin
o ob1
51
mn
>>
51�
51
mn
> >>
m nm
m n
nnnm
o>>>
nm
n 0n
o
n
mm
nn
n nm
Snm
O O
nm
°
a.
O
O
4
a
n G1
m
G151
m
G1
GI
nm
o>
n n
G1
3
3
3=
3 3
3 3
3 3-
--
-
-
---
3'
.
3 3
3- 5.
N
3 3
3-
3
3 3
-
>!3>
>>
`.l
'�°
�'
`,3»
°
-
»R
Pt
4a
3>
> 51
.�^.A2A
A�
0 m
o
° 57�
.', nnnnnnn
A
R57'
AI'0
nnn��
o
2.°^,
m o
0
0
0 'v0
nn
0 o
m
nnnnn
0 0
0
o
m m°
0 m
m o'm
m
no
o
nmv
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
'��°
» 0
2
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 2
0 2
0
2 2
2 2
3i 0
3 3i
0 0
2
3i 0
2
3i 0
z
3+ 0
z
=+ --
O
iD. o
2
o =i
o -'
'3
O»
2 2-
-
2'
0 0
2 2
3i
°°
0 0
3i 0
3i 3i
3i 0
3
2
' 3
0
3°
0»
'3
3
=i
0 0
2 3
3,
A m
»»
A
m m
m m
m
m°
A
m m
m m
m n
n m
o. a.
n
n m
o. m
o. R.
`8 m
m
R.
m `�
m 3
8. `8
m m»
B.
o.
o.
»33333°:,333
°o.
»,-
°:33»
°o-&3
°o.
3333333°:33
°o.
°oaa
»_
3°_:3°:333°:3°:?;
o
° °a°
°a°
x.333301
°oa °o.
°n °o.°
°oa °o.
°oa
- o
-
°:
°
as
° °oao
°a 3:
o
o o
o 3
> >
n
a
n>
> >
> >
n3
no
o
a3
na°ao
a.°
3
no
n
,^, 3
6-
3 a?
3
v
o
3 3^
o
0 0
a LL
3>
2-
3t 3t
3i ?-
- -
o
-
0
-
0
_ _
M M
_
_
-
°
o
d
„o
> >
o„o
M k
o 0
3 6
0
„o
5 O.
0
,.o
5 6
0'
6 °
..o
° d
_
o
M
_
o ,.o
¢ �
_
,.o
¢ o
O.
,^O
> >
o o
¢ M
,nm.
�
o o,.o
- a
� 6
°;�
> >
> M
-
-
?
,.o
?
o.°S
d d
? �
D D
a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagaa?aaag�ga��g�a��gaaagaag�g�------
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D➢
D
D➢
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
a---
D D
D D
aaa�aaaagagg�a�
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
aaaaa
D D
D
D
a
D D
aagag�
D D
D D
v
DDyA
m m
m mmm
mmmmm
mmm
m m
m mmmmm
m
m m
m m
m mmmm
m
m m
m mmm
mmmmm
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
mmmm
m m
m m
mmm
mmmm
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m
m
m m
m m
m m
N y
VI
Co
o
A w
V p
N
W
m
N a
N c
N
m n
N N
-
_ _
- =
3 =
_
_
_
_
3
_
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_
_-
--
-
o
o
u
'a
"
-<
T a
3
_
f d
➢�
���
-
o
R�
-
D
'�
-
-
3
w
N 3
c 3
3
3
3�r
_
3 x
3 3
3 3
3
o 'o
'o 'o
o 'o
o 'o
o 'o
o 'o
o 'o
o 'o
'o
w
'o 'o
v
°i v
'o 'o
3 'o
o'
0
_
° 3
3 'o
'0
3 w
=
�°<� o
m
0 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3<
3
3 3
3
3 3
a
3 3
'w_ 3
3^
3
0 3
v 3
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 9
G<
3
3
p p
p p
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o p
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o m
p p
3
o
_
AAA
`.}2`.}`.3AAAA2A22
AS1A5151251
"ASim
3
05lAtl
>2A
3
A-
�R
3
Sl
A
»2A
A
R
AA
A51
it
A
2»
A"
2'_
-'0.
q
a a»
z
O O
O
u
<
<
_
<
n
<
-
-
n
3 3
o o
3
J
< P
o
o
D
3
y -
n 0
0 0
n n
O n
n O
n n
O n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n O
O n
O n
O n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
o O
n O
o n
O o
n O
n'
O n
DOD
n
p 0
n v
O v
0
0
0
0 9'G1
ci
c1 c1
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3
3 v
3 2
P
2
--
Q
301
v 3
`
3,00,
<33
3
N >
3333
'�°
c
x
o
G
VI
o a
°
o
G
o
G
o
3 ry
^
o o
°
o o
G
m
F
n
3
3
3
<
3
z
3
T
ci
o
3
3
x
3
3
3
U�
ut =
= 2
R.
'1.
"
R '„�°
m
�
A 'Sz
oa as
an
_
_
a iaa
_
oa
_
o:aa
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
ao:
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_
_ _
_. 3
m. 3
_
m
_ �.
m
3 o:a
3
_ _
a
_ _
n
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
as
_ _
a
_ _
,'"-. _
-
oaa
n o:
n
p
m
u
m
m
m
m
m n
e
_
-
C
ri riri
3 3
iiri
3 3
S
ri nrili
3 3
3 3
ri ri
3 3
ri ci
3
ii
(i
o
riri(i-
rim
0 o
__
______
ci ri
o o
o
(i o
____
n li
o3
fi
o
_____
mm
S
n
___
n
o
_______
� m
o
a n
m n
m ___
u o
o
w
u
_
rim
o
w u
____
ii g
o
ri m
m
m ____
o o
o
___
rim
0 S
u ti
o
____
m rim
0 0
o
______
ci m
a ii
0
m
!E 2L
ri m
0
_
= ii
-
a
on
fi ri
o
ri ri
3 3
3
3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3'33o3'
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
m
3 m 3
m
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
o o
_ _
o o
_ _
o 0
_
0 o
0 0
_ _
0 o
a o
0 0
0
2L
0 0
2
0
0
_ _
0 0
_ _
0 0
_
0
_
-
_
o
-
0
_
0
-
0
-
0
- _
0 0
RR"
0 0
_
0-
_
o
_ _
0 0
0
0
0
-
o
0
o o
--
o o'
o
RL
01 A O
QO D <
m ❑ m
N33
o cr
_. m
? N
N
O N
O
CD C
fD N
'O
O
--j N
7
511 K
7
Q cn
N
c Z
C
::1 (D
O N
CD p
K'
01 N
�p O
7
co
7 01
0) d
O
fD
3 c
O C
7
CD
41
U1
O
7
i6112 A40
-a ? Z
N O
co D <
(D Q N
w33
O rr
A N N
O N
y O
CD
N (D
O
7
C co
N 'G
7 Cl)
t]
CD
c ?.
D7
O N
CD �
G
p7 N
�p O
� 7
0 W
7 N
DJ a
O
CD
3 m
(D �=
� C
cn
[D
T.
O
7
"
n 99
9
n n
M A
n^
A <<
2
- 9
Z D
Z
A
m
Z
..
--
_
''
-'
-''
-
'
=
`�
o
°m
ti 0° <
o
- o
z
3 ^
=
3 `Q
S
n
3
o n
3
3
o n
o
S S
S w
n n
o`
m `2
'2 n
m o
a
_$
�, S
m
_^
A
-
'^
avda
n
n
°'
v
o
'
o'
»
3=
o`
3
5 3
3
3 3
v 3
w 3
n 3
3
3 3
3
3 3?
r»
3
3
= p'
3
T 3
u=
w 'S
'� o.
w °
o_
--
u o
''•�3moNn
0 0
3
v
TO
»
00
3°
z c'`
-
_
p'
n
�2
- --_a
°
-dx�d
o ».
nndoa"
3
3;
N
z
?,
3
m
o <
=• _
-
m' m
D m
° m
m
3 a
o
3
ry
3
<�
j
m
m?
o
A'
z
» A
2. 33
33
=33
�3.r',
3
a'
i
o
_
<�Y
30
_
33
33
N
_ c
°�o��?T`"3N�
r�
«M_go
�_
"i��'ti
^
_
^'�a_
'C
m
r
3
333333333
w33
?.
a
o-
m'm3
m
33
o O
,�•
.,
ono„
3
>>_--
--
Y
ix zr,
17
o o
n
u
o
cr
p
x x
n
o
0
0
'^
3
Az2zRS1AA-
n
w
zz
ouw
zz
zan
oo'
<
•''
w��
v
og
"' N`.-,m
"'�_
_
N�3wa-
_��m�m''•Aw
S
ov�Q?03
^w
um-
O O
O
o m
n 3
n
v W
�`
D
O
-
o
Ai
w
S
m
u,
o
- m
s'
y
N
'^
D r
Doo
¢° z
v
m °° j
n
_
c
^ m
F
m v
N
z'c
-
^
??
.°°
Ao
m
T o
m
cm=
c
awo
w�
.'°.
n�
?. a
ry
A
°o °-
-,
^
D A
O
o
m�
.w°
O A'
R
O rr
�'
_
m
w
m
O u
v°
N O
N
a
°
D3�3.-
33333v
o�
oa
A<
oo
01
m how
a�
m
m Fa
��°
.,�
°i�r°.,_.
z»
m
-_'o°
3
m W
Zo?
-
@
3
c
n
o o
w
-�
- n
ti Z6
Z m'
°o A
A ,°,
x$
d m
--
o
z
m"
v'°
d a
x
i
o 0
5
z
°
_
--
-°
E
��
S °nn3
co
�3
3.n°
wa
c
m 3'_
'
`^3
°
°
zOa
w
-c
`v
oA
-'`<mm
.'.
°a
F 3
3.»
3N
ym
m zm
ul3
w�_
w°'w_anm
m
»p
_°
N
p?
0 0
0
2 m
vv
^'-
N
3
'a
mz
.- r
nnzw
•,
3 a
oo'
m
..o
n
m
m o
om
o gym
P3
_w
d
o
W °
m° o'w
-
Am
^ Ra�Rcn
W
(P Ro
SF�Nm
O
A
.°,
w 3
0
°°
N
o0
'<
°
<
e 3
0
-
On
wZ
n_w,O
m v,
z,'9
m
Ao
w
°
mAj
x
_ z,'.
ar�-i
°f
tO
m ow
A F
_ _
Om
w F
z.'','
n T
I
vm
m
_-
�m
°
m
o-
-
�'sm
n a
o
N
3
NN
o
E
? z
v
w
o o
Ao'
- .c-.
T 0
z
0
p
w-
x
r-id
rr' A
n __
m
_
r
m
::
N
-
o
z�
Nsw
O
�?
^
3
O
n
d
N
i 'w
p
~ o
f
--
3?
-
owA
_
Y Z
�"
N R
«_
N A
H z
R
'c O
m
_.3-
n
w
z,'o
pm
D„3
2. E.
A
w
_°
n„z.°,
-
?
0
Za
^
°'
EL
n
7
Ro
w -
o
Z m
I
A r
o Y
A_
H r�
0
3
wA
m_
-
6
'O^
r
w Z
Z
Z Z
Z D
u<
A
FO
?
.1
n
D b
=
N A
.. 3
3. fN
' D
O
O
Z A
c
~
A A
w
n A
T O?
Om
w?
N
c
T
L
ft
0 d
r
N
2
�n
o m
3 a
o
w
d
3 °-
n o
o °'o
.
w
-'
r
p'
r
f
r
4
"
o_
Z
m
_
z
d o
F F
o'
o
n a_
Y
c
m
m
n?
j m
o
d j
�=
A-
n°
oo n
N 3
o i?
iD
-
w
w
m w
w .7
D
-"
F
N
E
on
°
m
ml m
A
n
a �_
u
c 3
H
S
f c
-_
v
D
O'o
o
S.'»
^ 3
= »'m
c�>
nc
3
N
5
_ °m
a o
Dr°
��
D�
'gyp'
2
-�..
s
o D
0
3 ^'
3
S
5'
-
a-
m
-
-
3
a
o
V
_
m
o^
o
'o
'o ..
m
'.
o-
`
c
-N
m S
pN
°c >
> o
nm
..
- o.
tO `3
3
<'
p
D
_o
<_.m
° W
�m
m
a
m
Ro ::
�°
o-T
-»
D
=
.._
>-DV
Do°'T°
_
m
mo
_`2
__
ro-
3 v
nd
___
z°
`^°
oi?
_
o_�
3
`
m
nnx�
��
�=
3
^'R03
_m�i°
a o
m
3
'-
o
3
�.'.3'
3
N
m c
x
3
- x3
x
„^
zo
—
=
3.T
3 3
<'m
c
o
m=
v 3
Da°�wROFaed
wm_
-
m
o R000
?.pa
oa3ry
3
_Sa
v�
<n3�
m
_
3
'°' 3
_. 3
3 3
3^
v
_ m
z
v
•'--�. 3K
3 ri
m n
z°
v
y
o m
o o'
3 3
°m
a'
S
o d
0 "
Im
j
Z?
?
o O�
--
GIO
o
ZT
zm
^
��o
o nm
o'yTi
o
N 3Z
ry
m D
o
a_
o
o
c
°_'.
-
.C'.
- m°
Nm
��DwZ
a
o
o
INS
=o.m
an d
o
ry
3"
m
S
o y
y
j
`
z
z �.
-<
o
z»
Q
3
o
z z�
N-
u
w A
o
w s
n o`
W
m
w
D
a N
i°
x.
1° _<
o °c
S.
-
z
D o
m 3
m T
<
<
m
N o
o
_<
0
0
2
0
3
e
j zw
rv?
yo'�o°
a i
w
°
.r
0
y
A
x
N
n _
m w=
w
!1
L1
2
c A
_
< 3.0
.'
�3.
-
me=
-_
�m
-
<y
p
'^w
"=�
m,
n
°
m=
3
.°, .',
ap
3 w
..
•:
_��_
w vc
m
.wA -v.3
noN
l
wo
wm
0
2
oc
?
3
p m
aa-
m o�
A
m
z,v
n
o°tim
3
`•}
�zdDo
^yw
ON
y w
_
io msi
m
OO
0
N
_
D
-
�i
?
3
Hti
o-
n o
<
a
-
°o
m
„
me
nYm3
w
v°i yw
ry a»
a
a
z m
_
3
m
10
°
-=
on�A
-
-
" ^'
°�'
w
'm
N
u
=.3
z
a„S33
3.o
z rti`
m
ir„3.•�
N o_
0 3
-
Vp
0 o
N z
�'
iu
o r
3
c 3
='o
F
o O
N
m °po
w'
O
R
^' a
v
3,
°o r
o _
T
a m
v
m
3•
d a
m o
w
o
;' °
m ti
' 3.
vmA,
vc
O
-
3
3
u_
tND
of
b
-_
per
v.
_
c Q
w
O N
o0
O z
0
w
m
?~
u 3
v -
0
-
O O
- <-
w
m
S
m Z
m
3
3
sz
ztio;,
3
1 O
_
O p
O
R m
v.
-1 3
-
RO
T
r
Z»
Z
-•o
j Ll
m ;;ON3
p
r
Ox
-
-
O
A O
`
rt
ov,o`
o00o
a=
m
z
-
m
03
DN
n
c�
3.
0,
,�
m�
m o
z
osti
°RU'_,
z
o=
°v
o
o
n
°'L
vc
oNV,
-��
m,
A
-
TN
o
wz
3
z..o-
pz
°zu,
z
zzzo
_
_
oC1w
31
p
3
tin
n'»
3
o o
W
,,, �ry
Zo2
_
yN
'^Z
Tr.
-
m
z�c
m SN°
_ -
vi'
»"
-
z
r%l m
O
zm
zm
m
m =Ym
v
v
m
=
c
^
3 z
3 3_
d
N
-
;� z
N
3 °o
-
m w`c
-'�' z+,-
c z
w
c
mn'
°o
v oz
_
_
m
°on
-
~
_
° z'^
7u
NO
°
-
3 m
°oTr..od
Z
°m C
r_o-
A
n
w oz'^_.,sSo
v
A
W
a T
N
w w
w
w w
w
z
w
w
D m
O
n
g H
m
-»
w
o
o
m
Z
p �+
., �°n
R
o_
ry
o
m
W N°
„-
0
Z
3 a
- N^
Z
N T
O
O r
o
r
a
_
Nm�
°T_owom0000nTo�
?
wc�a=
�°
O Z?
o.
O
A
O
mo
Aw
N
m
wZ
w
_
Z r
m
T
r
aozTNOZ��,`
O N
_r
�.e
A
o°
-,
N
zc�
r
ov:-
-
oo
`,
< T
3 ra°'
�°o'a
Z
a'o
av;
„ pN3
v
_
r°
c
->
>
--
T
Si
m
-
-
O
r
��
A
m
�,
O
ti
-
>
m
_
-
n
V T
Z
o Q
T N
>>
__
c p_
N
o `�
r w
m o
c a
�'
o ro
d
Z a
o
-i
w
_.?
c__
:. z
m
"'
-
m-
n
m
m=
O
3 v-
ix
D-!
_
-
io
_
v
p
$
_d 'Om
oo
3 m
c w
c
o
3
w
3
0 3
3
m 3
3 3
3°
-
m
m
c
T
A°
v
c
o 'o
o
m
m
A
w
2 m
=
-
- a°<
T '°
'o 0
o O
p
3
z °?
n
o`
' <_
m
°m
m
u o=
'
3
..3
a3
°3
3 3
3
__
-
03
v
°
m m
�o
N
?
<�
O
m
m_
m
-
,`,
_
z<
n
.'°.vN
u.
Oo`onovoo
..
3 OTC
<w
"
3
m 3
0 °03
=o
2
3
-
»,A
o °`.lyA.^,AAv
X'°°
3
c0�
ro
-'w
O�
=
v0
Nv
s
0
3
v z
°
w
r
3
m
m m
""
o
=
-
"'
o
__
-
°oo
w_
3
3
_:
u
A
N
`°
^
z
i=
o
.17
a^c 0
0=
c
c
v 1
-
v
�"„
o
n
°°
a
-�
o
I.
oxo
xsx�xn-3
0
0 0
..
o
fD
an
__
"
A
3
00
m
z
`N°
Gl�
s
°
z
,o'„
o
'm
--
.•
v z
°
z
A
o^
°.
n
s
z
T v
m
s v
m
v
z
v v
v»
w
c
°'
v
w
v
c
3
-
m
o
-
V°oA VA°o
T-
o
a
0
0
v
N
v .�
o v
.
N N-
_
�.
<
c
F
o
r
m
z
o
N
°=
f
o
y 1
N
O
O
O
O
C O
V A
t°i�
O
O
o
m z
z
m z
z z
z
3
A
<
v
-
3 3
3
.°�
a
v
N o
o'_
a »'
_:
°m
z
o
.'» a
c
m
o
f
o
3 rpr
w
r°
�Z
o
°o
Si3
3.
3
z
-
w
oZ
�o
ti3
_
_
oms
3„
-oy
°1-Z.
o
zo
o
=
D
u
3,n
^
N
-
-
3
o
°°
e
z
"
°
o
3
R D
°
R
m
c
g
a»
D
o
m
v°
m
=
awn
°
c
`
-
F
3
°
3
°
°
-
z
`N°
o
o
o
oo
pzwo
Dv
wv
°c3
m
fi
o
o
z
v.
o
3
O
_
m
o_
_
3
_
n°
^
o
r
o
_
°
o
3
n
r
a
z
a
n
E
o
v°
v
N
3
3
^
°
D
v
_
a
z
n
-
o
O
F
m
x
RO
z°
0
-
A
_
c
R
=
°
Z
v
n
y
_
3
a
m
v
=
-
f
d
v
-
lw
o
O
z
-
v
3
-
r
A
m
-
n
O
i
v
3
o
-
o
N
D
_
3<
`
_
O
o
m
r
o
m
n
—
D
A
o
°
z
o
3
o
-a ? Z
N O
co D <
(D Q N
w33
O rr
A N N
O N
y O
CD
N (D
O
7
C co
N 'G
7 Cl)
t]
CD
c ?.
D7
O N
CD �
G
p7 N
�p O
� 7
0 W
7 N
DJ a
O
CD
3 m
(D �=
� C
cn
[D
T.
O
7
161 A10
- A z
w o0 CD
CD P 3 3
^� N
� O
41 ,�
CD
(D N
'O
O 0
C �
a
N �
7 cn
Q (D
�z
C n
4�1 CD
0 N
(D
N
�p O
-� 7
co
7 M
N p_
O
CD
3 c
C c
^. m
cn
co
o'
m
All"
ITT'
�
� w
N
N
m
n
9 N
----------
M.
A
N �=
_
_
_
_ _
_
—
_ -
-
-
—
-°
-
-
-
_
mo`
d
.. 0
O
mm
mmmm
m mmm
ti m
u
o v
—
—v o0m,
om'
0'3
°m'
dm
o o
n o
01
0
o
o
______
__
m
3
m
m 3
3
3°
3
3
3
3 3<
o m 3
c 3
m
m 3
3 °»
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 ry
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
'o
3 3
'o 'o
�'3
a
3 3
'0
3
3
d
3
3
x
°
_ I
°
n c
0 'o 'o
o 'o
-
-
^ o
—
n
3
R o 0
3 'S
3
°'
° 3
n
'
'
o z
m
< <
<
< c
< <
< <
<
<
<
3
'o 'o
< <
o 'o
<
'o o
< <
<
< <
3
o
3
`
° m
3
0 3 �°<�
�°<�
<
m
= m
m
< m
3
3
<
3
3 3
m
a
" 3
3
c
3
c
3
°m
3
3 3
3 3
m
Z
< <
3 3
< <
3 3
< c
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
3 v
3 3
3
3
c o
3 3
3
c 3
`n° 3
a 3
c
z 0; 3
c 3
3
3 c
3
ti j
3
3
0°
o v
3
3
o'w
n
3
3
3
3
c
_
_
_
_ ^:
-a
_
_
..
<„
A
.•
om
noovo
°p
o
o•N-oH
„'o�
03°
oN
°
oa°oo3
r a
0
0 0 o
v o
^ o v
o
o
v v o
o v
-_
o v
_
v
_
—
o
o
o
o"
o o„
o____
-.
m
F
a 3
N
» N
»»
3
-
..»
a+»
OHO
=
2
A
2
2 A
A
R
d. A
A
R
A 2
R
o o
A
A a
w d»
p
6 `a
n
0.
e
Li
A
A A A=
o
2
A 2 A
A R
A R
2 A
2 A
A A
2 2 A
2
2A
2 2
2 2
A z
A
A A
2 R
A 2
A
A m
A v
2
A d
2
A
o
d
w o
a
d
o
4
�O
c
°i
n
n O n
n N
N
n
0
0 0
0 0°
O
m
O
m
m m
0
0
0
n m
0
m n
0
0 0
m
='
O m
O n<
v
O
O
O
n
O n
o
a N
o
O o '"
O
o 0
0
"--z
0�
�„ O
00 0
0 4
a
N 0
^
O n,
0 0
_
m
]
o
v
-o
o o
v
o
0
0 0 0
0
__—
m
o m m
m 'n
o 'm
o
n 'm 'm
A
o o
A
n o o
] ]
m
—
o 0
]
6 0
] ]
0 3 0
o 0
0
o
0]
6
o
0°
o
> >>
0
3 0
0 m
a
]
o
a
° >>
o `�°—
3
x x
0
c
3 0
=
°
o
r
°
n
O
�
w O
�
�
z
_
_
_
_
_
m 'm
z
N v,
m w
R
c
m o
O
O O O
O m
m m
N^
0
o 0_
--
m
m
m Z
m
m
m m
m
^' m
m
m m
m '
m
y z
m O
O O
i0
d
pmi
A
ti d
0
3
_
m m
m
'm
o
}
oc oc °c
.� 0
o--
0
m
w
z--
m m
c
m m
c
c'
c'
m
m
c
m
3 o
m
c
m
c
m m-
o o
=�
m
m O
o x""
ry m
p
o '�
O
o
o
F
O
c 'c
o
p
N o
w o
F,
z o
o 'r
c
m o
o°
a
a, ?
of
3
o w
o
o
r:'
r: �
r.-
- -
o
� ^
—
o w
ry
� m
o —]
°
no
] oo
]
°]
°
�
�
Row
zzRo�
Ro=
ma
zzzzz°,
m an
N cam,
aao.
000
o
o omo
0 000
0
_
_o
o ° —=
=`^O
r
=m
n�
o_ry
=_
=wo
R'R'<
N
Ro
Ror
m
R.
3
—
_____
Rod
Rom
m
°
ZRoZ
puzzz
z
Ro
Ro2�
Ro
Rod
z Ro
_
Ro 0.owzR°m
Ro �_
m Ro
Rod
Row
Row
Roo
°—'
Rod
Ro fA 'c^R
Ror
_
xpF
'�wF_
_ _
'r3
000
—
-
—
_
O
�+°
F
n
m
A
n�
cnx'"ox
N
°
_
wn�w"
w
wo0owmw
_",
o
0
wzzzxo'
zzz„
—
? F'
N
u
m u
••o
w
m
t,ow
c
ozw
boo
°iwo'
w
n
ozzzo=
m
w
mzoz
w
-_
O
w
W
0
0
Om o
0 '^
=0
o
om z
w
F
]
1.
r
D
D r
m D
m D
m m
A A
D
D A
D
D rn
m D
D D
w m
D
D m
w D
D m
D
D
D
H
--
-
-_—
y^
f
w
a N
_
m
_ y
f
__
_
wm
_
!12.
v»
.�-
z
]
'
]
'
w
°]
0
0 0
'^
o F
o
rt
o
o
o
o '`—,
"+
n
r A
E.
^ E
v n
o
m
r
o
A
o 0
Ao
o a
n o
1 o
n n
°
°_ n
P
o 0»
n
o i
z
o
o m
v o
o "'
m
o o
w
m
`°
w
e
v
°O
a
-
- - --
o n
o
c°
l
c o
5'0
Hawn
n"
zz!"N
zz
z�
u
z_z
w
':'zn,.
o
z�
�w., z
z m
z z
z
-
z,
c z
c z
c
o z
z z
c
z w
z w
o
z
z
z 3
W
W
z
z z
m z
a z
o_
u p
c_
m_
m
o
f
o
�o
o
°
° ^
°
_
°
o°
o
T�
o
�''
S'
TzT°-
D
„°
_
T
_
comma..
m
0
x]
0 0
c
z c
j .Z
z
�>
z^
> N
v
^^
TTT�
z
z z
a
T�
z w
TC1�'T1
z o
'� z
z
T°
z
z
z o
�C)S�T
�'o
v]
w u
o d
w w
x w
o w
w<
3 2
r„ 3
r ns0
ma
E.
z H
—
—
s
�c
o u_
z w
`< `<
w
o
z
z x
�' z
z
m.
_� o'
u
D
°•
w c
y w
u
-
w 3
v
N
_
ti
°' w
w
o- w
w
w
--
w r
w___
w
N
w o
o
w
w
w Y
m'
_—
O �O
T 3
z
z --
m
A
N w
m 1p
N w
z
n
N
n w
N
><-
0 w
O w
w
3
u
w O
Z O
ti
ti w
w�37,
N O
W
w�
w
n w
w°
w
w A
w GlO
w
�.cw�w`°
u
moo.'
3>
^ �
v
o'o
? 1,E
--
]
O
C
�.
ti�
o
N
o ww^
�°,N�
�°,°
N
.�,'
`��°,
.°,
�°.,v
1c�
�°.,"o
n
o
n
n
]
z�'nm
a c
c 3
w
r°
z w
v D
_
—
m..
0 3
-
�
n'
c?
Z?
= 3
N
_
c m
3
—
N o
—
.. ..
n n
c n
—
._.
-
3
—
n °m
°m°
w
oo 0001
w`.'m
_ww„
ANwwsnnw
� �
_
�
�
?
� -
�
�
�,
;'�
—
?
3
�
—
°o
__
_ -
«
wnaw
3
-
w�3.�cic
$n,°],n<°c
nn]
uwn�
o <
w »o
—
-
o��
c
em°
w
c o
c
D°
'm
L13
Ll
G7
�2?
o C
iL p
f "y�
°
o
o �m
3 -
-
°
m <`
°o
-. rxo
n L1
v
c
o
a
m m
_
a
m
Y
W m
a
o
_
_ _
c 3
ry °^
_
3>
_
_
w
> D
` y
`
_ N
o m
_
_ _
_
_
_
_
_ _
_
_
_
z
A
3
3
3 o
c w
-
o
a
o
..
d. Gt:
- --
.�-
en=
v �'2
.. ..
Nw
..
yc
Dl
..
`<O
v
M z
`La
m
w'L
v
��
m'2
A <SSN
�,
ZN.
o
�'
'
T¢gp
o
_
To
z
m
o z�
o o
'.S�
m
] x
o
z c
.- °o
N c
T
M
c rt
o
z
o ^
—
n a
..
a r
11
o
flN
m o
n
o. -
-
-
�
3 =
= »
- —
o
n.
- -
— '.
O
z»
^
»
.N.
< a,
^
-
u; oo
°
m
o T
N
N o
3
o>
>-3
'T<
o
<
'm_ o
oam
m
`m
s u
°_
o 0
o c.
K
.'•. 0
0 3-
z u
=°
^[��<NA„nnnnnon,w„n�
o o
o
a
o
m
o w
3 3°
m°
='
o
3
0
0
o
z�
N a'
_.n
o
T O
o
zo
w 0
TTT'
zzzF..
p?
`°^
w
So.
OsSN
ti
N
ti 0
3
c
[
S N
S?
Z
°'"
S
N
O,
_
N i-
^ -'m'O
i
N
�+
N
w
O
]
.. -
> >
O
N
Om
N
° Oa
�°„
N
O =
]
O
�]
ST_
-�
a�
Z]
O Ll
;;
Ll O
L1
z
O-
z oN
°
w
x.°o
o
°-
'"
w 0
O T
O
:1 v.-'^.
O
zz
O °�
z
a
0
z
w 0
9
w o
�O
0
°
r
Om
`�
p3
OT
6
] Z
7 p
o
o
N O
N 0
0:
w"o
° O
T "
w
__
'-'n`o_
io
�,
_
Io R
#.ir
'+
r]
...
-�z
°v
z�
Z
Q
_
D
m
nA,mA
c
o:
rt m
v3ti_
iu
N
_
l
w
z
r
'
3 0
_
wO
x%
x
`m
o m
n wo
w o
x m
w
T
�,
m
o°
o
T
O_
m
ry m
�?
°m
a O
p ='
m o
o m
o
lo m
z
m
0 3
d
Z
Ow
m O
O �p
0 �,
O o
O
w o
"'s.
0
0 0
O
o
0
m
°o °o-
°
mziv
wwww
D
Ao oAO
-
v,
%
m
�
ywwwww
a
N YDD
03.-mA
__
..
rm'"'
_
.,
o
.,
w
`.mo
v'"
°'
-
-=
o
m
n'o�
°o o
s
zz
iD
-
-i=
°
o
3
z
zz N
m0�m•�
n."°
-O
M
m°
000Oyy
-�mNOo
mww
W
W tiw°
�p
nA' z
ww�w3
-
—
—
_
v
w
w
f,o
_
wN
w"
N u;
w
w.7
A m
m
Z
m
w
.�.Z
.7
] �'D
p'-^'
D
D ti
D �
D�'D
p
A m
D c
D D
O D
Q D
^�
_
_
_
— m
q 1pry
N
N
io w
m
q N
N
_
-
r _
<
2
- 7
w
w
c
Tw
_
°i
of
n.-
+oDP„o
r l
l
` nA
^ o
o 0
O10
w Ov
o
o :.
.°.o
—o
�o
zo
o
o
»o
o
Nzzma
°o
z w
^w z
T
m ==
o
u
m
n
z
z
oa
z 'o
z?
O
z m
a s
z
0 a
w
'S—
N
o
z<
w
z
z 0
0 0
w
z°
z z
z w
z z
z
w�
—
,]. z
-
u
m
w
w a
z
d z
z z
d'
z
�'
3
o m
�=
o^
o'°
3 w
—
N
3
< m
3
0 o
`�°
— z
w
_ -
d
3
—
—
--
a
m
w
v
w
n
n wo
D o
nT
o
m
3
s o
3
a s
s.
s^
T 3
s
°-
T
T s°
T»
s
'"'
w3„
` "'
m
o o
m_°
r
N
_
—_
o
N
-
--
3
z
z
z
°i
z�
o1P
m
zzw
3 u
o
z]
z�
^
zu
_,].
z�zzd
zaz<
3
r
_
_ _
_
- z
..
..
3 �o�z.np"
^oo
aw
�3
3
3
��:��a
3 w
wm
=_
m
° —w°1m
°l0
3
3 M—
—m
3 m
3 w"'
n,�w33w
°Nwn
we
_
m
_=
m °m
m
3
—�
O�
= m3
0�
ao
�°<�
°
zz'OU
mz_
zN
n
o pN�3
`
>
]
o a_
•]•
om�3
_�
�3
�2�
`
_
$ O�
o
m
.00
A
.°.O
»
m
Na
N
m m
O
N�
O v
0
NA
]
m
�'
3 3
3
v
z
F
w,
3 0
ti>
O"
003
w
_
w
^NNO
w
w o
c
w
3
w
w
`
w
p
N p
m
m
o
m
o m
O
m
O o
O w
>>
N
° o°
rte,,
0
=
O o'
0 0
0 w
°'°3
m3
m
z w
N
Y O
o 3
0
o w
o v
3
O °
0 0
° o
= o
m -
-
-
•-^; 3
3 3
'
v°,
_
_
_
- _
.,0
^ 3
2
w
O O
m 3
m°
3
-•
S1A
a
a
_
R
^
m
m
Y 3
c A
m
mo_
�,
»O
—
—
o
03
o
000A
<
w
wp
»xio
'0 o
vv3
00'0
=3
Awc
,]_.3
°., ' ^—
m v
O ^`_°
—.o
x20=
m
'
=
_-
_
c v_
ry
=
w o�
»m
n
3^
_
^
O»
^w
w»
^u
o
m
`�
6 w
-
'm_
oo >>°
v
zw
'0
—
3 .c-.
--
_mm
3
N
3 m
3 3
3
3
o
o O
O
3
3—
m
v o
a
o
3<
v.
'm
o»
'0 3
°•
'o o
O
o
3
c<
0 v
v
=_?
=
°
o 'o
'o o
` `1pn
c-
E
3
E
3
m
3
O
3 x
3 0
F
3 '"
�,
0
3
3 3
'" 3
3
`
]
^
r
o m
a
< o
c
o<
..
o
a
3 m
`-a 3
m
3 v
<$<
3 3
3 a
__
___°
.]_.
v.
0
0
.],
3
o
v o
w o
3
3
0
-
^°gm
`
c•'oo_v,ox3
oFw
3
3 v.3
'r°
3
3m
z
'�°
oo.
N
m
3
3 E
3
.-
3
>
m O
'"
03
m
»
L}r
»v,»
»c'A
=o—
o
»°
»
m
»tim
—
_ `"
^
, o
o
"zm
o'o
<'
o^
'^ v
m o
zz
--
z
3
3]_
°
°°
'� :.
A°
r
»
A o
2 z
A
°
» z
z <_
».
z
_
c
O
v
° o
m°
rOZ_
°
.'. o=
°^
w
o c
o m`
3 n.a
r0O°p
z
—
�o�
00
o
x0
worovi
zzz
mo
°o
w
N
r'-m
-
za
°
c
°
-
x-
-
°
x
'm
r
x
xo
oOm
_
ov
-i0°
o.Y
OooF
___
FF
_
—_
__
o
010
O
o
m N
.°],
O m°
m
x
°
x x
°°
—
m^
—
=
r
'm
m
m
m
Z
°
m
'm n
O
-
O
O
-
p
w-
O
O Z
___
z
o
O v
Z
-
--
T
O»
O
O
0
0
0
o o
O O
o
o
E.
E.
—<
z
z c
'm
»
r
v o
v
Fi
z
c o„
N c
c
zZZ�c
�z
z
°
°
m
o
--
-
z„
"_z
�z
z
z
z
I
O
zoazzm
�__
_
z '-<°
z
z
z
z
z
z r
z z
z
z
H
z z
z
_
z
_
� z
_
=
-
]
»
—
z
z
-
=
3
—
—
—
a
3
O
—
Z
_
3
=
v_
3
o
=
A
o
c
o
z
•A-
O
4
-
—
z
i
3
z
3
3
p
E
v
3
]
a
�
3
o
v
-
O
O
n
v
-
n
z
—
3
iF
O
z
a
w
EF
o
x
- A z
w o0 CD
CD P 3 3
^� N
� O
41 ,�
CD
(D N
'O
O 0
C �
a
N �
7 cn
Q (D
�z
C n
4�1 CD
0 N
(D
N
�p O
-� 7
co
7 M
N p_
O
CD
3 c
C c
^. m
cn
co
o'
m
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - October 31, 2011
Operating Fund 109
(Unaudited)
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and Investments $ 1,196,062.99
Interest Receivable 1,755.71
Due from Property Appraiser 343.85
Due from Tax Collector -
Total Current Assets 1,198,162.55
Total Assets $ 1,198,162.55
Page 1 of 1
Revised 11/0 /2011
161
C
Liabilities and Fund Balance
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
$ (884.35)
Accrued Wages Payable
-
Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd
(36,863.49)
Total Liabilities
$ (37,747.84)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
(1,273,666.86)
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
113,252.15
Total Fund Balance
(1,160,414.71)
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
$ (1,198,162.55)
Page 1 of 1
Revised 11/0 /2011
161
C
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement w/ Budget - October 28, 2011
Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual
161`2A10
Variance
Operating Revenues:
$ 132,800.00 $
11,100.00 $
6,144.13 $
4,955.87
Carryforward
$ 1,122,300.00
$ 1,122,300.00
$ 1,122,300.00 $
763.75
Special Assessment - Water Management Admin
666,300.00
-
-
581.33
Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification
1,907,800.00
-
-
Special Assessment Past Due
22,600.00
1,900.00
2,603.1
2,603.19
Charges for Services
1,500.00
-
-
-
Surplus Property Sales
1,000.00
-
-
100.00
Insurance Payment for Damages
42,400.00
4,200.00
-
29.00
Interest
15,300.00
-
-
-
Total Operating Revenues
$ 3,713,200.00
$ 1,122,300.00
$ 1,124,903.19 $
2,603.19
Operating Expenditures:
100.00
-
-
-
Water Management Administration
2,300.00
23.00
-
23.00
Payroll Expense
$ 41,400.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 1,814.73 $
1,685.27
Emergency Maintenace and Repairs
8,800.00
-
-
-
IT Direct Capital
400.00
500.00
500.00
IT Office Automation /Billing Hr.
4,800.00
-
-
-
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
84,500.00
800.00
-
800.00
Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment
13,400.00
100.00
-
100.00
Other Contractural Services
26,900.00
2,200.00
-
2,200.00
Telephone
3,900.00
300.00
247.50
52.50
Postage and Freight
3,000.00
-
-
-
Rent Buildings and Equipment
11,300.00
900.00
1,655.00
(755.00)
Insurance - General
1,200.00
100.00
-
100.00
Printing, Binding and Copying
2,300.00
200.00
200.00
Clerk's Recording Fees
2,000.00
200.00
200.00
Advertising
2,000.00
200.00
-
200.00
Other Office and Operating Supplies
2,000.00
200.00
23.00
177.00
Training and Education
1,100.00
100.00
-
100.00
Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 3,740.23 $ 5,059.77
Water Management Field Operations
Payroll Expense
$ 132,800.00 $
11,100.00 $
6,144.13 $
4,955.87
Engineering Fees
12,000.00
1,000.00
236.25
763.75
Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc.
14,000.00
581.33
-
581.33
Landscape Materials /Replanting Program
8,500.00
706.33
706.33
Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab)
22,600.00
1,900.00
1,900.00
Plan Review Fees
1,500.00
-
-
Other Contractural Services
1,000.00
100.00
-
100.00
Temporary Labor
42,400.00
4,200.00
4,171.00
29.00
Telephone
500.00
-
-
-
Trash and Garbage
5,700.00
1,600.00
935.87
664.13
Motor Pool Rental Charge
100.00
-
-
-
Insurance - General
2,300.00
23.00
-
23.00
Insurance - Auto
900.00
90.00
-
90.00
Building Repairs & Mntc.
1,700.00
-
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
5,400.00
500.00
500.00
Fuel and Lubricants
8,900.00
700.00
700.00
Tree Triming
30,000.00
2,500.00
-
2,500.00
Clothing and Uniforms
1,100.00
300.00
300.25
(0.25)
Page 1 of 3
161'2 A10
Personal Safety Equipment
500.00
-
-
-
Fertilizer and Herbicides
98,400.00
11,200.00
6,608.76
4,591.24
Other Repairs and Maintenance
1,500.00
100.00
116.00
(16.00)
Other Operating Supplies and Equipment
2,500.00
200.00
1,462.91
(1,262.91)
Total Water Management Field Operating
$ 394,300.00 $
36,800.67 $
19,975.17 $
16,825.50
Right of Way Beautification - Operating
29,500.00
2,500.00
-
2,500.00
Payroll Expense
$ 42,600.00 $
3,600.00 $
1,869.69 $
1,730.31
Emergency Repairs and Maintenance
7,400.00
-
-
-
IT Direct Capital
400.00
-
-
-
Office Automation
14,100.00
2,900.00
-
2,900.00
Other Contractural Services
34,300.00
300.00
595.00
(295.00)
Telephone
3,900.00
300.00
250.50
49.50
Postage
3,000.00
100.00
-
100.00
Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage
12,500.00
1,200.00
1,763.72
(563.72)
Insurance - General
500.00
-
-
-
Printing, Binding and Copying
2,600.00
200.00
-
200.00
Clerk's Recording
2,000.00
200.00
-
200.00
Legal Advertising
2,000.00
200.00
-
200.00
Office Supplies General
2,500.00
200.00
40.12
159.88
Training and Education
1,500.00
100.00
-
100.00
Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 9,300.00 $ 4,519.03 $ 4,780.97
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Payroll Expense
$ 807,300.00 $
67,300.00 $
31,493.44 $
35,806.56
Emergency Maintenance and Repairs
3,300.00
-
-
-
Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.)
89,900.00
7,500.00
7,471.87
28.13
Pest Control
5,000.00
400.00
-
400.00
Landscape Incidentals
2,500.00
200.00
-
200.00
Other Contractural Services
29,500.00
2,500.00
-
2,500.00
Temporary Labor
190,100.00
19,000.00
17,922.68
1,077.32
Telephone
3,200.00
300.00
-
300.00
Electricity
3,400.00
300.00
136.69
163.31
Trash and Garbage
17,000.00
2,000.00
1,943.60
56.40
Rent Equipment
2,500.00
200.00
8.95
191.05
Motor Pool Rental Charge
300.00
-
-
-
Insurance - General
8,800.00
700.00
-
700.00
Insurance - Auto
10,000.00
800.00
-
800.00
Building Repairs and Maintenance
1,700.00
100.00
-
100.00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
25,100.00
2,100.00
714.05
1,385.95
Fuel and Lubricants
67,300.00
5,600.00
-
5,600.00
Licenses, Permits, Training
800.00
100.00
-
100.00
Tree Triming
63,600.00
5,300.00
-
5,300.00
Clothing and Uniforms
9,400.00
2,700.00
859.09
1,840.91
Personal Safety Equipment
3,000.00
300.00
-
300.00
Fertilizer and Herbicides
62,000.00
15,300.00
3,988.80
11,311.20
Landscape Maintenance
46,000.00
3,800.00
3,505.95
294.05
Mulch /Landscape Materials
53,100.00
8,000.00
5,979.00
2,021.00
Pathway Repairs
6,000.00
500.00
-
500.00
Sprinkler Maintenance
30,000.00
2,500.00
1,593.89
906.11
Painting Supplies
800.00
100.00
-
100.00
Traffic Signs
3,000.00
300.00
-
300.00
Minor Operating Equipment
3,000.00
300.00
488.31
(188.31)
Other Operating Supplies
9,000.00
800.00
589.12
210.88
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 149,000.00 $ 76,695.44 $ 72,304.56
Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 203,900.67 $ 104,929.87 $ 98,970.80
Page 2 of 3
161'2 A10
Capital Expenditures:
Water Management Field Operations
Other Machinery and Equipment
$
1,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
General Improvements
-
-
Total Water Management Field Operations Capital
$
1,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
-
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Autos and Trucks
$
102,000.00
$ -
$
Other Machinery and Equipmeny
1,000.00
-
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital
$
103,000.00
$ -
$ -
$
-
Total Capital Expenditures
$
104,000.00
$ -
$
$
-
Total Operating Expenditures
$
2,393,200.00
$ 203,900.67
$ 104,929.87
$
98,970.80
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Transfer to Fund 322
$
436,500.00
$ 436,500.00
$ 436,500.00
$
-
Tax Collector Fees
79,600.00
7,960.00
201.12
7,758.88
Property Appraiser Fees
73,300.00
36,650.00
37,554.54
(904.54)
Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations)
538,000.00
540,300.00
540,300.00
Reserves for Equipment
94,800.00
94,800.00
94,800.00
Reserved for Attrition
(31,700.00)
(31,700.00)
(31,700.00)
Revenue Reserve
129,500.00
-
-
Total Non - Operating Expenditures
$
1,320,000.00
$ 1,084,510.00
$ 1,077,655.66
$
6,854.34
Total Expenditures
$
3,713,200.00
$ 1,288,410.67
$ 1,182,585.53
$
105,825.14
Net Profit /(Loss)
$
-
$ (166,110.67)
$ (57,682.34)
$
108,428.33
Page 3 of 3
161
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - October 28, 2011
Street Lighting Fund 778
(Unaudited)
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
Assets
$ 186,139.54
224.16
(3.54)
$ 186,360.16
Liabilities and Fund Balance
165.03
28.00
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved 191,986.14
Excess Revenue (Expenditures) (5,819.01)
Total Fund Balance
$ 186,360.16
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $
193.03
186,167.13
186,360.16
2 A1
161
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement w/ Budget - October 28, 2011
Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual
Operating Revenues:
Ca rryfo rwa rd
Curent Ad Valorem Tax
Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax
Insurance Claim
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenditures:
Street Lighting Administration
Payroll Expense
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
Other Contractural Services
Telephone
Postage and Freight
Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage
Insurance - General
Office Supplies General
Other Office and Operating Supplies
Total Street Lighting Admin Operating
Street Lighting Field Operations
Payroll Expense
Emergency Maintenance & Repairs
Other Contractual Services
Telephone
Electricity
Insurance - General
Insurance - Auto
Building Maintenace & Repairs
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
Fuel and Lubricants
Other Equipment Repairs
Personal Safety Equipment
Electrical Contractors
Light Bulb Ballast
Maio
Variance
$ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ -
436,800.00 - 1,549.98 $ 1,549.98
10,366.50 $ 10,366.50
4,500.00 - - $ -
598,900.00 157,600.00 169,516.48 11,916.48
$ 41,400.00
$
3,500.00 $
1,814.74
$
1,685.26
5,300.00
$
-
-
$
-
26,900.00
$
-
-
$
-
3,900.00
$
300.00
191.03
$
108.97
2,000.00
$
-
-
$
-
12,100.00
$
1,000.00
1,713.35
$
(713.35)
300.00
$
-
-
$
-
800.00
$
100.00
-
$
100.00
1,000.00
$
100.00
-
$
100.00
93,700.00
(46.93)
5,000.00
3,719.12
1,280.88
62,500.00
62,500.00
60,514.02
1,985.98
9,600.00
-
-
-
800.00
800.00
-
800.00
400.00
400.00
432.48
(32.48)
44,200.00
44,200.00
35,099.24
9,100.76
800.00
800.00
800.00
-
900.00
900.00
900.00
-
1,700.00 .
4,300.00
4,300.00
380.38
3,919.62
1,200.00
1,200.00
630.74
569.26
200.00
200.00
-
200.00
500.00
500.00
-
500.00
7,300.00
7,300.00
13,567.01
(6,267.01)
12,400.00
9,900.00
9,946.93
(46.93)
Page 1 of 2
Total Street Lighting Field Operating
Total Field Expenditures
Capital Expenditures:
Street Lighting Field Operations
Other Machinery/Equipment
General Improvements
Total Capital Expenditures
Total Operating Expenditures
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Tax Collector Fees
Property Appraiser Fees
Reserve for Future Construction
Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations)
Reserves for Equipment
Revenue Reserve
Total Non - Operating Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Net Profit /(Loss)
1611? A I C1
146,800.00 133,000.00 122,270.80 10,729.20
240, 500.00 138, 000.00 125,989.92 12,010.08
1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00
1,000.00
200.00
-
200.00
241,500.00
138,200.00
125,989.92
12,210.08
13,500.00
54.00
46.61
7.39
8,900.00
-
-
-
228,100.00
228,100.00
228,100.00
54,900.00
54,900.00
54,900.00
-
30,000.00
30,000.00
30,000.00
-
22,000.00
-
-
357,400.00
313,054.00
313,046.61
7.39
598,900.00
451,254.00
439,036.53
12,217.47
(293,654.00) (269,520.05) 24,133.95
Page 2 of 2
161'2 A10
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable
Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - October 28, 2011
Clam Bay Fund 320
(Unaudited)
Assets
$ 303,603.05
408.92
304,011.97
$ 304,011.97
Liabilities and Fund Balance
3,497.50
302,294.63
(1,780.16)
3,497.50
300, 514.47
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 304,011.97
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement w/ Budget - October 28, 2011
Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $
Special Assessment 127,100.00 - -
Special Assessment Past Due 496.47
Fund 111 34,000.00 - -
Transfer from Tax Collector 939.67
Interest 700.00 - -
Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 290,948.02 $
Operating Expenditures:
Clam Bay Restoration
Engineering Fees
$
163,368.75 $
Other Contractural Services
$
70,151.60
Tree Trimming
$
29,000.00
Other Equipment Repairs
$
349.77
Aerial Photography
$
7,500.00
Minor Operating
$
588.01
Other Operating Supplies
1,000.00
Total Clam Bay Restoration
$
271,958.13 $
Clam Bay Ecosystem
Engineering Fees
$
7,253.75 $
Other Contractual Services
143,000.00
Total Clam Bay Ecosystem
$
150,253.75 $
Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures
$
422,211.88 $
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Tax Collector Fees
$
3,900.00 $
Property Appraiser Fees
2,600.00
Revenue Reserve
6,700.00
Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations)
15,900.00
2,700.00 $ 1,724.00 $
600.00 -
3,300.00 $ 1,724.00 $
100.00 $
1,200.00 -
1,300.00 $ - $
4,600.00 $ 1,724.00 $
3,900.00 $ 9.93 $
1,298.00 1,482.37
15,900.00 15,900.00
Total Non - Operating Expenditures
$
29,100.00 $
21,098.00
$
17,392.30 $
Total Expenditures
$
451,311.88 $
25,698.00
$
19,116.30 $
Net Profit /(Loss)
$
- $
263,813.88
$
271,831.72 $
Page 1 of 1
I'l A116
Variance
496.47
939.67
1,436.14
976.00
600.00
1,576.00
100.00
1,200.00
1,300.00
2,876.00
3,890.07
(184.37)
3,705.70
6,581.70
8,017.84
16f2 A'10
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - October 28, 2011
Capital Projects Fund 322
(Unaudited)
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and Investments $ 2,566,599.47
Interest Receivable 2,699.73
Due from Tax Collector -
Total Current Assets 2,569,299.20
Total Assets $ 2,569,299.20
Liabilities and Fund Balance
Current Liabilities
Accounts /Trade Payable $ 1,505.00
Goods Received Inv. Received 27,095.94
Total Liabilities 28,600.94
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved 2,580,534.37
Excess Revenues (Expenditures) (39,836.11)
Total Fund Balance 2,540,698.26
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,569,299.20
161'2 A10
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement w/ Budget - October 28, 2011
Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward
Transfer from Fund 109 General
Foundation Payment for Crosswalks
Special Assessment
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenditures:
Irrigation & Landscaping
Engineering Fees
Lake Bank Restoration
Other Contractural Services
Traffic Signs
Other Operating Supplies (Pavers)
Other Road Materials
Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures
Non - Operating Expenditures:
Tax Collector Fees
Property Appraiser Fees
Reserve for Contingencies
Revenue Reserve
Total Non - Operating Expenditures:
Total Expenditures
Net Profit /(Loss)
$ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ -
436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 -
- - 53,487.00 53,487.00
331,900.00 - 1,296.27 1,296.27
19,500.00 - - -
$ 3,341,284.04 $ 2,989,884.04 $ 3,044,667.31 $ 54,783.27
$ 132,154.37 $
2,202.57 $
1,505.00 $
697.57
85,000.00
-
-
-
2,978,637.97
12,410.99
10,610.10
1,800.89
50,000.00
-
-
39,568.70
29,676.53
27,548.30
2,128.23
21,323.00
-
-
-
$ 3,306,684.04 $
44,290.09 $
39,663.40 $
4,626.69
$ 10,300.00 $ 2,575.00 $ 25.94 $ 2,549.06
6,800.00 4,080.00 3,896.51 183.49
17,500.00 - - -
$ 34,600.00 $ 6,655.00 $ 3,922.45 $ 2,732.55
$ 3,341,284.04 $ 50,945.09 $ 43,585.85 $
$ - $ 2,938,938.95 $ 3,001,081.46 $
Page 1 of 1
7,359.24
62,142.51
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 1 of 15 16 I Z A I 1
ResnickLisa
Subject: FW: Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report on locally relevant and site specific nutrient criteria
for Clam Bay
Attachments: Clam Bay Numeric Nuitrient Criteria Executive Summary Draft 10- 27- 2011.pdf
From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:44 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: Fwd: Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report on locally relevant and site specific nutrient criteria for Clam Bay
Lisa,
Please make copies of this attachment for distribution to the Board for today's meeting.
Keith
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Feldhaus, Stephen" <sf &_feldhauslaw.com>
Date: November 2, 20119:24:40 AM EDT
To: "Feldhaus, Stephen" <sf a feldhauslaw.com >, Robert Naegele <ron'r n,naeeelenet.com >, Dave Trecker <djtrecker n,yahoo.com >,
"Geoffrey Scott Gibson" <josieeeoff(a aol.com >, Hunter Hansen <hunter.hansen a,hilton.com >, "John Baron"
<jbaron@watersideshops.com >, John Chandler <6ohnchandler219na,gmail.com >, John Iaizzo < iaizzo a,comcast.net>, Keith Dallas
<keithdallas n,comcast.net >, Mary Anne Womble <Teedup l n Aol.Com >, Mike Levy <mikelevyP_embargmail.com >, Susan O'Brien
<Naplessusan@comcast.net >, Tom Cravens <nfn 1 6799 a,na len s.net>
Cc: Susan Boland <JOHNSUSANBOLANDP_aol.com >, Bill Carpenter <wrciksP_gmail.com >, Bob Uek <rwuek7agmail.com >,
Jerry Moffatt <g.moffatt@comcast.net >, "Jim Hoppensteadt" <jimh@pelicanbay.orQ >, Noreen Murray
<noreenmurray@comcast.net >, Robert Pendergrass <robpender2comcast.net >, Ronnie Bellone <vbellnpls@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report on locally relevant and site specific nutrient criteria for Clam Bay
Dear All,
Gary McAlpin has authorized me to release the attached Draft Executive Summary on Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report which has
been prepared for presentation to the CAC as per its request. Gary did ask that I inform you that this is a draft and that he anticipates
that it will continue to be refined before it is ultimately presented to the BCC. However, as I indicated in my email yesterday, nothing
in this Executive Summary changes any of the conclusions or recommendations in Dave's August 31 report.
I note that throughout all of our dealings with the county on Clam Bay matters, we have received total cooperation from all members
of county staff. Which is why when I heard that Marcia Cravens testified before the PBSD Board at the last meeting that she has not
been provided the information she had requested from the county, I was surprised. I have since reviewed the responses to Marcia
from Heather Grimshaw, Citizen Liaison, Communications & Customer Relations for Collier County, and it is clear from reviewing
those communications that in fact Marcia had been provided with everything that she had requested.
In any event, I trust that we will all continue to focus on the science of what is best for Clam Bay, and not on the personalities
involved in the discussion.
Best,
Steve
From: Feldhaus, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 5:56 AM
To: Robert Naegele; Feldhaus, Stephen; Dave Trecker; Geoffrey Scott Gibson; Hunter Hansen; John Baron; John Chandler; John
Iaizzo; Keith Dallas; Mary Anne Womble; Mike Levy; Susan O'Brien; Tom Cravens
Cc: Susan Boland; Bill Carpenter; Bob Uek; Jerry Moffatt; Jim Hoppensteadt; Noreen Murray; Robert Pendergrass; Ronnie Bellone
Subject: Re: Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report on locally relevant and site specific nutrient criteria for Clam Bay
:.1
I got the March 6 Scope of Work off the Foundation's web site yesterday, where it has been available for all Foundation members
(including Board members) to read for quite some time. While I had seen and commented on drafts of the Scope of Work, I didn't
have the final product on my computer. I do recall that it was part of both CAC and BCC public agendas, and that it was referenced
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regu r Sessi /�
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update ' iA,# 1 1 1
Page 2 of 15 1 IVI
(and perhaps even included) as part of our April 21 water quality Town Hall meeting. I also recall that it was the ground for the
testimony I gave at the BCC meeting urging the County Commissioners to support the extension of the Atkins contract, just as it was
the background for the Eric Staats front page article in the Naples Daily News on the BCC vote on the subject and for my email to
Eric in response to that article, an email that received comments from you on more than one occasion. So I suppose the answer is that
if you are seeing the Scope of Work for the first time on November 1,1 don't have any explanation for why that would be.
I will gladly forward Dave Tomasko's final user friendly revised Report as soon as I receive it.
Bob, it is unclear to me why your email below was copied not only to the Foundation Board but also to the PBSD Board and to Susan
Boland. If your purpose was to request that I share Dave Tomasko's revised Report with them when I receive it, I will gladly do so.
Best,
Steve
From: "Robert O. Naegele, Jr." <ronjraa,naegelenet.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 201122:15:09 -0400
To: Feldhaus, Stephen <sfa.feldhauslaw.com >; Dave Trecker <djtrecker(a yahoo.com >; Geoffrey Scott Gibson <josiegeofMaol.com >;
Hunter Hansen <hunter.hansenna,hilton.com >; John Baron <ibaronaa,watersideshops.com >; John
Chandler <johnchandler219@gmail.com >; John Iaizzo <iaizzo(a,�comcast.net>; Keith Dallas <keithdallas(a comcast.net>; Mary Anne
Womble<Teedupl(aAol.Com >; Mike Levy <mikelevyaembargmail.com >; Susan OBrien<Naplessusanaa.comcast.ri ; Tom
Cravens <nfn 16799Anaples.net>
Cc: Susan Boland <JOHNSUSANBOLAND@aol.com >; Bill Carpenter <wrcjks(a�gmail.com >; Bob Uek <rwuek7(@p -mail.com >;
Gerald Moffatt<g.moffatt@comcast.net>; Jim Hoppensteadt <iimh&elicanbay.org >; Noreen Murray <noreenm iM(&a,comcast.net>;
Robert Pendergrass <robpender(@comcast.net >; Ronnie Bellone <vbellnpls(a yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report on locally relevant and site specific nutrient criteria for Clam Bay
Steve,
Is there a reason that we don't see the Mar 6 Scope of work and Exec Sum, till Nov.l,when it was in the CAC packet on Mar.7?
May we view the Tomasko draft to which you have been privy, before it goes to CAC on Nov 10?
Bob
From: Feldhaus, Stephen fmailto:sf(a�feldhauslaw.coml
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 20115:42 PM
To: Dave Trecker; Geoffrey Scott Gibson; Hunter Hansen; John Baron ; John Chandler; John Iaizzo; Keith Dallas; Mary Anne
Womble; Mike Levy; Susan O'Brien; Tom Cravens
Cc: Susan Boland; Bill Carpenter; Robert O. Naegele, Jr.; Bob Uek; Gerald Moffatt; Jim Hoppensteadt; Noreen Murray; Robert
Pendergrass; Ronnie Bellone; Feldhaus, Stephen
Subject: Dave Tomasko's August 31 Report on locally relevant and site specific nutrient criteria for Clam Bay
Dear PBSD Board members,
Dave Trecker was kind enough to discuss his excellent and thorough review of the proposed locally relevant and site specific
alternative nutrient criteria that are being proposed for Clam Bay. I understand that the issue will be before you tomorrow to consider
what action, if any, the PBSD should take with respect to Dave Tomasko's August 31, 2011 Report on these issues.
I would note at the outset that the CAC has asked Mr. Tomasko to draft a more user friendly version of his report. I have seen a draft
of that version, and I understand that a final draft will be released in the near future. However, nothing in the revised draft changes
any of the conclusions or recommendations of Mr. Tomasko in his August 31 report. Rather, the revised version represents an attempt
to explain some complicated scientific and statistical concepts in a more layman friendly way.
In addition, I would note that the recommendations contained in Mr. Tomasko's report represent a first stage in dealing with water
quality issues in Clam Bay. We are still in the process of gathering data with respect to dissolved oxygen, and do not expect to have a
draft proposal for dissolved oxygen site specific alternative criteria until early next year. This effort is being led by the Foundation's
consultants, Doug Durbin and Dan Hammond of Cardno Entrix, although we and they are working closely with Mr. Tomasko and the
county on the project.
In case you do not have it, it might be helpful for you to have the March 6 scope of work that was jointly prepared by the parties to
explain the water quality studies that the county and the Foundation were jointly undertaking. It is attached. Throughout this exercise
we have been operating on the premise that Clam Bay is a healthy ecosystem, notwithstanding any potential failure to meet nutrient or
dissolved oxygen numeric standards that DEP or the EPA might attempt to impose. Accordingly, we elected to take a proactive
approach and to attempt to develop a management plan that would allow us to manage Clam Bay on the basis that it is healthy, with
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re ular Se s 'orb
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update � I 1 � 1 O
Page 3 of 15 1
y i trianagement actions required only if we experience a meaningful change in measured criteria from our recorded baseline, and then
` only if that measured change can be shown to be causing specific adverse consequences in Clam Bay.
The model that Mr. Tomasko developed represents a sophisticated approach to a complicated set of issues, an approach that has
received the tentative but enthusiastic support of DEP. We are cautiously optimistic that the approach contained in the Tomasko
Report will be endorsed by the DEP and EPA and that it will constitute the approved management plan for nutrients in Clam Bay.
Your support for the joint efforts of the Foundation and the County, and for Mr. Tomasko's fine work, would be appreciated if you
determine that such support would be appropriate.
Best,
Steve Feldhaus
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 4 of 15
16 1'2 All 0
Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria
Executive Summary
October 27, 2011
In April 2011, Atkins was contracted by Collier County's Coastal Zone Management Department to develop
numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay. This Executive Summary provides an overview of the history of
perceived water quality conditions in Clam Bay, current water quality condition, the approach used to develop
specific numeric nutrient criteria for Clam Bay, and a summary of the review process for this effort.
Why attention focused on Clam Bay?
Associated with the increased population growth in Collier County, there has been concern among the public
that Clam Bay might have been adversely impacted by environmental pressures that typically accompany such
growth. Development of the watershed increased both the amount of freshwater discharged into Clam Bay
due to an increase in stormwater runoff, as well as loads of total suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus
(PBS &J, 2008). In 1987, the Collier County Department of Natural Resources Management produced a
report that described Clam Bay as "...a stressed bay in a developed area in north Naples ......This bay has
received freshwater input from a drainage canal for twenty years and more recently, has been surrounded by a
huge PUD /DRI named Pelican Bay." Similarly, Worley (2005) reported that for Clam Bay, "Development
surrounding Clam Bay (particularly to the north, which is almost completely enclosed by roads, walls and
houses) has caused major changes in the hydrology ". Further, it was speculated by Worley (2005) that the
highly developed watershed would likely result in higher nutrient and pesticide concentrations in runoff due
to landscaping and golf course maintenance practices. The language in these reports suggests that a perceived
degradation in water quality was occurring in Clam Bay.
The Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan (1992) concluded that seagrass coverage in Clam Bay was
equivalent to approximately 60 acres. In a later report, the Collier County Seagrass Inventory (1994)
estimated that approximately 10 acres of seagrass were present in the same area. If the mapped seagrass
coverage estimates from these two reports were accurate, a decrease in seagrass coverage in Clam Bay of
more than 80 percent occurred in the early 1990s. This would be a similarly precipitous decline as was
documented for Tampa Bay during the 30 year time period of the 1950s to the early 1980s (Tomasko 2002).
Is Clam Bay "impaired" using existing FDEP criteria?
Prior to November 2009, there was no single ambient water quality monitoring program throughout the
entire Clam Bay system. The Pelican Bay monitoring program, which was originally designed to answer
specific permit- related water quality concerns, includes stations that are appropriate for permitting needs but
are not appropriately located for an ambient monitoring program. Station locations used by PBS &J (2008)
were in adequate locations for some locations in Clam Bay, and were thought to be useful for further analysis
efforts.
Using the aforementioned datasets for Clam Bay, prior assessments have indicated that existing water quality
standards described in FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) are often not met, particularly in Upper Clam
Bay (i.e., PBS &J 2009). In that report, PBS &J (2009) noted that "Levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) air frequently below
standards set in the IWR (FAC 62- 302.530). Additionally, the data indicate tbat portions of Clam Bay exceed tbirshold values of
chlorophyll -a established in the IWR (FAC 62- 302.530)." At the request of the Collier County Coastal Zone
Management Department, PBS &J (2009) designed a water quality monitoring program for Clam Bay, which is
being implemented by Collier County staff.
Page 1 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 5 of 15 s 1�
F 161 A 10
The FDEP IWR contains approved methods for evaluating water quality of lake, stream, and marine
waterbodies. Clam Bay is designated as a Class II, marine waterbody, which means that FDEP considers that
Clam Bay's designated use is for shellfish propagation and harvesting. Clam Bay data provided by Collier
County for the period of 2009 to 2011 were compared against the appropriate standard for fecal coliform
bacteria, DO, and chlorophyll-a. Presently, Clam Bay would be designated "impaired" for fecal coliform
bacteria and DO. In regards to chlorophyll-a, sufficient data were only available in 2010 to calculate an
annual average (9.0 µg /L) which was below the 11 µg /L standard required for estuaries. However, a separate
evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a average for Upper Clam Bay alone (14.6 n /L) indicates elevated
phytoplankton levels.
Is impairment likely due to nutrient- related impacts to water quality?
In addition to evaluating water quality conditions to assess the impairment status of Clam Bay, the potential
relationships between nutrients and DO or Chlorophyll-a were reviewed.
Dissolved 02Wpen
A correlation analysis between DO and multiple parameters (i.e. nutrients, color, salinity, temperature and
chlorophyll-a) was performed to identify the potential cause for DO concentrations in Clam Bay. There was
no evidence of an empirical relationship between DO and total nitrogen (1N) and although there was
evidence of a link between DO and total phosphorus (TP) it was statistically weak. Water temperature and
salinity explained more than 10 times as much of the variability in DO as TP alone
While the FDEP IWR requires a minimum DO of 4.0 mg /L in all Florida estuaries, DO values below 4.0
mg /L are expected in Southwest Florida (Atkins 2011; McCormick et al. 1997, FEDP 2004). However, there
is little evidence to suggest that TN or TP concentrations impact DO in Clam Bay.
Chlorophyll-a
A correlation analysis between chlorophyll-a and TN and TP was performed to identify the potential cause
for chlorophyll-a concentrations in Clam Bay. A statistically significant regression was observed between
chlorophyll-a and both TP and TN, which explained 22 and 25% of the variability, respectively. However,
despite the link between nutrients and chlorophyll-a, a resulting impact on water clarity (Secchi disk depth)
was not detected. Connections between nutrients and chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-a and water clarity, and
water clarity and seagrass is thus not found in Clam Bay.
Techniques to derive numeric water quality criteria for Clam Bay
Three approaches have been developed to derive numeric nutrient criteria by FDEP (Taken from FDEP 2nd
draft overview of marine NNC approaches (11/2010).
1. Maintain healthy existing conditions provides for maintaining the current nutrient regime in a system
determined to be biologically healthy (from the standpoint of nutrient enrichment).
2. Historical conditions
3. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) modeling or response -based approach
Review of Previous TMDL Development
While Clam Bay does not meet IWR guidance for DO, nutrients cannot be linked to these values.
Additionally, elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations can be found in Upper Clam Bay (but not Clam Bay as a
whole), but a resulting impact on water clarity was not evident. Related to this issue, the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida expressed the following sentiments in 2009, "...in order to trigger a TMDL, dissolved oxygen
levels have to be below standards in concert with causative pollutants. Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Nitrogen and Total
Page 2 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update161 Z� A � 0
Page 6 of 15
}
Phosphorus also have to exceed State standards. Dissolved oxygen levels recorded in Clam Bay have been below the State
standard, typical of a lot of estuarine waterways in the County including Rookery Bay ... these levels are not sur brising and can
be defended (K Worky 2009). "
However, TMDLs have been developed in waterbodies with DO impairments even when TN and TP
concentrations were below screening criteria (i.e. Gordon River TMDL (FDEP 2008a), Hendry Creek TMDL
(FDEP 2008b)). For Hendry Creek, freshwater (3258B) and marine (3258B1) segments, located in Lee
County, have both been declared impaired for DO, and in 2008, FDEP developed a TMDL requiring a 32%
load reduction for TN, even though nutrient concentrations were below screening criteria.
As an example of problems with the impairment process, the Rookery Bay Coastal waterbody (WBID
3278q, an estuarine system in Collier County, was declared impaired for nutrients (chlorophyll a) in 2009 as
part of the FDEP Group 1, Cycle 2 verified impaired list. The impairment was based upon elevated annual
chlorophyll-a concentrations in 2006(14.0 ug /1) alone. New sampling stations were visited in 2006 which were
previously not evaluated. These sampling stations were located adjacent to boat ramps and roadway crossing,
were not representative of ambient water quality conditions. Prior to the addition of these inappropriate (for
any ambient condition monitoring effort) sampling stations, the annual average chlorophyll a concentration
did not exceed 11 ug /1.
Implications of Problematic TMDLs
For the past 12 years, the TMDL program in Florida has been focused on identifying water quality
impairments and developing and adopting TMDLs to restore water quality. Today, the program is rapidly
transitioning to project implementation and water quality restoration (i.e., TMDL implementation), with the
cost of restoration being passed to local governments and other MS4 ( stormwater) permittees.
TMDL implementation is being enforced by FDEP through revisions to the MS4 permit renewal process.
Whereas prior permits focused on documenting stormwater infrastructure and reporting monitoring and
other management activities, new permits include requirements to implement TMDLs and demonstrate water
quality improvements.
This marks a clear transition in MS4 permitting in Florida, its use as a planning tool to guide stormwater
management to a regulatory tool for enforcing the implementation of TMDLs and load reductions.
These changes have made it ever more important for local governments to verify that water quality
impairments identified by FDEP are real, that the TMDLs developed and adopted by FDEP are scientifically
defensible, and that water quality restoration projects can be reasonably expected to restore water quality.
Failure to do so may mean that a community will be legally obligated to implement projects that are not
necessary and may not restore water quality. In addition, the implementation of "problematic" TMDLs would
divert the limited staff and financial resources of local governments from addressing "real" water quality
problems and delay the restoration of truly impaired water quality.
Two examples from Sarasota County, Florida and Winter Haven, Florida, illustrate the magnitude of the
potential financial benefits derived from proactively addressing problematic TMDLs:
• Sarasota County — Atkins evaluated the impairment status and TMDLs developed for three
segments of Sarasota Bay and one tributary to the bay: Roberts and Blackburn Bays and West Clark
Lake, a tributary to Philippi Creek. The evaluation resulted in a delisting of all of the waters, avoiding
tens of millions of dollars in unnecessary stormwater retrofit projects and tens of millions of dollars
Page 3 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 7 of 15 1 2 A 10
in unnecessary expansions to the central sanitary sewer system to connect thousands of homes on
septic tanks to the central sanitary sewer system. The TMDLS failed to document either the actual
restored condition of many of the waterbodies (i.e., Roberts Bay, Blackburn Bay) or the mostly likely
natural cause (West Clark Lake) of water quality problems associated with a rookery with several
hundred birds in an upstream location.
Winter Haven — Atkins evaluated the impairment status and developed a water quality management
plan for restoring and protecting over 40 lakes within the city. The evaluation documented that six of
the impaired lakes are, in fact, not impaired. It was also determined that managing for tannin levels,
and not nutrient load reductions, would restore and protect water quality in highly colored lakes.
These finding are significant in that they will not only save the community tens of millions of dollars
in unnecessary and inappropriate stormwater retrofits, but they will also result in implementing
management actions that are more likely to protect and restore water quality. Those efforts also
explained why the approximately $6 million in traditional stormwater projects that the City has
invested to meet existing TMDLs have not worked, even though they exceeded the requirements of
the established TMDLs for three of those lakes. This has been a costly but very important lesson for
the City.
In developing site specific numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for Clam Bay, Collier County is ensuring that the
water quality status of the bay will be properly assessed and that any management actions implemented by the
County to protect and, if necessary, to protect the bay, will be effective. This will save the County significant
time and money and avoid potential litigation with the state and other parties.
Proposed numeric nutrient concentration criteria
The Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) for Clam Bay are based upon a nutrient: salinity relationship that was
developed for Clam Bay, after first comparing that relationship to a similarly derived nutrient: salinity
regression from an estuary (Estero Bay Wetlands) previously used by FDEP as a "reference location" for
water quality in estuaries in Southwest Florida. NNC have to be considered in the context of salinity due to
the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity that is found in most estuaries. Since there is
substantial variability in the relationship between nutrient concentrations and salinity, management responses
due to deviations from the proposed NNC should be a function of magnitude and duration of any
exceedances from salinity- normalized NNC values.
Clam Bay appears to be co- limited by both TN and TP (PBS &J 2008). Consequently, salinity- normalized
targets were developed for both TN and TP targets were. To be consistent with existing methods used by
FDEP, the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for the regression between TN or TP and conductivity
(from Clam Bay) was used for target setting. The equations which represent the upper 10th percentile
prediction limit for TN and TP are provided below (Equations 1 and 2).
Equation 1: TN Upper Limit (mg /L) = 2.3601 — 0.0000268325 *Conductivity (µS)
Equation 2: TP Upper Limit (mg /L) = exp(- 1.06256- 0.0000328465 *Conductivity (µS))
The upper 10th percentile prediction limit was selected because it represents the line beyond which only 10%
percent of values would be expected to occur. This approach is consistent with ongoing target setting efforts
used by FDEP. Clam Bay would be assigned differential designation categories based on the magnitude and
duration of exceedances of the upper 10th percentile prediction limit for salinity- normalized nutrient
concentrations. The bay's designation in any given year would then be used to identify the level of resource
management actions appropriate for any period of time examined (i.e., a single year or numerous years
combined).
Page 4 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
y'
Page 8of15 16 V2 I
Individual TN and TP values from the waterbody would be compared to the upper nutrient: conductivity
10th percentile prediction limit (Figure 1). The minimum number of samples required to not meet an
applicable water quality criterion would be based on the approach used by FDEP for determining if the
percent of "impaired" water quality values are supportive of a site being included on the Planning or Verified
list. In other words, nutrient concentrations are allowed to exceed the upper limit occasionally, but
exceedances cannot be frequent enough that it would be reasonable to conclude that a "different" data set
has resulted. The number of "violations" (i.e., number of TN or TP values higher than the upper 10th
percentile of the nutrient vs. salinity regression) would be compared to guidance in F.A.C. 62 -303. These
tables provide the minimum number of samples not meeting an applicable water quality criterion needed to
put a water on the planning list with at least 80% confidence or the verified list with a least 90% confidence.
If the number of exceedances is greater than or equal to the minimum number of exceedance required for a
waterbody to be classified as impaired, the duration of exceedance would then be determined. Based on the
duration of exceedance (one year or greater than one year), an outcome designation is assigned. If the
number of exceedances is less than the minimum number of samples required based on sample size, then the
outcome would be a category of "0 ". If the number of exceedances and the duration (i.e., >1 year) of the
exceedances are small, the outcome would be a category of "1 ". If the magnitude or duration of the
exceedances is large, then the outcome would be a category "2 ". If both the magnitude and duration of the
exceedances are large, then the outcome would be a category of "3 ". The management response for Clam
Bay would be determined based on the outcomes assigned to both the TN and TP evaluations for the
magnitude and duration of exceedance (Figure 2).
Management response actions would be identified based on presence or absence of co- occurring phenomena
that could be attributed to nutrient availability, in particular the responses of phytoplankton and DO, as well
as potential impacts to water clarity (Figure 3). If the outcome of the TN and TP evaluation was classified as
"green ", then no management actions are required. However, if the outcomes are classified as "yellow" or
"red" then further evaluation of the effect of elevated nutrient concentrations needs to be conducted. If
there is no relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or DO, then no management actions are
required. If there is a signification relationship between nutrients and chlorophyll-a or nutrients and DO,
then the impact of chlorophyll -a on the water clarity (Secchi disk depth) would be evaluated as well as an
evaluation of the annual chlorophyll-a value to the 11 pg /L standard found in F.A.C. 62- 303 -353. If there is
a significant relationship between chlorophyll-a concentrations and water clarity, or annual chlorophyll-a
concentrations are above 11 µg /L, an outcome designation of "yellow" (indicative of small magnitude or
duration of exceedances) signified that actions should be taken to identify the potential causes of the elevated
nutrient levels. It the outcome designation is "red" (indicative of a large magnitude or duration of
exceedances), management actions should be taken to implement recommended actions to reduce nutrient
concentrations. Using this approach, the health of Clam Bay would be assessed on a regular basis, and
appropriate resource management options, from no action needed to implementation of corrective actions,
would be determined.
Based on the average conductivity in Clam Bay over the period of 1994 -2011 (42,453 µS), the corresponding
upper 10th percentile prediction limit for TN and TP are 1.22 and 0.086 mg /L, respectively. In comparison,
the draft FDEP Estuary- Specific Numeric Nutrient Criteria (September 29, 2011) TN and TP criteria for
Estero Bay are 0.63 and 0.07mg /L, respectively. The TN and TP criteria for Marco Island are 0.36 mg TN /L
and 0.048 mg TP /L. For Naples Bay the values listed are 0.32 mg TN /L and 0.050 mg TP /L. While
protective of existing conditions, the proposed criteria for Clam Bay do not result in a finding of
"impairment", nor are they more restrictive than guidance developed by FDEP.
Page 5 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 9 of 15
161
Figure 1. Clam Bay conceptual water quality flowchart
Not
enough
1 year
Figure 2.
>1 year
Management response matrix using outcomes from both TN and TP evaluation
Page 6 of 9
October 27, 2011
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
Outcome 0
Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Outcome 3
Outcome 0
Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Outcome 3
Page 6 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 10 of 15
1612
Figure 3. Management response actions in response to various outcomes.
Page 7 of 9
October 27, 2011
hall difference or
sort duration
entify potential
Calf5C5 and
responses
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update cu
Page 11 of 15
161 2 A 10
Outline of Nppiovid imeline
March 10, 2011 Collier County staff was presented with the scope of work for NIC development
for Clam Bay.
April 14, 2011 Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee voted 8 to 1 to approve the Atkins
Scope of Work and budget for numeric nutrient criteria development for Clam Bay
April 26, 2011 Atkins presented the Scope of Work and budget for numeric nutrient criteria
development for Clam Bay to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners.
The Commissioners voted to approve the scope of work, thereby authorizing the
work order.
June 10, 2011 Meeting in Naples, Florida to present preliminary findings. Representatives from
Atkins, Collier County, FDEP- Fort Myers, City of Naples, Pelican Bay Services
Division, and Cardno- Entrix were in attendance.
June 28, 2011 Meeting in Tallahassee to present preliminary findings to FDEP. FDEP staff in
attendance include Drew Bartlett, Daryll Joyner, Russ Frydenborg, and Ken Weaver.
Representatives from Atkins, Collier County, FDEP, City of Naples, Pelican Bay
Services Division, Cardno -Entrix participated via conference call.
July 7, 2011 Atkins provided draft report of Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Collier
County and FDEP for review.
August 23, 2011 FDEP provided written comments on draft report of Clam Bay NNC.
August 31, 2011 Atkins provided revised Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Technical Note to
FDEP and Collier County addressing comments identified by FDEP.
September 7, 2011 Russ Frydenborg (FDEP) sends email to Collier County, FDEP and Atkins staff
approving the proposed modifications to the Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria
and supporting the approach as scientifically defensible (email attached).
October 13, 2011 Dave Tomasko (Atkins) presents proposed Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria to
the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee (Naples, Florida). The Committee
voted 8 -0 to move forward with presenting a revised but condensed Executive
Summary of the report to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
FDEP provides memo indicating that FDEP is considering adoption of Clam Bay
criteria into Chapter 62 -302, F.A.C., based on the approaches described in the
August 31, 2011 Technical Note (memo attached)
October 14, 2011 FDEP requests equations representing IN and TP upper 10th percentile prediction
limit for inclusion in Chapter 62 -302, F.A.C., relating to Clam Bay Numeric
Nutrient Criteria.
October 18, 2011 Atkins provides equations representing TN and TP upper 10d, percentile prediction
limit to FDEP.
Page 8 of 9
October 27, 2011
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 12 of 15
Literature Cited
1612 10
Atkins 2011. Collier County Watershed Management Plan. Submitted to Collier County. Draft May 2011.
Appendix C EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DO. EPA 440/5 -86 -003.
Collier County Seagrass Protection Plan .1992. Collier County, Naples, Florida
Collier County Seagrass Inventory. 1994. Collier County, Naples, Florida
Collier County. 1987. Preliminary Analyses of Seagrass and Benthic Infauna in Johnson and Clam Bays,
Collier County, Florida. Department of Natural Resources Management, Collier County, Florida. 29
PP'
FDEP. 2004. Everglades Marsh Dissolved Oxygen Site Specific Alternative Criterion Technical Support
Document. Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 61
PP.
FDEP. 2008a. Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Gordon River Extension, WBID 3278K (formerly 3259C).
Final Report to Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 40 pp.
FDEP. 2008b. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Hendry Creek (WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1).
39 pp.
McCormick, P.V., Chimney, M.J. and D.R. Swift. 1997. Diel oxygen profiles and water column community
metabolism in the Florida Everglades, U.S.A. Archives die Hyrobiologie. 140: 117 -129
PBS &J. 2008. Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management
Department.
PBS &J, 2009. Clam Bay System: Data Collection and Analysis.. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone
Management Department.
Tomasko, D.A. 2002. Status and Trends of Seagrass Coverage in Tampa Bay, with Reference to Other
Southwest Florida Estuaries. In: Seagrass Management: It's Not Just Nutrients! Ed. H.S. Greening.
Proceedings of a Symposium: August 22 -24, 2000, St. Petersburg, FL
Worley, K. 2005. Mangroves as an Indicator of Estuarine Conditions in Restoration Areas. In: Estuarine
Indicators. Ed. S. Bortone. CRC Press: Boca Raton. Pp. 247 -260.
Page 9 of 9
October 27, 2011 ATKINS
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
` Page 13 of 15
16 1'2
Fw Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay.txt
From: Frydenborg, Russel [mailto: Russel .Frydenborg @dep.state.fl.us
sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Tomasko, David A; weaver, Kenneth
Cc: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup- Poulsen, Jan; MCA1pinGary; KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily
C.G.H.; Bartlett,
Drew
subject: RE: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay
Dave,
Ken weaver and I have reviewed your August 31, 2011 Technical Memorandum that
outlines proposed
numeric nutrient criteria for the protection of Clam Bay. we are pleased that you
thoroughly
incorporated Ken's previous technical recommendations, and as such, we both find
that your
proposed numeric nutrient approach is a scientifically defensible method to protect
the designated
use of Clam Bay, while minimizing Type I errors.
This is good work.
Thanks, Russ
Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the service you received from
the department by
clicking on this link DEP Customer Survey.
From: Tomasko, David A [ mailto: David.Tomasko @atkinsglobal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:30 PM
To: Bartlett, Drew
Cc: Joyner, Daryll; Mandrup- Poulsen, Jan; weaver, Kenneth; Frydenborg, Russel;
MCAlpinGary;
KeyesPamela; Keenan, Emily C.G.H.
subject: Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay
Drew:
Attached is a technical memorandum produced for Collier County's Clam Bay estuary.
This memo is a
shortened version of the earlier report FDEP reviewed, with a focus on the
derivation of the salinity -
normalized TN and TP targets. As per guidance from FDEP, the targets are based on
data from Clam
Bay alone. However, the longer back -up report will include a comparison of Clam
Bay's nutrient vs.
salinity relationship with that from FDEP's reference WBID of Estero Bay wetlands.
we've also used
the upper 10th percentile limit for determining what is an appropriate TN or TP
concentrations (based
on the salinity) and the percent of results that can "exceed" this guidance is based
on the percent of
exceedances required to place a water body into either the Planning or verified
Impaired lists
compiled by FDEP.
The larger report will also include results from our just - completed first round of
source ID efforts for
bacteria, using DNA sequence tests with Bacteroidetes (which are obligate anaerobes)
and the human
polyoma virus. Both results were negative. we also ran a test where we collected
droppings from
birds (ibis) in the mangrove canopy of Clam Bay and found that a single bird
Page 1
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update O Page 14 of 15 16 r A-1
FW Technical memorandum on NNC for Clam Bay.txt
defecation amount
produced approximately 290,000 fecal coliform bacteria. This latter test not only
shows that birds can
be a source of a laboratory's finding of "fecal coliform bacteria" but it showed
that a single bird's
individual defecation event can produce enough bacteria to cause 180 gallons of
water to exceed the
43 cfu / 100 ml standard for Class II waters. we are excited by these findings,
and will consider them
in combination with a sanitary features survey to discuss the likely sources of
bacteria in Clam Bay.
Gary and others wanted me to express our gratitude to you and your staff for giving
us the guidance
needed to develop these NNC for this important natural resource.
Thanks,
Dave
David A. Tomasko, Ph.D.
Senior Group Manager
Integrated Water Resources
ATKINS North America
Cell: +1 (813) 597 3897 Direct: +1 (813) 281 -8346
4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33607
Email: David.Tomasko @atkinsglobal.com I web: www.atkinsglobal.com /northamerica
www.atkinsglobal.com
This electronic mail communication may contain privileged, confidential, and /or
proprietary information which is the property of The
Atkins North America Corporation, WS Atkins plc or one of its affiliates. If you are
not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of
the intended recipient please delete this communication and notify the sender that
you have received it in error. A list of wholly owned
Atkins Group companies can be found at
http: / /www.atkinsglobal.com /site- services /disclaimer
consider the environment. Please don't print this email unless you really need to.
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Messaget_abs.
Page 2
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5a. Chairman's Report. Clam Bay Update
Page 15 of 15
16 I 2 A10
Standards and Assessment Section Comments on
Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria
Clam Bay - Development of Site - Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria
(August 31, 2011 Technical Note)
Prepared By Ken Weaver
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Standards and Assessment Section
The August 31, 2011 Atkins proposal represents a significant improvement overthe July 21, 2011
proposal. I believe that it represents a scientifically defensible approach for developing protective, yet
not overly stringent criteria, for Clam Bay. The revised proposal adopted all our previous
recommendations including use of Clam Bay data to set nutrient limits for itself. I find that with these
changes nutrients limits are not overly stringent or unrealistic for Clam Bay and would achieve
reasonable Type I and II error rates. Furthermore, Atkins has provided convincing documentation that
Clam Bay is healthy with regards to nutrients; that is, the existing nutrient regime in Clam Bay is
protective of the designated use. Therefore, DEP is currently considering adoption into Chapter 62 -302,
F.A.C., criteria for Clam Bay based on the approaches described in the August 31, 2011 Technical Note.
DEP is still receiving public comment on the Clam Bay criteria and will make a final decision regarding
whether to move forward at this time after a thorough review of all comments received.
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6. Committee Reports. Clam Bay Sub - Committee Report by D. Trecker
Page 1 of 6
TO: PBSD Directors
FROM: Dave Trecker
Clam Bay Subcommittee
SUBJECT: Nutrient Standards
DATE: November 1, 2011
161 2 A10
An immediate issue facing Clam Bay is establishment of numeric standards
for nutrients (dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus). Florida has had only
qualitative standards for nutrients in the past. The U.S. EPA is mandating
that numeric limits be set. The Florida DEP is in the process of proposing
standards for EPA approval according to the attached timetable.
The only systematic study and resulting proposal for nutrient limits in Clam
Bay have come from Collier County. The county's consultant, Dr. David
Tomasko (Adkins), has proposed site - specific standards be set to maintain
the current healthy state of the estuary. He has proposed that these standards
be based on a "swath" of nutrient concentrations measured in Clam Bay in
2009 -2011 as a function of salinity. A 10/14/11 memo indicates the FDEP is
considering adoption of these standards. See attachments.
The Tomasko proposal is silent on remediation. The FDEP does not specify
remediation but, instead, relies on locales to fix the problem in whatever
way they can. In Clam Bay, remediation would likely involve identifying
where high levels of nutrients were entering Clam Bay and correcting at the
source of pollution. Dredging would be a last resort. Current EPA thinking
allows up to 15 years for remediation.
The Pelican Bay Foundation collaborated with the county in designing the
Tomasko study, which was peer- reviewed by the Foundation's own
consultant, Dr. Doug Durbin. The Foundation board has not, as yet, been
asked to endorse Tomasko's proposal for Clam Bay.
It is my understanding that some in the Mangrove Action Group (MAG) are
pushing for a different set of standards, presumably looser than proposed by
g Tomasko, and some in the Conservancy are pressing for tougher standards. I
am not aware that either group has proposed anything specific.
0
0
0
The PBSD board has basically four options at this point. I assume any action
would be in the form of a recommendation to the BCC.
(1) Urge the FDEP to delay its recommendations to the EPA — on the
grounds that either (1) Clam Bay, as a vegetated creek/lagoon system,
should have separate, non - estuary standards (NAG) or (2) insufficient
studies have been carried out for estuaries and inadequate review time
has been allowed (Conservancy).
(2) Propose alternative standards to the FDEP.
(3) Endorse the Tomasko proposal.
(4) Do nothing.
N
O
O
Q
c
O
.-I
.-I
.-i
O
CJ
.-1
O
.-i
. .a
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6. Committee Reports. Clam Bay Sub - Committee Report by D. Trecker•
Page 2 of 6
A10
16 12
The PBSD board has basically four options at this point. I assume any action
would be in the form of a recommendation to the BCC.
(1) Urge the FDEP to delay its recommendations to the EPA — on the
grounds that either (1) Clam Bay, as a vegetated creek/lagoon system,
should have separate, non - estuary standards (NAG) or (2) insufficient
studies have been carried out for estuaries and inadequate review time
has been allowed (Conservancy).
(2) Propose alternative standards to the FDEP.
(3) Endorse the Tomasko proposal.
(4) Do nothing.
N
O
O
Q
c
O
.-I
.-I
.-i
O
CJ
.-1
O
.-i
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6. Committee Reports. Clam Bay Sub - Committee Report by D. Trecker
Page 3 of 6
4%
16
TIMELINE FOR SETTING NUTRIENT STANDARDS FOR FLORIDA
ESTUARIES
10/18/11
11/3/11
12/1/11
3/15/12
11/15/12
Deadline for public comments to FDEP
FDEP presents proposed standards to Environmental
Regulatory Commission (ERC)
ERC adopts standards
FL legislature ratifies standards and FDEP submits
to EPA
EPA proposes nutrient standards for estuaries and
coastal waters
EPA finalizes standards, to be implemented within
18 months, i.e., by 5/15/14
TOMASKO'S PROPOSED NUTRIENT STANDARDS FOR CLAM BAY
• "Healthy system" approach: Clam Bay is not on 303(d) list of
impaired waters. Tomasko and FDEP agree that Clam Bay is healthy.
The approach is to set standards to keep it that way.
• Proposed standards are based on "swath" of nutrient concentrations as
a function of conductivity (salinity). Data were derived from samples
taken monthly in 2009 -2001 from nine sites in Clam Bay. Not Estero
Bay. Not Moorings Bay.
• It is proposed that compliance testing data be taken monthly from the
same nine sites.
• If a certain number of annual values ( Tomasko suggests more than
13 %) fall outside of the "swath," testing would be done to see if water
clarity (phytoplankton levels) and /or dissolved oxygen was affected.
• If so, correction would be sought at the point of pollution — i.e.,
backtracking from Clam Bay entry point to find the actual source of
pollution. It wouldn't have to be dredging.
• To that end, Tim Hall is currently measuring nutrient concentrations
at 44 sites that empty into Clam Bay. That will establish a point -
source early- warning system.
• Even if Clam Bay, by some unforeseen worst -case circumstance, were
to be declared "impaired," the current EPA proposal for nutrients
allows up to 15 years for remediation!
M
0
0
0
0
0
r" A10
C: co
S N I N IV
O Y -6
N U O
� a
a n
0 N
m °�
E
.> E
Q V _0
o
U
N �
Q. m L-
O. OL
U �
�`
Ul
U
T m
ca
cu
■ �/
L.
CO
c U
U
�J
N O
a o_
+
(U
o�
N N
N
N ...
.
}a
E
E O
%i
V
0 U
o
Z
VVV
M
1 4 if
Co
C
�C,
cu
f
4-J
/ r
>
Z
L)
F-
O
cu
(1)
a)
E
>
O
W
0
161 2 A-10
11) O
r
(I/Bw) u960A N IeIOl
i
•
i
i
Q
/Q
cn
e✓
C
O
AQ,
l V
r
u 600 KV 6O:TT TTOZ -TO -TT
1�
Q V _0
Q. m L-
O. OL
r
L.i U
J `t
M
1 4 if
C
I
f
/ r
11) O
r
(I/Bw) u960A N IeIOl
i
•
i
i
Q
/Q
cn
e✓
C
O
AQ,
l V
r
u 600 KV 6O:TT TTOZ -TO -TT
CL
i
O
y--
Q
U)
C
C
(D Q) . V i
Q Q) " je
Q. O-
C
!n
�S }
161 2 A10
r
f
•
ci
0
0
c
0
0
o U
°o
N
0
N0 � 0
O
0 0
(l/6ua) snioydsoyd IslOI
M
900 WV 60:TT TTOZ -TO -TT
S
oY(D
tp U �
W N U.) co � 0
0
CD
m a
7 T
rnm
a)
X o
2 n
m
m
0
m �
c --
o �
>E
o
U
N
U
N T
m
m E
m co
c U
m
U y
0
CL O
CL
� N
Q'
O �
N �
N
E
E
E o
oU
o(6
Z
CL
i
O
y--
Q
U)
C
C
(D Q) . V i
Q Q) " je
Q. O-
C
!n
�S }
161 2 A10
r
f
•
ci
0
0
c
0
0
o U
°o
N
0
N0 � 0
O
0 0
(l/6ua) snioydsoyd IslOI
M
900 WV 60:TT TTOZ -TO -TT
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6. Committee Reports. Clam Bay Sub - Committee Report by D. Trecker�
Page 6 of 6
10114/11
1612A10
Standards and Assessment Section Comments on
Collier County: Numeric Nutrient Criteria
Clam Bay - Development of Site- Specific Alternative Water Quality Criteria
(August 31, 2011 Technical Note)
Prepared By Ken Weaver
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Standards and Assessment Section
The August 31, 2011 Atkins proposal represents a significant improvement over the July 21, 2011
proposal. I believe that it represents a scientifically defensible approach for developing protective, yet
not overly stringent criteria, for Clam Bay. The revised proposal adopted all our previous
recommendations including use of Clam Bay data to set nutrient limits for itself. I find that with these
changes nutrients limits are not overly stringent or unrealistic for Clam Bay and would achieve
reasonable Type I and II error rates. Furthermore, Atkins has provided convincing documentation that
Clam Bay is healthy with regards to nutrients; that is, the existing nutrient regime in Clam Bay is
protective of the designated use. Therefore, DEP is currently considering adoption into Chapter 62 -302,
F.A.C., criteria for Clam Bay based on the approaches described in the August 31, 2011 Technical Note.
DEP is still receiving public comment on the Clam Bay criteria and will make a final decision regarding
whether to move forward at this time after a thorough review of all comments received.
ID
0
0
a
0
0
ca
0
i
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9. Audience Comments - Joseph and Sandra Doyle
Page 1 of 2 1612
ResnrickLisa
From:
naplespatriots @comcast.net
Sent:
Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:59 AM
To:
office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net; keithdallas @comcast.net
Cc:
jlytle @naplesnews.com; nfn16799 @naples.net; jbaron @watersideshops.com;
johnchandler219 @gmail.com; josiegeoff @aol.com; iaizzo @comcast.net; mikelevy435
@gmail.com; naplessusan @comcast.net; djtrecker @yahoo.com; teedup1 @aol.com; hunter
hansen; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; CoyleFred; jimcolletta @colliergov.net;
johnsusanboland @aol.com
Subject:
PBSD -- 11/02/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing- Audience Comment
Mr. Dallas:
RE: Agenda Item 4 e) Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing
We once again restate our objection to the early resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard via a loan to
Collier County as submitted as an audience comment for the October 2011 PBSD Board Meeting and
outlined in this email stream for your reference.
The new information provided by Mr. Chandler for the November 2011 meeting regarding the Collier
County credit ratings is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We are not questioning the current credit-
worthiness of Collier County. However, I would point out that the imminent downgrade of the credit
rating of the federal U.S. Government projected for late November or early December could
negatively impact local and state governments. And there is a possiblilty that the credit - worthiness of
Collier County could deteriorate over the 4 -year period of the proposed loan if this economic
recession persists.
More importantly, REAL issue here is that the board's scheme to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard
ahead of the Collier County schedule by using CIP funds represents a material conversion of dollars
for an item (resurfacing) that is not part of the CIP plan. Furthermore, the funds for resurfacing
should rightfully come from the Collier County Gas Tax Revenues. The loan scheme in effect
amounts to double taxation to the Pelican Bay Homeowners since the proposal bypasses the
gasoline funds by using the CIP reserves. Finally, we do not believe that the PBSD Board would
have the authority to use the CIP funds for resurfacing without the consent of the Pelican Bay
Homeowners in the form of a special referendum.
Joseph T. Doyle
Sandra J. Doyle
Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay
From: naplespatriots @comcast.net
To: office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, keithdallas @comcast.net
Cc: jlytle @naplesnews.com, nfn16799 @naples.net, jbaron @watersideshops.com,
johnchandler219 @gmail.com, josiegeoff @aol.com, iaizzo @comcast.net, mikelevy435 @gmail.com,
naplessusan @comcast.net, djtrecker @yahoo.com, teedup1 @aol.com, "hunter hansen"
< hunter .hansen @waldorfastoria.com >, donnafiala @colliergov.net, georgiahiller @colliergov.net,
tomhenning @colliergov.net, fredcoyle @colliergov.net, jimcolletta @colliergov.net,
johnsusanboland @aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 9:32:23 AM
Subject: PBSD -- 10/05/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing- Audience Comment
November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
9. Audience Comments - Joseph and Sandra Doyle
Page 2 of 2
161 2 A'10
Mr. Dallas:
Agenda Item 4 e) Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing
We endorse Mr. Levy's position in his 9/26/2011 email to the PBSD Board regarding the board's
scheme to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard ahead of the Collier County schedule. If Pelican Bay chooses
to do the resurfacing now (2012), two years before it is scheduled to be done, we would have to lend the
county money for five years. We would be lending from funds currently reserved for the CIP, for something
that is not, and never was, a part of our CIP plan. This, in turn, would complicate PBSD CIP implementation;
and would most likely delay execution of CIP projects. We are in favor of leaving the repaving of Pelican Bay
Boulevard to be done on the county's schedule (2014), using normal county funds - -from the gas tax.
Additionally, I would like to point out to the PBSD board and the Collier BCC that advancing the resurfacing of
Pelican Bay Boulevard is unfair to other citizens of Collier County since it gives the appearance of "jumping
ahead in line" for other county road resurfacing needs. These types of underhanded actions makes Pelican
Bay look like a bunch of rich brats who get priority over the poorer residents of Collier County.
Joseph Doyle
Sandy Doyle
Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay
From: naplespatriots @comcast.net
To: office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net,
keithdallas@comcast.net
Cc: jlytle @naplesnews.com, nfn16799 @naples.net, jbaron @watersideshops.com,
johnchandler219 @gmail.com, josiegeoff @aol.com, "hunter hansen" <hunter.hansen @hilton.com >,
iaizzo @comcast.net, 4mikelevy @embargmail.com, naplessusan @comcast.net,
djtrecker @yahoo.com, teed up1 @aol.com, don nafiala @colliergov.net, georgiahiller @colliergov.net,
tomhenning @colliergov.net, fredcoyle @colliergov.net, jimcolletta @colliergov.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 6:50:59 AM
Subject: Pelican Bay Services Division Untimely Postings and Communications
Mr. Dallas,
I find that your new system regarding audience participation in Pelican Bay Services Division
business matters is inadequate. At the past several meetings you have instructed the audience that
you would prefer to solicit input either in advance of PBSD meetings OR during the discussion of a
specific item during the meeting. However, as of 6am this morning, neither the statutory required
meeting notice nor an advance agenda have been posted to the PBSD website - -and the meeting is
today, October 5th at 1 pm. I would hardly call this participatory government. In fact, the residents of
a communist country would appear to get more consideration than we do here in Pelican Bay!
Joseph Doyle
Sandy Doyle
Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay
' Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
Advisory Committee
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
October 10, 2011
Minutes
161 2"
I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:29 PM.
II. ATTENDANCE
Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, John Weber,
Jerry Parillo (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst,
Michelle Arnold- Director ATM
Others: Scott Windham- Windham Studio, Manny Gonzalez- Hannula
Landscaping, Isaac Herrea - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
John Weber moved to approve the agenda as submitted: Second by Betty
SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 12, 2011
Helen Carella moved to approve the September 12, 2011 minutes as submitted
Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT:
A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached)
o FYI Capital Outlay Budget $519,000.00
0 2011 Fiscal Year End Collected Ad Valorem Tax $296,079.05
Darryl Richard noted monies for the Ameri-Pride Bid Award ($267,214.37)
will be disbursed from Line Item 34 (upon approval by the BCC.)
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reviewed documents pertaining to
the Devonshire Blvd. Landscape and Irrigation Refurbishment Project: (See
attached)
o Executive Summary Bid Award Recommendation for Ameri-Pride
o (5) Reference Letters for Ameri-Pride
Dale Lewis stated based on the submitted Reference Letters he directed Staff
to move forward on the Bid Award to Ameri-Pride (in accordance with the
motion made on September 12th)
161 2 4011
• The Bid recommendation is on the October 25th BCC Agenda
• Anticipates the Project will commence in late November
Betty Schudel noted Christmas Decorations will be installed on Berkshire
Lakes wall (corner of Santa Barbara and Devonshire) in late November
(concurrent with the Ameri-Pride job.)
Staff reaffirmed that the Contractor (Amen -Pride) is liable for damage
incurred during demolition and construction.
VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT
A. Hannula - Manuel Gonzalez - Discussed under VI. B.
B. Windham Studio - Scott Windham and Manny Gonzalez reviewed the
Monthly Maintenance Report: (See attached)
• Dwarf Firebush (Glen Eagle) were trimmed around the mixing
chamber to address visibility complaints
• Snail Treatment is underway on the Crown of Thorn
o Remaining Palm Tree stakes are scheduled for removal
- Stake removal will be complete this week with the exception of
Sable Palm Trees
o Hannula increased manpower for weekly Maintenance to a double
crew (11 man) on the Radio Road corridor
Dale Lewis requested cutback on the Bougainvillea water shoots as they are
unsightly.
Scott Windham responded final trimming of water shoots will be complete
this week.
• Irrigation head nozzle replacement is complete
• Presented the following options on the weed areas and requested
direction from the Committee
- Treat weeds with Atrazine and patch areas with new sod
- Noted it may be difficult for new sod to thrive as the dry season
and potential watering restrictions are approaching
- Or postpone installing new sod and continue mowing and
trimming until the dry season has ended
After discussion is was concluded that the Committee previously gave
direction to move forward on treating the weeds (Radio Road) and patching
the area with sod.
Dale Lewis moved to proceed with treating and removing the weeds and
install the new Sod Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously
4 -0.
o Fertilization is scheduled October 17th through October 28th
2
161 2 A11
o Magnolia Trees are showing signs of re- growth resulting from
- Use of slow release Fertilization
- Correcting the watering issues
Discussion ensued on installing Mulch on Radio Road.
After discussion it was concluded that a top dress of Mulch for the entire
length of Radio Road will be performed after Fertilization is complete.
Dale Lewis moved to install a top dress of Mulch on Radio Road (the entire
roadway) and not to exceed $20,000.00 plus 10% contingency. Second by
Betty Sch udel.
Motion was amended to read. "and not to exceed $25,000.00." Second by Betty
Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
o Signature Tree is preparing a quote to prune the large Oak Trees
- 50% of the pruning cost will be paid by Fund 111
VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio
A. Devonshire Refurbishment
Hannula Proposal No. 11 -0117 in the amount of $16,782.70 was presented for
the Median Refurbishment. (See attached)
Scott Windham reviewed the Plan and Plant Palette for the Devonshire to
Santa Barbara Median Refurbishment to include: (See attached)
• Groups of like Plant Materials will be installed
• Removal of Sod at both ends of the Median(s) and Plant Beds
• Bird of Paradise is centered as a feature plant
• Irrigation modifications (bubblers for the Cabbage Palms)
Line Items on the Hannula Proposal were questioned.
Scott Windham clarified that the descriptions in parenthesis are the actual
Plant Materials that will be installed:
- Saw Palmetto (Bird of Paradise, Orange, 3g)
- Ground orchids (Green Island Ficus, 3g)
- Ilex Schillings dwarf 3 gal (Ilex Schilling, 3g 10 "X12 ")
- Live Oak 300 gal. (Floratam Sod 5200 sq. ft.)
Discussion took place on the 5200 sq. ft. of Floratam Sod Line Item.
It was determined that the Floratam Sod Line Item ($1,900.00) may be
removed from the quote.
Darryl Richard stated the revised total for the Proposal is $14,882.70.
Discussion continued on the Proposal and the timeframe needed for the
Project.
After discussion it was deemed that the Project can be completed within one
month (by mid November.)
3
161 P A11
Dale Lewis moved to proceed with the Devonshire Refurbishment Project
with the stipulation that the Project will be completed by November 3ffh.
Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
Michelle Arnold reviewed the Fee schedule for Tree trimming by Signature
Tree and noted the cost is $40.00 to $55.00 per large Oak Tree.
After discussion the following was concluded:
• Cost estimate will be based on $80.00 per Tree
• Total estimate for 20 Trees - $4,000.00
• MSTU cost based on 50% contribution - $2,000.00
Dale Lewis moved to pay $2,000.00 toward the trimming of the (large Oak)
Trees, and not to exceed $2,000.00 or 50% which ever is less. Second by
Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None
IX. NEW BUSINESS - None
X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:34 P.M.
Radio Road Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee
Dale Lewis, Chairman
These minutes a 7 roved by the Committee on
as presented_)!�or amended
The next meeting is November 14, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.
Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
11
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
° Advisory Committee
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
November 14, 2011
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII
IX.
X.
AGENDA
Call Meeting to Order
Attendance
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes: October 10, 2011
Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
Landscape Maintenance Report
A. Hannula
B. Windham Studio
Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio
A. Devonshire Refurbishment
Old Business
New Business
Committee Member Comments
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
16 I c
A11"
'IV 2 1 2011
:�iaia ll�
i-iilltr � r
Henning r11
Coyle
Coietta G
Misc. Corres:
Date: I 1 10112,
Rem is 1 UM -2 ?41 1
Copies to:
The next meeting is December 12, 20113:30 p.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
T-1
T--1•
Amended
1 CUR AD VALOREM TAX
$
2 DEL AD VALOREM TAX
$
3 FIFTH THIRD O/N INTEREST
$
4 INVESTMENTINTEREST
$
5 INTEREST TAX COLLECTOR
$
6 REVENUE STRUCTURE
$
7 TRANSFER FROM APPRAISER
$
8 TRANSFER FROM TAX COLLECTOR
$
9 CARRY FORWARD GENERAL
$
10 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB AMT
$
11 NEG 5% EST REVENUE
$
12 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB
$
13 TOTAL REVENUE
$
14 ENGINEERING FEES
$
15 ENGINEERING FEES OTHER
$
16 INDIRECT COST REIMBURSEMENT
$
17 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL
$
18 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$
19 Post Freight UPS
$
20 ELECTRICITY
$
21 Water & Sewer
$
22 INSURANCE GENERAL
$
23 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
$
24 MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING
$
25 MULCH
$
26 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS
$
27 LICENSES AND PERMITS
$
28 LEGAL ADVERTISING
$
29 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
$
30 FERTILIZER HERBICIDE CHEM
$
31 Office Supplies
$
32 Electrical Contractor
$
33 OPERATING EXPENSE
$
34 IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL
$
35 CAPITAL OUTLAY
$
dget Commitments
(307,600.00) $
(1,000.00) $ -
(417,200.00) $
(21,445.24) $
15,500.00 $
(423.145.24) $
51,445.24 $
14,000.00 $
7,200.00 $
4,500.00 $
55,000.00 $
1,000.00 $
3,000.00 $
1,100.00 $
5,000.00 $
12,000.00 $
2,000.00 $
2,000.00 $
4,000.00 $
10,000.00 $
300.00 $
RADIO ROAD MSTU
FUND 158
November 14, 2011
Actual
Expenditures
$ (2,201.78) $
20,997.24 $
4,290.00 $
66,957.70 $
1,156.79 $
3,453.09 $
12,710.80 $
2,538.98 $
5,000.00
300.00
172,545.24 $ 119,651.60
519,000.00 $
519,000.00 $ -
(368.41) $
(2,500.26) $
448.00 $
3,600.00 $
210.00 $
3,255.00 $
43.21 $
47.24 $
12,289.20 $
461.02 $
Available
Total
(305,398.22)
Vender Name
4500132894
EB Simmonds Electrical
4700000778
FPL
(1,000.00)
Florida Irrigation
4500130431
Florikan
306,398.22
Forestry Resources
368.41
Hannula Landscape
2,500.26
Hannula Landscape
(417,200.00)
Hannula Landscape
(21,445.24)
Indirect Cost
15,500.00
Insurance General
(420,276.57)
Juristaff Inc
726,674.79) Staples
30,000.00 Visa
14,000.00 Windham Studio
3,600.00 Windham Studio
(15,212.70)
(200.00)
3,000.00
1,100.00
1,499.67
(13,000.00)
2,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
353.67 $ 2
- $ 51
P.O.#
Item
4500132894
Replace service panels on Devonshire
4700000778
2 FPL accounts
4500130334
Irrigation Supplies
4500130431
Fertilizer
4500130422
Mulch
4500130497
Devonshire Maintenance
4500132211
Refurbishment of medians RR MSTU
4500132406
Structural Pruning
IGC
County Services
IGC
Insurance
4500130356
Secretarial Services
4500130395
Office Supplies
Direct
Misc supplies
4500124715
Devonshire hedges, Street Trees
4500128033
Architectural Services
Remaining
I
Actual Paid
$ 2,247.00
$
-
$ 1,156.79
$
43.21
$ 3,453.09
$
46.91
$ 5,000.00
$
-
$ 12,710.80
$
12,289.20
$ 52,465.00
$
3,465.00
$ 16,782.70
$
-
$ 2,000.00
$
-
$ -
$
3,600.00
Minus: New Const
40 TRANSFER CONST
$ 2,538.98
$
461.02
$ 300.00
$
-
$ -
$
0.33
$ 6,673.24
$
-
$ 14,324.00
$
448.00
TOTAL (Lines 33 + 35) $ 119,651.60 $ 20,353.67
%
3
Final 'Taxable Value
1,214,337,046
Final FY 10 Taxable Value
1,039,288,028
FY 11 Final Taxaole Value
987,648,123
FY 12 July 1st Ta cable Value
FY 12
Millage 0.3114
Extension 307,664
Property Tax Limitation Impact
36 TRANS TO 111 UNINCORPORATED
$
26,600.00
$
$ 26,600.00
FY 12 Gross
37 TRANSFERS
$
26,600.00
_
$ $
$ 26,600.00
Taxable Value
987,648,123
38 BUDGET TRANS APPRAISER
$
2,700.00
$ - $
650.48
$ 2,049.52
39 BUDGET TRANS TC COLLECTOR
$
7,700.00
$ - $
65.38
$ 7,634.62
Minus: New Const
40 TRANSFER CONST
$
10,400.00
$ - $
715.86
$ 9,684.14
Annex.
3,346,690
41 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY
$
3,200.00
$ - $
-
$ 3,200.00
RESERVES
$
3,200.00
$ - $
-
$ 3,200.00
Plus: Amendment
#1 TV Component
0
TOTAL EXPENSES
$
731,745.24
$ 119,651.60 $
21 069.53
$ 591,024.11
Adj.Taxable Value
984,301,433
11 Levy
306,486
Rolled Back Rate
lless Amend.
One)
0.3114
-4.97% Adj. 11 to 12
FY 11
0.2949 Millage Cap =.6000
306,486
161'2 A11
MAINTENANCE REPORT
To:
Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee
CC
Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM
From:
Scott Windham
Date:
November 14, 2011
RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report
MSTU Committee and Staff:
The following is a report of the general conditions and recommendations for the
maintenance of the Radio Road MSTU areas as related to previously discussed
maintenance action items:
Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained.
A few observations are as follows:
• All stakes have been removed from the Royal Palms, Montgomery Palms and
Foxtail Palms.
• Hannula has increased man power on the Radio Road corridor from a single 6
man crew to two crews totaling 11 men.
• There was a weed problem which Hannula has addressed and they will stay on
top of it so things will not get out of control in the future. The worst area is the
medians at the Circle K.
• Following the recent completion of the irrigation heads replacement, Hannula has
been spraying the existing turf with herbicide to kill weeds which infested several
areas due to the previous poor irrigation coverage. Hannula will apply a final
application of herbicide this week, then proceed with weed removal and sod
replacement.
• Hannula fertilized in late October.
• Mulch top dress is complete.
• Plumbago has Chile Thrips and will be sprayed with Dominion (systemic) and
Bifenthrin (topical) insecticides.
• Magnolias show early stage scale starting. Hannula will treat with Merit
(systemic) and T- methyl (fungicide).
• Bougainvillea have chewing pest and will be sprayed with Bifenthrin and T-
methyl.
• The large Live Oaks were trimmed.
Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000367
P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936
Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scottoa windlrunnstuclio.conn.
www.windhamstudio.com
5.
161 2 1111
STATUS REPORT
To:
Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee
Company:
Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM
From:
Scott Windham
Date:
November 14, 2011
RE: Radio Road MSTU Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment and Radio Road
Medians Refurbishment Status Report
MSTU Committee and Staff:
The following is a report on the status of the Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment and
Radio Road medians refurbishment projects:
DEVONSHIRE:
• Purchasing pulled the AmeriPride bid award request from the BCC Mtg agenda
due to new concerns over AmeriPride qualifications. AmeriPride has filed a
protest over the contract award. Brenda Brilhart will attend today's meeting to
update the committee on the status
RADIO ROAD EAST END MEDIANS:
• WSI directed Hannula to change the 505 Dinni Crown of Thorns to Gold Mound
Lantana due to availability. The Lantana will provide a similar low height yellow
flowering plant look to the composition.
• Hannula transplanted existing yellow crown of thorns and removed the sod and
existing plant material from the new plant bed areas last week. Saba[ Palms are
being planted today, 11/14 and container plants are scheduled to be planted
Tues -Fri, 11/15 -18. All is anticipated to be completed by next Mon -Tues 11/21-
11/22 prior to Thanksgiving.
Please email or call me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Scott Windham, ASLA
Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516
Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000367
P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936
Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scottQ windhamstudio.com
��7';;v.wmdhamst udio.c om
161 2 4'+A 11
From: Manuel Gonzalez [ mailto: mgonzalez @hannulalandscaping.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 10:43 AM
To: Scott Windham
Cc: LulichPamela; Richard Darryl
Subject: FW: Radio Rd
Scott,
I apologize for not answering the phone. I am out sick today and I will not be attending the MSTU
Meeting today. I have Carlos Herrera, my Irrigation Supervisor, that will be taking my place today.
I already let him know that the drive thru takes place at 2:30 p.m. today.
1) The Magnolia trees are starting to show signs of Scale. Which I will be treating with Dominion 6L
(Merit), Bifen I/T (Bifenthrin) and T- Mythel (Fungicide)
2) The Bougainvillea appear to have either Caterpillars or Grass Hoppers eating the leaves. I did not see
any pests but the leaves are being eaten.
3) All the trimming on this roadway has been completed by Signature Tree
4) The mulch has been completed from Devonshire to Airport Rd.
5) The fertilization has been completed with the Florakan 8 -2 -12 Collier blend fertilizer
6) Cesar (Hannula's Spray tech) is scheduled to retreat Radio Rd. for weeds today Monday the 14`h of
November. Once we have the die back of the weeds we can remeasure sod to fill in the damaged areas
only. We will be treating the weeds with Atrazine this time around. Last time we used Celsius and we did
not notice a good kill.
Thank you,
HANNI
"Where Service is
Always in Season"
Manuel. Gonzalez
Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc.
239 -992 -2210 Office
239- 498 -6818 Fax
239 - 340 -0346 Cell
MGonzalez @Han nu la Landsca ping, corn
107..
161 2 4111
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to award Bid #11 -5700 for "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation
Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of $278,818.46;
and reject the bid from Ameri- Pride, Inc. Improvements will be funded by residents of the Radio
Road Beautification MSTU.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board's approval to award Bid #11 -5700, "Devonshire Boulevard
Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc.
CONSIDERATIONS: On June 19, 2011, the Purchasing Department sent out 752 notices for
Bid #11 -5700, "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project." On July
20, 2011, three (3) bids were received and opened from the following contractors: Coastal
Concrete Products, Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc., and Ameri -Pride Inc. The lowest bid
per the tabulation including selected alternates was from Ameri -Pride Inc. On August 1, 2011,
the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee reviewed all the bids and requested
additional information regarding previous project experience for Ameri -Pride Inc. because
Ameri- Pride's bid submittal listed projects that were not roadway landscape and irrigation
projects.
On September 12, 2011, representatives from Ameri -Pride attended the Radio Road
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee meeting and presented previous project experience
and listed references to address the Advisory Committee's concerns. After further discussion,
the advisory committee moved to award the contract to Ameri -Pride provided it submit
additional letters of references from recent clients of like work similar to the proposed
Devonshire project (motion passed 4 -0). On October 10, 2011, the MSTU Advisory Committee
met and confirmed that it was satisfied with the letters of references received from Ameri- Pride.
Staff originally recommended award to Ameri -Pride as the apparent low, qualified and
responsive bid. Subsequent to the submission of the recommended award, Staff learned that
Ameri -Pride was having difficulty fulfilling its obligations under a contract with the City of
Naples. The City has issued a cure letter regarding Ameri- Pride's performance; and as of
November 1, 2011 there has been no response to the City's letter. County staff has experienced
other difficulty in getting timely information from this vendor. Because of these uncertainties,
staff recommends that the Board reject the bid from Ameri -Pride and award to Hannula
Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., as the actual lowest responsive and qualified bidder.
Staff recommends awarding Bid #11 -5700 to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc.
Contractor
Base Bid Amount
Base Bid + Alternates
finer -: Pride ine.
e227 ccn n i
yzzr�� -r
$267 ti n
yzv-r ,z-rr.
Hannula Landscape
$234,842.66
$278,818.46
Coastal Concrete Products
$311,604.54
$356,313.42
Jor
161 2-441-1
FISCAL IMPACT: Radio Road MSTU Fund 158- 162522 improvements general has funds
available for project funding.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County
Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for
approval —SRT.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated
with this Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid 411 -5700 for the "Devonshire
Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation,
Inc.; reject the bid from Ameri- Pride, Inc; and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
contract after review by the County Attorney's Office.
Prepared By: Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager, ATM Department
Attachments: (1) Bid #11 -5700 Bid Tabulation, (2) Bid #11 -5700 Contract
As
1 161 2 A 12
May 5, 2011
VamdaNdt J;*aeA JH.S.YA
Advisory Ooonomittee
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
1. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering (Excused), Bruce
Forman, Bud Martin
County: Darryl Richard -MSTU Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape
Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Mark Sunyak - Public
Utilities Department
Others: Robert Kindelan -CLM, Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Darlene
Lafferty -J u ristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Add. Vlll. C. Approve Engineering Deposit Fee for Phase 11 and Phase 111
IX. A. Malcolm Pimie
Xl. A. Summer Schedule
Xl. B. NUVU Plan Review
Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 40.
IV. Approval of Minutes - April 7, 2011
Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of April 7, 2011 as
presented. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously
40.
V. Budget Repof$
Darryl Richard reviewed information from the Report: (See attached)
• Collected Ad Valorem Tax $943,628.80
• Fertilizer P.O. $1,379.22 is for the entire 2011 Fiscal Year
1
Al2 �
Dick Lydon questioned Line items on the Adjusted Balance Sheet
(page 2):
o Outstanding monies as of October 2010 - Interest Receivable
$7,293.01
Discussion took place on the duplicated monthly amount for the Interest
Receivable Line Item.
Darryl Richard will confer with the Budget Office on the Line Item in
question and email the response to the Committee.
Additionally Dick Lydon noted the monthly amount Due from Tax
Collector ($2,615.91) is also identical and requested an explanation on the
Line Item.
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM
Robert Kindelan reported:
• Irrigation heads will be moved for better coverage
• Eureka Palms (18 ft.) were cut down to 3 -4 ft. (at Germain Ave.)
- It was noted that the Property across the street is for sale
with a sign posted stipulating "Water View"
- The CLM crew was approached (by parties unknown) to cut
the Eureka Palms down (approximately 1 -2 months ago)
- It was speculated that the Property Owner may have cut the
Palms to promote the sale of the Property
After discussion the following was concluded:
• The Eureka Palms were Property of the MSTU
- The Committee perceived the issue as vandalism and
requested Staff pursue reimbursement for the Eureka Palms
• CLM will submit a quote to replace the Eureka Palms
• Staff will present the quote to Code Enforcement and request they
contact the Owner of the Property for sale
- Robert Kindelan will verify the address of the Property
• Staff suggested filing an Incident Report
Robert Kindelan presented a photo of a Contractor vehicle parked in the
median.
Darryl Richard requested notification when a vehicle is parked in the
median.
Discussion ensued and it was determined parking in the ROW grass is
prohibited (County Wide.) The suggestion was made to contact Code
Enforcement (239) 252 -2440 to report the occurrence.
VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur - Discussed under Vlll. B.
0
161 2 Al2
VIII. Project Manager Report
A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard - Discussed under Vlll. C.
B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak
Mark Sunyak gave the following information:
Asbestos Project
o Plans are ready for Bid Solicitation
- The existing 5 underground Contractors that are on a
Fixed Tenn Contract will be utilized to expedite the
process
- Foresees within one month a Contractor will be ready to
mobilize (anticipate a Contractor will be lined up in June)
• Public Utilities will initiate the Water Main work (Phase 1) to
make way for FPL which involves
- Street crossings of Gulf Shore Dr.
- Asbestos Cement Pipe removal
• Timeline
- A couple of days for prep work
- 1 -2 weeks of Construction
- Bacteriological and Pressure testing will be performed
- 1 -2 weeks of final connections, repairs, and clean up
- 4 -6 weeks for total Construction
- Anticipate Project completion by the end of July
Darryl Richard reviewed May 4, 2011 Teleconference Report: (See
attached)
o Property Owner requested modification to the Easement
language (Easement 10 - Vanderbilt Beach LLC)
Charles Arthur reported FPL will not agree to the Easement language
modification.
After discussion it was stated Charles Arthur and Staff will meet with
the Property Owner and Attorney (of Vanderbilt Beach LLC.)
Charles Arthur summarized the timeline for the Project:
• Acquire the remaining (1) Easement (See attached)
• Notify FPL that all Easements are secured
• Within 3 weeks FPL will provide
- Final Plans
- Invoice for Binding Engineering Cost Estimate
- After receiving the Invoice the 180 days starts (must
enter into the agreement with FPL)
Discussion ensued concerning the timing of payment to FPL for the
Binding Engineering Cost.
1612 Al2
After discussion the Committee agreed to approve sufficient monies for
payment to FPL.
Charles Arthur moved to approve payment to FPL of their Binding
Estimate for Phase I up to $3,000,000.00 and based on written
Estimate to be provided when Easements are obtained. Second
by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
C. Approve Engineering Deposit Fee for Phase II and Phase III
Discussion took place on approval of Engineering Deposit Fee based
on Ballpark Estimates. The following was noted: (See attached)
• Phase I Fees $13,027.00 are paid
• The estimates may be outdated as they were prepared in 2007
Charles Arthur moved to approve payment of the Deposit up to
$75,000.00. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
Project Manager Report (See attached)
Darryl Richard reviewed Project Status:
(VA -37) RFP Phase One
o A Consulting Firm is needed for the following Services
- Supervise the Project
- Work with Staff and PUD (Public Utilities Division) to
protect the Asbestos Concrete Pipe
(VA -38) RFP Phase 11 & 111
• The Project is a joint venture with PUD (Public Utilities Division)
• A Fee Matrix for the Scope of Service will developed
- The MSTU portion of the cost will be identified
- Staff will email the draft RFP to the Committee
IX. Old Business
A. Malcolm Pirnie
Charles Arthur commended Chris Tilman for resolving the
dissension between Malcolm Pirnie and the County.
Michelle Arnold reviewed a letter and Fee matrix from Malcolm Pirnie
requesting payment of $6,304.00: (See attachments)
• $6,304.00 - Services that were provided for Easements
- The Fee matrix is consistent with County hourly rates
• The Committee approved $39,974.00 for GC Scope of Services
(March 2011)
- The Proposal was based on time and materials and was
not consistent with County hourly rates (See attached)
- The Proposal was rejected by the Purchasing Department
M
161 2 Al2
Bud Martin moved to approve $6,304.00 with the caveat of taking
the necessary steps to avoid another hang up. Second by Dick
Lydon. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was amended to include: if it can be done in accordance with the
County Purchasing Policy.
Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman - None
B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin — None
XI. New Business
A. Summer Schedule — Discussed under X1. B.
B. NUVU Plan Review
Darryl Richard reviewed the proposed Site Plan: (See attached)
• ROW Permit Application was submitted
• NUVU is a telecommunications company that intends to provide
Cable service to Gulf Shore Dr.
• The Yacht and Racket Club is funding the Project
• NUVU is proposing to cross the waterway and connect to FPL poles
Staff stated that the Permit was rejected and a meeting will be held
with FPL, Comcast, NUVU, and Staff to discuss the proposed Plan.
Charles Arthur moved that the County and the Permitting process
ensure that the MSTU will not bear any cost for NUVU to go under
water /underground and the Plan must be approved by FPL and
Comcast so that it is not in conflict with the (MSTU Underground
Project) drawings. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried 3 -1,
Bud Martin voted no.
Summer Schedule
The Committee discussed suspending summer meetings. It was
agreed to leave the September meeting open should MSTU buait*%s,
require that a meeting be held. The next scheduled meeting is
October 13, 2011.
XII. Public Comment — None
5
161 2 Al2
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned by the Chair at 3:40 p.m.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Advisory Committee
Charles Arthur, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on ! L - 13 , l I
as presented or amended
The next meeting is October 13, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111 T" Ave.
Naples, FL.
m
161 2 Al2,;
V and er6if t IleacA JV I.S.T.R.
Ad visopy e0m,xtjrree
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
October 13, 2011
AGENDA
I Xalggy)31
I. Call Meeting to Order 'IV 0 7 2011
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: May 5, 2011
V. Budget Report
Fiala
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Hiller
Henning le -
r -- -
VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur Co Coyle
--
VIII. Project Manager Report
A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard
B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak
IX. Old Business
X. Update Report Misc. Corres:
A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman
B. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin Date: I I d I Iz.
XI. New Business item: IU7= -Z
XII. Public Comment Copies to:
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is November 3, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111 T" Ave.
Naples, FL
161 2 112
Darlene
From: RichardDarryl [DarrylRichard @colliergov.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:32 PM
To: (fbayview @aol.com); Bill Gonnering (bill @ipcnaples.com); bud_martin @comcast.net;
ccarthur @earth link. net; dlydon124 @aol.com
Cc: Darlene; SilleryTessie; LulichPamela; Arnold Michelle; HerreraGloria
Subject: Response to questions from 5 -5 -11 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU meeting
Importance: High
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee,
Please see attached response from Derek Johnssen to questions asked during the 5 -5 -11 meeting.
If you should have any follow -up questions — please forward them directly to myself or Gloria Herrera
(GloriaHerrera @colIiergov.net)
Thank you,
Darryl Richard, RLA
MSTU Project Manager
Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
telephone: 239 - 252 -5775
Fax: 239 - 252 -6627
Cell: 239 - 253 -9083
From: Derek M. Johnssen [ mai Ito: Derek .Johnssen @colIierclerk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 20114:12 PM
To: RichardDarryl
Subject: RE: questions from today's meeting re: report for 5 -5 -11 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU meeting
From: RichardDarryl [ mailto :DarrylRichard @colliergov.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:25 PM
To: Derek M. Johnssen
Cc: Herrera, Gloria; Lulich, Pamela; Arnold, Michelle
Subject: questions from today's meeting re: report for 5 -5 -11 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU meeting
Derek,
The advisory committee had some questions on your report today:
1) QUESTION: Please provide explanation of what line item "Good and Services" includes? (we
were thinking it was 'all the money the committee had spent since it was created ?. ?)
RESPONSE:
"Goods and services" includes everything that the MSTU has spent since inception in all
categories (landscaping, surveying, contract services , Tax Collector services etc.) EXCEPT
transfers to other County funds which are broken out separately.
10/31/2011
A 12 Y
2) QUESTION: The "Interest Receivable" line a ears to be consisln th� `sa' for FY -10 and FY -11 @
pp
$7,293.01) hasn't interest rates changed over this period? Please confirm?
RESPONSE:
The "Interest Receivable" line item is recorded once a year as of 9/30/20xx in order to show interest owed but
not cash_re_ceipted. This number is subsequently reversed during the next fiscal year and then another accrual
will be recorded as of the end of that year. I do not show the reversal midyear in reports such as this because it
interferes with reconcilement to the 210 SAP report. In order to compare Gloria's number to mine see below:
Gloria picked up General Ledger Account 361180 of $18,069.98 only, while my interest figure consists of G/L
Account 361180 of $18,069.98, G/L Account 361170 of $1,806.65 and G/L Account 361320 of $70.64 for a total of
$19,947.27. The Interest Receivable figure of $7,293.01 is a balance sheet item and again will be reversed against the
interest stream reported in the revenues and expenses section in the Vanderbilt Beach report. then the FY -2011
balance sheet entry for interest receivable will be posted.
Note: the monthly report from SAP reports $18,069.98 for interest rate earned. See attached report prepared
by Gloria Herrera, Budget Analyst
3) QUESTION: There was a question about the transfer to Property Appraiser and Tax Collector — Please confirm
that the figures presented are correct. And if you'd like to comment on how they are derived — please do so....
RESPONSE:
The transfers to the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector are shown as part of the payment for "Goods and services" in
the condensed CUMULATIVE section of the report. To date in Fy -2011 $5,885.58 has been transferred to the Property
Appraiser and $19,122.58 has been transferred to the Tax Collector. Unused fees will be remitted back to the MSTU as
of the end of the year. I can call them to get the exact billing rates for the PA and TC respectively if you wish.
If you need more do not hesitate to ask!
Thank you,
Darryl Richard, RLA
MSTU Project Manager
Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
telephone: 239 - 252 -5775
Fax: 239-252-6627
Cell: 239 -253 -9083
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
10/31 /2011
161 2 Al2
October 13, 2011
Collier County
Growth Management Division
Construction and Maintenance
2885 South Horseshoe
Naples, FL 34104
Attn: Darryl T. Richard, RLA, MSTU Project Manager
Proposal: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, PEC #111006
EIN: 20- 3020248
Dear Darryl,
We are pleased to offer this proposal within the scope of Contract #09 -5262 County Wide
Engineering Services, which will include the following:
Task 1: Review of FPL Bidding Cost Estimate - Phase I Project
Deliverable 1: Provide a letter report evaluating the FP &L cost proposal for
Underground Facilities Conversion for Phase I of the Vanderbilt Beach
project.
The hourly not to exceed fee for the above is $9,830.00.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal.
We can start work immediately upon authorization.
If authorization is received by the close of business on Friday October 14, 2011 we will
complete the review by 8:00 AM Wednesday October 19, 2011.
Should there be any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lepore_ P. E., Managing Member
Pelican Engineering Consultants, LLC
( 'J
1612 Al2-1
SCHEDIILE B
Palicm BVIt u ing Convu t rft I.I.0 - Si anderd Hourly Rye Satreduls
Prh*W
$195
Senior Pt+o a Mana w
$185
Project Manager
$148
Sella Engineer
$155
Engineer
$119
Senior inspedor
$85
kupectdr
$55
Senior Planner
$140
Planner
$110
Senior Designer
$115
Designer
$100
Emironrnerrtai SpecieW
$115
Senior GIS Soaciallet
$145
GIS SperIailist
$100
Clarkal
$60
Surveyor and Mapper
$130
CARD Technician
$85
This list is not intended to be all inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support
and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as
needed.
RFP# 09- 5262 -S - Discipline: InsOrraneatatiah3s and Carat ol% 5CADA, and Law Voitega
. . (F
e
0
0
a
U
w
CL
U
J
J
tll
.0 N
CL
> O
U)
o`
g c d q
-- o
a
w = O q LL
t M 0
R 0f O O v m m
C3
O
o
m
m
m
N
O
U
Z
U.
LL
Q
Q
W
O
a
0� m
w
d o E
=
Z 7
O
E
Q
Z W
w
C Z
U
_
N N m m
N
d.
o m
W
UUUa`F O a`
16I v-1
m
E
m
m
0
d
m
0
O
m
F
�9,/ I
O
o
m
m
m
N
O
U
CO ,
�
m
E
w
U
N
J
CL
a
0
LL
3
m
Q
m
LL
o
Q
m
E
m
m
0
d
m
0
O
m
F
�9,/ I
1612 A
DIVA INC.
LST I i T.L 1
- Planting *Visualization
• Civil Engineering - Surveying & Mapping
August 8, 2011
Darryl Richard
Collier County Government
Transportation Department
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU — Phases IIB
(RWA, Inc. File No. 080010.00.05)
Dear Darryl,
RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying and subsurface utility
services associated with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines. Outlined below is our
understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and
associated fees in response to your request for proposal. This proposal has been prepared with the
knowledge and experience gained through the successful completion of the Phases I, RA and
Phase III of the project. It is worth noting, that should the Board consider undertaking the
remaining phase concurrently, the timing will help us compress the time schedules for
completion, and avoid subsequent mobilization time and expense.
PROJECT PROFILE
* Collier County (Client) intends to assist the MSTU with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial
lines located within the MSTU boundary in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in
Collier County, Florida.
* The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services.
* RWA shall provide a detailed topographic and control survey and existing underground utility
locations within Phase IIB, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU power line-
underground installation exhibit, received on January 4, 2008, and amended.to divide Phase 11.
The surveying limits are 10' outside of the existing right -of -way.
* Phase IIB shall include the following street: BluebilI Avenue, from Gulf Shore Drive, easterly
to the intersection with Vanderbilt Drive. (2,700 linear feet)
* The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the
Project as described within this proposal.
* The project will be permitted, designed and developed in three subsequent phases.
* Phase I of the project (approximately 10,200 linear feet) included an additional services
(change order) to utilize vacuum excavation methods to obtain vertical information on
_. twenty seven (2 7) specific locations at the request of FPL, or one hole per 400 linear feet.
6610 Wtkw Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples FL 34909 • (239) 597 -0575, fax: (239) 597 -0578
www.consult- rwacom
r-RION
161 2 q12
This proposal for services factors in the use of vacuum excavation at a rate of one hole, per
300 linear fed for each of the subsequent phase& The use of vacuum excavation is to clam
potential utility conflictx This shall be billed on a per hole basis at the rate of $625 per hol&
The line item listed in the Professional Fee section is only an estimate based on the number
calcutated at one hole per 300 linear feet
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
• The client will make available all pertinent information associated with the project including,
but not limited to, legal descriptions, existing surveys, permits, title policies and other
available documents.
• The vertical datum will be collected in NAVD 1988 and converted to NGVD 1929.
• Any additional surveying services, additional underground soft digs or the use of ground
penetrating radar, beyond the Scope of this Proposal, shall be billed on a time, material and
expense basis as per the approved rate codes stated within Annual Contract # 09 -5262.
• This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.0 Control Survey
1.1. Reproduce the recorded right -of -way and baseline information. Right -of -way shall
include the intersecting road within the project limits. The right -of -way information
shall be labeled, including, date, bearings and distances. In addition the following
information shall be noted:
a. Horizontal datum — tied into the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD
1983/1999 Adjustment. RWA will provide project control network sheets for
the survey baseline control points instead of setting reference points.
b. Vertical datum (benchmarks) —1988 (NAVD 88), set eight per project area.
c. Existing layout shall be tied to the existing right -of -way.
d. Locate existing visible property markers (e.g. — iron pipe, concrete monuments,
etc.)
e. Tie buildings located within 20' of the proposed limits of the project to the
existing right -of -way.
1.2. Property ownership shall be determined from Collier County records and
incorporated into the plan drawings and files. Property lines do not need to be
surveyed, but shall be verified utilizing any visible property markers, wherever
possible. The MSTU will provide or make available to the surveyor the identifying
property owner information and easement report upon request.
2.0 TopograQhic Survey
2.1. Locate and collect spot elevations of the above - ground visible improvements
located within the project limits. Improvements include, but are not limited to:
Page 2 of 6
S:120081080010.00.P0 Vanderbilt Besch MSN10=011-084s -PSA D.Ridmr&Ph IIB.doc
3.0
4.0
161 2 4 Al2
drive aprons, sidewalks, pathways, exiting utility poles and pedestals, fire hydrants,
trees, planted hedges, mailboxes, signage, signal poles, street lights, and any other
existing feature that could impact, or be impacted by the proposed improvements.
2.2. Locate individual decorative (landscape features) trees 4" in diameter and up.
2.3. Locate the outline of hedgerows and planted areas.
2.4. Collect sanitary and storm structure data; rim elevations, inverts, pipe sizes
directions and condition.
2.5. Locate the Mean High Water Elevation in the areas immediately adjacent to the
bridge and associated abutments.
Underground Utility Location
3.1. Locate all known utilities in Phase UB of this project, using ground penetrating
radar and/or radio detection. (To be performed by our subcontractor, Earthview.)
3.2. Paint and flag utilities in accordance with Florida D.O.T. Requirements. (To be
performed our subcontractor by Earthview.)
3.3. This proposal does include vacuum excavation, assumed to be at a rate of one
hole, per 300 linear feet (To be performed by our subcontractor Earthview,
LLC) The number of holes for Phase HB is estimated to be 10. The line item
below in the FEES section, will be billed on per hole basis, and only the actual
number of holes will be billed to the client'
3.4. RWA, Inc. will field locate underground utilities, as marked in the field by Earth
View LLC. The utility locations will include the horizontal locations of all marked
lines. Field locations will be delivered in Auto Cadd format,
Reimbursable Expenses
4.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery
services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc.
Page 3 of 6
S.'aO081080010.00.P0 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU MOI 1 -08- 08- PSA- D.Richard -Ph HB.doa
1612- Al2'
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES
The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below.
Scone of Services (P- hase IIB) Fee Type
1.0 Control Survey $ 5,500 Fixed
2.0 Topographic Survey $ 14,400 Fixed
3.0 Underground Utility Location $ 9,400 Fixed
(10 Soil digs @ $625 per) $ 6,250 THE
Total $ 35,550
4.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 400 T/M/E
Note. T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate
only; client will only be biQed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services
Deliverables
• RWA will submit an Autocad Version 9 or higher electronic file in DWG format as required
by FPL.
• The final control survey shall include a detailed and accurate compilation of control points
established by a closed traverse loop through the primary control points or with a Global
Positioning System -based network, to assure an error -free or closed control network. Relative
error or loop closure will conform to requirements of subsection 61017-6.003(l) (e), FAC. All
control points will be referenced to the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999
Adjustment.
• Up to four copies of the final control survey will be provided in hard copy print, signed and
sealed by a Florida registered Surveyor and Mapper.
Excluded Services
The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the
Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded
services that may be required or desired by the Client:
• Construction Layout Services
• Preparation of Sketch and Descriptions
• Easement Vacations
• Special Purpose Surveys
• Radar Topography
Page 4 of 6
SA20081080010.00.P0 Vanderbilt Beech MSTU\02 12011 -08 -08- PSA- D.Richerd -Ph 11B.doc
1612
ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
Period for Acceptance
Al2
This Proposal /Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through October 31, 2011. After the
acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc.
Acceptance
If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the
agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA,
Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work.
owner/Client Authorization
I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the
subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to
execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the
services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above
in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and
Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc.
Accepted this day of
M
2011.
Please Print Name Title
For: Collier County Transportation
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you
have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Ward, PLS
RWA, Inc.
Director of Survey, VP
Encl.: Collier County Rate Code
Billing Address Information
Page 5 of 5
s:120081080010.00.1'0 Vanderbilt Beach MST[J10212ol 1 -08- 08-PSA D.Richard -Ph IIB.doc
1 1 �1
161 2 Al2
DIVA INC
CONSULTING
Z %. T Tl 1
Plmning •Visualization
• Civii Engineering •Sumying & Mapping
June 22, 2011
Darryl Richard
Collier County Government
Transportation Department
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU — Phases IIA and
III, S.U.E. (RWA, Inc. File No. 080010.00.04)
Dear Darryl,
RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying and subsurface utility
services associated with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines. Outlined below is our
understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and
associated fees in response to your request for proposal. This proposal has been prepared with the
knowledge and experience gained through the successful completion of the Phase I, as well as the
survey portion, and the horizontal location of the existing utilities in Phase IIA and Phase III. The
base contract that the original work authorization for the below described vacuum excavations
(soil digs) was issued, has expired. Therefore the project was closed necessitating the need for a
new work authorization to completes the Subsurface Utility Exploration.
PROJECT PROFILE
• Collier County (Client) intends to assist the MSTU with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial
lines located within the MSTU boundary in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in
Collier County, Florida.
• The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services.
* RWA shall provide a detailed topographic and control survey and existing underground utility
locations within Phases II and III, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU power line-
underground installation exhibit, received on January 4, 2008. The surveying limits are 10'
outside of the existing right -of -way.
• Phase IIA shall include the following streets: Vanderbilt Beach Road from Gulf Shore Drive to
Vanderbilt Drive, S. Bay Drive, Gulf Shore Court, and Center Street. (4,700 linear feet)
•. Phase III shall include Vanderbilt Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue,
Palm Court, Oak Avenue, Pine Avenue, Bay Side, Lagoon Avenue, Tradewinds, Willet
Avenue, Seagull Avenue, German Avenue, Seebee Avenue, Conners Avenue, Egret Avenue,
Heron Avenue, and Flamingo Avenue. (22,850 linear feet)
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Maples FL 34109 • (239) 597- 0575,1A)c (239) 597 -0578
www.consult- rwa.com
16I 2 X12 1
• The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the
Project as described within this proposal.
• The project will be permitted, designed and developed in three subsequent phases.
• Phase I of the project (approximately 10,200 linear feet) included an additional services
(change order) to utilize vacuum excavation methods to obtain vertical information on
twenty seven (27) specific locations at the request of M, or one hole per 400 linear feet
This proposal for services factors in the use of vacuum excavation at a rate of one hole, per
300 linear feet for each of the subsequent phases due to the complexity of the project as
revealed by the recent survey of the Phases in question. The use of vacuum excavation is to
clarify potential utility conj cts. This shall be billed on a per hole basis at the rate of $625
per hole. The line item listed in the Professional Fee section is only an estimate based on the
number calculated at one hole per 300 linear feet
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
• The client will make available all pertinent information associated with the project including,
but not limited to, legal descriptions, existing surveys, permits, title policies and other
available documents_
• The vertical datum will be collected in NAVD 1988 and converted to NGVD 1929.
• Any additional surveying services, additional underground soft digs or the use of ground
penetrating radar, beyond the Scope of this Proposal, shall be billed on a time, material and
expense basis as per the approved rate codes stated within Annual Contract # 07 -4112.
• The surveying services outlined in the proposal is based upon the FPL scope of services and
Phasing Exhibit received on January 10, 2008, which was the basis for Phase I of the project.
The limits of Phase II were amended to perform the surveys for that portion of Phase II along
Bluebill, simultaneous with Phase IV.
• This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.0 Supplemental Survey Activities
1.1. Stake the location of each of the proposed vacuum excavation locations.
1.2. Return to each site following the vacuum excavation and collect the horizontal
location, depth to the top of the pipe, material and identification of each of the
excavated utilities.
1.3. Update the current Topographic Survey to depict the data gathered.
2.0 Underground UtifiV Location, Vacuum Excavation
2.1. RWA subcontractor, Earthview LLC, shall perform vacuum excavation to expose
the identified utility to determine accurate horizontal location, and depth, as staked
by RWA. Earthview shall also identify material of the utility and size of the
Pile-
Page 2 of 6
S:t2008\080010.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\02\20I 1-W22 PSA DRichard SUE PH IIA and Ill.doc
1612 Al2 1
3.0 Reimbursable Expenses
3.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery
services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES
The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below.
Scope of Services (Phase IIA) Fee T vve
1.0 Supplemental Survey
2.0 Underground Utility Location
(16 Soft digs @ $625 per)
3.0 Reimbursable Expenses
Scope of Services (Phase III)_
1.0 Supplemental Survey
2.0 Underground Utility Location
(76 Soft Digs @ $625 per)
5.0 Reimbursable Expenses
$ 5,100 Fixed
$10,000 THE
Total $ 15,100
$ 250 T/M/E
Fee Type
$ 18,200 Fixed
$ 47,500 Fixed
Total $67,500
$ 500 T/M/E
Note. T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate
only; client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services.
Page 3 of 6
S.\2008\080010.00.P0 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU10212011-0&22 PSA DRichard SUE PH IIA and Ill.doc /\
161 2 d12 a
Deliverables
• RWA will submit an Autocad Version 9 or higher electronic file in DWG format as required
by FPL.
• The final control survey shall include a detailed and accurate compilation of control points
established by a closed traverse loop through the primary control points or with a Global
Positioning System -based network, to assure an error -free or closed control network. Relative
error or loop closure will conform to requirements of subsection 61G17- 6.003(1) (e), FAC. All
control points will be referenced to the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999
Adjustment.
• Up to four copies of the final control survey will be provided in hard copy print, signed and
sealed by a Florida registered Surveyor and Mapper.
Excluded Services
` The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the
Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded
services that may be required or desired by the Client:
• Construction Layout Services
• Preparation of Sketch and Descriptions
• Easement Vacations
• Special Purpose Surveys
• Radar Topography
Page 4 of 6
SA20M09MI0.00.P0 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\021201 I -06-22 PSA DRichud SUE PH HA and III.da
161 2
ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED
Period for Acceptance
A 12 +1
This Proposal /Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through October 31, 2011. After the
acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc.
Acceptance
If this Proposal /Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the
agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA,
Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work.
Owner/Client Authorization
I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the
subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to
execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the
services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above
in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and
Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc.
Accepted this day of
2011.
Please Print Name Title
For: Collier County Transportation
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you
have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
/6� -
Michael A. Ward, PLS
RWA, Inc.
Director of Survey
Encl.: Collier County Rate Code
Billing Address Information
Page 5 of 6
S:120081080010.00.PO Vandrrbiit Beach MSTU10212 01 1 -06-22 PSA DRichard SUE PH 11A and IIl.doc
/. 00�
16I 2 4"1Al2.1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 7, 2011
TO: Darryl Richard
FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager
Board of County Commissioners
RE: Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee
As you know, we currently have 2 vacancies on the above referenced advisory committee. A press
release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an
application for consideration. I have attached the application received for your review as follows:
Mr. Bruce R. Foreman
11116 Gulfshore Drive
Naples, Florida 34108
Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee
within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's
consideration.
Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me
at 252 -8097.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
IM
Attachments
9
161 2 -A 12
Mitchellian
AiErom: fbayview@aol.com
nt • Wednesday, August 24, 20119:21 PM
Mitchellian
Subject: New On-line Advisory Board Application Submitted
Advisory Board Application Form
Collier County Government
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239)252-8606
Application was received on: 8124/20119:21:22 PM.
Name:: F Th6ii.
111116 Gulfshore Dr]
City; ale Zip:Cogle: F41-0-�
I
F BU4100
. �36.
A11ai1.A.o�. kbay��Jew a�olxo
jk�*rd 0���Appjw*d fbti lerbilt BeacN
006 9
of indicat
.
, �Fy
Work Place: netire
P—�
i tit; oilier- HoWjft -YIDU:
aba UW,?. J4� nasty ore than 15
Have,you ever.beeniO�'- any.' tuft against. 1_1 ''
Not IndicateA
'D
Po-yolr& YP - 0 1 th ...
Not IndicaiR
NOTE
enter iii �on�ov? the comity.
d
tb +t cisios
1612 Al2 {
rwmiai udatiow mares*. advisory
Not Indicate
kyou %ste. votir iuoiier GQaat}? YC�se
Do you ctifr!oittly t :public oEe
Do g+ u:.c , Mfttiy or der serverI on a� Col#i+er �lY hoard or - ommWee?
of Indicated
P,�eas�e :au� .t at
Current member of the MiM- Vanderbilt Beac
Editcati".'
03S Ed -Ohio State Univ. Master of Public Health- Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jerse
Eigeriencc:
s
2 (IL P
1612 Al2 �
VuNdsrBiet 8"eA Jb1.3.7A
Advisory Cosmsmittee
2705 Horseshoe Drive Soudi
Naples, FL 34104
October 13, 2011
MINUTES
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering (Excused), Bruce
Forman, Bud Martin (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget
Analyst, Michelle Arnold— Director ATM
Others: Robert Kindelan —CLM, Darlene Lafferty —Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: XI. A. New Board Member
Vl. A. Areca Palms
V. A. Adjusted Balance Sheet Line Item entries
Vll. A. NUVU
Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes — May 5, 2011
Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of May 5, 2011 as
submitted. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously
3 -0.
V. Budget Report
A. Adjusted Balance Sheet Line Item entries
Gloria Herrera reviewed information from the Budget Report: (See
attached)
• Ad Valorem Tax FY12 Budget $953,300.00
• Open P.O.s $105,547.35
• Available Capital Outlay $3,662,500.00
1
161 2 'Al2
Charles Arthur questioned the actual Total Available Funds on the
Budget Report as he perceived the Balance should reflect (approximately)
$5,000,000.00.
Discussion ensued on the tangible amount of Total MSTU Funds.
Dick Lydon stated the May 5, 2011 Budget Report reflects a Total Budget
amount of $5,824,668.85.
Darryl Richard noted the discrepancy between Budget amounts reflected
in (2) Reports: (See attached)
• October 13th Budget Report - $4,168,677.10
• Adjusted Balance Sheet - $5,732,292.12 (dated 9/30/11)
After discussion it was determined that the error was in the Carry Forward
amount:
o May 5th Budget Report - $5,063,500.00
o October 13th Budget Report - $3,351,300.00
The Committee requested the Budget Office email a corrected Budget
Report. (Staff Action Item)
Adjusted Balance Sheet Line Item entries
Michelle Arnold read verbatim the email response from Derek Johnssen
regarding the duplicate amounts on the Adjusted Balance Sheet Report.
(See attached)
• Interest Receivable line item is recorded annually (September
30th) to show interest owed
• SAP Monthly Report reflects $18,069.98 for interest rate earned
• As of May 10th the total amount of monies Transferred to
- Property Appraiser $5,885.58
- Tax Collector $19,122.58
- Unused fees will be remitted back to the MSTU as of end
of the year
Charles Arthur requested a year end Budget Report.
Gloria Herrera responded that the year end Report will be provided to the
Committee at the November meeting. (Staff Action Item)
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM
A. Areca Palms
Robert Kindelan reported:
• Fertilization is scheduled (within 1 -2 weeks)
• Sable Palms were trimmed to address a sight line issue (between
Palm and Oak)
- Requested further review by County Staff to determine if the
sight line issue was resolved or if removal of the Palms is
required (Staff Action Item)
2
161 2 A 12
Areca Palms
Robert Kindelan stated that a quote was submitted to replace the Areca
Palms.
Darryl Richard reported that a Police Report was filed for the (vandalized)
Areca Palms.
VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur
A. NUVU
Darryl Richard reported the selection Committee recommended Hole
Montes, Inc. for the FPL Underground Conversion Project.
Phases 11B Proposal PEC #111006 Pelican Engineering Consultants, LLC
Charles Arthur reported the following:
• The FPL quote was received in August
• The quote is under review by the County Attorney and County
Clerk
• Recommendation was made by Staff to hire an Engineer to
evaluate the FPL Proposal (Phase I Project) (to expedite
approval of the Quote)
Darryl Richard reviewed the Pelican Engineering Consultant Proposal in
the amount of $9,830.00 to review the FPL quote. October 19th is the
guaranteed date to receive the Pelican Engineering evaluation on the FPL
quote. (See attached)
Dick Lydon moved to approve the Proposal (by Pelican Engineering
Consultants, LLC) in the amount of $9,830.00. Second by Bruce
Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
Proposal - RWA, Inc. (File No. 080010.00.05)
Darryl Richard reviewed the RWA Proposal for Services:
• Connor Park area was originally excluded from the Survey
Scope (between Vanderbilt Dr. and Gulf Shore Dr.)
- Exclusion was based on the recommendation by
Malcolm Pimie
• FPL confirmed the segment is required to keep the power
grid up and running
• Utility Survey Estimate is $35,950.00 (Phase 1113)
• RWA Surveys are complete on
- Vanderbilt Dr
- Finger Streets (off Vanderbilt Dr)
- Southern portion Commercial Property
1612 .Al2
Dick Lydon questioned if NUVU should be involved in the Project as a
cost share on the Engineering Fees.
Charles Arthur responded that NUVU was advised that they will be
required to pay their share of the cost if they elect to run lines under the
Bridge.
Darryl Richard stated the NUVU cable will be attached to the Bridge prior
to MSTU Construction
Charles Arthur noted NUVU's permit dictates that they will be responsible
to move their lines at their expense should their project interfere with the
MSTU Project.
Dick Lydon moved to approve the RWA Proposal in the amount of
$35,950.00 (Connor Park area.) Second by Bruce Forman. Motion
carried unanimously 3 -0.
Phase 11A and lll. S. U. E. Proposal — RWA. Inc. (File No. 080010.00.04
Darryl Richard presented the Proposal to include: (See attached)
• Phase IIA - (16) Soft Digs
• Phase III - (76) Soft Digs
• Total Estimate $83,350.00
Dick Lydon moved to approve the RWA Proposal ($83,350.00.)
Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
VIII. Project Manager Report
A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard — Discussed under VII. A.
B. Public Utilities Department — Mark Sunyak
Michelle Arnold reported:
• Project to replace the Asbestos Water Line will commence in
November
• Project completion - 4 weeks
IX. Old Business - None
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman — None
B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin — None
4
161 2 1112
XI. New Business
A. New Board Member
Charles Arthur announced that there are (2) vacancies for the MSTU
Committee and noted that Bill Gonnering is not seeking reappointment
to serve on the MSTU Committee.
Charles Arthur moved to recommend the reappointment of Bruce
Forman to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
Staff suggested advertizing the Committee vacancy in the VBRA
Newsletter (Vanderbilt Beach Resident Association.)
Charles Arthur volunteered to coordinate with Lew Schmidt and Jackie
Bammel to publish the vacancy in the Newsletter.
Charles Arthur noted the FPL schedule is included in the meeting packet.
(See attached)
XII. Public Comment —None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned by the Chair at 2:58 p.m.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Advisory Committee
Charles Arthur, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on ►1_, - I 1
as presented or amended
The next meeting is November 5, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111 T" Ave.
Naples, FL.
5
161 2
Al2
Vtnder6i8t BeaeA JVt.S.YA
Advisory Con1mlittee 2 OR 2705 Horseshoe Drive Soudi 13
Naples, I es FL 34104 NOV 2 1 201 ;
November 3, 2011
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: October 13, 2011
V. Budget Report
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM
VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur
VIII. Project Manager Report
A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard
B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak
IX. Old Business
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman
B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
Fiala P
�.il;er -7i"
Henning
cr'&D f ----_
f;cletta _ �G
Misc. Corres:
Date. __v 110 I -2,
hem *- Ik X 22 R 12
C*es to:
The next meeting is December 1, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111 T" Ave.
Naples, FL
T--#
di
OPERATING EXPENSE
Amended
523,400.00
$ 105,310.16 $
Actual
Available
W1
35
Budget
Commitments
3,662,500.00
Expenditures
Total
$
CUR AD VALOREM TAX $
(958,300.00)
$
$
(4,757.44)
$ (953,542.56)
2
DEL AD VALOREM TAX $
3,662,500.00
$
$
$
$
3
FIFTH THIRD O/N INTERES' $
$
$
$
TRANSFERS
$
40,000.00
INVESTMENT INTEREST $
(15,100.00)
$
$
39
$ (15,100.00)
%04
5
INTEREST TAX COLLECT $
-
$
$
6,471.78
$
.W..46
REVENUE STRUCTURE $
(973,400.00)
$
$
(4,757.44)
$ (968,642.56)
7
TRANSFER FROM APPRAIS $
$
$
$
(1,174.00)
$ 1,174.00
8
TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $
RESERVE FOR CAPITAL
$
$
(8,084.16)
$ 8,084.16
9
CARRY FORWARD GEN $
(3,351,300.00)
$
$
17,500.00
$ (3,351,300.00)
10
CARRY FORWARD OF ENCI $
-
$
$
$
$ _
11
NEG 5% EST REV $
48,700.00
$
$
$ 48,700.00
12
TRANSFERS & CONTRIB $
(3,302,600.00)
$
$
(9,258.16)
$ (3,293,341.84)
13
TOTAL REVENUE $
(4,276,000.00)
$
$
(14,015.60)
$ (4,261,984.40)
14
LEGAL FEES $
2,500.00
$
$
-
$ 2,500.00
15
ENG FEES OTHER $
300,000.00
$
$
9,830.00
$ 290,170.00
16
SURVEYING FEES $
50,000.00
$
$
-
$ 50,000.00
17
INDIRECT COST REIMBURS $
11,200.00
$
$
-
$ 11,200.00
18
LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $
40,000.00
$ 5,610.00
$
390.00
$ 34,000.00
19
OTHER CONTRACTUAL $
66,000.00
$ 55,000.00
$
-
$ 11,000.00
20
POST FREIGHT $
-
$ -
$
$
21
POSTAGE $
-
$ _
$
$
22
ELECTRICITY $
200.00
$ 92.93
$
7.07
$ 100.00
23
WATER AND SEWER $
33,500.00
$ 27,719.45
$
1,580.55
$ 4,200.00
24
INSURANCE GENERAL $
1,300.00
$ -
$
-
$ 1,300.00
25
SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAIN] $
2,500.00
$ 1,964.88
$
76.36
$ 458.76
26
MAINTENANCE LANDSC $
-
$ -
$
-
$ _
27
MULCH $
5,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$
$ 1,000.00
28
OFFICE SUPPLIES $
300.00
$ 300.00
$
$ -
29
CLERKS RECORDING FEES $
500.00
$ -
$
23.20
$ 476.80
30
LEGAL ADVERTISING $
400.00
$ -
$
-
$ 400.00
31
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS $
5,000.00
$ 7,500.00
$
-
$ (2,500.00)
32 FERT HERB CHEM $ 5,000.00 $ 3,122.90 $ $ 1,877.10
33 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLY $ - $ - $ $ _
34
OPERATING EXPENSE
$
523,400.00
$ 105,310.16 $
11,907.18
$
406,182.66
35
IMPROVEMENTS GEN
$
3,662,500.00
$ - $
-
$
3,662,500.00
36
CAPITAL OUTLAY
$
3,662,500.00
$ $
Sprinkler Maint.
$
3,662,500.00
37
TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR
$
40,000.00
$ $
$ 7.07
$
40,000.00
38
TRANSFERS
$
40,000.00
$ $
4500130415
$
40,000.00
39
Budget Trans from Appraiser
$
8,600.00
$ $
2,128.22
$
6,471.78
40
Budget Trans from Tax Collet
$
24,000.00
$ $
142.72
$
23,857.28
41
TRANSFER CONST
$
32,600.00
$ $
2,270.94
$
30,329.06
42
RESERVE FOR CAPITAL
$
17,500.00
$ $
-
$
17,500.00
43
RESERVES
$
17,500.00
$ $
-
$
17,500 00
44
TOTAL BUDGET
$
4,276,000.00
$ 105,310.16 $
14,178.12
$
4,156,511.72
VANDERBILT MSTU
FUND 143
November 03, 2011
PO's FY 12
Y CIIUCI I1g111C
Item
Vu?;
Kemaming
Paid
Clerk of Courts
Recording fees
N/A
$ -
$ 23.20
Collier County Util.
Water & Sewer
4500000833
$ 27,719.45
$ 1,580.55
Commercial Land
Ground Maint.
4500130493
$ 6C,610.00
$ 390.00
Florida Irrigation
Sprinkler Maint.
4500130325
$ 1,964.88
$ 35.12
FPL
Electricity
4700000766
$ 92.93
$ 7.07
Florikan
Fertilizer
4500130426
$ 3,122.90
$ -
Forestry Resources
Mulch
4500130415
$ 4,000.00
$
Indirect Cost Reim
Collier Count
IGC
$ -
$
Insurance General
Insurance
IGC
$ -
$
Juristaff Inc
Clerical Services
4500130350
$ 7,500.00
$ -
Pelican Engineering Closed
FPL Phase 1 Project
4500132372
$ -
$ 9,830.00
Staples
Office Supplies
4500130390
$ 300.00
$ -
Visa
Misc Charges
Direct
$ -
$ 41.24
$ -
$
Line 34 + 36 = $ 10!,310.16 $ 11,907.18
2,225,039,681
FY 09 Final 1 axable Value
2,068,487,415
FY 10 Final'axable Value
2,005,897,752
FY 11 Final Iaxable Value
1,916,508,715
FY 12 July 1r,t Taxable Value
Component
-4.46% Adj. 11 to 12
Adj. Taxable Value
FY '2 FY 11
Millage
0.5000 0.5000
Extension
958,::54 1,002,949
Amend. One)
Property Ta; Limitation Impact
FY 12 Gross Taxable
Value
1,916,508, 715
Minus: New Const. Annex.
4,101,729
Plus: Amendment #1 TV
Component
0
Adj. Taxable Value
1,912,406,986
11 Levy
1,002,949
Rolled Back Rate (less
Amend. One)
0.5244
91 % of Rolled Back Rate
0.4772
Millage Cap = .5000
161 2 Al2
Budget Office Response to Question regarding carryforward variance
From: FinnEd
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20116:44 PM
To: HerreraGloria
Subject: Vanderbilt MSTU Carry Forward
Gloria,
Attached is a preliminary analysis for FY 11 comparing what we thought we were
going to spend to how much we actually spent. You will see that we spent $2.3
million less than anticipated.
When we figure the under spending back in you will note that the carry forward is
$5.7 million. You will want to look at the column titled FY 11 Total Actual. At
the bottom the estimated carry forward is calculated by subtracting total expenses
from total revenue. The preliminary carry forward estimate is $5.7 million or
approx $700k more than Mr. Lydon is looking for. Again, this variance is due to
the forecast expenditures not happening as planned.
The carry forward difference between $5.7M and $33M is still in the fund but it is
presently unbudgeted. It will be budgeted when
• we need the funding to issue a contract and recognize the carry forward to
fund it
• when we prepare for the FY 13 budget
If you have any questions please let me know
Ed Finn
616
w
Co
0
O
F�
CA
W CA
w CD
N y
W O
O O
O oI
(n CA
N cc
01 V
N -I
00
to p�
V O
N of
00 CD
N
W
o
W O
00 CA
N
4
P
O
O O
fun N Cn
cn
N
W
CD
U.)
W
W
000
x
1 2
lD
W
00
O
W
_o
O
N
O
001
W
O
O
•NA,
CD
161
2,
O
W
Cif
W
O
O
V
-1
U1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
O
O
O
O
c
0
O
O
O
000
N
l0
((nn
•P
N
O
N
�`
Q
m
N
I
-00
(Do
N
0
L7
m
N
O
V
N
�
CD
Nr
O
O
(n
CD
O
(D
(D
ct
N
O
'a
O
CD
CL
0
O
Q
0
O O\
3 9,
0
B
3
=
N
(D
N
r)
y
K
7
Oq
N
E
O
7
0
2L
p
fD
y
(D
C
-�
(D
CD
(D
r+
F,
(D
-n
Q
p D
CD
_ct
1
O
N
n
O
�
C
(D
O
.-%
0
O
O
Q
0
0
(D
(D
rt
CD
I
CD
w
Co
0
O
F�
CA
W CA
w CD
N y
W O
O O
O oI
(n CA
N cc
01 V
N -I
00
to p�
V O
N of
00 CD
N
W
o
W O
00 CA
N
4
P
O
O O
fun N Cn
J'I
cn
N
W
N
U.)
W
W
000
•WP
lD
W
00
O
W
_o
O
N
O
001
W
O
O
•NA,
lv0
O
O
O
W
Cif
W
O
O
V
-1
U1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
J'I
cn
N
W
N
O
W
W
000
•WP
lD
W
00
O
W
O
N
O
001
W
O
O
•NA,
lv0
O
O
O
W
Cif
W
O
O
V
-1
O
00
�
Ln
O1
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O O O o 0 0 0 0
b 4�:b 01
N a] 00 tj
O V W Ln CW
7 0 0 0 O A 01 In FA
IrA
000 p o1Di 4�b pi
O V ONO 0 CLn
O O O O O •P Ol to F-
N � �
F-A VI 4:�- to
V W (n (n
w LO
O O O O O •A rn In N
W
N 00 Ln 00
W 14 f-A W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
C10
Cif
N
co
00
N
00
N
W
y
N
•P
N
V
O
O
O
to 0 0 0 0 0
N W I- O
V N W 00
4�- O -A M
0) O (n I-A
O FA O 01 N O
cn
N
W
N
O
W
W
000
•WP
lD
W
N
O
W
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
•NA,
lv0
O
O
O
O
00
00
O
to 0 0 0 0 0
N W I- O
V N W 00
4�- O -A M
0) O (n I-A
O FA O 01 N O
N
N
W
N
O
W
W
O
cn
W
N
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
to 0 0 0 0 0
N W I- O
V N W 00
4�- O -A M
0) O (n I-A
O FA O 01 N O
D
Z "<
� N
D
W �
C �
Q o
((DD N
rr IZ
"n
O
(D
n T
N
W 3
C
Q.
ca
CD
m
377
a' CD O
CD a o.
m CD
Q
v
CD
7
CD
(D
(D
L1
O
0) 'rl
C
N
'0 n
03 W - v
d�
DN CL Oni
cc n
r Q
CD 20 n
N
O ~ fD
W T
C
CQ N
CD N
CL
CD
rr
••r
3
Q
40.
W
N
W
N
O
V
N
W
00
dP
O
4�-
01
O
O
Ln
F�
O
N
O
Ol
N
O
N
00
�
Ln
O1
N
W
-4.
000
O
l0
O
•P
tD
O
W
N
W
L7
m
N
V
N
O
N
W
(n
01
O
in
A
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
Z "<
� N
D
W �
C �
Q o
((DD N
rr IZ
"n
O
(D
n T
N
W 3
C
Q.
ca
CD
m
377
a' CD O
CD a o.
m CD
Q
v
CD
7
CD
(D
(D
L1
O
0) 'rl
C
N
'0 n
03 W - v
d�
DN CL Oni
cc n
r Q
CD 20 n
N
O ~ fD
W T
C
CQ N
CD N
CL
CD
rr
••r
3
Q
40.
W
Collier County, Florida 16 I 2 4 A 1- 2
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited)
As of respective date
Unaudited
As of
9/30/2011 1113/2011 12/2/2011
Pooled cash and investments $ 5,732,292.12 $ 5,719,338.38 $ -
Market valuation of investments (done annually) 2,290.13 2,290.13
Due from Tax Collector 8,084.16 -
Due from Property Appraiser 1,174.00 -
Due from other funds -
Interest receivable 6,307.40 6,307.40 -
Total Assets
Goods Receipt/Invoice Receipt
Accounts Payable
Ending Fund Balance, 10101/10 - audited
Beginning Fund Balance, 10/0112011 - unaudited
Revenues:
Ad Valorem Collections
Interest Revenue
Miscellaneous
Expenditures:
Other Contractural Services
Legal Fees
Engineering
Surveying Fees
Abstract Fees
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
Water and sewer
Sprinkler maintenance
Landscaping
Mulch
Other miscellaneous (fertilizer, electricity, etc.)
Improvements - General (Capital)
Transfer to PA
Transfer to TC
Transfer to Fund 111 (Unic. MSTD)
Total Liabilities and Equity
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Source of monies from inception - CUMULATIVE
Ad valorem taxes
Miscellaneous income (refund)
Interest earnings
Insurance recoveries
Good and services
Transfers out to other County funds
Cash balance as of respective date
$ 5,750,147.81 $ 5,727,935.91 $
$ - $ 10,025.00 $ -
17,216.22 -
5,093,220.84
5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59
968,706.32 4,757.44 -
43,274.19 -
(63,779.65)
$ 7,660,655.51 $ -
(83,983.50)
(9,830.00) -
(4,024.70)
626,245.55 -
(8,000.00)
(5,600.00) -
(26,638.70)
(1,580.55) -
(1,093.53)
(76.36) -
(5,818.94)
(390.00) -
(3,364.90)
(11,907.02)
(30.27) -
(113,456.22)
- -
(6,673.42)
(2,128.22) -
(11,529.18)
(142.72) -
(32,000.00)
- -
$ 5,750,147.81 $ 5,727,935.91 $ 5,732,931.59
$ 7,655,898.07
$ 7,660,655.51 $ -
503.65
503.65 -
626,245.55
626,245.55 -
13,085.17
13,085.17 -
(2,245,240.32)
(2,262,951.50) -
(318,200.00)
(318,200.00) -
$ 5,732,292.12
$ 5,719,338.38 $ -
Date: November 3, 2011
161 2 Al2
CURRENT SCHEDULE CONTINGENT UPON
BCC APPROVAL ON NOV 8 FOR PAYMENT TO FPL
Activity Date
BCC Approval of payment of CIAC November 8, 2011
Check is issued to FP & L for 1.8 mill. December 5, 2011
John Lehr orders equipment December 16, 2011 (note: John will not place the order
until he confirms check has been processed —this has
taken up to 2 weeks previously)
15 week order time -line for equipment
Shipment received for material
Construction Start (FPL)
Construction Completion (FPL)
Comcast - Construction Start
Comcast - Construction Completion
Completion of Pole Removal
Project Completion
December 16 (order is placed with vendor(s))
March 30, 2012
March 30.2012 (BEGIN CONSTRUCTIONI
June 30, 2012 (based on 3 months construction)
June 30, 2012 (NOTE: WE NEED TO PROCESS A CHECK
FOR COMCAST PER THE JUNE 14 BCC APPROVAL FOR
$331,351.25; Upon BCC approval of UFCA on Nov. 8,
2011 BCC meeting staff will request payment to
Comcast in the amount of $331,351.25
August 30, 2012
September 13, 2012 (per discussion with FP & L poles
will be removed within 2 weeks after Comcast
completion)
October 13.2012 (includes complete site restoration)
161 2 Al2
TALLAHASSEE
Suite 200
1500 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
(850) 224 -4070 Tel
(850) 224-1073 Fax
Reply to Tallahassee
Nabors-,
G
NickersonP.A.
t, p T G R €q t= Y S A'C LAVet
November 1, 2011
Via EIectronic Mail
Scott R. Teach
Deputy County Attorney
Collier County, Florida.
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800
Naples, Florida 34112 -5749
Re: Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Dear Mr. Teach:
FORT LAUDERDALE
208 S. E. sixth Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
(954) 525 -8000 Tel
(954) 525 -833i Fax
TAMPA
suite 1060
2502 Rocky Point Drive
Tampa, Florida 33607
(813) 281 -2222 Tel
(Si3) 281 -0129 Fax
You have requested an opinion concerning certain issues relating to the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit (the "MSTU ").
On October 8, 2009, we rendered an opinion that the proceeds of the MSTU
could be used to fund the cost of undergrounding and relocating utility lines of
Florida Power & Light. We further opined that property owners could be required
to connect to the electrical system once it is underground.
It is my understanding that the MSTU is beginning the process of placing
those utility lines and facilities underground and that you will be relocating and
installing them within the Collier County right -of -way. You have indicated that
there are other prospective permittees who may wish to obtain right -of -way
permits and install other utility facilities in the right -of -way, which may conflict
with the proposed location of the undergrounding project. You have requested an
opinion as to what extent the County may limit the use of its right -of -way when it
le.
0 I z Al2
Scott R. Teach
Deputy County Attorney
November 1, 2011
Page 2
comes to multiple utility customers making simultaneous requests to bury their
lines when an active project is underway.
Under Florida law, public utilities are given broad authority to locate their
lines and facilities within public rights -of -way. For example, section 425.04(l 1),
Florida Statutes, grants rural electric cooperatives the following powers:
(11) To construct, maintain, and operate electric
transmission and distribution lines along, upon, under
and across all public thoroughfares, including without
limitation, all roads, highways, streets, alleys, bridges
and causeways, and upon, under and across all publicly
owned lands, subject, however, to the requirements in
respect of the use of such thoroughfares and lands that
are imposed by the respective authorities having
jurisdiction thereof upon corporations constructing or
operating electric transmission and distribution lines or
systems;
Similar authority is granted to other public utilities. (See also section 362.01,
Florida Statutes, granting broad powers to enter onto public lands for all public
utilities). The primary purpose of this policy is to minimize the cost of utilities by
allowing them to locate their lines and facilities on public lands. Though a utility
may have the authority to place their lines and facilities within the public rights -of-
way, that use is subject to reasonable regulation by governmental entities. This
includes the obtaining of permits, payment of reasonable fees, and the requirement
that they be installed consistent with the use of the rights-of-way of others. Collier
County has enacted such provisions relating to the use of its public rights -of -way
and established guidelines for its use. (See Ordinance 2003 -37, as amended, and
the adopted "Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Public Right -
of- Way ".)
n.
1612 X12
Scott R. Teach
Deputy County Attorney
November 1, 2011
Page 3
As to the issue of the undergrounding of utility lines, there are certain
alternatives which are available to the County to make certain that the proposed
plans for the undergrounding of electric facilities by the MSTU are not disrupted.
First, as indicated in your initial inquiry, the County could impose a moratorium on
the locating of all other utility lines and facilities until such time as the
undergrounding of the utilities has been completed. The viability of this
alternative is dependent on the timing of the project. Based upon the information I
have received, it appears that the undergrounding will commence in February 2012
and be completed by May 2012. As this is a relatively short period, a brief
moratorium would be viable. However, any moratorium can cause some
hardships. These can consist of scheduling concerns for other utilities and the
potential of an increase in the expense of placing their facilities in the right -of -way
due to the delay.
A second alternative would be to file a reservation of right -of -way for the
specific location that the lines will be located. This would allow any other utility,
seeking to use the right -of -way, to be on notice as to the reservation of that portion
of the right -of -way. The notice would require them to either adjust their plans or
arrive at a placement which would assure that there would not be an intrusion upon
the reserved area. Further, as the County has adopted extensive guidelines to
address the use of the right -of -way, the recording of the reservation would allow
the County to approve plans of other utilities subject to that reservation.
If you have any additional
GTS:pad
se feel free to contact me.
�1
t. Stewart
1200
1612 'A 12
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Crystal K. Kinzel [mailto:Crystal.Kinzel @collierclerk.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Charles Arthur
Cc: ArnoldMichelle; TeachScott; RichardDarryl
Subject: RE: Status of FPL PAYMENT
Mr. Arthur,
Consistent with our approach once this item was brought to our attention, which was only
recently, we continue to diligently work with the department and the county attorney's office
toward validating our ability to pay.
While we have not yet determined a "final" status of the payment, we are and have been devoting
substantial time, efforts and resources working on the issue - the specific issue that needs to be
resolved is the Clerk's ability to lawfully "pre -pay" $1.8M into an FPL bank account without the
ability to validate the expenditures made. The deposit requested is based upon a "best cost
estimate" and according to correspondence between the county attorney's office and FPL, FPL
has indicated that they "do not believe additional detail is warranted" or that allowing an audit of
the expenditures "would serve any useful purpose ".
In addition to addressing concerns that the payment not violate the Florida Constitution's
prohibition against the county [or in the case the county's MSTU] lending credit to a
corporation, we also need to address whether such a lump sum payment precludes the Clerk from
performing his constitutionally required pre -audit function and post payment function.
The courts and the Florida Attorney General have consistently stated that the duties of the clerk
as county auditor must be preserved to ensure that the payment of a claim from county funds is a
proper and legal charge against the county. Even assuming that the appropriation of county funds
would serve a county purpose that has been authorized by statute or ordinance, there must be
some type of pre -audit review of the disbursement to make sure that the funds will not be used
for other than the county purpose for which the donation was made. Some control over the
disbursement of county funds must therefore be maintained, and although an appropriation of
county funds may serve a county purpose, there must be some type of pre -audit review of the
disbursement in order to be sure that the funds will not be used for an unlawful purpose. A lump -
sum disbursement of county funds to a non - county agency to be expended by that organization in
its discretion without pre -audit review by the clerk poses may not be lawfully made in the
absence of express statutory or constitutional authorization.
To assist county staff in addressing this issue, the Clerk's Office has extensively researched the
possibility of making the requested advance payment. Section 28.235, F.S (attached) provides
statutory authority to make advance payments in certain situations "pursuant to rules or
procedures adopted by the Chief Financial Officer for advance payments of invoices submitted
to agencies of the state ". We then followed up to ascertain the rules and procedures. We are
currently reviewing with the county attorney's office the conditions precedent outlined in the
rules of the Chief Financial Officer.
1010
1.61 2 Al2
I believe your anger may be misdirected at the Clerk's Office, we became aware of this issue
when it first appeared on the BCC agenda, I believe, September of this year. As can be seen,
while we have not yet determined a "final" status of the payment, we are, and have diligently
been, working on the issue.
I unfortunately have another scheduled meeting today and would not be able to attend your
meeting today. Please share this with your members and be assured we continue to work with
County staff and legal toward resolution.
Thank you.
Crystal K. Kinzel
Director of Finance and Accounting
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Collier County Government Center
3301 E. Tamiami Trail Bldg F 4th Floor
Naples, FL 34112
(239)252 -6299
Crystal.Kinzel@Collierclerk.com
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Charles Arthur [mailto:ccarthur @earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:59 PM
To: Crystal K. Kinzel
Cc: Arnold, Michelle; Teach, Scott; Richard, Darryl
Subject: Status of FPL PAYMENT
Crystal, Our MSTU board meets tomorrow at 2 pm for our regular monthly meeting. I would like
to bring them up to date on the situation with the FPL payment and any issues which may be
remaining.
Could you tell me the current status and where the Clerk's office stands on making the payment.
Also what is the likelihood approval will be given in time for the November 8 BCC meeting?
What specific issues are still unresolved?
Could you also provide me with a copy of the Florida Statute which prohibits prepayment by a
County to a regulated public utility?
You or the Clerk would certainly be welcome to attend our meeting to further explain the issues
surrounding the payment. Our meeting is held at St. John the Evangelist Church. We could put
you on the agenda at a time convenient to you. The meeting starts at 2 and is usually over by
3:30 or 4:00.
Thanks.
Charlie Arthur
i4.
Al2
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes: Online Sunshine t 6 i Page 1 of 1
L
Select Year: 2011 ~'i I Go
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title V Chanter 28 View Entire Chapter
JUDICIAL BRANCH CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS
28.235 Advance payments by clerk of circuit court. —The clerk of the circuit court is authorized
to make advance payments on behalf of the county for goods and services, including, but not limited to,
maintenance agreements and subscriptions, pursuant to rules or procedures adopted by the Chief
Financial Officer for advance payments of invoices submitted to agencies of the state.
History. —s. 12, ch. 94 -348; s. 89, ch. 2003 -261.
Copyright ®1995.2011 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us
http: / /www. leg .state.fl.usIStatuteslindex.cfm? App_ mode= Display_Statute &Search_Strin... 10/23/2011 IS*
161 2pr2
This office's opinion in AGO 077 -97 prohibiting advance or lump -
sum payments by the county to a mental health board was based
upon a consideration of the constitutional and statutory duties
of the clerk of the circuit court as county auditor to audit and
approve claims against the county. See s. 1(d), Art. VIII, State
Const., and s. 129.09, F. S. This office has consistently stated
that the duties of the clerk as county auditor must be preserved
to ensure that the payment of a claim from county funds is a
proper and legal charge against the county. See, e.g., AGO's
079 -78 and 073 -113 stating that 'even assuming that the
appropriation of county funds would serve a county purpose that
has been authorized by statute or home rule ordinance, there
must be some type of pre -audit review of the disbursement to
make sure that the funds will not be used for other than the
county purpose for which the donation was made.' See also AGO's
071 -150, 064 -96, 059 -92, and 056 -151. Some control over the
disbursement of county funds must therefore be maintained. See
Alachua County v. Powers, 351 So.2d 32, 36 (Fla. 1977),
1Ea3 lthough an appropriation of county funds may serve a county
purpose, there must be some type of pre -audit review of the
disbursement in order to be sure that the funds will not be used
for an unlawful purpose.' Thus, this office has stated that a
lump -sum disbursement of county funds to a noncounty agency to
be expended by that organization in its discretion without
preaudit review by the clerk may not be lawfully made in the
absence of express statutory or constitutional authorization.
16.
RE. Status FPL PAYMENT 1 1/3/11 1:32 PM
161 2 1
RE: Status of FPL PAYMENT
From: HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net>
To: Charles Arthur, "Dwight E. Brock", "Dwight E. Brock", "Crystal K. Kinzel"
Cc: RaineyJennifer <JenniferRainey @colliergov.net>
Subject: RE: Status of FPL PAYMENT
Date: Nov 3, 20119:58 AM
Charlie /Dwight -
I suggest we meet together to address this issue and invite the county attorney, if you
think this will help.
The law limits what both the Clerk and the BCC can do.
To the extent that the law allows the Clerk and /or the BCC to proceed, then that is what
will happen.
It is my understanding that Crystal has been diligently working with the county attorney's
staff to try to find a solution.
We can address what they have concluded to date, and determine what further can be done.
In terms of the best way to handle this matter, i recommend full transparency and
positive, open dialogue.
Thank you.
Commissioner Georgia Hiller
District 2
Board of County Commissioners
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303
Naples, FL 34112
(239)252 -8602
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303
Naples, FL 34112
239 - 252 -8602
From: Charles Arthur [ccarthur @earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:25 PN
To: HillerGeorgia
http : / /webmail.c.earthlink.net /wam /printable jsWmsgid= 3961 &x =- 204192315 Page 1 of 3
ifPL PAYMENT A112
11/3/11 1:32 M
16 '
,i'ibject: Fw: Status of FPL PAYMENT
Georgia, attached is an email I sent to Crystal to provide information for our MSTU
meeting on Thursday, Nov. 3. I appreciate your having her call me, however, I did not get
any new information from Crystal_ It seems the things they are doing are the same things
they were doing weeks ago and no progress has been made.
To my knowledge, no one has come up with the authority which precludes the prepayment.
In the event that the Clerk does not approve the payment for the November 8 BCC meeting, I
would like to request that the item be allowed to remain on the ballot so it can be
discussed and approved by the Commissioners on Tuesday. This would allow us to continue
working with the Clerk and perhaps getting the payment made before the Board meets again
in December.
This would also provide us a cleaner litigating position against the Clerk if that becomes
necessary. We would be able to exclude the Board from litigation, and would have a
stronger case if the payment had passed favorably at the BCC. Any litigation would most
likely be undertaken by the Residents Association and not the MSTU.
I would certainly hate to go down that road, but our neighborhood- -your constituents- are
becoming increasingly upset about this situation. They feel they have voluntarily taxed
themselves for the utilities project, already incurred expenses into six figures and now
are being prevented from providing more safety and security from storms, and improving our
property values. In reality, these costs should be borne by the County without having an
MSTU, but we have the funds and would like to see them spent for their intended purpose.
I am certainly open to suggestions, but just sitting back and waiting on the Clerk is not
working. We are being pushed into an unfavorable construction schedule. There is also the
risk that FPL will get tired of this and move us down the list or decide they won't do the
project at all. Based on my discussions with the PSC, they have that right.
I am not versed in County politics, but it would seem to me it is time for you to have a
heart to heart discussion with the Clerk.
Thanks for your assistance.
Charlie Arthur
- - - -- Forwarded Message -----
>From: Charles Arthur <ccarthur @earthlink.net>
http : / /webmaii.c.earthlink.net /wam /printable jsp7msgid= 3961 &x =- 204192315 Page 2 of 3
`,aFPLPAYMENT � L � 'J � 12' .3i111323�
.Sent: Nov 2, 2011 10:59 PM V
>To: "Crystal K. Kinzel" <Crystal.Kinzel @collierclerk.com>
>Cc: arnold m <MichelleArnold @colliergov.net >, TeachScott <ScottTeach @colliergov.net >,
Darryl Richard <DarrylRichard @colliergov.net>
>Subject: Status of FPL PAYMENT
> Crystal, Our MSTU board meets tomorrow at 2 pm for our regular monthly meeting. I would
like to bring them up to date on the situation with the FPL payment and any issues which
may be remaining.
> Could you tell me the current status and where the Clerk's office stands on making the
payment. Also what is the likelihood approval will be given in time for the November 8 BCC
meeting? What specific issues are still unresolved?
> Could you also provide me with a copy of the Florida Statute which prohibits prepayment
by a County to a regulated public utility?
>You or the Clerk would certainly be welcome to attend our meeting to further explain the
issues surrounding the payment. Our meeting is held at St. John the Evangelist Church. We
could put you on the agenda at a time convenient to you. The meeting starts at 2 and is
usually over by 3:30 or 4:00.
>Thanks.
>Charlie Arthur
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to
this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
http: / /webmall.c.earthlink .net /wam /printablejsp ?msgid= 3961 &x =- 204192315 Page 3 of 3