The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 04/10/2012 Item #16I1611 A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE April 10, 2012 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District: Annual Public Facilities Report August 2010 2) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Neighborhood Information Meeting: Legal Display Notice published 1/11/12 3) Collier County Housing Authority Report on Audit of Basic Financial Statements, Supplemental Information and Single Audit for 2011 Fiscal Year 161! 1 A41 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT C/O SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 561- 630 -4922 Fiala l/ Hiller Henning Coyle'�.'�— _ Coletta Mr. Leo Ochs, Jr. County Manager Administration Building (F) 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Fla. 34112 Re: Annual Public Facilities Report Dear Mr. Ochs: ILI January 31, 2012 The only change to the August 2010 Public Facilities Report for the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District, which is enclosed for your review, is that resident Thomas DiFlorio has replaced Herbert Cambridge on the Board of Supervisors. This report is being provided so that the County may use the information for planning purposes. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, F-V v.j T dd Wodraska District Manager Misc. Corres: Enclosure 4 `-1 cs RECEIVED Office of the County Manager FES 0 6 2012 Action Cc: Tom Sansbury, Barron Collier Companies 16f1 A+Il r AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT 2010 FACILITY REPORT PREPARED FOR: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT THOMAS PEEK DOUGLAS BAIRD PAUL RONEY HERBERT CAMBRIDGE LIESA PRIDDY ENGINEER: AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. 7400 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34108 CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY SERVICES 2501 A Burns Road Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 AUGUST 2010 1611Ai Ave Maria Stewardship District 2010 Facility Report Introduction The Ave Maria Stewardship Community District (District) was created by, and operates in accordance with, Chapter 2004 -416 Laws of Florida. The District was created to provide community development infrastructure to the Ave Maria community within and subject to the Growth Management Plan and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District. The District encompasses 10,805 acres of land located within portions of Section 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 33, and all of Sections 31 and 32, Township 47 South, Range 29 East; and part of Sections 4, 9, 16, 17 and 18, and all of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 Township 48 South, Range 29 East; and part of Sections 1,12 and 13, Township 48 South, Range 28 East; and all of Section 36, Township 47 South Range 28 East, within Collier County, Florida. The District Facilities includes a surface water management system, primary roadways, a reuse irrigation system, a temporary Immokalee Fire Emergency facility, and landscaping and environmental preserves. Construction activities began in April, 2005 on District Facilities within the Site Development Plan area #1 under contract with Ave Maria Development Corp., with completed works for the Southern portion of Ave Maria Blvd. transferred to the District in May, 2007, and the remaining portion of the work transferred in October, 2007. Assumption of contracts for construction of Pope John Paul II Blvd. from Battlecreek Way (future roadway) to Camp Keais Road took place in December, 2006. Construction of the Entry Feature at Camp Keais Road was completed in December 2008. Construction of the balance of the improvements, including the completion of Anthem Parkway, is anticipated to take place within the next five years. Prior to development approximately 4,533 acres were utilized for agricultural land use, with 3,357 acres used for row crops, 327 acres as sod farms, 133 acres fallow crop land, and 716 acres for improved and unimproved pastures and mixed range land, open land, and agricultural infrastructure. Of the remaining 462 acres, 292 acres were considered environmentally sensitive lands and 103 acres were upland forested lands. 16 1.1 A'1 The area was drained for agricultural purposes prior to the 1970's and has been used for that purpose since that time. In accordance with the Soil Conservation Service survey, the soils are generally described as containing poorly drained fine sands and are composed of Immokalee fine sand, Bassinger fine sand and other similar fine sands and depressional soils. In addition to the attached exhibits, identifying the individual components, a mapping of the District's property rights is provided as the District Facility Maps. Discussions Surface Water Management The District's surface water management system consists of 12 drainage basins (two are irrigation lakes) discharging through 25 gravity control structures. The system is entirely maintained by fixed control structures, with no pumps, adjustable flash boards or operable gates nor are there any proposed under the current water management plan. The District currently owns and maintains approximately 142 acres of lakes, 17 water control structures, 1 bridge, approximately 2,740 feet of drainage pipe and box culverts (as well as numerous linear footage of additional pipes under 48 "), and roadway drainage structures. The water management system was constructed in accordance with SFWMD permit 11- 02336 -P along with the modifications thereto. The water management lakes (with the exception of the temporary lakes in basins PNI, PSI -N and PS1 -S) were constructed from April of 2005 to April of 2007 by the Ave Maria Development Corp, and were acquired by the District in May, 2007 and October, 2007. The lakes in basins PN -1, PS1 -N, and PSI -S were constructed by the District upon assumption of the Contracts for construction of Pope John Paul 11 Blvd. and the Park of Commerce. 1611g1 A The current facilities (excluding the irrigation pond emergency overflow) discharge storm waters to the 12 drainage basins as illustrated in Exhibit A, and are summarized in the table below. Basin Basin Area Control Elevation Control Structure 25yr 3day Discharge DWI (temp lake) 414 19.1 DW1A/TWl DW3(temp lake) 207 19.5 DW3/TW2 DW4(temp lake) 384 20.3 DW4/TW2 IR6(irrigation pond) 6.5 20.5 N/A IR2(irrigation pond) 6 21.7 IR2 /TW4 N/A PN1 (temp lake) 362 21.7 PN1(A) /TN2(D) 389.0 PSI -N(temp lakes) 64 21.2 PE(C)/PS I (A) 64.1 PSI -S 290 20.8 PS1M/PS3A 312.8 PS 1N/PS3A PS 1N/WALK4 PS 1M/WALK2E PS2 205 20.8 PS2 /CKR(C) -N 110.7 TN1 182 21.8 TNIB/TN2D 25.6 TN2 117 21.7 TN2B /PS 1 K 70.7 UN1 356 22.1 UNIA/UN4 250.7 UN1B/TN1A UN4 144 21.7 UN4/TW5 150.5 UT1 32 21.0 UT1 -SS4 -6 4.2 Basins TN1, TN2, UN1, and UN4 provide drainage to residential properties, as well as commercial properties, and the University. Basins TN1 and TN2 comprise the Town Center area and contain commercial and residential properties. Basins UNI and UN4 are comprised of University and related land uses. The following minimum road elevations are based upon the 1Oyr Iday storm and min floor pad elevations are based upon the 100yr 3day storm in accordance with the SFWMD permit. Basin Min Road elev. Min Fin. Floor elev. DWI DW3 22.4 22.8 23.9 24.3 1611 A 1 DW4 22.7 24.2 IR1 N/A N/A IR2 N/A N/A PN 1 24.4 25.9 PS 1 -N 24.0 25.5 PS1 -S 23.7 25.2 PS2 23.4 24.9 TN 1 25.3 26.3 TN2 25.0 26.0 UN1 25.0 26.0 UN4 23.7 25.2 UT1 24.6 25.6 The District lake system will be expanded as development continues. In addition to the 142.1 acres of existing lakes currently owned and maintained by the District, there are 31.6 acres of proposed lake that provide water quality and storm water capacity for future phases of District facilities. The following table provides a summary of the existing and proposed lakes. Basin Current Lake Capacity( c) Final Design Capacity (ac) DWI (temporary) District Lakes 3.5 N/A DW3(temporary) 3.5 N/A DW4(temporary) 3.7 N/A IR1 3.6 3.6 IR2 4.3 4.3 PN 1 0.6 N/A PS 1 -N 1.5 N/A PS1 -S 15.9 15.9 PS2 3.7 35.3 TN1 41.7 41.7 TN2 22.4 22.4 UN1 24.9 24.9 UN4 7.5 7.5 UT 1 5.3 5.3 CKP1 Neighborhood Lakes 16.3 16.3 CKP2 0 19.5 DWI 3.5 94.0 DW2 61.0 61.0 DW3 7.1 74.0 DW4 64.4 97.2 DW5A 0.8 0.8 DW5B 0.7 10.7 16 1 IR3 0 3.3 IR4 0 3.0 IR5 0 3.2 IR6 0 3.2 PN1 61.7 61.7 PN2 0 45.9 PN3 0 18.6 PSI -N 16 16.0 PSI -S 28.6 34.6 PS3A 0 0 PS3B 0 0 UN2 0 13.6 UN3 3.9 15.7 UN5 0 0 UN6 0 43.6 UN7A 0 0 UN7B 0 0 UN8 0 18.3 WALKI 28.5 28.5 WALK2 124.7 127.7 WALK3 40 40 WALK4 0 0 WALK5A 3.2 3.28 WALK5B 3.8 13.8 Basins DWI, DW3, AND DW4 contain temporary lakes totaling approximately 10.7 acres in size which provide intermediate outfalls for Ave Maria Blvd., and basins PN1 and PSI -N contain temporary lakes totaling approximately 2.1 acres in size which provide intermediate outfalls for Pope John Paul II Blvd. These lakes will eventually be abandoned or incorporated into the neighborhood drainage facilities. At final build out the surface water management system will service some 18,200 residents, 400 hotel rooms, 1,235,000 sq. ft. of commercial and medical office space, and 1,267 acres of university, schools, and other public spaces and will discharge offsite a peak of 978 cfs during a 25yr 3day storm event. Roadways 1611A1 The District currently owns and maintains approximately 1.7 miles of two lane collector roads 3.9 miles of 4 lane divided collector roads, and 3.2 miles of two lane local roads. These roadways were either constructed by the Ave Maria Development Corp and later acquired by the District upon completion of the construction contracts or were transferred to the District, and completed under District authority. Exhibit B illustrates the existing District roads, and a summary is provided below. Ave Maria Blvd. S. 4 lane divided collector 3.4 miles Acquired May, 2007 Ave Maria Blvd. N. 2 lane divided collector 0.9 miles Acquired October, 2007 Pope John Paul II 4 lane divided collector 0.4 miles Contract assumed December, 2006 Pope John Paul II 2 lane divided collector 0.8 miles Contract assumed December, 2006 Pope John Paul II 2 lane divided town center 0.1 miles Contract assumed December, 2006 Park of Commerce 2 lane local road 1.2 miles Contract assumed December, 2006 Town Center Roads 1 2 lane local road 1 1.9 miles 1 Acquired October, 2007 The District is currently planning to construct an additional 3.0 miles of four lane divided thoroughfare and 1.4 miles of two lane local roads within the next five years, however the specific schedule is dependant on the rate of development. The following is a list of future roadways, proposed by the District. Town Center II Ilocalroad 1.4 miles Anthem Parkway 4 lane divided collector 3.0 miles Reuse Irrigation The District currently owns and maintains two reuse pump stations that provide reuse irrigation water for use on District facilities, in addition to providing reuse irrigation water to the individual communities. All irrigation is provided by reuse water with no private wells or potable irrigation systems allowed. Reuse water is provided by the Ave Maria Utility through two separate master meter assemblies located at each pump station. The current supply will be supplemented by raw water wells at each irrigation lake until the community develops to a point that will support 100% reuse water. Reuse water and the raw water from the wells are blended in the irrigation lakes which supply each of the pump stations. 1611A1 Pump station 6 is located on the west side of Ave Maria Blvd., at the entrance to the Dell Web development. The pump station withdraws water from the 3.6 acre irrigation pond 6 and provides 4160 gpm (@ 90 psi) of reuse irrigation water, via four 30 horse power pumps and one 5 horse power jokey pump. Pump station 2 is located approximately 0.1 mile south of the round -about intersection of Ave Maria Blvd and Milano St., located on the east side of Ave Maria Blvd., and draws water from the 4.3 acre irrigation pond 2 providing 6810 gpm ( @90 psi) of irrigation water, via five 100 horse power pumps and one 40 horse power jokey pump. Approximately 25,600 linear feet of irrigation mains, 6" or greater, provide water throughout the community and to the landscaped areas within the District roads. The irrigation system is illustrated in Exhibit C. A complete table of the points of service and a plan of the system is being produced from Ave Maria Utility Company GIS maps and will be attached to this report at a later date when it is completed. Emergency Services The District developed a temporary Immokalee Fire Emergency facility which is located in Tract U of the Ave Maria Phase One Plat. The temporary facilities consist of a parking lot with two pole barn shelters for emergency vehicles, two storage sheds, and a modular office facility for emergency personnel. The location of the temporary facilities is shown on Exhibit D. Landscape & Hardscaye The District currently owns and maintains approximately 50 +1- acres of median and roadside landscaping associated with the District owned roads. The typical planting includes native plant species including Sable Palms, Queen Palm, Silver Date Palm, Live Oak, Southern Magnolia, Silver Trumpet Tree, Saw Palmetto, Ixora, Bougainvillea, and other miscellaneous shrubs, groundcovers and annuals. Accompanying the landscape is a reuse irrigation system, providing in average of 0.25 mgd of irrigation water to the District's landscaping. This system utilizes standard mist spray heads, rotors, and individual bubblers 16 11 A'1 The landscape and irrigation system will expand along with the expansion of the future roadways, increasing to a total landscaped estimated area of 75 acres at build out. In addition to the landscape improvements the District also maintains two entry features, and miscellaneous paths. The first of the two entry features, located at Ave Maria Blvd and Oil Well Road was constructed by Ave Maria Development Corp. and transferred to the District in May, 2007. The second feature, located at the entrance of Pope John Paul II Blvd. and Camp Keais Road was completed by the District in December 2008. In addition to the concrete sidewalks adjacent to the existing roadways, the District also owns and maintains a 7300 ft long, 12 ft wide asphalt path along the north side of Lakes 15 and 16, along the south side of Lake 16 from Colby Street to Pope John II Blvd, and along the east, south, and west sides of lake 14. There are also several benches and lighting along the paths. The District also maintains a 5.1 +/- mile grassed jogging path along the westerly edge of the development limits. Turnover of the jogging path has not been formally completed as of yet. Preserves The District will eventually own (by conveyance) and maintain 163 + /- acres of environmentally sensitive /mitigation lands within the community and are illustrated in Exhibit D. These preserves support native plants and animals and monitored for exotics. The preserves were initially cleared of exotics and re- planted in December, 2006, and an initial "time zero' report filed with SFWMD in October, 2007. There are future plans for the District to assume ownership and maintenance of other environmentally sensitive lands. I BASIN PNtF p TE �E MP ES + LAKES I BASIN. UN1 AND CONTROL t BASIN STRUCTURES PSI —N .. - ' - =s �., r ❑ .21.2 I�9/ ' _ f _ ♦� _ BASIN 1N1 -_- .e IN IR2`, BASIN iN2 b TEMPORARY i OUTFALL s �, •—°'t, re !! SWALE �« II PS2 :BASIN_ t .- 2'@,T qxt '��i� —d'x ;iei t71 j IN�IR�� _1 Md }� t r"f i 5 � gi � ' BASI_N DW41,, r TEMPORARY i IBPSIrd _DW3 .lt � TEMP LAKES AND CONTROL —�-- - -- STRUCTURES map TEUP LASE i1 PHASE 1 LAKES TOWN CENTER It LAKE FUTURE LAKE PARK OF COMMERCE LAKE POPE JOHN PAUL II LAKES CONTROL STRUCTURE ASSY. LAKE INTERCONNECT PIPES AVE MARIA OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - I � N A e F`i Ali �r , I Alit i, �f l� F A� � •® �� .. .4 y t 1 AMSCD ROADWAYS TABLE AMSCD PATHWAYS TABLE DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION IDENTIFICATION PHASE 1 PLAT LAKE PARK PATHWAY PHASE 2 PLAT JOGGING PATH ' PHASE 3 PLAT ANTHEM PARKWAY (FUTURE) PARK OF COMMERCE PHASE 1 PARK OF COMMERCE PHASE 2 TOWN CENTER II (FUTURE) AVE MARIA OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT B ROADWAYS 5 *17 ' � - �?aa..,�.;� &,�Y`�� Fi '• tea* ,t / MITIGAUINS AREA -- t t ,MITIGATIONS AREA dr i r' 7 1';t111i t� .n r' ,`� `?xevP 4"IS 1jy MITIGATION AREA ,� f - p:j.iv �I j MITIGATION AREA P33�A IA �1 T y' 1 —1 MITIGATION ARE �� 1= WALK 4 ` 7 �� t' Psi ;�•� � _ - ._ — I 4 N DESCRIP ION IDEf4TfFTXTM Ac. PS3A 45.2 PS38 6.4 WALK 4 28.4 UN5 31.4 UN7A _ 33.5 UN78 18.2 1. E SYMBOL TABLE DESCRIPTION ISYMBOL TEMPORARY IMMOKALEE FIRE EMERGENCY FACILITY AVE MARIA OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT D MITIGATION AND RESTORATION L� 16 11 a 2 ��F�IINIIi� 2-9-12 BY........................ IV It (1k al Lega,L Display Nott c& p Jamtcwy 11, 2 012, a &vevttsing, a t& i vwit, theme p u.b-1 to- al B a ySh arel (�abeway rr' CIRA "N hoo& I nficrmatt m Mee ww e he l ja*uwwy 18, 2012 for a/ prewe,.ta; t o-w a id/ o-w a, prgf, that propase4- r property o-w 3ayshare,1 Drover T7. mk/ yaw. Baardl M to te* F.- 'IRmwdk Fiala Hiller Henning _ Coyle 4�—, Coletta 76-— Misc. Corres: Deis: `A i 1 o e 1 2 Item 91 u T I ►a 2 cm, ft to: COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: ® Normal legal Advertisement (Display Adv., location, etc.) ❑ Other: Originating Dept/ Div: Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Person: Jean Jourdan Date: 01/03/12 Petition No. (If none, give brief description): Petitioner: (Name & Address): 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Fl 34112 Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) Hearing before XX BCC BZA Other Requested Hearing date: N/A Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): ® Naples Daily News ❑ Other ❑ Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: See Attached Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: N/A Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: PO#4500131833 Account #068839 Executive Director Dave Jackson List Attachments: Notice Advertisement R 'ewed by: 6,b) 3 b Z f VA / /Z Date D to DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one coy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: ❑ County Manager agenda file: to ❑ Requesting Division Clerk's Office ❑ Original B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. «*«* a, t, t, �*** iw.. r�rarr*, r**, r** �***.«, t, t** aara�, ta«, t, t, t*«* a** �** �*«*, t, t, t, t**, ��,► r, t�#**, t*, t, t�** � *t * * *.t * *rt,�,t�� *w+t * * *,► *+r,t FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE O . ++ Date Received: t ( Date of Public hearing: (,� Z Date Advertised: r li I Z 1611 A 2 4 January 3, 2012 The Naples Daily News PO Box 7009 Naples, FL 34101 ATTENTION: Notices Section Fax # Ph# RE: PURCHASE ORDER # 4500131833 ACCOUNT 068839 !!PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER MUST BE REFERENCED ON INVOICE!! Please publish the following legal advertisement on January 11 2011. LEGAL NOTICE Newspaper Advertisement Layout: Ad must be at least 1/4 page and no less than 12 -point type, except the county staff contact information, which may be less as long as it is clearly legible: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Dean Ziegler of Banks Engineering on: Wednesday January 18, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 Subject Property: Consists of approximately 17.89+ acres located at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive, on the east side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 1500+ feet north of Thomasson Drive. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone the 17.89+ acre property from C -2- BMUD-NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) to MPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units and 48,575 square feet of commercial uses, including retail, office and medical offices, a 350 seat theatre, and an 84,000 square foot parking garage. ib ill A42 Site Location Map Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Petition Number: PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592 N 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner /developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e -mail to: Jean Jourdan, Project Manager Phone (239) 643 -1115 Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Fax: (239) 775 -4456 4069 Bayshore Drive JeanJourdan@colliergov.net Naples, Florida 34112 161: A 2 This 3rd day of January 2012. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, Submitted by: Jean Jourdan, Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA 161 1 A'2 " Newspaper Advertisement Layout: Ad must be at least 1/4 page and no less than 12 -point type, except the county staff contact information, which may be less as long as it is clearly legible: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Dean Ziegler of Banks Engineering on: Wednesday January 18, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 Subject Property: Consists of approximately 17.89+ acres located at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive, on the east side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 1500+ feet north of Thomasson Drive. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone the 17.89+ acre property from C- 2- BMUD -NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) to MPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, zoning district to be known as the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units and 48,575 square feet of commercial uses, including retail, office and medical offices, a 350 seat theatre, and an 84,000 square foot parking garage. 1611 A2 4 Site Location Map Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Petition Number: PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592 N 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner /developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e -mail to: Jean Jourdan, Project Manager Phone (239) 643 -1115 Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Fax: (239) 775 -4456 4069 Bayshore Drive JeanJourdan@colliergov.net Naples, Florida 34112 1611A2 Acct. #068839 January 3, 2012 Attn: Legals Naples News Media Group 1100 Immokalee Rd. Naples, FL 34110 Re: Notice of Public Hearing: CRA Neighborhood Information Meeting Display Ad Legals, Please advertise the above referenced Display Ad on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk P.O. # 4500131833 January 3, 2012 ib 11 A2 RE: PURCHASE ORDER # 4500131833 ACCOUNT 068839 !!PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER MUST BE REFERENCED ON INVOICE!! Please publish the following legal advertisement W /MAP on January 11, 2011. LEGAL NOTICE Newspaper Advertisement Layout: Ad must be at least %4 page and no less than 12 -point type, except the county staff contact information, which may be less as long as it is clearly legible: 161 1A 2' M NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Dean Ziegler of Banks Engineering on: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 Subject Property: Consists of approximately 17.89+ acres located at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive, on the east side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 1500+ feet north of Thomasson Drive. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone the 17.89+ acre property from C -2- BMUD-NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) to MPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units and 48,575 square feet of commercial uses, including retail, office and medical offices, a 350 seat theatre, and an 84,000 square foot parking garage. 1611 A 2 .4 Site Location Map Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Petition Number: PUDZ -PL -2010 -592 N 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner /developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e -mail to: Jean Jourdan, Project Manager Phone (239) 643 -1115 Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Fax: (239) 775 -4456 4069 Bayshore Drive JeanJourdan@colliergov.net Naples, Florida 34112 1611 A 2 + Teresa L. Polaski To: Legals NDN (legals @naplesnews.com) Subject: Display Ad - CRA Neighborhood Information Meeting Attachments: CRA Neighborhood Info Mtg (1- 18- 12).doc; CRA Neighborhood Info Mtg (1- 18- 12).doc Legals, Please advertise the attached Display Ad on Wednesday, January 11, 2012. Please reply with an ok to conform receipt. Thanks Teresa L. Polaski, BMR Clerk III Minutes and Records Department 239 - 252 -8411 239 -252 -8408 fax Teresa.Polaski@colliercierk.com 1 Teresa L. Polaski From: Sent: To: Subject: �90 Amy Green Legal Advertisements Naples Daily News Main Office: 239 - 263 -4710 Direct Fax: 239 - 325 -1251 Email: agreen(cDnaplesnews.com www.napiesnews.com 161 1` 1 A.z Green, Amy <AGreen @Naplesnews.com> Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:02 PM Teresa L. Polaski RE: Display Ad - CRA Neighborhood Information Meeting From: Teresa L. Polaski rmailto:Teresa.Polaski(Z )collierclerk com] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:42 PM To: Legals NDN Subject: Display Ad - CRA Neighborhood Information Meeting Legals, Please advertise the attached Display Ad on Wednesday, January 11, 2012. Please reply with an ok to conform receipt. Thanks Teresa L. Polaski, 8MR Clerk III Minutes and Records Department 239 -252 -8411 239 -252 -8408 fax Teresa.Polaski@colliercierk.com Please visit us on the web at www.collierclerk.com This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helodeskc&collierclerk.com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain. 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. 1 Teresa L. Polaski From: Green, Amy <AGreen @Naplesnews.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:32 AM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: Ad 240173976 Attachments: 240173976.pdf Please review the attached ad for publication on January 11tH Please provide an OK to print by 9:OOam on January 91h for publication. Thank You, Amy Green Legal Advertisements Naples Daily News Main Office: 239 - 263 -4710 Direct Fax: 239 - 325 -1251 Email: legalsa nap lesnews.com www.naplesnews.com 1 1611 A2 ' 1611 A2 _)TICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBL NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Dean Ziegler of Banks Engineering on: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 Subject Property: Consists of approximately 17.89± acres located at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive, on the east side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 1500± feet north of Thomasson Drive. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone the 17.89± acre property from C- 2- BMUD -NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) to MPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units and 48,575 square feet of commercial uses, including retail, office and medical offices, a 350 seat theatre, and an 84,000 square foot parking garage. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner/ developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: Jean Jourdan, Project Manager Phone (239) 643 -1115 Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Fax: (239) 775 -4456 4069 Bayshore Drive JeanJourdan @colliergov.net Naples, Florida 34112 No.240173976 January 11, 2012 Teresa L. Polaski From: jourdan,j <JeanJourdan @colliergov.net> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:00 PM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: RE: Ad 240173976 The ad is good for publications. Thanks. jaw joc: ys, AlaP Jean Jo,xdan, Project Managi r Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA 239 - 643 -1115 From: Teresa L. Polaski fmailto :Teresa.Polaski(5)collierclerk coml Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:52 AM To: jourdanj Subject: FW: Ad 240173976 Please review the attached proof. Thanks From: Green, Amy fmailto:AGreenC&Naplesnews.coml Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:32 AM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: Ad 240173976 Please review the attached ad for publication on January 11tH Please provide an OK to print by 9:OOam on January 9th for publication. Thank You, Amy Green Legal Advertisements Naples Daily News Main Office: 239 - 263 -4710 Direct Fax: 239 - 325 -1251 Email: Iegals()naplesnews.com www.naplesnews.com 1 16-11 A2 I Teresa L. Polaski 1611 A 2 -4 From: Green, Amy <AGreen @Naplesnews.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:57 PM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: FW: Ad 240173976 neglected to include the price for your ad. The ad cost for Ad #240173976 is $1,265.40. Please provide approval by 4:OOpm on Monday. Thank You, Amy Green Legal Advertisements Naples Daily News Main Office: 239 - 263 -4710 Direct Fax: 239 - 325 -1251 Email: legals(Wriaplesnews.com www.naplesnews.com From: Teresa L. Polaski fmailto: Teresa .Polaski@)collierclerk.com1 Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:41 PM To: Green, Amy Subject: RE: Ad 240173976 Looks good, ok to run. From: Green, Amy fmailto :AGreenCa�Naplesnews.com] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:32 AM To: Teresa L. Polaski Subject: Ad 240173976 Please review the attached ad for publication on January 11tH Please provide an OK to print by 9:OOam on January Stn for publication. Thank You, Amy Green Legal Advertisements Naples Daily News 1 1611A2 ' 4 NAPLES DAILY NEWS NEIGHBORHOOD Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 INFORMATION MEETING Affidavit Of Publican The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by The State of Florida Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Dean Ziegler of Banks Engineering on: Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the auth appeared MMLvnn Roeller, who on oath s� as the Advertising Accounting Manager of th a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counii the attached copy of the advertising, being PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time in on January 11, 2012 Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a� published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and t newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of each day and has been entered as second class mail matter office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a p year next preceding the first publication of the attache) advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neithe promised any person, firm or corporation any discoun commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adve publication in the said newspaper. A ( Signature of /affiant Sworn to and subscribed before me This 12th day of January, 2012 fe VrAIVW� — (Signature of notary public) 11.RY PUe ii -, =o �,�, KAROL E KANfAS Notary Public - State of Florida y, or My Comm. Expires Jul 29, 2013 OF F��p Commission # DD 912237 1-0 Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 Subject Propert): Consists of approximately 17.89± acres located at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive, on the east side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 1500± feet north of Thomasson Drive. The property owner is petitioning Collier County to rezone the 17.89± acre property from C- 2- BMUD -NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District- Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) to MPUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units and 48,575 square feet of commercial uses, including retail, office and medical offices, a 350 seat theatre, and an 84,000 0f,11 Innz font oarkina aarage. WE VALUE YOUR INNU I Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owner/ developer and Collier County staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: Jean Jourdan, Project Manager Phone (239) 643 -1115 Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Fax: (239) 775 -4456 4069 Bayshore Drive JeanJourdan @colliergov.net Naples, Florida 34112 January 11 2012 No 240173976 — — 1611A3 %4 Fiala ✓ Hiller Henning Coyle coletta Misc. coffes. COPWD. MAIE,COIL,M JOHNSON & COMPANY, P.A. January 25, 2012 Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Finance Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Fl. 34112 Dear Mr. Brock: 16 11Aa FEB 0 2 2012 FINANCE It is our understanding the following information should be reported to the County Clerk of Courts: 1. Any changes in the registered agent or office. 2. The housing authority's public meeting schedule (quarterly, semiannually or annually). 3. Public facilities report, if applicable (initial, annual notice of any changes and updated reports). No Changes in Public Facilities Report — Not Attached. 4. Upon request, the housing authority's budget. 5. Copy of audit for September 30, 2011. Therefore, we are providing you with a copy of our annual filing notice for the registered agent or office and a copy of the housing authority's meeting schedule for fiscal year 2011 -2012. There has been no change in public facilities. I hope this satisfies our reporting requirements to Collier County Clerk of Courts. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (239) 657 -3649. Sincerely, Ap, -X )Lm� Esmeralda Serrata, PHM Executive Director Enclosures. Collier County Housing Authority ♦ 1800 Farm Worker Way ♦ Immokalee, Florida34142 ♦ (239) 657 -3649 ♦ FAX (239) 657 -7232 1611 A3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF BOARD MEETING 2011 -2012 August 23, 2011 (annual) November 22, 2011 February 28, 2012 May 22, 2012 August 28, 2012 (annual) November 27, 2012 Collier County Housing Authority ♦ 1800 Farm Worker Way ♦ Immokalee, Florida 34142 ♦ (239) 657 -3649 ♦ FAX (239) 657 -7232 ARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Invoice No.: 25292 Date Invoiced: 10/27/2011 . .12012 SPECIAL DISTRICT FEE INVOICE AND UPDATE FORM DEO use only: Post to: Special District Information Program Instructions: In accordance with Sections 189.412 and 189.427, F.S., and Chapter 913-50, F.A.C., please remit the fee due payable to the Department of Economic Opportunity OR complete the Zero Annual Fee Certification Section, as appropriate. In addition, review the information below about the district and update as necessary. Provide backup documentation if the district's name or status has changed. By the postmarked due date, mail the payment and this signed form to the Department of Economic Opportunity, Office of Financial Mgmt., 107 E. Madison Street, MSC 120, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -4124. Direct questions to (850) 717 -8430. ANNUAL FEE: $175.00 1 LATE FEE: $0.00 1 RECEIVED: $0.00 1 FEE DUE, POSTMARKED BY 12/28/2011: $175.00 District's Name, Registered Agent & Office *: Collier County Housing Authority Telephone: (239) 657 -3649 Ms. Esmeralda Serrata Fax: (239) 657 -7232 1800 Farm Worker Way Status *: Independent Immokalee, FI 34142 Creation Document: On File Map: On File Last Update: 10/05/2010 Website: E -mail: cchafl @aol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- County(ies): r Collier Local Governing Authority*: Collier County Function(s) *: Housing Authority Date Established: 07/12/1966 Creation Documents *: County Resolution Dated 7/12/66 Statutory Authority*: Chapter 421, Part I, Florida Statutes Board Selection *: Governor Appoints Authority to Issue Bonds *: Yes Revenue Source *: Federal *Explanations Registered Agent: The person designated by the special district to accept due process on behalf of the special district Status: Independent or Dependent - see Section 189.403, F.S. Local Governing Authority: The governing body of a unit of local general - purpose government Functions: The function /purpose of the special district Creation Documents: Ordinance, Resolution, Statute, Special Act, Court Decree, Interlocal Agreement, etc. Statutory Authority: The Florida Statute governing the function of the special district Board Selection: Appointed, Appointed /Elected, Elected, Governor Appoints, Local Governing Authority Appoints, Same as Local Governing Authority, Similar to Local Governing Authority, Other Authority to Issue Bonds: Yes or No Revenue Sources: Ad Valorem, Agreement, Assessments, Bond Issuer Fees, Co., Donations, Fed, Fees, Other, Investments, Grants, Municipality, Non -Ad Valorem, P v. Enterprise, Sales Surtax, Sales /Leases, State, TIF, Tolls, None CERTIFICATION: I, the undersi d r gistered agent, o hereby c ify that the inf mation above is accurate and complete as of this date. It does or do need to a ge Registered Agent's Signature: / Date: W AL FEE CERTIFICATION SECTION - If eligible, the special district may request a zero annual fee instead of making a aving the registered agent certify to the following: cial district is not a component unit of a general purpose local government as defined in the Governmental Accounting s Board's Statement No. 14, issued in June 1991 effective after December 15, 1992, as amended. cial district is in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Department of Financial Services. 3. This special district reported $3,000.00 or less in annual revenues to the Department of Financial Services on its Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 (special districts created after that fiscal year must attach a current income statement verifying $3,000.00 or less in revenues for the current fiscal year). 4. This certification will be returned to the Department at the address above postmarked by 12/28/2011 and, 5. This special district understands that if the Department determines any of these items to be inaccurate, this special district must pay the appropriate fee when invoiced. The Department will verify these statements within 30 days of receiving this form. the undersigned registered agent, do hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, ALL of the above statements contained ierein and on any attachments hereto nre trw,e c. -- p 9 to I understand that any r,,,c,, Con. fete, ana made in good faith as of this date. niurrnialion i give may be investigated and verified with the Department of Financial Services and the Auditor General. SIGN ONLY IF ELIGIBLE FOR AND REQUESTING A ZERO ANNUAL FEE: �gistered Agent's Signature. IR - 1611 A3 N COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida REPORT ON AUDIT OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND SINGLE AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 161 1 A3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Independent Auditor's Report on Basic Financial Statements and PAGE Other Supplemental Information ............................................. ............................... 1 Management's Discussion and Analysis ....................................... ............................... i -vii Basic Financial Statements Statementof Net Assets ........................................................... ............................... 2 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets .............. ............................... 3 Statementof Cash Flows ......................................................... ............................... 4 -5 Notes to Basic Financial Statements ............................................. ............................... 6 -20 Supplemental Information Combining Schedule of Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets ................. ............................... 21 Combining Schedule of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets .. ............................... 22 Farm Worker Subsidized Housing Program ................................... ............................... 23 -29 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .................................. ............................... 30 Single Audit Section Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and On Compliance and Other Matters Based On An Audit of Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ............................................ ............................... 31 Report on Compliance With Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance With OMB Circular A -133 ...................... 32 -33 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ................................... ............................... 34 -35 SummarySchedule Of Prior Audit ..................................................................... ............................... 36 MALCOLM JOHNSON & COMPANY, P.A. 16 ' 1 A3 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS P.O. Box 530848 210 N. Highway 17 -92 DeBary, Florida 32753 -0848 Phone (386) 668 -6464 Fax (386) 668 -6463 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Board of Commissioners Collier County Housing Authority Immokalee, Florida HUD, Miami Area Office Office of Public Housing 909 S. E. First Avenue, Room 500 Miami, Florida 33131 -3028 We have audited the basic financial statements of the Collier County Housing Authority ( "the Authority") as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011, as listed in the table of contents. These basic financial statements are the responsibility of the Authority's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these basic financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the basic financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall basic financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the basic financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Authority as of September 30, 2011, and the changes in financial position and cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 21, 2011, on our consideration of the Authority's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. The Management's Discussion and Analysis as detailed in this Report, is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries made of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements of the Authority. The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and state financial assistance, and the other supplemental information as listed in the table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. X4. M lm Johnson & o pany,P.A. Certified Public Accountants DeBary, Florida December 21, 2011 16!1As COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 As the management of the Collier County Housing Authority ( "the Authority "), we offer the readers of the Authority's basic financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the Authority for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with the Authority's basic financial statements elsewhere in this report. Financial Highlights • The Authority's total net assets decreased by $594,526 during fiscal year ended 2011. Total net assets were $12,635,998 and $13,230,524 for FYE 2011 and 2010 respectively. • The total expenses of all Authority programs (excluding depreciation expense) decreased by $642,127 during fiscal year ended 2011. • At the close of fiscal year ended 2011, the Authority's assets exceeded its liabilities by $12,635,998. Using This Annual Report The Report includes three major sections, the "Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD &A) ", "Basic Financial Statements ", and "Supplemental Information ": MD &A Management's Discussion and Analysis Basic Financial Statements — Basic Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets Statement of Cash Flows Notes to Basic Financial Statements Supplemental Information As listed in the Table of Contents The primary focus of the Authority's basic financial statements is on both the Authority as a whole and the major individual programs. Both perspectives allow the user to address relevant questions, broaden a basis for comparison (year to year or Authority to Authority), and enhance the Authority's accountability. The basic financial statements are designed to be corporate -like in that all business type activities are consolidated into columns that add to a total for the entire Authority. These Statements include a Statement of Net Assets, which is similar to a balance sheet. The Statement of Net Assets reports all financial and capital resources for the Authority. The statement is presented in the format where assets minus liabilities, equals "Net Assets ", formerly known as equity. Assets and liabilities are presented in order of liquidity, and are classified as "current" (convertible into cash within one year), and "non- current". 1611 A3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) Basic Financial Statements The focus of the Statement of Net Assets (the "Unrestricted Net Assets ") is designed to represent the net available liquid (non - capital) assets, net of liabilities, for the entire Authority. Net Assets (formerly equity) are reported in three broad categories: Net Assets, Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt: This component of Net Assets consists of all Capital Assets, reduced by the outstanding balances of any bonds, mortgages, notes or other borrowings that are attributable to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of those assets. Restricted Net Assets: This component of Net Assets consists of restricted assets that have constraints placed on the assets by creditors (such as debt covenants), grantors, contributors, laws, regulations, etc. Unrestricted Net Assets: Consists of Net Assets that do not meet the definition of "Net Assets Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt ", or "Restricted Net Assets ". The basic financial statements also include a Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets (similar to an Income Statement). This Statement includes operating revenues, such as rental income, operating expenses such as administrative, utilities, maintenance, and depreciation, and non - operating revenue and expenses such as capital grant revenue, investment income, and interest expense. The focus of the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets is the "Change in Net Assets ", which is similar to net income or loss. Finally, the Statement of Cash Flows is included, which discloses net cash provided by, or used for operating activities, non - capital financing activities, and from capital and related financing activities. The Authority consists of exclusively Enterprise Funds. Enterprise funds utilize the full accrual basis of accounting. The Enterprise method of accounting is similar to accounting utilized by the private sector accounting. Many of the programs maintained by the Authority are required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Others are segregated to enhance accountability and control. The Authority's Programs The Authority has many programs that are consolidated into a single enterprise fund. The major programs consist of the following: Farm Labor Housing - Under the Rural Development -Farm Labor Housing Program, the Authority rents units that it owns to low income households. The Authority has 642 units of farm labor housing units which provide assistance to very-low income families. In addition, the Authority owns and operates a 192 -bed dormitory style facility that houses unaccompanied male farm workers. Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program (TBRA) - The Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program is a HUD HOME Grant funded through Collier County Government to provide rental assistance to homeless and disabled families. n ILA 0 13 k 1. 16 11 %A � COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) Housing Choice Vouchers - Under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the Authority administers contracts with independent landlords that own the property. The Authority subsidizes the family's rent through the Housing Assistance Payment made to the landlord. The program is administered under an Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with HUD. HUD provides Annual Contributions Funding to enable the Authority to structure a lease that sets the participants' rent at approximately 30% of household income. Florida Family Literacy Initiative — This is a jumpstart program which provides early childhood training, parenting classes, English classes and parent /child activities. The Authority as a Whole The Authority's net assets decreased by $594,526 during the fiscal year as detailed below. The Authority's revenues under the Farm Labor Housing Program are primarily from rental income and under the Housing Choice Voucher Program revenues are from subsidies and grants received from HUD. The Authority received subsidies each month based on a pre- approved amount by HUD. Grants are drawn down based on need against a pre - authorized funding level. The Authority's revenue was not sufficient to cover all expenses, including depreciation during the fiscal year in the Farm Labor Housing Program. By far, the largest portion of the Authority's net assets reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, building, equipment and construction in progress). The Authority uses these capital assets to provide housing services to its tenants; consequently, these assets are not available as a source of funds for future spending. The unrestricted net assets of the Authority are available for the future use to provide program service. ff COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 161 1 Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) A 3 + Statement of Net Assets The following table reflects the condensed Statement of Net Assets compared to prior year. The Authority is engaged only in Business -Type Activities. Table 1— Statement of Net Assets There was a decrease in total net assets of $594,526 due mainly to depreciation and due from the reduction in tenant revenues in the rural assistance program. Items to note: (1) Depreciation is treated as an expense and reduces the results of operations but does not have an impact on Unrestricted Net Assets. (2) Capital expenditures represent an outflow of unrestricted net assets, but are not treated as an expense against Results of Operations, and therefore must be deducted. iv 2011 2010 Assets Unrestricted current Assets $ 837, $ 1,008,346 Restricted current assets 3,587,4411 11 3,227,322 Noncurrent assets 11 700,587 12,698,640 Total assets 16,125,273 16,934,308 Liabilities 580,647 909,188 Current liabilities 2 908,628 2;794,596 Noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities 3,489,275 3,703,784 $ 12,635,998 $ 13,230,524 Net Assets Net Assets Investment in capital assets, net of related debt $ 9,566,587 $ 10'196'468 Restricted Unrestricted (387,743) (197,3 84) Total net assets S 12,435_2998 %13,23 0.524 There was a decrease in total net assets of $594,526 due mainly to depreciation and due from the reduction in tenant revenues in the rural assistance program. Items to note: (1) Depreciation is treated as an expense and reduces the results of operations but does not have an impact on Unrestricted Net Assets. (2) Capital expenditures represent an outflow of unrestricted net assets, but are not treated as an expense against Results of Operations, and therefore must be deducted. iv COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 16 1 1 A3 Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) Statement of Net Assets The following table reflects the condensed Statement of Net Assets compared to prior year. The Authority is engaged only in Business -Type Activities. Table 1— Statement of Net Assets Assets Unrestricted current Assets Restricted current assets Noncurrent assets Total assets Liabilities Current liabilities Noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities Net Assets Net Assets Investment in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted Unrestricted Total net assets 2011 2010 $ 837,275 $ 1,008,346 3,587,411 3,227,322 11,700,587 12,698,640 16,125,273 16,934,308 580,647 2,908,628 3,489,275 $ 12,635,998 $ 9,466,587 3,557,154 (387,743) &Q.6= 909,188 2;794,596 3,703,784 $ 13,230,524 $ 10,296,440 3,131,468 (197,384) $13,230 There was a decrease in total net assets of $594,526 due mainly to depreciation and due from the reduction in tenant revenues in the rural assistance program. Items to note: (1) Depreciation is treated as an expense and reduces the results of operations but does not have an impact on Unrestricted Net Assets. (2) Capital expenditures represent an outflow of unrestricted net assets, but are not treated as an expense against Results of Operations, and therefore must be deducted. ry 0 e 161 A3 1 r � COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1 Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS September 30, 2011 (Continued) Table 2 — Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets The following schedule compares the revenues and expenses for the current and previous fiscal year. Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets are as follows: 2011 2010 Operating revenues and expenses Operating revenues $ 1,595,496 $ 2,530,933 Depreciation expenses ( 1,074,308) ( 1,264,646) Other operating expenses ( 5,472,255) ( 6,524,258) Operating income ( 4,951,067) ( 5,257,971) Nonoperating revenues and expenses Governmental non operating revenues 4,404,560 4,443,991 Interest revenue 10,324 30,453 Interest expense ( 58,343) ( 48,601) Total non operating revenues and expenses 4,356,541 4,425,843 Decrease in net assets ( 594,526) ( 832,128) Net assets, beginning of year 13,230,524 14,062,652 Prior year adjustments and correction of errors - 0 Adjusted net asset — beginning of year 13,230,524 14,062,652 Net assets, end of year S 12,635,998 13,230,524 Major Factors Affecting the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Operating revenues had a decrease due to a reduction in tenant rental revenue caused by high vacancies. Government operating revenue decreased in Rural Development and Housing Choice Voucher Programs. Budgetary Highlights For the year ended September 30, 2011, individual program or grant budgets were prepared by the Authority and were approved by the Board of Commissioners. The budgets were prepared in accordance with accounting procedures prescribed by the applicable funding agency. U11 11 "13 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, September 30, 2011 (Continued) Capital Assets and Debt Administration As of September 30, 2011 the Authority's investment in capital assets was $11,700,587 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, equipment, and construction in progress. The Authority has total long term debt as of September 30, 2011 in the amount of $2,852,623. These are in the Farm Labor Programs. These debts have been incurred to meet its mission of constructing low income rural housing in the Collier County area. Additional information on the Authority's capital assets and debt administration can be found in the Notes to Basic financial statements, which are included in this report. Capital Assets As of year end, the Authority had $11,700,587 invested in a variety of capital assets as reflected in the following schedule. Table 3 — Capital Assets at Year End Business -type Activities September 30, 2011 Nondepreciable: Land $ 2,568,713 Infrastructure 3,493,485 Depreciable: Buildings 25,907,482 Equipment — Dwellings 449,807 Equipment — Administration 1,547,571 33,967,058 Accumulated Depreciation X22,266,471) Capital Assets, net X11,700,587 Factors Affecting Next Year's Budget It is uncertain of the impact the upcoming rules changes regarding Housing Assistance Payments grants will have on the Authority or the Section 8 Voucher Programs. It is anticipated that administrative fees and Grant subsidy may decrease in the Housing Choice Voucher Program due to recent federal budget constraints. vi 4 .f COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 161 1 A3 Immokalee, Florida MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS September 30, 2011 (Continued) Economic Factors Significant economic factors affecting the Authority are as follows: • Federal funding provide by Congress to the Department of Housing and Urban Development • Local labor supply and demand, which can affect salary and wage rates • Local inflationary, recessionary and employment trends, which can affect resident incomes and therefore the amount of rental income • Inflationary pressure on utility rates, supplies and other costs • Local development pressures affecting the market rents and demand for affordable housing • Salary and benefits costs increases (e.g. health insurance cost increase). Contacting the Authority's Financial Management The financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the Authority's finances for all those with an interest. If you have questions about this report or wish to request additional information, please contact Esmeralda Serrata, Executive Director at Collier County Housing Authority, 1800 Farm Worker Way, Immokalee, Florida 34142, telephone number (239) 657 -3649. vii or COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida 1611 A 3 STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ASSETS Current assets Cash and cash equivalents, unrestricted $ 539,041 Cash and cash equivalents, restricted 3,354,135 Investments, restricted 233,279 Accrued interest receivable 810 Accounts receivable, net of allowance 75,686 Due from other governments 89,383 Inventories, net of obsolescence 10,716 Prepaid insurance 121,636 Total current assets 4,424,686 Noncurrent assets Capital assets Not being depreciated 2,568,713 Depreciable, net 9,131,874 Total capital assets, net 11,700,587 Total assets 16,125,273 LIABILITIES Current liabilities Vendors and contractors payable 69,814 Accrued wages /taxes payable 6,344 Accrued compensated absences 25,747 Accrued interest payable 9,500 Due to other governments 6,650 Deferred revenue 26,927 Notes and bonds payable 341,719 Total current liabilities 486,701 Current liabilities payable from restricted assets Resident security deposits 93,946 Noncurrent liabilities Notes and bonds payable 2,852,623 Accrued compensated absences 25,748 Other accrued liabilities 30,257 Total noncurrent liabilities 2,908,628 Total liabilities 3,489,275 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 9,466,587 Restricted 3,557,154 Unrestricted (387,743) Total net assets $ 12,635,998 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these basic financial statements. u,< 2 M COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 16 11 A43 z Immokalee, Florida STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Operating revenues Rental revenue HUD grants Other governmental grants Otherrevenue Total operating revenues Operating expenses Administrative Tenant services Utilities Ordinary maintenance & operation Protective services Insurance General expenses Housing assistance payments Depreciation Total operating expenses Operating income (loss) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Interest revenue, unrestricted Interest revenue, restricted Interest expense Fraud recovery Other expense Total nonoperating revenues Increase (decrease) in net assets Net assets, beginning of year Net assets, end of year $ 1,246,863 3,269,471 1,135,089 307,097 5,958,520 954,693 38,249 119,175 639,013 70,991 354,509 175,269 2,980,378 1,074,308 6,406,585 (448,065) 1,493 8,831 (58,343) 41,536 (139,978) (146,461) (594,526) 13,230,524 12,635,998 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these basic financial statements. 3 I ?' COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY �. �. Immokalee, Florida 161 1A3 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Cash Flows From Operating Activities Receipts from dwelling rentals $ 1,239,998 Operating grants 4,385,677 Other receipts 350,484 Payments to employees and suppliers (2,073,357) Payments to landlords and resident benefits (3,229,418) Net cash provided (used) by operating activities 673,384 Cash Flows From Noncapital Financing Activities Principal paid on operating debt (52,005) Interest paid on operating debt 1,831 Net cash provided (used) by noncapital financing activitiews (50,174) Cash Flows From Capital and Related Financing Activities Purchases of capital assets (77,455) Principal paid on capital debt (167,000) Interest paid on capital debt (58,343) Net cash provided (used) by capital and related financing activities (302,798) Cash Flows From Investing Activities Purchase /sale of investments 55,727 Interest 10,400 Net cash provided (used) by investing activities 66,127 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 386,539 Balance - beginning of the year 3,506,637 Balance - end of the year $ 3,893,176 Reconciliation of Cash Flows to Statement of Net Assets Cash and cash equivalents, unrestricted $ 539,041 Cash and cash equivalents, restricted 3,354,135 $ 3,893,176 There are no non -cash transactions. 4 �" COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ' Immokalee, Florida �j A B �/ STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) Reconciliation of Net Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided (Used) By Operating Activities Operating income /(loss) $ (448,065) Adjustments to reconcile net operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation elimination 1,074,308 Decrease in accounts receivable 30,672 Decrease in due to /from other governments 64,762 Decrease in inventory 9,089 Decrease in prepaid expenses 43,845 Decrease in other assets 1,200 Decrease in security deposits (1,908) Decrease in accounts payable (26,892) Increase in accrued wages 2,461 Increase in compensated absences 6,088 Decrease in accrued liabilities (18,883) Increase in deferred credits 35,149 Other revenue and expense reported as nonoperating (98,442) $ 673,384 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these basic financial statements. 5 4!,l A - COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY ' Immokalee, Florida A - NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Organization: 1. Organization: Collier County Housing Authority ( "the Authority ") is a public body corporate and politic pursuant to the Chapter 421 Laws of the State of Florida which was organized to provide low rent housing for qualified individuals in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies. The Authority has been a recipient of several loans and grants from Rural Housing Services (RHS) since 1971 under Project No. 09- 011 - 05914055 pursuant to Sections 514 and 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The Rural Housing Services programs are designed to provide decent, safe, and sanitary low -rent housing and related facilities for domestic farm laborers. Effective July 1, 1992, the Board of Commissioners of Collier County transferred all of its HUD Housing Assistance Payments programs to the Authority, pursuant to an Assumption and Inter -local agreement. The transfer was approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to a Contract of Novation between the Authority, the County and HUD. The Authority has agreed to undertake the development and operation of certain low rent housing projects and to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for eligible families pursuant to Section 8 of the Housing Assistance Act by means of Housing Assistance Payments to owners through Annual Contributions Contract number A -3402V (Housing Choice Vouchers, Housing Assistance Program). 2. Reporting Entity: In determining how to define the reporting entity, management has considered all potential component units. The decision to include a component unit in the reporting entity was made by applying the criteria set forth in Section 2100 and 2600 of the Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards and Statement No. 14, (amended) of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board: The Financial Reporting Entity. These criteria include manifestation of oversight responsibility including financial accountability, appointment of a voting majority, imposition of will, financial benefit to or burden on a primary organization, financial accountability as a result of fiscal dependency, potential for dual inclusion, and organizations included in the reporting entity although the primary organization is not financially accountable. Based upon the application of these criteria, the reporting entity the following component unit: CCHA Land Development Corporation — this component unit has been blended for financial statement presentation. The basic financial statements of the Collier County Housing Authority include Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants (Rural Housing Services Capital Projects Program), Section 8 Housing Assistance Programs under Annual Contributions Contract A -3402, Horizon Village (a business activity) which provides affordable housing to low to moderate income families, Local grants (Homeless Prevention Rapid Re- housing Program), and the CCHA Land Development Corporation, which is a non - profit corporation organized, incorporated and controlled, by the Collier County Housing Authority for the advancement of affordable housing. 3. Basis of Presentation and Accounting: In accordance with uniform financial reporting standards for HUD housing programs, the basic financial statements are prepared in accordance with U. S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). 6 Lwi EJ M EJ COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 1611A3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) A - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Organization: (Continued) 3. Basis of Presentation and Accounting: (Continued) Based upon compelling reasons offered by HUD, the Authority reports its basic financial statements as a special purpose government engaged solely in business -type activities, which is similar to the governmental proprietary fund type (enterprise fund), which uses the accrual basis of accounting and the flow of economic resources measurement focus. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time the liabilities are incurred. Pursuant to the election option made available by GASB Statement No. 20, Pronouncements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) pronouncements issued after November 30, 1989 are applied in the preparation of the basic financial statements, unless those pronouncements conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. Generally accepted accounting principles for state and local governments requires that resources be classified for accounting and reporting purposes into the following three net asset categories: Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt — Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and outstanding principal balances of debt attributable to the acquisition, construction or improvement of those assets. Restricted - Net assets whose use by the Authority is subject to externally imposed stipulations that can be fulfilled by actions of the Authority pursuant to those stipulations or the expire by the passage of time. Such assets include assets restricted for capital acquisitions and debt service. Unrestricted — Net assets that are not subject to externally imposed stipulations. Unrestricted net assets may be designated for specific purposes by action of management or the Authority Board or may otherwise be limited by contractual agreements with outside parties. 4. Budgets: Budgets are prepared on an annual basis for each major operating program and are used as a management tool throughout the accounting cycle. The capital fund budgets are adopted on a "project length" basis. Budgets are not, however, legally adopted nor legally required for basic financial statement presentation. 5. Cash and Cash Equivalents: For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the Authority considers all highly liquid investments (including restricted assets) with a maturity of three months or less when purchased and non - negotiable certificates of deposit to be cash equivalents. Interprogram Receivables and Payables: Interprogram receivables /payables, when present, are all current, and are the result of the use of the Public Housing Program as the common paymaster for shared costs of the Authority. Cash settlements are made periodically, and all interprogram balances net zero. Offsetting due to /due from balances are eliminated for the basic financial statement presentation. COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 6 11 A 3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) A - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Organization: (Continued) 7. Investments: Investments, when present, are recorded at fair value. Investment instruments consist only of items specifically approved for public housing agencies by HUD and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Investments are either insured or collateralized using the dedicated method. Under the dedicated method of collateralization, all deposits and investments over the federal depository insurance coverage are collateralized with securities held by the Authority's agent in the Authority's name. It is the Authority's policy that all funds on deposit are collateralized in accordance with both HUD requirements and requirements of the State of Florida. 8. Inventories: Inventories (consisting of materials and supplies) are valued at cost using the first in, first out (FIFO) method. If inventory falls below cost due to damage, deterioration or obsolescence, the Authority establishes an allowance for obsolete inventory. In accordance with the consumption method, inventory is expensed when items are actually placed in service. 9. Prepaid Items: Payments made to vendors for goods or services that will benefit periods beyond the fiscal year end are recorded as prepaid items. 10. Use of Estimates: The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the basic financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. 11. Fair Value of Financial Instruments: The carrying amount of the Authority's financial instruments at September 30, 2011 including cash, investments, accounts receivable, and accounts payable closely approximates fair value. 12. Capital Assets: r a. Book Value: All purchased fixed assets are valued at cost when historical records are available. When no historical records are available, fixed assets are valued at estimated historical cost. Land values were derived from development closeout documentation. Donated fixed assets are recorded at their fair value at the time they are received. Donor imposed restrictions are deemed to expire as the asset depreciates. All normal expenditures of preparing an asset for use are capitalized when they meet or exceed the capitalization threshold. b. Depreciation: The cost of buildings and equipment is depreciated over the estimated useful lives of the related assets on a composite basis using the straight -line method. Depreciation commences on modernization and development additions in the year following completion. 8 F1 77 ..� COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 16 ' JA3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) A - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Organization: (Continued) 12. Capital Assets: (Continued) b. Depreciation: (Continued) The useful lives of buildings and equipment for purposes of computing depreciation are as follows: Buildings Modernization Office and Other Furniture 20 -30 years 15 years 3 -5 years c. Maintenance and Repairs Expenditures: Maintenance and repairs expenditures are charged to operations when incurred. Betterments in excess of $500 are capitalized. When buildings and equipment are sold or otherwise disposed of, the asset account and related accumulated depreciation account are relieved, and any gain or loss is included in operations. 13. Compensated Absences: Compensated absences are those absences for which employees will be paid, such as vacation and sick leave computed in accordance with GASB Statement No. 16. A liability for compensated absences that is attributable to services already rendered and that are not contingent on a specific event that is outside the control of the Authority and its employees, is accrued as employees earn the rights to the benefits. Compensated absences that relate to future services or that are contingent on a specific event that is outside the control of the Authority and its employees are accounted for in the period in which such services are rendered or in which such events take place. 14. Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB): In relation to its employee benefit programs, the Authority does not provide any Other Post Employment Benefits, as outlined under GASB 45. 15. Litigation Losses: The Authority recognizes estimated losses related to litigation in the period in which the occasion giving rise to the loss occurred, the loss is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. 16. Annual Contribution Contracts: Annual Contribution contracts provide that HUD shall have the authority to audit and examine the records of public housing authorities. Accordingly, final determination of the Authority's financing and contribution status for the Annual Contribution Contracts is the responsibility of HUD based upon financial reports submitted by the Authority. 17. Risk Management: The Authority is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. The Authority carries commercial insurance for all risks of loss, including workers' compensation and employee health and accident insurance. Settled claims resulting from these risks have not exceeded commercial insurance coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Additionally, there have been no significant reductions in insurance coverage from the prior year. 18. Use of Restricted Net Assets: It is the Authority's policy to first apply restricted resources when an expense is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net assets are available. 9 ,.I A 161 1 A3 , . 4 (, COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) A - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Organization: (Continued) 19. Operating Revenues and Expenses: The principal operating revenues of the Authority's enterprise fund are charges to customers for rents and services. Operating expenses for the Authority's enterprise fund include the cost of providing housing and services, administrative expenses and depreciation on capital assets. Revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. B - Deposits and Investments: For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the Authority considers all highly liquid investments (including restricted assets) with a maturity of three months or less when purchased and non - negotiable certificates of deposit to be cash equivalents. There were no noncash investing, capital and financing activities during the year. 1. HUD Deposit and Investment Restrictions — HUD requires authorities to invest excess HUD program funds in obligations of the United States, certificates of deposit or any other federally insured instruments. HUD also requires that deposits of HUD program funds be fully insured or collateralized at all times. Acceptable security includes FDIC /FSLIC insurance and the market value of securities purchased and pledged to the political subdivision. Pursuant to HUD restrictions, obligations of the United States are allowed as security for deposits. Obligations furnished as security must be held by the Authority or with an unaffiliated bank or trust company for the account of the Authority. 2. Risk Disclosures a. Interest Rate Risk: As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising from rising interest rates, the Authority's investment policy limits the Authority's investment portfolio to maturities not to exceed two years at time of purchase. At September 30, 2011, the Authority's deposits and investments were not limited and all of which are either available on demand or have maturities of less than two years. b. Credit Risk: This is risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The Authority's investment policy is that none of its total portfolio may be invested in securities of any single issuer, other than the U.S. Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and state and local government. 3. Deposit and Investment Risks The Authority held the following deposits and investments at September 30, 2011: Carrying Value Deposits: Demand deposits $ 539,041 Restricted deposits 3,354,135 $ 3,893,176 10 Z3 EM d IC 6 CQLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 161 1 A3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) Deposits and Investments: (Continued) 3. Deposit and Investment Risks: (Continued) Fair Credit Maturity Value Rating Date Callable Investments: Pinellas County Sewer Bonds $ 25,128 AAA 10/01/2025 No Miami Dade FL Aviation 73,516 AAA 10/01/2014 No Nassau County Utility Bonds 64,635 AAA 09/01/2013 Yes Lee County School Board 35,000 AAA 08/01/2022 No Florida State Education Bonds 10,000 AAA 05/01/2034 Yes Lee County Transportation Bonds 25,000 AAA 10/01/2011 No Total Investments S 233.279 Total Deposits and Investments Custodial Credit Risk: Exposure to custodial credit related to deposits exists when the Authority holds deposits that are uninsured and uncollateralized; collateralized with securities held by the pledging financial institution, or by its trust department or agent but not in the Authority's name; or collateralized without a written or approved collateral agreement. Exposure to custodial credit risk related to investments exists when the Authority holds investment that are uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty or by its trust department or agent but not in the Authority's name. The Authority's policy as it relates to custodial credit risk is to secure its uninsured deposits with collateral, valued at no more than market value, at least at a level of 100% of the uninsured deposits and accrued interest thereon. The investment policy also limits acceptable collateral to U.S. Treasury securities obligation of federal agencies, securities of government- sponsored agencies, and other instruments which may be approved by the U.S. Department of HUD. As required by Federal 12 U.S. C.A., Section 1823(e), all financial institutions pledging collateral to the Authority must have a written collateral agreement approved by the board of directors or loan committee. At September 30, 2011, the Authority was not exposed to custodial credit as defined above. Investment Credit Risk: The Authority's investment policy limits investments to those allowed by the U.S. Department of HUD. These investment limitations are described in Note A. Credit risk is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. The Authority has no formal policy limiting investments based on credit rating, but discloses any such credit risk associated with their investments by reporting the credit quality ratings of investments in debt securities as determined by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations — rating agencies — as of the year end. Unless there is information to the contrary, obligations of the U. S. government or obligations explicitly guaranteed by the U. S. government are not considered to have credit risk and do not require disclosure of credit quality. 11 1„ COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORIT 1611 !l 3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) B - Deposits and Investments: (Continued) 3. Deposit and Investment Risks (Continued) Custodial Credit Risk: (Continued) As noted in the schedule of deposits and investment above, at September 30, 2011, the investments held by the Authority mature October, 2011, through May, 2034. The Authority may sell these investments at fair value at any time. Concentration of Investment Credit Risk: Exposure to concentration of credit risk is considered to exist when investments in any one issuer represent a significant percent of total investments of the Authority. Investments issued or explicitly guaranteed by HUD - approved instruments are excluded from this consideration. At September 30, 2011, the Authority had no concentration of credit risk as defined above. C - Accounts Receivable: Dwelling rents (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $5,632) $ 41,302 Portability 17,235 Fraud Receivables (Net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $10,000) 17,149 $ D - Due From Other Governments: Rural Rental Assistance — September 30, 2011 allocation $ 66,538 County of Collier County- HPRP Program 22,845 12 -COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 16 l 1 A3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) E - Land, Buildings and Equipment: Not being depreciated: Land Construction in progress Total not being depreciated Depreciable: Buildings & improvements Accumulated depreciation Net buildings & improvements Equipment Accumulated depreciation Net equipment Net depreciable assets TOTAL F - Long -Term Debt — Line of Credit: Balance September 30, 2010 $ 2,568,713 $ 2,568,713 Balance September 30, Additions 2011 - $ 2,568,713 2,568,713 29,323,512 77,455 29,400,967 (19,653,641) (1,058,044) (20,711,685) 9,669,871 (980,589) 8,689,282 1,997,378 - 1,997,378 (1,538,522) (16,264) (1,554,786) 458,856 (16,264) 442,592 10,128,727 (996,853) 9,131,874 $ 12,697,440 $ (996,853) $ 11,700,587 1) The outstanding balance of Line of Credit Notes in the Business Activities (Horizon Village) at September 30, 2011, was $379,960. Interest and principal shall be paid as follows: (a) Annual principal payments of $20,000 each plus accrued interest shall be payable in arrears on the 15`h day of November 2005, and on the 15`h day in the month of November in each subsequent year of the loan term; (b) If the due date for any payment hereunder would fall on a day that is not a business day (i.e., a day that is a Saturday, Sunday or banking holiday), then the payment shall instead be due on the next succeeding business day; and (c) Interest shall cease to accrue on any amount of principal paid in advance of its due date. Interest Rate — The unpaid principal balance of the Note, shall bear interest, while current, at the Applicable Interest Rate. As used in this Note, the term "Applicable Interest Rate" means: • Since the interest paid in connection with this Loan is exempt from income taxation by the United States of America and by the State of Florida, the Applicable Interest Rate shall be an annual rate of interest equal to one percent (1 %) less than the "highest prime rate" of interest published in the Wall Street Journal, but not less than three percent (3 %) per annum. 13 4 w COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY1 611A3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) F - Long -Term Debt — Line of Credit: (Continued) The outstanding balance of Notes Payable at September 30, 2011 was $379,960. The notes are payable each year in the amounts and at the interest rate listed below: September 30, Principal Interest 2012 $ 20,000 $ 11,400 2013 20,000 10,800 2014 20,000 10,200 2015 20,000 9,600 2016 20,000 2017 -2021 100,000 39,000 2022 -2026 100,000 20,000 2027 -2031 79,960 9,000 379,960 Less Current Portion 20,000 Interest expense for the year ended September 30, 2011 was $11,316. There was no capitalized interest expense for the year ended September 30, 2011. The debt is secured by the property purchased in conjunction with the above financing as reported above. 2) The outstanding balance of Line of Credit Notes in the Farmers Home Program at September 30, 2011, was $280,134. Interest and principal shall be paid as follows: (a) The principal amount of the loan is due at maturity on November 25, 2011 The line of credit is for $300,000 entered into on November 25, 2010. The Authority may take multiple advances up to a maximum of $300,000. (b) The interest rate may change daily and is equal to the rate published in the Wall Street Journal. (c) Monthly payments cover the accrued interest only. 3) The outstanding balance of Line of Credit Notes in the Component Unit (CCHA Land, Inc.) at September 30, 2011, was $139,307. 14 0 *' COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORIT4 6 I J 3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) F - Long -Term Debt — Line of Credit: (Continued) Interest and principal shall be paid as follows: (a) The principal amount of the loan is due at maturity on November 24, 2011. The line of credit is for $200,000 entered into on November 24, 2010. The Authority may take multiple advances up to a maximum of $200,000. (b) The interest rate may change daily and is equal to the rate published in the Wall Street Journal. (c) Monthly payments cover the accrued interest only. G - Long Term Debt: Revenue Bonds Payable: Capital facilities are financed by debt which is guaranteed and subsidized by U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Services (RHS). The Authority presently has bonds payable on its farm laborer housing projects which are due annually in installments of varying principal and interest amounts. Revenue bonds payable at September 30, 2011, are as follows: Collier County Housing Authority Revenue Bonds, Series C. 1 %, due annually on September 1 in principal amounts of $54,000 to $68,000 with interest to September 1, 2014 $ 200,000 Collier County Housing Authority Revenue Bonds, Series D, 1 %, due annually on September 1 in principal amounts of $24,380 to $33,000 with interest to September 1, 2023 370,000 Collier County Housing Authority Revenue Bonds, Series E, 1 %, due annually on September 1 in principal amounts $27,000 to $36,000 with interest to September 1, 2031 659,000 Collier County Housing Authority Revenue Bonds, Series F, 1 %, due annually on September 1 in principal amounts of $39,072 to $52,000 with interest to September 1, 2032 1,005,000 Total long -term debt 2x234 ;000 The revenues of the project are pledged to the payment of principal and interest on the revenue bonds. The bonds are redeemable before maturity, at the option of the Authority, in inverse numerical and maturity order, on any interest payment date upon giving 40 days written notice to Rural Housing Services. 15 0 A 3 r4, ( )CQLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 6 I. Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) G - Long Term Debt: (Continued) Maturities of long -term debt for each of the five succeeding years and in the aggregate are as follows at September 30, 2011: Fiscal Year Ending September 30, Principal Interest 2012 $ 169,000 $ 22,330 2013 168,000 20,650 2014 168,000 18,970 2015 168,000 17,290 2016 168,000 15,610 2017 -2021 840,000 28,350 2022 -2025 553,000 27,650 2,234,000 Less current portion 169,000 Sinking Fund Debt Service Account: Under the terms of the revenue bonds, a sinking fund has been established to provide debt service funding. After operation and maintenance requirements are met, the Authority transfers to the sinking fund debt service account such amounts as may be due of interest and principal on the bonds. The amount required to be transferred during the year ended September 30, 2010 in order to meet debt service requirements was $238,022 which was accomplished. The cash balance in the sinking fund debt service account at September 30, 2010 was $3,676. Sinking Fund Reserve Account: Immediately after each transfer to the sinking fund debt service, account, any excess funds are deposited in the sinking fund reserve account. Funds in the reserve account are only withdrawn upon written prior approval of Rural Housing Services: The Authority is required to make monthly reserve deposits in the amount of $33,333 plus the amount of any deficiency in prior deposits to the reserve account until funds and investments in the reserve account shall equal $2,514,900. The aggregate deposits to the reserve account and interest earned for the year ended September 30, 2011 were $237,109, which exceeded the required annual aggregate deposits. Withdrawals from the sinking fund reserve account are authorized for the following purposes: a) To meet principal and interest payments due on the bonds in the event the sinking fund debt service account balance is not sufficient for that purpose..,: b) To pay costs of extraordinary repairs or replacements to the project which is not considered current expenses. 16 0 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 161 1A3 Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) G - Long Term Debt: (Continued) Sinking Fund Reserve Account: (Continued) c) To make improvements or extensions to the project. d) For other purposes desired by the Authority which will promote it's purpose without jeopardizing the collectability of the bonds or underlying security. e) To the extent the reserve account exceeds $2,514,900, to purchase bonds before maturity in the prescribed manner. Supplemental Information: (Schedule of Funding Reserve) a. Investment Reserve Funds Sinking Fund Debt Service Account (Principal and Interest) Beginning balance $ 3,676 Transfers to Debt Service Account including interest earned 187,362 Withdrawals for payment of principal and interest ( 191,010) Ending balance 28 Sinking Fund Reserve Replacement Account Beginning balance — less transfers to replacements and operations 1,984,525 Transfers to reserves including interest earned 237,109 Ending balance 2,221,634 Total Investment Reserve Fund 2,221,662 Fully Funded Balance per Loan Agreement 2,514,900 Excess /(Deficiency) of Reserves on Hand SG _223.2-m ) b. Compliance with Bond Indentures Requirements: The Collier County Housing Authority, Farm Worker Village, has met and exceeded the bond indenture and reserve requirements outlined in this report, as reported in this note, when considering approved withdrawals from Rural Development for long -term improvements. All interest earnings on invested funds are deposited monthly by the Bank directly into the Housing Authority's cash account and transferred to the reserve account. Construction Fund The construction fund is used to account for grant and loan funds received from Rural Housing Services and other sources and to record construction activities. During the year ended September 30, 2011, there were no expenditures from the Construction Fund for authorized construction activity. At September 30, 2011, the balance of the construction fund was transferred to the operating fund. 17 4 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORIT Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) G - Long Term Debt: (Continued) Construction Fund (Continued) In the Rural Housing Services enterprise fund, reservations of unrestricted net assets have been established in conjunction with debt issuance requirements or policy directives as stipulated by the respective aforementioned funds. H - State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP Program) Loan: The outstanding balance of the SHIP Loan Payable at September 30, 2011 was $160,940. The loan is payable each year in the amounts and at the interest rate listed below: September 30, Amount Interest 2012 13,412 0% 2013 13,412 0% 2014 13,412 0% 2015 13,412 0% 2016 13,412 0% 2017 -2021 67,060 0% 2022 -2025 26,820 0% 160,940 Less current portion 13,412 Interest expense for the year ended September 30, 2011 was $0. There was no capitalized interest expense for the year ended September 30, 2011. Interest: Interest on this Note shall be zero percent (0 %) per annum; except that if the Authority fails to pay this Note as required, the interest rate shall be twelve percent (12 %) per annum from the date when payment of this Note is due until the Authority pays it in full. Payments: Principal payments shall be deferred for a period of three years from date disbursed with seventeen equal yearly payments of $13,412 due beginning on September 1, 2007 and continuing for seventeen years thereafter until payment in full of $228,000 is received on August 1, 2024. The Authority's total payment shall be $228,000. 0 0 1611 A3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) I - Schedule of Changes in Noncurrent Liabilities: Notes and bonds payable Accrued compensated absences Family self - sufficiency liability Year ended September 30, 2010 September 30, 2011 September 30, 2011 Long -term Current Current Long -term Portion Portion Additions Payments Portion Portion $ 2,774,940 $ 638,407 $ - $ (219,005) $ 341,719 $ 2,852,623 19,656 19,659 33,456 (21,276) 25,747 25,748 - - 30,257 - - 30,257 $ 2,794,596 $ 658,066 $ 63,713 $ (240,281) $ 367,466 $ 2,908,628 J - Annual Contributions by HUD: Annual Contributions Contract A -3402 - Section 8 programs provide for housing assistance payments to private owners of residential units on behalf of eligible low or very low- existing and moderately rehabilitated housing covering the difference between the maximum rental on a swelling unit, and the amount of rent contribution by a participating family and related administrative expense. The Authority is also eligible to receive reimbursement for preliminary expenses prior to lease up. HUD contributions for the year ended September 30, 2011, were as follows: Housing Choice Vouchers 3,269,457 K - Economic Dependency: The Authority receives approximately 70% of its revenues from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). If the amount of revenues received from these federal agencies falls below critical levels, the Authority's reserves could be adversely affected. L - Contingencies: The Authority is subject to possible examinations made by Federal and State authorities who determine compliance with terms, conditions, laws and regulations governing other grants given to the Authority in the current and prior years. There were no such examinations for the year ended September 30, 2011. M - Litigation: As of September 30, 2011, the Authority was involved with various litigations arising from operation of its rural development housing program. In the opinion of the Authority's legal council, such losses, if any, resulting from litigation would be adequately covered by insurance. N - Leasing Activities (as Lessor): The Authority is the lessor of dwelling units mainly to low- income residents. The rents under the leases are determined generally by the resident's income as adjusted for eligible deductions regulated by HUD and Rural Development. Leases may be cancelled by the lessee at any time. The Authority may cancel the lease only for cause. w if 1611 A3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida NOTES TO BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) N - Leasing Activities (as Lessor): (Continued) Revenues associated with these leases are recorded in the basic financial statements and schedules as "Rental Revenue ". Rental Revenue per dwelling unit generally remains consistent from year to year, but is affected by general economic conditions which impact personal income and local job availability. 0- Operating Leases: The Authority is committed under a non - cancelable lease for office space. This lease has ,. been accounted for as operating leases in the accompanying basic financial statements. The office lease is not subject to an annual escalation clause. Future minimum lease payments required under these leases are as follows: September 30, Office Space 2011 -2012 $ 18,400 2012 -2013 18,952 2013 -2014 19,521 P - Decrease in Net Assets: The decrease in net assets is expected to be absorbed through operations in subsequent fiscal years, assisted by transfers from the Rural Rental Program. No fund deficit is expected as a result of the current year loss. 20 �t 161 1 A's SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ASSETS Cut-rent assets Cash and cash equivalents, unrestricted COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 13,458 $ 53,465 $ 10,949 Immokalee, Florida $ f k COMBINING SCHEDULE OF NET ASSETS 161 A3 i 3 SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 2,082,329 3,354,135 "" Investments, restricted Community 14.871 Rural HOME Development Housing Rental Investment Block Grants/ Choice Component State and Business Assistance Partnerships Entitlement Vouchers Units Local Activities Payments Program Grants Total 2011 Accounts receivable, net of allowance 34,384 ASSETS Cut-rent assets Cash and cash equivalents, unrestricted $ 207,433 $ 13,458 $ 53,465 $ 10,949 $ 253,736 $ $ $ 539,041 Cash and cash equivalents, restricted 1,271,806 - - - 2,082,329 3,354,135 "" Investments, restricted - 233,279 233,279 Accrued interest receivable - 810 810 Accounts receivable, net of allowance 34,384 41,302 75,686 Due from other governments - - 22,845 66,538 89,383 Due from /to other programs (3,244) 162,638 (70,130) (284,558) 177,949 17,345 - Inventories, net of obsolescence - - 10,716 - 10,716 Prepaid insurance 123 - - 6,948 114,565 - 121,636 Total current assets 1510 502 176,096 6,180 (266,661) 2,981,224 17,345 4,424,686 Noncurrent assets Capital assets Not being depreciated - 115,000 2,453,713 2,568,713 Depreciable, net 11,664 3,140,550 5,979,660 9,131,874 Total capital assets, net 11,664 - 3,255,550 8,433,373 - 11,700,587 Total assets 1,522,166 176,096 6,180 2,988,889 11,414,597 17,345 16,125,273 LIABILITIES V+ Current liabilities Vendors and contractors payable 9,146 - - 2,010 58,658 - 69,814e Accrued wages /taxes payable 1,485 841 4,018 6,344 Accrued compensated absences 5,397 2,667 17,683 25,747 - Accrued interest payable - 9,500 9,500 Due to other governments 240 6,410 6,650 Deferred revenue - - 26,927 - 26,927 Notes and bonds payable - 139,307 33,412 169,000 341,719 rr Total current liabilities 16,028 139,307 48,670 282,696 486,701 Current liabilities payable from restricted assets r. Resident security deposits - - - 93,946 - 93,946 Noncurrent liabilities Notes and bonds payable 507,489 2,345,134 2,852,623 Accrued compensated absences 5,398 2,667 17,683 - 25,748 Other accrued liabilities 30,257 - - - 30,257 Total noncurrent liabilities 35,655 510,156 2,362,817 2,908,628 Total liabilities 51,683 139,307 558,826 2,739,459 - 3,489,275 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 11,664 - 3,255,550 6,199,373 9,466,587 Restricted 1,241,546 - - 2,315,608 3,557,154` Unrestricted 217,273 36,789 6,180 (825,487) 160,157 17,345 (387,743) Total net assets $ 1,470,483 $ 36,789 S 6,180 $ 2,430,063 $ 8,675,138 $ 17,345 $ - $ 12,635,998 r 21 W In j y COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 16 11 A13 Immokalee, Florida + COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Nonoperating revenues (expenses) 121,685 12,117 (10,314) (339,816) (378,069) Interest revenue, unrestricted Community 8 276 14.871 1,493 Interest revenue, restricted 49 Rural HOME Development 8,831 Interest expense Housing (672) (13,800) (43,871) Rental Investment Block Grants/ - Choice Component State and Business Assistance Partnerships Entitlement (139,978) Total nonoperating revenues Vouchers Units Local Activities Payments Program Grants Total 2011 4 Operating revenues $ $ $ $ 173,231 $ 1,073,632 $ $ $ 1,246,863 Rental revenue HUD grants 3,269,471 3,269,471 Other governmental grants - 162,310 - 824,779 148,000 1,135,089 Other revenue 164,226 55,138 - 1,624 86,109 - 307,097 Total operating revenues 3,433,697 55,138 162,310 174,855 1,984,520 148,000 5,958,520 Operating expenses Administrative 319,247 21,571 17,188 91,793 504,894 - 954,693 Tenant services - 2,536 22,942 - 12,771 38,249 Utilities 2,362 - - 48,476 68,337 119,175 Ordinary maintenance & operation 13,518 17,849 41,840 565,806 639,013 Protective services - - 40,531 30,460 70,991 Insurance 14,129 - 51,715 288,665 354,509 General expenses 3,741 401 240 170,758 129 175,269 Housing assistance payments 2,847,884 - 132,494 - - - 2,980,378 Depreciation 12,149 - - 226,552 835,607 - 1,074,308 Total operating expenses 3,213,030 42,357 172,624 501,147 2,477,298 129 6,406,585 Operating income (loss) 220,667 12,781 (10,314) (326,292) (492,778) (129) 148,000 (4481065) Nonoperating revenues (expenses) 121,685 12,117 (10,314) (339,816) (378,069) Interest revenue, unrestricted 11 8 276 1,198 1,493 Interest revenue, restricted 49 - - 8,782 8,831 Interest expense - (672) (13,800) (43,871) (58,343) Fraud recovery 40,936 - 600 41,536 Other expense (139,978) - - (139,978) Total nonoperating revenues (98,982) (664) (13,524) (33,291) (146,461) Income (loss) before transfers 121,685 12,117 (10,314) (339,816) (526,069) (129) 148,000 (594,526) Transfers from (to) other programs or 148,000 (148,000) entities Increase(decrease)in net assets 121,685 12,117 (10,314) (339,816) (378,069) (129) (594,526) Net assets, beginning of year 1,348,798 24,672 16,494 2,769,879 9,053,207 17,474 13,230,524 Net assets, end of year $ 1,470,483 $ 36,789 $ 6,180 $ 2,430,063 $ 8,675,138 $ 17,345 $ $ 12,635,998 22 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHOR4y6 1 I 3 Immokalee, Florida FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 The following is supplemental information requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Housing Services (formerly Farmers Home Administration). 1. Schedule of Insurance Coverages At September 30, 2011, the Authority had the following insurance coverage in effect: Amount of Insurance Carrier Type of Coverage Coverage Term ITT Hartford Insurance Company Opticom Insurance Philadelphia Insurance Florida PH Authority Insurance Praetorian Insurance Co US Liability Insurance Fidelity & Deposit Co. ITT Hartford Insurance Company Praetorian Insurance Co. Fidelity bond /Employee Dishonesty $100,000 Deductible Workers' Compensation Automobile liability Property, Office Building & Personal Property Fire & Extended Coverage (90% coinsurance) General Liability Personal Injury, products, advertising Property damage Directors & officers liability Employee dishonest Employee dishonesty (ERISA Bond) Garbage Truck $2,000,000 7/12/11 - 7/12/12 Statutory 10/1/11- 10/1/12 $500,000 10/1/11 - 10/1/12 $38,237,400 5/8/11- 5/8/12 $500,000 10/1/11 -10 /1/12 $300,000 $1,000,000 5/22/11- 5/22/12 $100,000 7/12/11- 7/12/12 $100,000 7/11/11- 7/11/12 $500,000 10/1/11- 10/1/12 2. Exemption from Real Estate and Income Taxes - The Authority is a public body corporate and politic pursuant to Chapter 421, Laws of the State of Florida, which is subsidized by the federal government. The Authority is not subject to federal, state income taxes, or local property taxes, nor is it required to file federal and state income tax returns as a public body corporate and politic pursuant to Chapter 423, Laws of the State of Florida. 3. Reserves - The Housing Authority has maintained adequate reserves for operations and Bond debt service at September 30, 2011. See also Note B to basic financial statements. 4. Accounting Records and Fixed Asset Control - The accounting records maintained are adequate to facilitate budgetary reporting and analytical purposes. The fixed assets are also adequately safeguarded by the Authority personnel. 5. Financial Reports - The financial reports included in this audit are in agreement with the accounting records of the Authority after audit adjustments have been made. 6. Deposit Funds - We noted that deposit funds are adequately insured by the FDIC and properly collateralized and are at or exceed the required reserve levels required under the Loan and Grant Agreement as of September 30, 2011. 23 h A 16 1 1 A 3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) 7. Comments on Compliance and Administrative Internal Control - We have audited the basic financial statements of the Collier County Housing Authority - Farm Worker Subsidized Housing Program for the year ended September 30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated January 28, 2011. Based on our tests of transactions and examination of records as required by the Audit Guide, we believe that Collier County Housing Authority - Farm Worker Subsidized Housing Program has complied with the financial terms and conditions of the contract with the regulations, policies and procedures prescribed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Services (formerly Farmers Home Administration), loan agreement, and the financial regulations and procedures prescribed by management and those of its governing board. As a part of our audit, we reviewed and tested the Authority's system of internal control to the extent we considered it necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted auditing standards. Under these standards, the purposes of such evaluations are to establish a basis of reliance on the system of internal accounting control in determining the nature, timing and extent of other auditing procedures that are necessary for expressing an opinion on the basic financial statements and to assist the auditor in planning and performing the audit of the basic financial statements. Additionally, our audit included procedures necessary in our judgment to determine compliance with contractual terms and conditions and regulations, policies and procedures prescribed by the Rural Housing Services (formerly Farmers Home Administration) and by management and the governing board of the Authority. The objective of internal accounting control is to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance as to the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and the reliability of financial records for preparing basic financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a system of internal accounting control should not exceed the benefits derived and also recognizes that the evaluation of these factors necessarily requires estimates and judgments by management. There are inherent limitations that should be recognized in considering the potential effectiveness of any system of internal accounting control. In the performance of most control procedures, errors can result from misunderstanding of instructions, mistakes of judgment, carelessness, or other personal factors. Control procedures whose effectiveness depends upon segregation of duties can be circumvented by collusion. Similarly, control procedures can be circumvented intentionally by management with respect to the estimates and judgments required in the preparation of basic financial statements. Further, projection of any evaluation of internal accounting control to future periods is subject to the risk that the procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, and that the degree of compliance with the procedures may deteriorate. 24 1 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORIT 161 1 A 3 Immokalee, Florida FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) 7. Comments on Compliance and Administrative Internal Control (Continued) Our audit of the basic financial statements made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, including the study and evaluation of the Authority's system of internal control for the period ended September 30, 2010, that was made for the purposes set forth in the first paragraph of this report, would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system because it was based on selective tests of accounting records and related data. However, such study and evaluation disclosed no conditions that we believe to be material weaknesses or evidence of noncompliance. These conditions were considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests to be applied to our audit of the basic financial statements and this report of such conditions does not modify our report dated December 21, 2011 'on such basic financial statements. 8. Other Findings or Recommendations For the Period Ended September 30, 2011 - There were no reportable findings. 9. The Required Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards along with required reports on Internal Controls and Federal Compliance as outlined under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133 were issued to the Authority as one report, as mandated by the Amended Single Audit Act of 1996 Amendment (Public Law 104 -156). 10. Accounts Receivable- Tenants - Tenants accounts receivable at September 30, 2011 totaling $41,302, were accounts aged at ninety days (90) or less. 11. Accounts Payable consists of $58,658 at September 30, 2011. This balance which is payable to reoccurring vendors is for services or purchases of ninety days (90) or less. 12. Management Fees - The Collier County Housing Authority is the owner of the Farm Worker Subsidized Housing Program, and does not charge any management fees to administer this project. 25 Z3 i 161 1 q'3 -.1 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) 13. Schedule of Financial Institutions Where the Housing Authority Maintains its Bank Accounts Wachovia Bank P.O. Box 2870 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Sinking Fund Reserve 28 Cash- Reserve Fund- Restricted 28 Bank of America Section 8 Operation Account Cash- Unrestricted Name of Financial Institution Account Name Balance Classification Florida Community Bank Bond & Interest $56 Cash- Reserve Fund- Restricted 1400 North 15th Street Certificates of Deposit 200,000 Investments- Reserve Fund- Restricted Immokalee, Florida 33934 CCHA Land, Inc. 13,458 Cash- Unrestricted Fund Reserve 1,784,424 Reserve Revenue Fund 1,997,938 Wachovia Bank P.O. Box 2870 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Sinking Fund Reserve 28 Cash- Reserve Fund- Restricted 28 Bank of America Section 8 Operation 1,400,711 Cash- Unrestricted P.O. Box 31590 Payroll Account 32,955 Cash- Unrestricted Fund Tampa, Florida 33631 -3590 Special Events Account 1,848 Cash- Unrestricted Fund Cash Construction Fund 3,931 Cash- Reserve Fund Section 8 - Admin Funds 53,361 Operational Maintenance- RD 62,306 Revenue Fund 144,294 Security Deposit Fund 105,923 Horizon Village 10,849 Section 8 - Escrow 25,166 HPRP- Operating 53,465 1,894,809 Independent Bankers' Bank Pinellas County Sewer Revenue 25,128 Investments- Reserve Fund- Restricted of Florida Bond Lee County Florida School Board 35,000 Investments- Reserve Fund- Restricted Nassau County Florida Water & Sewer P.O. Box 4998 System 64,635 Investments- Reserve Fund- Restricted Orlando, Florida 32802 -4998 Florida State Educational System 10,000 Investments- Reserve Fund- Restricted Miami -Dade FL Aviation 73,516 Investments- Reserve Fund- Restricted Lee County Florida Transportation Facility 25,000 233,279 Petty Cash & Return Check Fund 400 $ 4,126,454 26 ib 11 a3 q'- COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) 13. Schedule of Financial Institutions Where the Housing Authority Maintains its Bank Accounts (Continued) The above amounts were confirmed with the institution listed at September 30, 2011 14. Schedule and Computation of Current Return to Owners Allowed - Not applicable, because the Authority, is a legal public Authority and not a private enterprise. 15. Schedule of Changes in Owners and Board of Commissioners - This is a local Public Authority and can never change its owners. The following is a list of the current Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Expiration of Term Address Bernado Barnhart October 17, 2010 Immokalee, Florida Brian L. Goguen October 17, 2010 Naples, Florida Susan M. Golden October 27, 2011 Naples, Florida Catherine H. Pink November 4, 2012 Naples, Florida Kenneth Kelly November 7, 2013 Naples, Florida 16. Schedule of Rental Information Actual Rental Revenue Tenants RHA rental assistance subsidy Vacancy Losses Total Gross Potential Rent 27 Percentage Number of 43.54% $1,073,632 Gross Potential Unit Size Units Rental Rate Months Rent One bedroom unit 66 $425 12 $336,600 Two bedroom unit 252 451 12 1,363,824 Three bedroom unit 187 477 12 1,070,388 Four bedroom unit 136 499 12 814,368 641 $3,585,180 Actual Rental Revenue Tenants RHA rental assistance subsidy Vacancy Losses Total Gross Potential Rent 27 Percentage Amount 43.54% $1,073,632 24.51% 824,779 68.05% 1,898,411 31.95% 1,809,967 100.00% $3,708,378 y COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 0 11 A Immokalee, Florida 10 •/ FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) 16. Schedule of Rental Information (Continued) Note 1- Rental rates were effective October 1, 2008. Management provides for the monthly collection of rent. Delinquent accounts receivable, if any, do not exceed 30 days in most instances. 17. Real Estate Taxes - The Housing Authority is a local public body corporate and politic and is tax exempt by State of Florida, Section 423. 28 IA3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 161 Immokalee, Florida FARM WORKER SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAM RHS PROJECT NAME: COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER: 09-011-05914055 CERTIFICATE OF BORROWER The information provided by the Collier County Housing Authority to Malcolm Johnson & Company, P.A., Certified Public Accountants, for the preparation of the September 30, 2011, annual audit to which this certification is attached, is hereby certified to be true and correct, and it is further certified that the handling of the reserve account, the operation and maintenance account, and rental receipts of the Collier County Housing Authority was in accordance with the USDA Rural Housing Services Regulations. Done this � of AWbW2011 BY: . '4 Executive Director FM K, Federal Grantor: CFDA Number COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida 16 1 1 A3 SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Pass Through Federal Program Title Entity Expenditures U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Labor Cluster 14.427 Rural Rental Assistance Payments 10.415 Rural Rental Housing Debt Total Farm Labor Cluster Total U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 14.218 Community Development Block Grant 14.871 Housing Choice Voucher Program Total U.S. Department of HUD NA $ 824,779 NA 2,234,000 3,058,779 3,058,779 County of Collier, Florida 148,000 NA 3,269,471 3,417,471 Total Federal Awards Expenditures $ 6,476,250 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards A. Basis of Accounting This schedule is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. B. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A -133, "Audits of States, Local Governments and Non - Profit Organizations ". C. Reconciliation of Total Federal Awards Expenditures to Financial Data Schedule FDS line 706 HUD PHA Grants $ 3,269,471 FDS line 708 Other government grants 1,135,089 Less: nonfederal portion (162,310) FDS line 343 & 351 Rural rental loan debt 2,234,000 $ 6,476,250 D. U. S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Housing Services Program: The Authority is administering 641 units of housing under the Rural Housing Services Program. The financing for construction of this housing project was provided by this Agency for Rural Housing Loans and Grants (Federal CFDA Number 10.415). At September 30, 2011, the balance of the long term debt due to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Housing Services was $2,234,000. This loan balance has been considered as a part of the computation to determine the major and non -major program requirements under OMB Circular A -133. 30 16 11 A 3 � SINGLE AUDIT SECTION MALCOLM JOHNSON & COMPANY, P.A. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1611 P.O. Box 530848 210 N. Highway 17 -92 DeBary, Florida 32753 -0848 Phone (386) 668 -6464 Fax (386) 668 -6463 REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Board of Commissioners HUD, Miami Area Office Collier County Housing Authority Office of Public Housing Immokalee, Florida 909 S. E. First Avenue, Room 500 Miami, Florida 33131 -3028 We have audited the financial statements of the Collier County Housing Authority ( "the Authority") as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated December 21, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Authority's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority's internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the Authority's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Authority's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Authority's Board of Commissioners, others within the entity, and the U.S. Department of HUD and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified - parties. DeBary, Florida December 21, 2011 31 Malcolm Johnson & Company, P.A. Certified Public Accountants MALCOLM JOHNSON & COMPANY, P.A. 16 1 1 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS " P.O. Box 530848 210 N. Highway 17 -92 DeBary, Florida 32753 -0848 , Phone (386) 668 -6464 Fax(386)668-6463 REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ITS MAJOR PROGRAMS AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A -133 Board of Commissioners Collier County Housing Authority Immokalee, Florida Compliance HUD, Miami Area Office Office of Public Housing 909 S. E. First Avenue, Room 500 Miami, Florida 33131 -3028 We have audited the compliance of the Collier County Housing Authority ( "the Authority ") with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133 Compliance Supplement that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended September 30, 2011. The Authority's major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of the Authority's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Authority's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non - Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A -133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Authority's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Authority's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the Authority complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended September 30, 2011. Internal Control Over Compliance Management of the Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Authority's internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A -133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority's internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. 32 1611 A 3 ,A Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Commissioners, others within the entity, the U.S. Department of HUD, federal awarding agencies and pass- through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. AM DeBary, Florida December 21, 2011 33 Malcolm Johnson & Company, P.A. Certified Public Accountants 34 1611 A3 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITORS' RESULTS Basic Financial Statements Type of auditors' report issued: Unqualified Internal control over financial reporting: Material weakness(es) identified? No — Significant deficiency(s) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? None reported Noncompliance material to basic financial statements noted? No Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: — Material weakness(es) identified? No Significant deficiency(s) identified that are not considered to be material weakness(es)? None reported Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs: Unqualified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with section 510(a) of OMB Circular A -133? No Identification of major programs: CFDA Number Name of Federal Program or Cluster 14.871 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: $300,000 Auditee qualified as low -risk auditee? No 34 r + :. 0. 0. 3 p' 161 1 -1 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 (Continued) SECTION II — BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS There were no Financial Statement Findings. SECTION III — FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS There were no Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs. 35 i 161 1 A3 0 COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Immokalee, Florida SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 There were no Prior Audit Findings. 36 1612 A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES April 10, 2012 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of 1.5.12; 1. 19.12 2) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 1. 18.12 3) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of 1.20.12 4) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of 5.2.11; 1. 19.12 5) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 1. 18.12 6) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 12.12.11; 1.9.12 7) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of2.13.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 2.21.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee) Minutes of 1. 17.12 (Budget Subcommittee) 8) Tourist Development Council: Minutes of 2.28.11; 3.2811; 4.25.11; 5.27.11; 6/27/11; 7.2 1.11 9) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of 2.2.12 Minutes of 1.5.12 16!2All i January 5, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION D Naples, Florida, January 5, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission�X :and- r6nEe'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 Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham ABSENT: Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative rtg .. _ a Page 1 of 64 misc. Corres: Date: L4\\o \V2- Item #�U Copies to: 1 January 5, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 5th meeting, 2012, of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Normally I would say, "Would the secretary please do the roll call," but she's not here. So then I would say, "Would the vice chair please do the roll call," but she's not here. So I guess that leaves it up to me. So, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Were you going to say something? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. You don't want the contacts we've made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just for attendance for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa's absent. She had some matters she had to attend to, and I think Karen told us last time that she had something planned with the family for this season so -- okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm here. So we still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes. Tom Eastman. I forget about Tom. Hi, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda, I think that we're good as -- anything, changes, Ray, from staff s perspective? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to our next meeting? And, Ray, I believe that's the 19th; it's our regular meeting. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so the board members know, on the 26th and 27th we have scheduled the EAR -based amendment. Are they still on, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we going to -- when's the literature for those going to be distributed? MR. BELLOWS: I'll check with Mike Bosi, but it should be pretty soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The earlier the better. Instead of just a week, we like to have extra time with those. They're rather lengthy. Okay. So we have a quorum for our meeting. Everybody going to be here on the 19th? Okay. Approval of the minutes for December 1, 2011; they were electronically distributed to everyone. Are there any changes or recommendations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Diane, seconded by Bill. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 2 of 64 1612 J 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There was no BCC meeting since our last Planning Commission meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. By the way, in trying to understand what's going to happen on the 19th, I got an email about that agenda. And Mike Bosi were -- and Nick were considering adding a discussion with the RLSA/EAR. Do you know what the board's conclusions were on the RLSA as far as its going forward? MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry. I don't have that information for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll check with Nick some other time. Thank you. Chairman's report. I'm going to combine that with a discussion when we get to Lost Grove. Consent - agenda items. We'll move right into consent. The only item we have on consent is from our last meeting. It's PUDZ- PL2011 -2115, Community School CFPUD. It's on 13275 Livingston Road. Does anybody have any corrections or changes or notations for -- as a result of the consent - agenda item for Community School, the paperwork that we received? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry made a motion. Brad, you'll second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad will second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. ** *That takes us into our first advertised public hearing. This is a continued public hearing on the Lost Grove Mine. It started on November 3rd, we had the next meeting on November 17th, and at that time it was continued to today. At the time the applicant noted that they had additional testimony and expert they wanted to bring in on an audio and on a visual relation to the project. I got a call yesterday from the applicant's attorney indicating that the report they had been waiting for is not available. I requested that they consider continuing this at the request of the Planning Commission until that report was available, but that today we'd like to get through as much as we could on that issue that is not related to audio or visual. Audio and visual comments would basically be involving anything, barriers and setbacks and things like that. It's important that this commission hear all the evidence that is available. We do know that this evidence is going to be provided. We could hear it today, we could vote on it today without that evidence, but I'm very concerned that if we were to do so and it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, that this new evidence is then introduced Page 3 of 64 R f r January 5, 2012 at that level, it could invalidate some -- or it could be perceived to invalidate some of the comments this board makes, depending on what they are, in our recommendations. So rather than have that occur, I think it would be highly advantageous for us to do as much as we can on the Lost Grove today, and that includes listening to any additional testimony by people who have not spoken on it before, and then go into a final hearing on it when these audio and visual reports are available. And I'll ask the applicant -- and this -- by the way, Ray, I'd like this to be a request at the Planning Commission to continue it so that it's being continued so we can have a better total package to review before it goes to the board. So with that in mind, I'd like to ask the applicant when they think they need -- how much time they would like to have and any other comments they have on this specific issue first before we get into the heart of the discussion. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Good morning. Thank you, Chairman. Is it working? Can you hear me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Okay, thank you. For the record, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development. Again, thank you. Thank you, first, for your patience during this. I think we're all experiencing that we're in a little unchartered territory, and we certainly respect (sic) that your willingness to listen to all of the testimony necessary to make the most prudent decision that you possibly can as a planning commission on this application. Sometimes the best -laid plans don't work, and I take personal responsibility for that in that we had fully anticipated that we would have our audio and visual presentation available for you today to finish up our testimony. Unfortunately, because of a couple things, one being the holidays that we certainly didn't account for as well as we should have, but also very difficult in that noise measurements have not been measured very frequently in the mining industry. So we're kind of starting and creating something here that there's not a lot of evidence out there in the public eye. So we ask for your patience on that. We've sat down, we have spoken to our consultants, and we've looked at our schedules. And based on the time that we need to get the report together and because of some schedule conflicts with a couple of the key consultants and myself, we would ask that we continue, after today's most - productive day, hopefully, until March 1 st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, now they're going to have to readvertise regardless. The advertisement has to be done again because it's outside the time frame; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: The county has adopted a new policy that -- and I think the County Attorney's Office can elaborate. But if it continued to a time - certain from an advertised hearing, there is no readvertising. But I will defer to the attorney's office on that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Technical problems. Good morning. Yes, we have concluded that if there is an advertised public hearing that's continued to a time - certain, that the public is sufficiently noticed. There would be some limitations with that, but I think this would be within the time frame that would be acceptable if it's acceptable to the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How sure are you on the March date? MR. SCHROTENBOER: To the best of our ability, I guess. We really just looked at this yesterday afternoon. We're confident, Mark, that we can be fully prepared and come back to you and ready to wrap this up on March 1 st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the documentation be able to be provided to staff at an early enough time so they would have time to review it and get it to us preferably earlier than they have on the regular package? Because if it's new evidence, and on top of the six inches or five inches of data we currently have, it would be nice to read it in a comprehensive format. Is there any way we can get it a couple weeks earlier? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. Actually, we did take that into our consideration in our time frame in allowing a week before the next hearing which -- to get the information to the staff. So, yes, to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A week before the next hearing? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Well, the next -- before the March 1 st hearing. If we were to move this to March 1 st, a week before that so that you, the staff, would have it prior to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was -- that's not -- that's what I was worried about. Page 4 of 64 161 2 Janua ry 5 , 2012 MR. SCHROTENBOER: Okay. Please clarify then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We get the information a week before, which means staff has to get it -- I don't know how -- Kay, would you mind commenting how far in advance you need additional information of this type that you'd have to review? Little difference in height there. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem. We would prefer to get it at least two weeks ahead so that we have time to at least glance at it, depending on how deep into the issues it goes and how much time we would need. We don't know, without seeing what it is, we're going to look at. Plus we need time to get it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- and what I was asking, this project and the -- this will be the fourth meeting that we would have continued to, or third continuation from the first original. So that's a total of four meetings. The accumulation of data on this project is huge. And as time goes on, even from November till now, I found that in order to really understand this -- where we're at for today's hearing, I had to go back and rereview the four or five inches of material. It's even going to be more by the time March gets here and the time frame is longer. Is there a way that the Planning Commission could get this new information a couple weeks in advance on this one subject instead of a typical week in advance so we have more time to bring it back into the -- all this data that we have already on the project? MS. DESELEM: We can get it to you, like, two weeks ahead. Normally we send stuff out, I think, like, the week before a meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Friday before. MS. DESELEM: But if we have it in a timely enough fashion, we can bump it up as if it were being sent out for the meeting before that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's kind of where I wanted to make sure we didn't get trapped into a short time frame and didn't have adequate time with the documentation. So, Don, I guess it really is backing up a little bit further. Could you get information to staff three weeks prior to the March 1 st meeting? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think we would find that a challenge and so, therefore, I think we should then try to target March 15th to give us the most certainty in giving it to you in ample time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the Planning Commission would be much more benefited by that. We need to have adequate time to review all this, and I think that would work a lot better, so -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: We're here to accommodate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're looking for a March 15th continuance of this after today's hearing on the premise that staff will get the information three weeks prior to the March 15th date, and the Planning Commission will get it two weeks prior, and that should work. Does that sound good for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER EBERT: We need at least that amount of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what we'll do, Don, is after we go through today's information, we'll vote at the end for the continuance, and we'll look for the March 15th date -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at that point. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Good. We're looking forward to making today as productive as possible. We do have some rebuttal testimony from the last hearing we had. We have some testimony on transportation, some on market demand for aggregate and rock, as well as blasting and hydrology. So those speakers will follow me, and then we can, hopefully, get into the rest of your public hearing that you wish to entertain, and then get into the conditions following that. Before that I just want to, again, thank you again for your patience but also want to thank -- I believe all of you that are up there, maybe Brad, with the exception -- for your time in taking the site visits with us out there, and hopefully you found those enlightening in the sense of looking at the sheer magnitude of the size of the property versus seeing it on an overhead 8- and -a -half by 11, and also that what really became evident is the lack of residential that's out there, unlike what was depicted to you in previous presentations. And so, hopefully, you found those beneficial, and I thank you in taking the time to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHROTENBOER: With that, I think we'll call up our first -- Page 5 of 64 161?A1 � January 5, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I want a couple other procedural things to go through. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Very good, Mark. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. Bruce, do you have a moment at the speaker (sic)? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a continuation of our last public hearing, but there are people here who weren't at the last meeting. They weren't able to make it because of the continuance, but they are here today. Some have asked to speak. And I think prior to your rebuttal it might be beneficial for you to hear what these last comments will be so that you can incorporate any rebuttal remarks into that. Your concluding remarks we will hold off until whatever date in March, which looks like the 15th. After that final meeting, we'll ask you at that time for your concluding remarks. Now, I notice that Judge Starnes is here, and he had asked prior to your -- he wanted to be the last speaker in a presentation he has, but I asked him to -- that he -- that would be before your conclusion. So I would think then that prior -- in the March 15th date, if he's available, that would be a better date, if he would like to postpone till then; otherwise, it's his option, he can speak after the least speaker today. Judge, if you wanted to comment on that. You need to just come to the podium. MR. STARNES: I gave my testimony at the last hearing, and my request was, at the conclusion of all the presentations and evidence that I would like to make a legal argument, since I am an attorney representing myself, and so that would come at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure it was okay with you, because I know you're -- scheduling -wise, March 15th is just another date you'd have to schedule in. So if you're okay with that date, we'd probably wait till your testimony -- MR. STARNES: I'd have to check my calendar. I will make myself available. I would like to say from the side of the people that I stand with, it's very frustrating for someone with all the resources that the applicant has and all the time they've had to prepare, all the experts they've hired, to come in to the third hearing and learn at the hearing, well, we're not going to be able to complete things today, and we have new evidence to present. We're ordinary, working people that have our own schedules, and we're being abused, and that's all I'll say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And I --just so you -- I disagree with your position on being abused. I don't like continuances any more than you do, but I think it's necessary to get all the information we can, and I think the cleanest record we can have and the most complete, prior to going to the Board of County Commissioners, is more beneficial to the people in this audience than anybody. MR. STARNES: You are not abusing us, and I didn't intend to indicate that, and I understand your position. I've been in similar positions before where you have to -- against your grain or wishes, to allow more time. But this is a proceeding in which they should have known long ago that this is issue -- an issue and they should have been prepared for it, and now many of these working people here are, yet again, going to have to set aside their work and come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your comments, sir. Okay. With that in mind, we will open the floor first to public speakers, then we'll go back to continue -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do we have to swear in and do ex parte? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got to go through all that in just a moment. But I wanted to -- the procedure will be, we'll open the floor to public speakers. And I'm asking for those people who have not spoken at a prior meeting on this topic, we'll open the floor for you. And I think -- by the way, is Judy Hutchinson (sic) here? Because she had requested to speak today, but if she's not here, it won't work out. Okay. With that in mind, all those wishing to give testimony on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Bill on the end. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I did visit the mine. I met with Nicole Johnson from the Conservancy. And since I was absent for the first two meetings, having not been appointed at that time, I wanted to assure everyone that the staff -- I met with -- staff also has provided me with all the information that was previously given to the panel. Page 6 of 64 �. 16 ' 2 A n 5 January , 2012 I've had a chance to study that and talk to staff about questions I had. In addition, I availed myself of the archives and have watched, in their entirety, both of the November meetings. And staff also provided me with hard copies of all the visuals that were used at those two meetings so I could follow those. So I've caught up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good job, Bill. Thank you. Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No ex parte for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I've had the tour from Alico Corporation and also spoke when Nicole from the Conservancy and the director of the CREW. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my -- also had a tour of the Alico property, also had a tour of the neighborhood with a couple of neighbors, John Van, and met with Neil. And I think Nicole and I have probably talked on the project as well. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also, yesterday, visited Alico, the mine, I have spoke with Nicole Johnson, and that -- that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: On November 15th I went with Nicole Johnson of the Conservancy and Jeremy for a few hours to look at the situation. And, also, on December 6th I had the pleasure of being with Don Schrotenboer and -- sorry if I get the name bad -- Robert Menzies, one of the attorneys for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I also took the tour of the current orange grove, proposed to be earth mine, with the applicant and with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that in mind, I think we'll finish up with the public speakers first, then we'll go into the rebuttal presentation, and then more questions or stipulations or corrections, questions from the Planning Commission. So, Ray, we'll start with the registered public speakers. And, again, I have to stress that these -- this is a continuation of an already ongoing public meeting. If you've spoke before, we ask that you not speak now. We bring -- this is new -- people who have not been able to make the last couple of meetings. Ray, you want to read those? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The first speaker, Philip Douglas, to be followed by David Urich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'd just come up and use one of the speakers, identify yourself, and we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. MR. DOUGLAS: Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. Before I give my remarks, I'll tell you who I represent. My name is Phil Douglas, and I live in the Brooks in Lee County, and I'm a member of the Brooks Concerned Citizens, and I represent all the people in the Brooks who live adjacent to the DRGR and upon whom we are dependent for 80 percent of our water. We have a very legitimate concern about a Collier County mine that is going to impact Lee County. So I'd like to read some prepared remarks, and I appreciate very much your time. I was unable to attend the last hearing. Mr. Chairman and members of the Collier County Planning Commission, today I would like to urge you as a body to oppose and recommend the denial of the conditional -use permit requested by the Alico Corporation for the proposed Lost Grove Mine which, if approved, will be located in North Collier County adjacent to Lee County via Corkscrew Road, the Lee County DRGR, and CREW. Furthermore, I urge you to recommend to the Collier County Board of Commissioners the denial of this requested use for a limerock mine. Additionally, I urge that you as a governmental body make your sentiments known both publicly and in writing to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. As a Lee County resident, I continue to be concerned about this mine because it has been shown that this mine will cause irreparable harm to those of us who live in Lee County, especially close to the areas of the DRGR, which are the source of 80 percent of our water supply. In beginning my remarks, I can say that the Collier County Government clearly has the ability and should deny this conditional -use permit based upon one of the key elements of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, Section 5.4, which says, and I quote, "New developments shall be compatible and complementary to the surrounding Page 7 of 64 16 I January 5, 2012 land uses." That includes Lee County. This mine clearly does not meet this requirement. I should say "proposed mine." A major part of my remarks focus on the negative and groundwater impacts of the Lost Grove Mine, not only upon surrounding local residents, but also, and more importantly, upon the adjacent DRGR lands and CREW. I don't think I have to identify CREW. You know exactly what I'm talking about. First, the dewatering associated with this 1,383 -acre mine proposed to be 145 feet deep will negatively and permanent impact the aquifers both in the DRGR and the surrounding residential areas. Some residents with private wells drawing water from as shallow as 25 feet deep will be forced to drill new wells at their own cost. Additionally, this mine will have long -term impacts on the wells in the DRGR, upon which we are dependent for drinking water. I believe I can say that the applicant has completely ignored and not in any way addressed any of the impacts of the mine -to- groundwater resources both in CREW and the DRGR, which are immediately adjacent to the proposed mine. Such callous disregard of the public interest should be duly noted. The mine's impact upon the CREW wetlands could adversely affect the quality of nature experiences for those who visit and enjoy this important environmental entity. The negative impacts to the wetlands will adversely affect not only CREW, but also the entire DRGR and Lee County. The DRGR is very important to those of us who live in South Lee County as a buffer to prevent flooding. Any impact on the DRGR could ultimately result in flooding for those of us living adjacent to this important area. Over 400 private residences are located in close proximity to this proposed mine. The Conservancy has provided you with a map showing the locations of these private homes. Not only are private wells at risk, but these residents face potential additional cost if their wells run dry because of the dewatering effect to the adjacent Lost Grove Mine. Mining activity itself is ecologically disruptive and results in a permanent and irrevocable alteration of the natural landscape. These alterations create permanent adverse effects to hydrology, surface -water flow, the natural systems functions of both wetlands and aquatic resources of regional importance to the Corkscrew Marsh, the Imperial River, the Estero Bay Aquatic Reserve. The subject property for the proposed mine drains directly into Corkscrew Marsh. The existing rural and suburban residential landowner, most of whom live in adjacent Lee County, will be subject to adverse quality -of -life impacts. This proposed mine directly adjoins established residential communities, the predominant land use along Corkscrew Road corridor for the past 50 years; 50 years has been agricultural and low - density residential. This area has historically not been an industrial mining corridor. Some of the adverse impacts include truck traffic, blasting, noise, dust, lights, potential groundwater contamination, habitat loss, decreased property values, very important point here, and changes in community character that can be expected when industrial uses encroach upon established rural communities. In conclusion, I believe that as duly appointed Planning Commission members you have an obligation not only to protect the quality of life but also to take appropriate steps as necessary to prevent those events which have a negative impact upon the future of your neighbors in Lee County. I hope that we can count upon you to represent our interest and the best interest of Collier and Lee County communities in this matter. I certainly thank you so much for the opportunity to speak this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: David Urich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need an extra copy for the young lady there. MR. URICH: I was planning to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. By the way, Kay -- you don't have to get up. I just wanted to mention to you, we had received additional emails about the mines that I forwarded to you. Prior to the March meeting, would you mind incorporating all the new information, the additional information that's given to us. MR. URICH: I have one copy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they'll get it from -- they'll get it from records, sir. Thank you. MR. URICH: For the record, I'm Dave Urich. And if I look a little bit familiar to some of you, I was director of Youth Haven from 1984 to 1991 and was also a charter member of the board that created the Spouse Abuse Shelter of Collier County and managed to write a $50,000 grant for the now defunct Volunteer Center to create the RSVP Page 8 of 64 g 161 2 Arl 4 January 5, 2012 program. So -- and active also in Rotary in those days here in the county. So some of you know me from that background. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Responsible Growth Management Coalition, which is a not - for - profit that was created in 2008. I'm a charter member of that, and one of the remaining four life members. I feel like this issue is one that is extremely important. There's an old spiritual "We're in the same boat, Brother," and what happens in Lee County, what happens in Collier County are intertwined, and particularly when we get into this kind of an area. I'm not going to read this line by line. They say even the New York Times is written at the eighth -grade level, and I'm sure my writing is perfectly clear to you. I do have a personal copy of the Dover, Kohl report. If anybody would like to have that, I've put my name on it and phone number, and I'd be happy to let anybody have that. That's the study of the DRGR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem is, if one of us have it, it becomes public record and we probably need to keep it, so -- MR. URICH: I don't have to have it back. It's -- I don't have a spiral -bound copy. I tried to get one from the county yesterday and wasn't successful. I'm sure they have copies that are available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the Lee County Dover, Kohl. MR. URICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. URICH: Would -- if anyone would like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume if we were interested, we would be able to find it online. MR. URICH: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Collier County's is online as well. Thank you. MR. URICH: Right. It is with the approval, of course, of the board of RGMC -- for shorthand I will call it RGMC instead of the Responsible Growth Management Coalition -- that I speak. The real problem we have is the location of this, which is in a very delicate area, as -- you wouldn't be having these many hearings if you didn't feel like there was some concern for this area. The CREW tract is extremely important. The entire -- the founder of RGMC was a gentleman named Dr. Gene Boyd, who has passed on some five years ago. But he had the foresight to bring to everyone's attention the DRGR. And we, as an organization, were one of the groups that saw to it that this was designated back in the days when a lot of people didn't pay much attention to these issues. Again, I am -- I apologize for not having been here at the prior meeting. I had a conflicting doctor's appointment, and at my age I have to do some doctoring. And I do not want to try to repeat what I'm sure many people have said. But one of the things that I think is important is -- and I, by the way, attached a guest opinion that's, like, three years old that was in the News - Press, and the point that I was making in this guest opinion is permissive is not permitted. The word "permissive," we -- when we were creating the DRGR, there was existing rock mine (sic) taking place, and it was decided not to eliminate that but to allow it to be grandfathered in. And this was then studied through the Dover, Kohl, and the decision was that the focus of the mining should continue where it was, which is on Alico Road, and not be expanded into this Corkscrew area. I think that there's an opinion of some people that just because that was allowed, that it is then a permitted thing. You -all would not be having a hearing on this if it were a permitted thing. It's an issue that has to be raised. You can't just go in, pull a permit, and start a rock mine. So I think that we have now many issues that we need to look at, the impact of dewatering. I know there are some -- I read in the paper, not being at the hearing, that there were comments that said there would be no impact on the water table and what have you, or words to that effect and, obviously, I disagree with those. But I think one of the biggest issues I'd just hit in passing, is there documentation of need for additional limerock materials? And in our opinion, in Lee County we are having -- the existing Alico mines are producing enough to cany us to 2030. I understand there's a great deal of already permitted mining of one kind or another here in Collier County. And are we going to let for - profit needs and desires destroy an area that is so environmentally sensitive? And I'm hoping that you will not. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 9 of 64 k4 4 January 5, 2012 Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: David Cooper. DR. COOPER: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a retired medical doctor, a neurosurgeon. Before giving you my prepared comments, having listened to what has transpired the past few minutes, I sincerely want you to be very, very cautious about accepting so- called scientific information. We are experiencing in Florida and the world the biggest restoration project ever undertaken by mankind, the so- called CERP, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project. That was based on drainage of the Everglades, scientific information, scientific of the time. We don't know what the effects of all these mines and another mine will ultimately have on the quality of life in the whole area. In New York and Pennsylvania they recently started doing what is called fracking. Fracking is injecting something into the earth to liberate gas and oil for extraction purposes. We have recently read in the press the belief that this fracking is responsible for earth tremors recorded by seismographs, the instruments used to detect earthquakes. This was not anticipated by the scientists who presented this information. The gentleman from Alico spoke this morning about more scientific information. I ask you to be very, very careful about accepting these experts at face value. I guide children and adults at the CREW Land & Water Trust on Corkscrew Road. I've done this for a number of years now. I try to give them an understanding, as I know you people already have, of the importance of the watershed there. They come away recognizing the need to preserve the watershed intact and free of additional pollutants, as it is the most important source of water to our people for drinking, cooking, washing, irrigation, and so on. We need to maintain the biodiversity of the properties. This is a fancy term, "biodiversity." What does it mean? It means that the more natural elements -- animals, plants, trees, scrubs -- that we eliminate, we eliminate our chances for rectifying the human condition. A good example, palmettos, which are all over the place, have berries which were, only in recent times, discovered to have a potential benefit on the prostate of men. So there are the potential for many more discoveries of helpful medicines from plants which are growing in this property. It needs protection. I'm against the development of any more mines on or near Corkscrew Road, and especially near CREW. And I'll tell you why. Have you ever driven behind one of those rock -laden dump trucks on Corkscrew Road? They zip up and down to and from the mines. I have. I've had my windshield cracked twice by rocks which come off those trucks. I know they have covers; they're supposed to protect, but those covers are limited. They don't protect from rocks that are lying on the edges of the trucks away from the covers. I almost lost control of my car on one of those experiences. I also witnessed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull that mike closer, sir. I don't want to lose anything you're saying. Thank you. DR. COOPER: Thank you. I also witnessed a near collision with a school bus loaded with children with one of those same dump trucks. It's a scenario right out of the book of disaster planning committees of which I serve. Have you had the misfortune of driving through a cloud of dust and debris at the gate of one of the mines and having your visibility impaired? I have. Have you considered noises made by ground - shaking tremors of the blastings that go on at these mines? And what about the negative effects that these blasts have on wildlife at and about CREW? These animals already live in a very confined and limited space, which will be further impacted by mining. What about the quality of the life of the people who live in this neighborhood? Another negative. I just want to even possibly repeat some things you may have heard before. They are worth repeating. I personally have had a number of cracked floor tiles where I live, and they are a consequence of blasting nearby for home construction. Think about the people living in the Corkscrew region and what the potential damage is from these tremors in the earth consequent to blasting operations at mines. Is it fair to subject these residents to that kind of tumult, damage, and disruption of their lives? And this is a terrible thing to say, but it's been said at hearings like this many, many times. Would you want it in your neighborhood? I don't think so. You have to take that into consideration, too. This is what these people may have to live with if you advise favorably. Page 10 of 64 r 4 N 2 16 1 Al January 5, 2012 The dust which these processes create have adverse health effect on people with breathing problems; emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart disease. The debris and the dust carries for long distances. It drifts. Some of Collier County's poorest people live downwind from this area. I call this an atmospheric calamity which would be -- most likely to have adverse health effects on the people who are least able to pay for the healthcare that they may be required. This, in turn, makes them more dependent upon Collier County to help them pay for the healthcare or provide the healthcare for these people -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got to ask -- DR. COOPER: -- and, thus, they become an increasingly bigger drain on the resources of Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to have you start wrapping it up. It's been about twice as long as you were supposed to take. So if you don't mind getting to your end game here. Thank you. DR. COOPER: In summary, to cut short what I had wished to say, I ask you, again, to be very cautious, to think about the future in spite of the so- called scientific information you're going to hear or you have already heard. I'm sort of a scientist myself, and I think of the negative effects of some of the things that I have done, and I think you need to think about the same potential negative effects down the road. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Deborah Gomes. MS. GOMES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to pull that mike a little closer to you. MS. GOMES: Okay. Good morning. My name's Deborah Gomes. I live at 3333 Whidden Loop Road, which is across from the mining that is going to occur if you allow it. And I'm here to tell you -- this is my first time to be able to be here -- that I'm not happy about it. I moved there 11 years ago to be in that area because it was rural, because I'm from Kentucky and was kind of raised in a rural area, and thought it was going to stay that way. Now you want to bring more trucks. We already have enough. And you want to disrupt our rural living. As of February last year, I looked out my back sliding glass doors, and there was a buck and a doe in my backyard. Where will they go? I can walk to the CREW. I wonder what you're going to say to the children you bring out there -- which are many buses on field trips -- and on one side they look at a beautiful, wonderful place, and across the street they're going to see industry? I'm just -- I'm not happy about it. My husband had to work. He couldn't come, but he feels the same way. We -- I don't have any scientific fact for you. My husband was -- has been here all his life. His family's been here since the 1700s. He's seen a lot of this area change. And we just -- as I said, as a resident out there, we don't want it to change. We want it to stay the same. And I wish you would consider this. I go back to what the man said, I wonder how you'd feel if it was in your backyard. I have a pond on mine. It never goes dry even in the driest of times; it never does. So I have been fortunate enough to see about every kind of wildlife there is. I'm wondering if you start blasting, what will happen to that pond and where will they go? So I hope you consider this, and thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Carl Veaux. MR. VEAUX: Veaux. MR. BELLOWS: Veaux. MR. VEAUX: Good morning. My name is Carl Veaux. I had the pleasure of scraping ice off my windows this morning. It's something else. I'm with the Sierra Club, and we are against the mine. I think most of the things that I wanted to say have been covered, but I -- it behooves you to think of the children who have made the panther the state animal and what you want for the panther. You know, after the mine is finished, usually they have the lakes and they put houses around there, and that's not going to help the panthers after the mine. And I think if -- you must look at the quality of life in that area. You Page 11 of 64 * l 16 12 A January 5, 2012 know, the panther is, again, under duress because of the fact that the animals are inbreeding again and we might have to bring some more panthers in. I just read that in the News -Press two days ago, and so this is one thing that you should look at, that this is panther country, that the Corkscrew Sanctuary hosts over 11,000 hikers, and they'll have to endure the mine and the noise it makes, and it will just chase the animals out of there. So it's up to you. If you want the quality of life in this area, don't support the mine. If you -- ecotourism is a 1.1- billion - dollar industry, and it will only get bigger as thousands and millions of people come here to live. And you have to look at that aspect of it, what it will look like in 2050 or even 2500. And I hope you look at these things. I think we are, as speakers, at a severe disadvantage. We'd like to speak after Alico so we can refute some of the things they're going to tell you, but we can't. We have to speak now, and you should think of this as well. Thank you for your time, and have a great New Year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, just one correction for the record. You are speaking after Alico, so -- Alico has already done their presentation, as has both Lee County and Collier County staff. So you're -- the public speakers are after everyone has already spoken. MR. VEAUX: Somebody told me that they didn't speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They have gone through a very thorough presentation the first day they were here, and it took most of that day, if not all of it, so -- MR. VEAUX: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. VEAUX: When they return. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the rebuttal to the comments that you're making and others, which they have an absolute right to do. MR. VEAUX: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. VEAUX: I was told wrong. Somebody told me that. But thank you for your time. And it's a difficult decision, but if you want to remember the children, think of what will happen with the mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Marcia Cravens. MS. CRAVENS: Good morning and Happy New Year. I do want to comment that I feel that I'm at a disadvantage in this process where the public speakers are speaking before additional material is presented by Alico. And it's not just rebuttal material that they are going to be presenting. They're actually going to be presenting new additional information that was not presented previously, particularly about the hydrological impacts, and that's extremely important to us in our community. So I would ask that if this is what the process is, that I be able to preserve and others be able to preserve an ability to rebut their rebuttal, because we are speaking about materials and information that were previously presented. They are going to add information that we will not then be able to speak and address, and that just does not seem like that is the proper way to allow maximum participation by the public on this important issue to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we'll -- I'll disagree with you, Marcia, but you may continue if you'd like. MS. CRAVENS: Okay. I think that it's important to understand that this item, which is being termed a conditional -use item, really does not fall under what should be expected to be a conditional use. Mining actually has no relationship to agricultural uses. A conditional use, from any logical perspective, would be something that has a related use to what the actual permitted development of that land is. That land currently is agricultural land. It's rural. It's also in the stewardship area. It's immediately adjacent to an important CREW NRPA area, which is supposed to be highly protected. We know that it's also an aquifer recharge area for Collier County, and it's unfortunate that Collier County does not have anything within its growth management elements to protect our aquifer recharge areas. That's -- that should not be an excuse to allow this to proceed as a conditional use, because if this was a petition that was initiated to allow development of a mine in this area, it would have a much higher threshold. It would have to have a number of needs analyses that were done. And several of those things which are required statutorily will be for land -use analysis. It would require public - facility analysis, that there would be enough public facilities available to serve any proposed development in the first five years, and facilities need to be planned to be in place for long -term impacts over the planning time frame. That includes transportation, water, sewer, water supply, et cetera. Page 12 of 64 1612 All January 5, 2012 Suitability analysis, an analysis to ensure that this development is -- that the area surrounding it, that this area is suitable for the development that's proposed. This is a rural area. It typically includes an analysis of whether environmental resources are present and how this development would impact them. A needs analysis, an analysis to demonstrate that there's actually a need for this development. None of that has been done. Actually, the reverse is true. It has been shown to this board here, to this committee, that there is no need for additional mining in this area. And then one of the more important things that I would like to highlight is urban - sprawl analysis. We all know this is a precursor to additional development for residential areas besides the impacts that this mine will have on this area. We know that that's a precursor to additional development. And there has been no analysis of that done for this petition and for this proposed use. I would ask that the thresholds and the requirements for analysis that would apply to this use if it were being petitioned as an -- originally as a development to allow mining in this area, that those needs analysis should be the same as what are applied to this supposed conditional use. This is not smart growth management. It's actually the reverse of that. Something needs to be done for this process, and something needs to be addressed that mining is being considered as a conditional use for this parcel. It's not -- it's not serving the public to do it this way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one other speaker, Jack Mexler (sic). MR. MEEKER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Jack Meeker from Estero. I live in the Brooks at the juncture of Coconut Road and Three Oaks Parkway, which is about a mile up from the corner of Three Oaks, at Corkscrew Road, rather. This mining application is really incompatible with this section of Lee County. This is a rural residential area, and mining is a heavy industrial operation. And I understand that these draglines are going to be going 24/7. You're going to have dump trucks from early morning to early evening on Corkscrew Road. That is not compatible with this neighborhood. And I would ask you to listen to the testimony that was given by Lee County and its blasting expert, Dr. Rix. I think that testimony was right on target about the effects of blasting, the particle velocity, and the proximity of homes to this project. I ask you to call on your better natures and be a good neighbor to these folks in Lee County and deny this application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, just one comment. You're -- I think you said you believe this is a 24/7 operation. It's not. MR. MEEKER: The draglines will be there operating, as I understood it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. That's not the proposal that's here today. MR. MEEKER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: None have registered with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does -- anybody in the audience who has not spoke at the previous two meetings or at today's meeting wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move into the presentation for rebuttal by the applicant. MR. TALONS: Good morning. My name is Ron Talone. I'm the traffic consultant for the applicant. And since it's been a while since I made my presentation, just for review, I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and I've been involved in transportation planning in Southwest Florida for 27 years. For three years I worked as Lee County principal planner for transportation, two years with the Florida DOT as a local government liaison, and for the past 22 years I've been with David Plummer & Associates, and I'm currently vice president for transportation. I'll be utilizing the visualizer this morning. I would like to respond to a number of the comments made and questions raised by Lee County and some of Page 13 of 64 I 16I2A4 r January 5, 2012 the speakers from the public. First, I wanted to respond to Lee County's references on several occasions to Corkscrew Road being a residential road. I'm showing you the Lee Plan, Future Functional Classification Map, Map 313, in the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, which clearly shows Corkscrew Road as an arterial road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you point that out to us, Mr. Talone, where that road lies in this map. MR. TALONE: Yes. Right here. Corkscrew Road is shown as an arterial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use that remote mike. MR. TALONE: And an arterial. And befitting an arterial, the posted speed limit on Corkscrew Road is 55 miles per hour. The next exhibit is the joint Lee County /Collier County MPO map showing proposed region -- the proposed regional roadway or transportation network, and on this map the joint MPOs identify Corkscrew Road as an existing regional facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, could you point that out as to where Corkscrew Road falls on this map. I mean, I know where it is towards the center, but I'd like to have you point to it. MR. TALONE: Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TALONE: Okay. Next I wanted to address -- Mr. Noble and Mr. Price of the Lee County staff referred numerous times to the section of State Road 82 from Gunnery Road to Alabama Road in Lee County as, quote, "failing," unquote. I disagree with this description of this section of 82 as failing. And for review, I wanted to share with you a Florida DOT map showing the different levels of service. This is from the Florida DOT Level of Service Handbook. Level of Service A is generally considered to be unimpeded free -flow travel, and at the other end of the scale, LOS F is congested, overcapacity traffic flow. Ray, you can leave that -- just leave that up for a few minutes. Both the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Quality and Level of Service Handbook recognize that the capacity of a road is the maximum service FIAM at Level of Service E. So, therefore, a road is not considered overcapacity until it falls into the LOS F range, and that's at the far right end of the scale. The Lee County 2011 concurrency report indicates that the section of 82 that Lee County described as being failing is actually at LOS D. Now, while LOS D exceeds the state stringent LOS C standard, it is not overcapacity. As a matter of fact, the Lee County concurrency report does not identify any road segments on 82 as being overcapacity at LOS F, and they show no 82 segments as approaching capacity, an LOS E. Now, moving to the 2011 Collier County AUIR, the current AUIR shows all sections of 82 in Collier County at Level of Service B. This is better than the state standard of LOS C. And the AUIR shows that the remaining capacity on 82 is 267 peak -hour trips. Next I wanted to address -- there seems to be some misunderstanding about the $92 million figure that I had given previously in my previous presentation regarding improvements to State Road 82, so I thought I'd review those. This information's been presented before, but I'd like to put a few of those exhibits back up. First, the way I developed this 92- million figure is I went onto the FDOT website and found their work program, the five -year work program, and I looked at the past five years and the next five years. So it's recently improved or improvements that are scheduled in the next five years. And the first figure is $58.9 million is currently being spent to widen 82 from -- to six lanes from Ortiz Boulevard to Lee Boulevard. That's shown as orange on this exhibit. And in addition, the state has spent or will -- in this case it has spent 11.4 million on resurfacing 82 in both Lee and Collier Counties. So the majority of the State Road 82 corridor has recently been resurfaced. Next exhibit. Next, the state has scheduled and is continuing to schedule intersection improvements valued at about $3.1 million to upgrade intersections, provide turn lanes onto and off of State Road 82. And, finally, I mentioned in my previous presentation that the state has programmed 18.4 million to design -- do preliminary design for the widening of 82 to six lanes. And my comment at the time was that, in my opinion, the state would not be investing 18.4 million in preliminary design for the widening if they didn't expect further funds to become available for State Road 82. And in conclusion, regarding 82 improvements, as I mentioned, the majority of 82 has been resurfaced recently. And I'd like to quote from the Lee County presentation that Mr. Noble described 82 as much wider, it has paved shoulders, straight shot for the most part, much better facility. And Mr. Price described State Road 82 by Page 14 of 64 w 16 12 A41 January 5, 2012 saying, there's plenty of wide lines, there's wide shoulders. It's really built to handle this kind of truck traffic. Now, I spent a few minutes talking about 82. Now I'd like to bring your attention to some ongoing improvements on Corkscrew Road in Lee County. Next exhibit, please. Lee County is completing $3.6 million worth of improvements on Corkscrew Road. That's shown here in red. And what they are doing, and it's nearing completion, is they're widening two -lane Corkscrew Road to two lanes divided and improving the shoulders, and this is being done as a safety improvement. In addition, the county -- I've talked to the project manager. The county is intending to use regular resurfacing funds to resurface and add shoulders to the portions of Corkscrew Road shown in yellow. So these improvements will upgrade Corkscrew Road and improve safety on Corkscrew Road adjacent to the three residential communities or, I'm sorry, adjacent to the residential community west of Alico Road. So Lee County is addressing some of the concerns that are being expressed. Finally, the last thing I wanted to mention is, there was some question raised about the daily variation in truck traffic, and we've put together a graph that shows ten days. You know, we -- to come up with our statistics, we picked ten days of random truck use -- and from a comparable mine, and what this shows is an average of about 700 truck trips, round trips a day; 700 trucks coming in and leaving. That's the average represented by the red line, and so this graph gives you an idea of the daily variation. It varies from a low of 628 to a high of 761. And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of Mr. Talone? I have one. Your map of improvements for Corkscrew Road, you show them in Lee County. But this mine borders Corkscrew Road in Collier County, and especially that 10- mile -an -hour turn that approaches the mine from the south. How -- what kind of improvements are planned for that, if any, that you know of? MR. TALONE: I'm not aware that there's anything currently programmed. I know one of the conditions that's been discussed for this project is that we would contribute a dollar per truckload that would be provided to Collier County to be used as the county sees fit for road maintenance improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All that road is a pretty straight road and a lot of -- let's say they have mild turns everywhere else. That one turn at the edge of the mine is pretty severe, and it drops the speed limit down, I believe, to 10 miles an hour from what I could remember on my visit to the site, so -- MR. TALONE: Yes, sir. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you're going to have a certain amount of truck traffic that you've allocated to Corkscrew Road. Okay. I'll ask county staff that question in a minute or two. Thank you. MR. TALONE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. TALONE: You're welcome. MR. STRAW: Good morning. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Straw. I'm vice president and area manager of GeoSonics. We are vibration acoustic consultants. I'm a seismologist dealing with the effects of blasting. And based on some of the questions that have been raised as -- you know, in the past and answered, I put together some slides and general information to, hopefully, answer some questions about blasting and to talk about some of the subjects that have been brought up. My background is 34 years worth of vibration acoustic measurements, blasting, acoustics from blasting, effects on structures. I have testified before this panel before, the commission. I'm also one of the consultants that participated in the state - statute preparation. I also have a current user -of- explosives license in the State of Florida. One of the things is -- that we've talked about in the past and just as reiteration that for what are commercial mining operations, blasting is regulated by the state fire marshal's office. Chapter 552.30, and that's what's reprised here, is the statute that governs how mining -- how blasting for commercial mining is handled. It is separate from development work or utility work, and this would apply to this Lost Grove Mine. The state fire marshal does have that sole and exclusive control. They do issue standards, permits. They have a whole permit process that should this mine be approved that they would have to go to the state fire marshal for the actual permit. It's called a construction materials mining activity permit. Page 15 of 64 1612A1 January 5, 2012 We have looked at this operation from the start and the mining plan that's been proposed for it, and the blasting operations, as we see them and as they've been tentatively designed, will meet or exceed all of the criteria of the state, and that would mean that for vibration and air blasts, they would have to meet their standards and would certainly be less. There are also multiple agencies that regulate mining operations, especially in the area of explosives, and those are, obviously, the state fire marshal, not only for just the mining, but they also regulate the explosives firms through manufacturers, distributors, or blasters - and -users licenses. State of Florida, the DEP, has a review. They have a process for their permits, that there is water - quality issues that are addressed and testing that is done and provided to the state. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may or may not be involved. At the federal level there's the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and also the state and federal DOT for transportation with materials and use are some of those agencies. In discussing blasting, it's important, I think, to understand how it would be done. Blasting is necessary. The rock strata is hard enough that it cannot be excavated. It's by just a commercial backhoe. The aggregate is too deep. It is too hard to pull that out. So we've talked about, in previous hearings, that dragline equipment will be necessary. So blasting is typically set up with a pattern as a series of holes in rows. We consider that there's what we call burden and spacing, and this just shows a 13 -by -13 general pattern. We've talked about different patterns for this operation. Those will be developed by the blasting contractor, the mining company, based on on -site drilling. We've talked about how that procedure is to go through. There are borings. But as each blast hole is drilled, a log is kept, the information is detennined as to where the rock strata is to make sure that they are blasting only the rock. Also, this keeps it out and above the confining layer, as we've talked about previously. We talk about having a key cut, and the key cut would be -- for this operation would be the initial blasting that's done. We would be doing that at a farther distance from the property line. I know there was some question last time that was raised about blasting as close to the residents and then slowly moving away, and that could be done after the initial key cut is started. The initial key cut gives us the ability to load and -- load the initial blast, measure those, verify all the projections that are made and as -- then as they move closer, evaluate seismograph results, and adjust the blasting pattern as necessary. There are a number of things that can be adjusted, and one of them is the -- how the blasts are delayed. Each of these individual holes has a specific loading configuration, whether it's a single hole loaded all the way up with a gap at the top, what we call collar or decking at the top that is unloaded material either used -- the existing water or crushed rock to hold that material, the explosives material in place as it detonates. Each of those holes detonates separately. They are thousandths of a second apart so that it's not something that the individual person can distinguish unless they're watching the actual blast, but for us as seismologists and vibration evaluation it helps actually break up and reduce the vibration. It also provides breakage of the rock more effectively. There are some delay programs that we use to actually select those in -hole blast delays to help change the vibration frequency which affect off - property structures. As the blasts occur and as this -- the initial key cut expands, then the lake actually assists to provide a buffer for vibration as that broken material can then move into the -- into the lake area to a certain extent, and that energy is transmitted into moving the rock as opposed to shaking or vibrating, you know, the adjacent areas. And as I said, the blasting pattern, you know, is designed for operations. And I know the question comes up is how close are we and that this is never done before. There's nothing ever this close. And this is a mining operation. The picture's a mining operation that is one of the top ten stone - producing mining operations in the United States. The economy right now has it down, but at its heyday, it's somewhere in between 10 and 12 million tons per year blasting every day. It's not a new thing. It's something that we deal with every day. The mining plan for the Lost Grove Mine is work -- would work with state standards to make sure that damage is not produced to adjacent structures. We would also have to monitor, most likely, at multiple locations. There's not just one instrument. There is a requirement for at least one, but there may be additional instruments that are required by the state depending upon where the blast is and where the closest homes are. But every blast is there. I think the other key thing to understand is that vibration perception is allowed in the state. The -- there is not a zero vibration level. There are vibration standards because they realize they are off property and would produce levels, which is why the state has specific standards for them. Page 16 of 64 161 A 1 :4 4 January 5, 2012 One of the things that have been questioned, people feel vibration. It -- people do feel it, and we are very good receptors of vibration. We may hear, we may feel the vibration. The problem is that we don't -- aren't able to quantify it. That's why the instruments are there. It doesn't produce what we call significant movement or actual displacement. There's movement in three dimensions. There's -- as the particle of ground shakes, it moves in three direction; left, right, you know, on a line towards the blast, at right angles to that, and also vertically. All of that's measured simultaneously by the instrumentation, and that's assessed by someone like us, and it's reviewed by the state fire marshal. The actual movement from rest is less than the thickness of about a single sheet of paper. That's the actual displacement. And so it's not moving much more than the thickness of that. It is something we perceive. And there's normal environmental stresses that we have in our house. Today's wonderfully cold day, the house is shrinking. If we would go out and look at the cracks and defects in homes today, they'd probably be pretty well closed. If we went out on a nice summer day when we have 90 -plus temperatures, you'll find that those cracks open. And we see that on a pretty routine basis. We monitor that in certain -- in locations where we have what we call crack monitors, and we watch that cycling. It's one of the things that the United States Bureau of Mines did in their testing, some throughout the United States, some here in Florida, and determined that the threshold levels they produce are less than the environmental stresses that are produced in our structures just from weather. Thunder and lightning is another, you know, similar type of impact that we feel. We know that it rattles walls, ceiling, floors. It's very similar to the air blast. And one of the things that we've looked at because it's of concern to you folks, to the neighbors, and certainly to the Lost Grove Mine, is that, you know, the off - property effects and making sure that they are in compliance with the state law. We do blast- vibration projections. And I know that Dr. Rix was here representing Lee County, showed one graph. And I'll differ with his graph quite a bit in terms of our projections, our information, because his graph took data we had used in the past. It took a utility project, and it took a very small project as well as a few blasts from a quarry, dumped the information, and he made projections on it. Our projections are taken from mining in Collier County, some mining in Lee County, and information that we have, and it puts it into a chart that you see represented here. One of these would be developed for the site as blasting continues at the site to allow for projections, but one of the things that we looked at in our information was data were from here in Collier County and from mining operations, so we differ. The geology in this project -- and I think everybody has talked about always the worst -case scenario in this, that they're going to be at 100 feet or 120, whatever the mining depth will be, and that's the entire depth. That's not the case. At the north end of the project for the initial cuts of this project, the depth to the confining layer will reduce the depth of the excavation, and I believe that's somewhere in the area up to about 70 feet. Then as you move further south, that depth increases, and we'll modify some of the blasting. But we have looked at that all the way across and have looked at the blasting to 70 feet, a single deck, meaning that you load the entire hole in one of those patterns with explosives, would produce about 0.6 inch per second at the worst case, at the absolute closest point of the property line to the adjacent structure. That's -- the limit that is used by the county is 0.75. It would range -- it does range all the way up to two inches per second. But our -- based on the construction, based on some of the preliminary information, we'd be looking at a limit of 0.75 by the state. If you start to reduce that as you go -- as you go south with increased explosives weight, you do what we call decking, and you can see changes between single decks from 0.7, which we would recommend that be modified immediately prior to blasting, would drop down to 0.6. And as you -- and those, again, are at that western property line. As you start this project, you are much less -- in terms of ground vibration, much less effect, and we have the ability to evaluate that. These are also calculated assuming that there has been no blasting in any of that area, and every one of these blasts is what we would consider as part of a key cut, so there's automatically a reduction as ground is broken adjacent to the previous shot and excavated. And irrespective to all of these projections, whether it's myself or Dr. Rix that made those, the seismograph Page 17 of 64 161 January 5, 2012 measurements on site determine what can be done, and those are measured each and every time. They're available to the state fire marshal at any time, and they're kept on site. They're reviewed by third parties such as us, and that information is there in terms of what has happened. So there's an immediate ability to evaluate. One of the other things -- and I know people hear the blasting. It's separate from the ground vibration -- is what we call air blasts or atmospheric overpressure. We've done a separate type of evaluation for that. The levels are similar to a thunderstorm. Again, they're regulated by the state. The state uses a limit of 133 decibels. What we've projected here at the closest points are 123. That's about the -- consistent with a thunderstorm a quarter to a half mile away, so that these are relatively limited. This is just a graphic example of what we're looking at. If we start to compare various levels, you see a thunderstorm at a half mile, 125 decibels that we've measured. USBM limits 133. You see when a thunderstorm's a thousand feet away, you're looking at 138. The seismographs typically go to 140 decibels, but you can see how much it takes to actually damage glass, which the items that we would deal with at 160 decibels for air overpressure. There's a lot of -- there's been a lot of question about off - property effects. Blasting is pretty limited in terms of its time. There's one of the conditions a little further down that we have provided the number of blasts that would be done per month. So you're looking at blasting itself in terms of perception. It's less than a typical thunderstorm that goes through, because you're blasting once, maybe twice per week. There is only one blast. This does not start at eight o'clock or nine o'clock in the morning and continue all day. This -- the pattern is drilled. The explosives company would come in, load it, detonate it, and leave, and there is no material left on site. There are a couple of projects. I know that people have asked about -- and it was addressed this morning and in the past about effects on animals. We have done projects adjacent to Miami Metro Zoo. The quarry is now a land - development area down next to there, but they blasted there through the entire development of Miami's Metro Zoo facility, and probably up to about 10 or 15 years ago with blasting going on three to four times a week. It was one that we did monitor. Quite -- without any effect that we ever knew, and there was quite a bit of conversation back and forth with Metro Zoo, because they moved in next to -- right across the street from the quarry. We've blasted in Broward County; we were blasting a canal. It's a little different than what we're doing here, but it is still blasting effects on animals. We were behind a thoroughbred racing stable. The blasts were going off daily because of the limited distance, about 75 feet off the back of the stable. They were blasting six to eight times per day. We were there every day watching. No effects on the horses. There were no restrictions provided by the stable, with the exception we couldn't blast when they were doing surgery. So we, you know, worked around them. We've not seen that. There's been permitted mining operations and evaluation done by others for the mining operations in Palm Beach County. They are east of U.S. 27, but they back up against the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Preserve. We've looked at the noise from blasting, the noise from the operations was looked at, and it was felt that those operations should go forward. The county commission did pass those. And I will indicate, too, that there are a number of mining operations that are -- actually have sections that are considered wildlife preserves throughout the country. We are very familiar with them. I know that CEMEX over on the West Coast has just recently gone a five -star wetland program in part of their operation at their FEC quarry. That's one of the other 12- million - ton - per -year operations that they have. The Florida Rock operation that was existing in Brooksville, it has now closed the cement plant. As I understand, it still operates. The quarry has been mined out, but there were panther on the property on a regular basis with ongoing blasting, ongoing mining, without effect. And I think some of the things -- to wrap up some of the things that we have talked about, meaning the Lost Grove Mine mining plan has talked about in the past -- and just a review as a summary, there are preblast inspections that are -- will be offered to residents adjacent. It's a documentation of existing cracks, defects within 1,500 foot of the property line. All of that information will be provided to the property owners and the operator prior to the start of blasting. For those residents that will allow us in, they'll have a notification process that will go on. Blasting's limited Monday through Friday. That is a state requirement as well as, certainly, proffered here. There are no holidays, per the state. And further restriction on the part of Lost Grove Mine to do no blasting other than between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. during those days. The blast design is limited to 1,680 holes per month, and those would be broken up into blasts, eight per Page 18 of 64 Al 16 January 5, 2012 month. There may be months where they don't even get close to the 1,680. There are other ti es ere they will equal that, and that's certainly, as we've talked about in the past, is a production- oriented issue. As I indicated before, monitoring of vibration and air overpressure is a state requirement. There is a seismograph required for all blasts at the closest location, additional locations as necessary, and then there's third -party monitoring mandated by the state as well as state oversight. And the fire marshals do review what goes on. If there is any complaint issue at all, the first thing they do is come visit the complainant and then go to the quarry and get all of their current data. In many cases when they get a complaint, their first call is to the operator to say, I need your seismograph data before they even visit with the property owner. So those things are things that are taken care of -- taken very seriously by the state. There's also been a provision here for the complaint and claim investigation, and there will be a damage contact provided from the mining company to those residents within 1,500 feet of the property line. There'll be a claim - review group established with neighbors and the mine owner as -- for the evaluation of any claim that's provided, and there will be a damage investigation with a Florida registered engineer, somebody that's picked by that committee so that it's a party that's acceptable to both groups and evaluated as having independence, third party, and ability to do that. There's also been provided a separate $150,000 perpetual bond. This is in addition to the bonds that are required to be posted to the state. There's one required by the mine operator, and there is one required by the blasting company. Both of those two bonds are mandated to be in place and they are continual replenishments. So that if there's any use from the state awarding judgments in damage, they have to be brought back current to that level before anything goes on, and that is per -- you know, per occurrence as that goes on. And with that, if there are any questions, I'll certainly try and answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're at a point where the court reporter will need a break. And, Kay, prior to the beginning of the meeting, I asked you to copy some documents. Were they able to be copied? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. I do have copies for all the Planning Commission members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the record -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would you distribute those -- MS. DESELEM: And I can give you those now, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as we go on break, and that will make sure everybody can have those as we go into our discussion later this morning. And we'll resume in 15 min- -- well, actually, 10:45 we'll resume, and we'll -- at that time we'll go to questions for Mr. Straw. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody'd please take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. Well, we don't have a quorum yet for the Planning Commission. So as soon as five of us get seated, we will resume the meeting. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Do you want any water? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm looking for a cup, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, there you go. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, Ray, we're not going to do that until we finish with Mr. Straw. Okay. We left off, Mr. Straw, with your presen- -- your rebuttal remarks, and then this commission is going to have questions. The first one that had a question, one of them was, I think, Brad, but we'll go ahead with Paul at this point. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Yeah. Mr. Straw, you had said that the blasting next to the zoo, the dog racing stable, and the wildlife refuge were, quote, "without effect." How did you measure that it was without effect or, in other words, no effect? MR. STRAW: It's a thoroughbred racing. One, the Miami Metro Zoo project -- the mining operation was always in touch with the zoo. There was no feedback from them that they had any effects with animals. Page 19 of 64 1 16 12 A 4 A ua 5 2012 ry We weie on site for' the thoroughbred racing stable with the stable owner, and there were no concerns raised by him after the first couple of blasts, the first few blasts. It was a blast where they were going, you know, every day multiple times per day. It's a little different than what would happen here. And, you know, I was talking with some folks, and the horses, as they get -- you know, after they practice on the practice track, they're brought back and they're put on one of those walkers, and after the initial few blasts, they were on the walker without being disturbed by the blasting that went on. That was our determination in those cases. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the wildlife refuge? MR. STRAW: The wildlife refuge was -- has only been permitted. That has not started. But the review by others has indicated that their normal natural effects that are more of an issue -- in other words, you know, the thunderstorm is much more intense for birds and wildlife on site than the blasting is due to the duration and the intensity. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I was just questioning that you could say "without effect" without actually measuring the effects on the animals and, you know, just because people don't complain, they knew that it was inevitable that it was going to happen. I just wanted to challenge that. MR. STRAW: Well, I don't know that it's inevitable, but there is something that is -- the project was going on. There was input from those people at the time. The -- especially with the racing stable with the owners there every day, had there been anything that was brought up, the project would have halted to address those issues, and that did not occur. Because that was a project that I was on site, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Straw? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good morning. MR. STRAW: Good morning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mentioned that within 1,500 feet of the property line is where you go for damage? MR. STRAW: No, that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is a home that is -- it goes out as far as 1,500 feet, is that -- MR. STRAW: No. That's not quite the interpretation. What I said is that inspections would be completed on structures 1,500 feet from the property line. There is no requirement under the state statute for any type of preblast inspection prior to start. The Lost Grove Mine plan calls for an inspection -- notification to residents within 1,500 feet of the property line of their ability to obtain an inspection, and the inspection is an examination of walls -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do know. MR. STRAW: -- and the floor, the whole deal. That goes out to 1,500 foot. For those same residents, as an addition, there's a contact at the mine that they would be provided with. Now, any complaint, any claim that is received, irrespective of distance, has a procedure under the state fire marshal stat- -- under 552.30 -- 552 -- I think it's -- 36, is the Claims Recovery Act, if I'm not mistaken, of the title. I don't have it in front of me. I apologize. It is the Claims Recovery Act that anybody that has a complaint can call the state fire marshal's office. There is a separate procedure for anyone that has a claim and feels they want to recover it. But for the folks in that 1,500 foot, those represent the closest area they would provide an inspection for. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So within 1,500 feet, you would provide an inspection of the homes. MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: After that there is no inspection beforehand? MR. STRAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Does Collier County have any say in this blasting? I heard you say that it is the state fire marshal that has complete control over this? MR. STRAW: They have -- the way the regulation is written, they have sole control. That's a -- sorry -- a county attorney answer or Mr. Anderson might have some thoughts on that. But I -- I know what the statute says. And the permit is issued by the state, vibration standards, air -blast standards, the location of -- or the seismograph, how they're -- where they're set up, you know, and how they're monitored is detailed within the state statute. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And you mentioned at the north end of the property, in other words, Lake 1, that you would probably only go 70 feet? MR. STRAW: Well, the -- Mr. Rosa is somebody that can give you the cross - section a little better. But the Page 20 of 64 161 2 A 1 4 January 5, 2012 way the slope of the -- if you will, the confining layer is, is that it's shallower in the north end. And looking at the first few cuts, perhaps the first thousand feet -- and that's approximately -- will be done at shallower depths. It does not get to reach full depth until you get further south of the -- in the operation. And so the initial blasting's going to be done with reduced explosives, weights, reduced depth. It allows, one, the mining operator to review the blasting operations by starting in the key cut first a little bit further to the east, and then, you know, as was talked about at one of the other meetings, moving to the west and then, as I recall, turning south along the property line. But it will allow that initial testing and initial blasting to occur with very reduced levels at the close -- at that -- in that key cut area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you -- so as you -- as you head south, like Lake 2, Lake 3, you have -- do you have any idea at the depth you will go? And is it true that the deeper you go, the vibration and noise is less, because it's below water and everything? MR. STRAW: No, because the -- the whole area you're going to be drilling and blasting, loading explosives into water in the holes so that it is present there. The -- what happens is that the opening of the lakes actually provides, to a certain extent, what we call relief, meaning that there is broken rock, open lake, which allows the vibration to be directed in a fashion in towards that lake and move the actual material -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absorbed. MR. STRAW: -- into that. It does absorb it to a certain extent. There still will be perceptible vibration, you know, and it's countered with the amount of explosives in the hole. The amount of explosives that are detonated is what drives the ground vibration. That's what goes into the planning process looking at the graphs that I had up there earlier showing the projections based on the amount of explosives, the distance, and then there are programs we use. One is called Vibra -Map that we actually use where we select the in -hole blasting delays to help sequence the blast, help reduce vibration. So I can't say that it gets deeper. It gets less in terms of vibration. It's the function of the explosives, weight, and distance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's all the questions for now. Thank you. MR. STRAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Several. Just from clarification, and maybe this was brought out in previous testimony when you folks were here. There's a confining layer that varies from one area of the property to another area of the property. And you've stated before you're going to protect against going into that confining area. As you're starting your operation, how do you ensure, if you will, that you do not drill down into that confining area when you're putting your blast holes in? I mean, do you -- MR. STRAW: It's a two -phase process. One, there was -- all of the soil borings that were done on the property in the beginning have been mapped and indicate where the confining layer is relatively. If you recall the drawing that I had up there with all the individual blast holes -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MR. STRAW: -- as they drill, they will drill through the rock, and the drilling operator will be noting depth. And as the -- it requires a certain amount of what we call down pressure to actually make the drill go through the rock. It has a rotary bit, but as it's going down, it's drilling that hole, and that changes when they get to the confining layer. And so they stop at that point. Now, the confining layer, you know, as we brought out in one of the other things, is on the order of some 40 foot thick. So even if the drill comes into that the first few inches, then as they back out, they put what -- there's a tube in there that that, you know, layer is not disturbed. The blasting is essentially going to break outwards and up. Explosives are going to, you know, kind of come up the hole as much as they can and intersect with the adjacent hole that's next to them. There's not a lot of downward pressure in those. They are more reactive to come back up the borehole that they -- you know, they're sitting in. It's kind of like water. It runs to the lowest elevation and the easiest place to go. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. That was the heart of my question. I wanted to know how you knew, how the operator knew when he was reaching or had reached that confining layer. Okay. MR. STRAW: There's a change in the drill pressure. There's a pressure gauge on that. Page 21 of 64 6 W. Al January 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So it's experience. MR. STRAW: It's experience, but they're also looking at a gauge. You can listen to the drill, too. Even someone that has never been out there before, once you've been out there 10 or 15 minutes and watch them go through a hole, you'll have an idea as to the changes as it goes down. You can see that and hear it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Following along that line, since the confining layer varies, it gets deeper somewhat, to break up the material between a confining layer and the surface, is that done in one borehole or one drilling operation in an area, or do you -- you take it down successively? MR. STRAW: No. You can't take it down successively. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So it is -- you go down to it and explode it, and then excavate it. MR. STRAW: And then it comes back, and the dragline operator then digs, and he's got a depth indication on the dragline as well as, I think Mr. Rosa indicated, the cable. They watch the mark on the cable to know what the depth is. And so they're -- they're very cognizant of that, because, again, as Mr. Rosa had testified, we don't want -- they don't want any of that confining -layer material in the aggregate. It's absolutely worthless, and not good for, you know, their testing of the samples. So they avoid that at all costs. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. You mentioned or stated a lot of information regarding state regulations and the amount of blasting material, et cetera, et cetera, and having seismographs around the property and having those records available. Are there on -site state inspectors there at all times or -- I guess the heart of my question is, if something should be -- if an error is made by anyone, too much explosive material, too close, the interval is not correct, and you violate the standards -- MR. STRAW: The vibration records are reviewed. There's not an -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Let me ask my question. MR. STRAW: Okay, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If a mistake is made, how quickly is that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rectified? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- detennined, number one, and by who, and then what happens as a result? In other words, if you have a bad mistake, the explosive is too large or whatever, do you -- does someone suspend operation? What's the process if there has been an error and standards were exceeded? MR. STRAW: The seismographs are monitoring on site. They're in -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: By -- excuse me. By company personnel? MR. STRAW: Somebody like -- a firm like us, an independent third -party seismograph. This is just a sample picture of a seismograph that's out there. This one happens to be one we have at a different --it's just at an operation. But the seismograph is there. The antenna on top of this one happens to be satellite based. So what happens with the instruments is when they're triggered, they record the data. Now, anything that triggers them above their normal threshold or air blast automatically gets recorded. And the way the machines -- the way our machines work is they're downloaded immediately. Within five minutes that information's coming into us. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Who is us? MR. STRAW: Meaning GeoSonics. I'm speaking of GeoSonics's monitoring the operation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. STRAW: Procedures for other of our competitors are similar. They know when the blast is going to occur. The blaster is either calling or the mining operation is calling. They get the wave form out of that instrument and an analysis immediately, where are you in relationship to the standard. If they are over, we report that to them as soon as we have the record processed, so they would have it within 30 minutes to an hour, typically, after the blast of somebody calling in and saying, hey, we have the blast, we download it, we send the data to them. They have it for evaluation. If we see it's over, it's there. At that point, then, the mining operator takes immediate change -- you know, they have to make an immediate change to their operation. If there's a complaint involved, the fire marshal gets involved, and the fire marshal then immediately, you know, has a process that they go through. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If the state standard has been violated and that's recorded on a seismograph and that is then reported back to the mine operator and there is no complaint, what is done by the mine operator? I'm trying to get an idea of the feedback loop here between errors that are bound to happen and corrective Page 22 of 64 -k 161 2 A .1 .: January , 201 ry 2 measures. MR. STRAW: Typically they forward that to the state fire marshal and contact them ahead of time, because they won't know that there's -- whether that's a complaint or not. Complaints go direct to the fire marshal. They are under the obligation that if a complaint comes to the mine operator or for some reason they know GeoSonics is monitoring and they call us, we're under the obligation to get that information to the mine operator. The mine operator's required to send that to the state fire marshal. But those records go to the state fire marshal either upon request, or most operators, if they have something at or close to the limit, they send that to them anyway, because they start the process immediately on revision of the blasting program at that point. Just -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's really what I'm interested in. I mean, I understand information flows and it's reported and it's recorded and there may or may not be complaints. I'm more interested in the proposed actions or the proposed -- or procedures that are in place within Alico or the mine operator to take their own corrective actions. If there's mistakes made, what will the mine operator do at that point? MR. STRAW: Because of the potential issues that could arise, one, the fire marshal could fine them for being over, they could take their permit -- there's a number of options. I can't speak for the fire marshal, but they have their own options. Because of that, mine operators don't let the vibration get close to the limits. So, one, most if not all of -- I know all of our clients are very proactive, because if we see them getting to a -- 50 percent of what a limit is, we're either on the phone or sending some information with the record that says, you've reached 50 percent. We produce a summary report every month for every one of our clients as they request it that says, look, here's where you are in terms of percentages, either for vibration, either for air blast. And so that that -- they are preemptive in that, because they don't want to have anything happen to their permit. I mean, if the permit would be revoked on one of these lakes, then they would have to go back and start the process all over. They can't mine, really, you know, without the explosives -use permit from state, so they're very protective of all of that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Are there or are there not documented procedures either with Alico or with a proposed mine operator as to the actions they will take if state standards have been exceeded on any blasting operation? MR. STRAW: I don't know that there are written procedures at this point in time. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Thank you. With respect to animals, wildlife -- you mentioned thoroughbred race horses and so forth and so on, thoroughbred racing track you have the owners and operators and trainers of those animals, that are observing the animals. It's quite another thing when you have deer in the woods or bear or panther or birds or whatever that don't have somebody watching them as to whether they're affected or not. So I understand what you said about the racetrack, but deep in the woods if things are spooked, there's nobody there to know that. That's a comment. MR. STRAW: And you're right. And, unfortunately, there's not a lot of research, but what we -- the information that we have shows that there -- at least in my experience and the areas where we have researched it, the studies that have been done -- I don't know that they've been done on larger wildlife. There's a lot that has been done on endangered species, birds, things like that, where there's been concern for impulsive type of noise similar, at least, to the blasting end of it, and what we're dealing with in some of the other environmental effects, specifically thunderstorms, things like that, that those occurrences are more frequent and longer in duration than what the blasting is. And the blast itself typically is -- may be a second in -- of initiation, you know, from the start to finish. So it's much less. And that's why -- that's, with those qualifications, what I've made my comments about the effects on wildlife from our research. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, final question. Another subsidiary of the Alico companies, I'll put it that way, is Alico -Agri, and I know they're not involved specifically in this petition, but it's another subsidiary of Alico, and they have a mine in operation in -- north of Alico Road in Lee County operated by CEMEX, I believe. Yes. MR. STRAW: It's the Fort Myers quarry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And I don't know how long that's been in operation, but have there been any significant number or any number of complaints regarding that operation to your knowledge? Page 23 of 64 January 5, 2012 MR. STRAW: Not that I'm aware of I came to Florida in 1980, and somewhere in the early'80s we started monitoring for that when it was Florida Rock. It was later sold and now is part of the -- sold to Rinker, and Rinker has been bought by CEMEX, and CEMEX operates it. We have -- I'm trying to think whether we have -- I think we have three seismographs right now. We have one at the water treatment plant, Green Meadows Water Treatment Plant, one at their AHR tanks, and one at a residence to the south. And I don't know of a complaint that we've had in the last five to ten years. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. That's all, Mark. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Following on Phil's comments, when you blast at 145 feet as opposed to blasting at 50 or 60 or 80 feet, what changes? Your pattern, the amount of explosives you use, both, or -- MR. STRAW: Both may change. The -- obviously, the depth will change the amount of explosives in the hole. Explosives typically are -- when there's -- when the hole is drilled, there's a cardboard tube that's inserted anywhere between 4- and -a -half, typically, to 7 inches in diameter. That tube and the depth control the amount of explosives. There is a section at the top anywhere here in -- for Collier and Lee County, typically anywhere between 18 and 20 foot of that top tube is left unloaded, and then the rest is loaded with commercial explosives. And that then is delayed. Because of the varying size of the tubes, you expand what we call the burden and the spacing. That pattern that I showed earlier, a diagram may come in or expand outward depending upon the amount of explosives in the hole. As you get deeper, the explosives may increase if you filled just the whole tube up. But at that point what happens is the explosives contractor looks, as they would get to the closer areas, and do what we call decking, which is separating the explosives -- the column into two separate explosives - loading areas separated by an inert material in the middle. So that could be two, three, you could do four decks depending on that, and that reduces the amount of explosives detonated. But, you know, the depth changes the amount of material in the hole but may change it drastically depending on distance from properties. COMMISSIONER VONIER: As a frame of reference, the mines in Lee County, are they of similar depth to what we're proposing here? MR. STRAW: I think they're similar. I don't know about the Youngquist or the one, the Vulcan Mine, and I don't, off the top of my head, recall what CEMEX is doing up in the north end. I know they've got one of the bigger draglines, so they are in the range of 70, 80 -- 80 feet. Youngquist has one of the bigger draglines, and typically you need those when the depth is starting to get past 70 feet of excavation. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Also as a frame of reference, do we know how close the residential areas are to the mines in Lee County vis -a -vis what they would be for the Lost Grove? MR. STRAW: I'm trying to think off the top of my head. There has been blasting within, I want to say, 500 to 1,000 feet for the CEMEX Alico Mine, especially when it was on the south -- there's a section that's on the south side that has been completed. The section on the north side, I'm not quite sure how close the closest residence is there. We are monitoring at that location; I just don't know the distance from the current blasting. The Youngquist quarry, I think, has residents on the north and south side, and those are somewhere in the area of 500 to 700 feet from the -- from the operation, if I'm not mistaken. So there are places that are, you know, relatively close, yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. You discussed you're going to start on the northwest corner of Lake 1 and you'll do your primary -- is that right? MR. STRAW: I think what the discussion was -- I know the last time we were here there was talk about that, but I think Mr. Rosa indicated that it would be more back towards the east in Lake 1 with the idea of moving to there, as opposed to starting at -- as I indicated, starting at the closest spot, which would be the northwest corner to residence, starting some distance back and then working to there. And then as -- I think the discussion last time we were here was to turn south and go along the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when you do turn south, do you come down and do a path and then go back up and come down? Or how is that done? Is it -- Page 24 of 64 6 A 1 MR. STRAW: Mr. Rosa is shaking his head yes, so -- you know, in the typical -- I guess we'll get Mr. Rosa up here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ROSA: The question was, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is -- and I guess you'll start -- when you -- where will you start, over by -- there's a vegetation area, preserve area. Is that the boundary you'd start or -- MR. ROSA: It would be along the power lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, could you just state your name and all that. MR. ROSA: Dennis Rosa, consultant for the owner. We would start at the -- near the -- right in that area there, where the processing area meets the power lines on the north side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Point to that again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the area where the power lines are. They're along the red line to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Go up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you'll go along those power lines, and then what would be the width of that that exists? MR. ROSA: In that area the width would be about 80 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you'd come up, you go around the preserve, the green area on that. MR. ROSA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you'll come down the western boundary. MR. ROSA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in that 80 -foot path, correct? MR. ROSA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you go back up, much like mowing a lawn, and then back and -- MR. ROSA: Correct. That would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And will you be working on more than one lake at a time, or -- MR. ROSA: No. We would probably -- we would propose to work on Lake 1 until it is completed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one quick question. I notice one of these homes is, like, 105 feet. What do you do when you cannot blast that close, when they're going to start a lake? MR. ROSA: You don't -- you don't dig there. If we can't blast, we can't dig the rock. So if we -- in the process of determining what the vibration levels are along that north property line, we will have -- we will monitor that at different distances. And as we approach a certain distance, we will know whether we can blast or not blast without doing damage. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And what is the closest that you can blast? I mean, how many feet where you can do a blast? MR. ROSA: Well -- yeah, it depends. Three hundred feet is our setback, so it would be 300 feet plus the distance to the structure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To the house, right. MR. ROSA: So it could be 450 feet, let's say. That would be the absolute closest we would be able to blast. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like to go back to Mr. Straw, if we could. On the slide presentation you had, could you go back to the one that was titled "compatibility." The mine that you're portraying there, which mine -- where is that mine? What is it? Page 25 of 64 Al * 1612 January 5, 2012 MR. STRAW: That's White Rock Quarries. That's Section 7, if I'm not mistaken, in Miami -Dade County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The owner of the mine is? MR. STRAW: White Rock Quarries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the name of the owner, too. MR. STRAW: That's the name of the operator, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like the mine to the south in the blue is dug. MR. STRAW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The homes to the north, obviously, are installed. What is the timing between the dig to the north and the installation of homes to the north across the road; do you know? MR. STRAW: They were done with -- the majority of them, they were done concurrently. There were some on the south side of the lake. I don't have a way to show it. But the area on the south side of the lake, there are some homes there. I don't know whether you can see it, but the area in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know where you mean. MR. STRAW: The area in there, some of those were being built at the time it was being blasted, but there were homes in that area. If you also notice -- and this is a little older photograph. If you look at the road to the right just above where it says Goggle, there's a white dirt road that's the dirt road to Section 6, which is currently being mined. They are currently -- the homes to the north where the lake's kind of a gray -- a dirty gray color, that lake's now complete, and you see a few homes down there in -- down in kind of the south, which would be the lower left corner of that lake. That area is all built with homes now. That's constructed all the way across. And we monitor there every day. They are anywhere between 1,400 in -- and coming closer every day with that operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you go to the slide that's after this, a couple after it's -- for -- that discusses the decking. There you go. MR. STRAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What inch per second are you suggesting for this operation that's being proposed at the Lost Grove? MR. STRAW: Well, the state -- the state limit varies. The state limit runs from 0.5 inch per second for -- which we would be using for low frequencies, which would be 1 to about 12.5 hertz, would be 0.5. For drywall construction, which is what we have in most of our homes, because they're newer construction, the limit is 0.75 in that range from 4 to roughly 15 hertz. The way the state statute runs is that that is in frequency. The frequency of the vibration that is measured on the ground. From 15 hertz up to 40 hertz, that increases until you reach at 40 cycles per second, 40 hertz, a 2- inch -per- second state limit on any vibration. So it will depend upon the ground- vibration frequencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me rephrase my question. What is the maximum vibration on an inch per second that you expect out of this mine? MR. STRAW: On inch per -- well, one inch per second is the vibration measurement. You could use that at 20 hertz. You'd have to have 20 hertz of ground- vibration frequency in order to use one inch per second. If the frequency's less, then you back yourself down. This is -- I don't have a copy of it. It's a -- this is a -- if you will, a stair -step kind of curve that the -- it's from the Bureau of Mines. It's been adopted by the State of Florida in Chapter 552.30, and it -- what it indicates is that lower frequency ground motion has a greater tendency to cause response of a structure. As that gets higher, you get up away from the national -- natural frequency. There's less potential for damage. So you can create higher velocities at higher frequencies without having the potential for damage. And so, you know, the -- I know Dr. Rix talked about 0.75 for a lot of the typical vibration frequencies that we get in South Florida; 0.75 is the typical limit. As it goes higher, then, obviously, there is a higher velocity level allowed based on the frequency. They're interrelated. You can't -- you don't separate the two for the most part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the driver of frequency? What produces the frequency, the charge of the load or -- MR. STRAW: The frequency is the geology, the geology that we have here. I mean, it does vary with distance, and as that -- as the vibration wave dies down, the frequency changes. Now, with the caveat that, as I indicated, we have delay - selection programs. How you delay the individual blast holes can change the frequency. We're doing one for a quarry down in South Florida where we've sped the blast up quite a bit and increased the frequencies. It's changed how they blast in terms of that, and it makes the response then -- the higher frequencies, the house responds less. Page 26 of 64 161 Z A 1 January 5, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So out of the material that you'll be digging through at this proposed Lost Grove, does that create -- is that better for frequencies, travel -- does that increase frequencies or decrease frequencies depending on whatever composition it is? It's more in -- it's like limerock, isn't it? MR. STRAW: It's limerock, and it's got -- interspersed with layers of sand and other materials and, of course, with the water. Typically what we find is, closer in we find the higher frequencies. So when you're at the closer points, you're going to be generating -- you may generate a little higher velocity, but you're also generating correspondingly higher frequencies, typically 20 hertz or so. When you get farther and farther away, people that are 2- and 3,000 feet away, may be getting something that's, you know, 5 to 15 hertz, and there the corresponding level for measurements out there -- the particle velocity is reduced by the distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So where they have a lower frequency, they can expect more felt vibration versus higher frequency? MR. STRAW: There's the potential for the structure to vibrate in response to it, but the corresponding particle - velocity level is reduced. This is kind of -- I guess I'll use the adage. This is very similar to dropping a rock in a pond. In close, when you drop a rock in the pond, right at the source there's a higher intensity of the wave. That would -- could be -- would relate generally to particle velocity in the example, but the ripples are very close together, meaning that the frequency, their repetitiveness, is much higher, they're much closer together. As that ripple moves out, those corresponding peaks and those waves begin to move farther apart between successive waves. That's the frequency going down. The lower frequencies -- and that's what the Bureau of Mines addressed in their evaluations when they established these limits is that higher frequency is less -- causes less response to a structure than does low frequency. And the study that was done, you know, on similar Florida houses -- it was done in Broward County in the Weston area -- evaluated those standards that they have on Florida structures, and they respond very well. The Bureau said that their limits were valid for here, you know, with our Florida construction as well as the other areas they tested in the initial research. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Jones mine, the recommendation and a stipulation from this board as well as the Board of County Commissioners, I believe, was 0.20 for the vibrations per second generated by your work on that mine, and you supported that in the sense -- that during your discussions with us during that meeting. How do you -- how do you justify two- and -a -half times that vibration record being used for the Lost Grove Mine? MR. STRAW: Well, it's -- one, it's a monthly average that they look at, but the Jones mine was 2,000 feet to the closest structure. There was no ind- -- or implication of them ever reaching anywhere near or needing to have the higher frequencies. They were going to be dealing with low - frequency vibration the entire time, because their distance from their closest to their -- from their blasting to their closest structures is on the order of 2,000 feet. They have that separation. The other issue is they're not going anywhere near the depth. I mean, our recommendation at the start of that was they're restricted by the United States Bureau of Mines' state levels as well as, you know, most mining operations in the state. They have a construction materials mining activity permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, your recommendation, you actually -- during the discussion on that particular mine, you spoke about some of the things you're speaking about here today, but you were assuring us that you would never have any -- there would be no damage below 0.5, and you were striving to meet that number, and you volunteered the 0.20. That's why I was wondering, if it worked for that mine -- and I understand now your explanation as to why it wouldn't work necessarily for Lost Grove, but on the other hand, you're saying it's because of the distance that you had as a setback for your blasting. So if you had a longer setback distance on Lost Grove, would that reduce the vibrating on a per second -- per measurement for an inch -per- second basis? MR. STRAW: The likelihood is yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many holes are you going to shoot at one time? MR. STRAW: It will depend on ground vibration levels, you know, that are out there. The restriction proposed here is the 1,680 no more than eight times per month. And so when you're farther away, they may be able to shoot more holes. I mean, they could shoot -- as an example, they could shoot 50 to 100, and they may not have to Page 27 of 64 1612A1 January 5, 2012 shoot again for three weeks depending on -- again, it's market driven, so it's depending upon the operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many times per week do you see as a maximum number of blasting times? MR. STRAW: The anticipation would be two, one to two times per week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much for the blast- initiation seconds? MR. STRAW: That's going to depend on the delay selection at this point in time, the number of holes. Anywhere -- typically a blast is initiated less than a second, typically, but we have some things where we're using in -hole delays that are longer for the -- as an example, for the one I used for the CEMEX quarry down in South Dade where we're modifying the pattern there, we're using 88 milliseconds, 88 one - thousandths of a second between holes, and they're shooting anywhere between 50 and 100 holes. By the time that shot goes off, that duration is a little over a -- maybe a little over a second when you start calculating them all out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your maximum blast initiation seconds per month then? MR. STRAW: I haven't calculated that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many pounds per maximum per blast? MR. STRAW: It's going to vary with the depth. Look -- and the decking. I've looked at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, say -- MR. STRAW: I've looked at worst -case scenario for the -- to about 100 foot using about 800 pounds at the -- at that, but I've also worked backwards down to as low as 209 pounds when you deck one of the holes. Again, that's going to be -- that's a field calculation that's made with the -- with the on -site vibration measurements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The pounds per delay is the prime or driver for ground vibration. MR. STRAW: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does -- how are you managing the pounds per delay on this site? What criteria are you going to be using for that? MR. STRAW: Well, it will be calculated by the actual blasting contractor. I mean, we're looking at the standard -- standard profiles that are typically used, which means that you have a hole of a certain depth. I've calculated this based on four - and -a -half inch -- a four - and -a -half inch blasting tube loading with a density of about 8.25 pounds per foot. The density of the explosives can be changed for a specific parameter, but it still takes about a half a pound -- roughly, half a pound per cubic foot of rock -- of explosives -to -rock to break that rock. It's what we call powder factor. They're normally using about 0.5 as their powder factor. In the key cut, that may come up a little bit for the initial fracturing, so that would be either pulling in the -- they can pull in the pattern, the explosives may be a little more dense in terms of how it's mixed for all of that and calculated so that that pounds per delay may vary. But I've looked at it from 800 down to 209 pounds for decking as well as just a single hole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you used more holes and your pattern was increased, you'd have to -- you'd be using less pounds per hole, right? MR. STRAW: No. You'd use the same pounds per hole. The pounds per hole remains the same. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless of the number of holes? MR. STRAW: Correct. It's -- unless the depth changes. But you're going to be -- you're not going over that 80 feet that Dennis talked about, you know, that 80 -foot cut. You're not going to see a depth change, you know, from say, 50 to 75 feet. That's not going to occur. It will occur much less than that. And in that 80 feet, there may be two rows of blasting in there, or -- you know, in that section as they work. So the pounds per delay will be the same in each hole, and then it's how it's delayed individually. Each hole goes off individually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, a lot of the numbers that you're using today are -- differ greatly from the numbers you're using on Jones mine. MR. STRAW: Jones is a whole different deal. Jones is a land development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my next question. MR. STRAW: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain the differences between the materials that you're using between the two mines and why your techniques are having to change? I'm a little concerned that we relied on your testimony, in particular, at the Jones mine to institute certain levels of thresholds that have turned out to be probably working Page 28 of 64 16I[Ai I January 5, 2012 because we're having minimal complaints, if any, from the neighborhood. So I'm trying to understand how that compares to the Lost Grove Mine's proposal. MR. STRAW: The Jones mine, I think the maximum depth is somewhere on the order of about 40 feet. It's a land development -- it's more of a land development to me than it is a commercial mining operation, although it is selling aggregate out the front gate, and because of that it does turn into what the state calls construction materials mining activity in terms of that. The blasting is only 30- to 40 -foot in depth, as I recall. They've not blasted very much. I mean, if they've blasted a dozen times in 2010 that's probably a pretty high guess, for the last few years. In looking at their data, they're not doing a lot of work right now. They do have a pretty far setback as well, which allows them to -- they'll be dealing with lower frequencies and allows them to accept a lower particle - velocity level. At this point, with this operation -- this operation is a full mining operation that is there to generate the aggregate as a mining operation for -- you know, what the end result is, I don't know. But with the size of the lakes there, it's a whole different deal. Also, the depth will require heavier explosives be used. I think in the Jones case, they were able to say we could use a hundred pounds as a maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. MR. STRAW: That's what they were -- they were willing to accept. Here that won't accomplish the depth. You can't put a hundred pounds in a hole here and have it successfully work. You'd actually end up, in my opinion, creating more vibration because you're not actually fragmenting or moving the rock. You're shaking the rock. You may break some around the hole, but the problem is, if you don't effectively break the rock and effectively move it with the amount of material necessary, then that -- there's much more waste energy, and that waste energy is what goes off property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. STRAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate it, sir. Thank you. Before we move on to the next rebuttal point from the applicant, I had a citizen ask me to -- if she could speak, and I had told her previously she could, that it would be -- you know, we start at nine o'clock, and for certain reasons Judy was delayed. She came a little late. I've asked her to limit her discussion to three minutes, and we would accept that, and the -- this out -of- sequence staging, even though we have finished public testimony. Ray, is there anybody else that has requested or any other similar circumstances? MR. BELLOWS: There was a Robert Liznesch who also requested, and he indicated he couldn't wait much longer. And given the first response, he thought he could come back in the -- when this meeting returns back in March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the meeting in March, the only testimony that will be allowed by the public will be relative to the new experts who will be speaking on that day. Can't go back and re -- go over this -- regurgitate this whole thing again. In fact, public speakers are supposed to be finished prior to rebuttal. The applicant is actually opening the door with the new testimony and, therefore, we will entertain public speakers based on the new testimony only. So if the gentleman comes back, any -- I mean, if he calls you, that's what the issue's going to be about. Now, as far as the applicant goes, do you have any problems with allowing Ms. Huchinson (sic) to speak? We're going to limit her discussion to three minutes. MR. ANDERSON: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Judy, please watch your time. MS.14USHON: Okay. I'm Judy Hushon. I'm the chair of the Environmental Advisory Council, but I was not sitting the day that this was heard by the EAC. And they did not understand that they could deny it if it -- even if it met the legal requirements, but we're --they were not comfortable with the environmental effects. So I just thought I -- we've had discussions after that. MR. ANDERSON: I do object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your objection's noted by Mr. Anderson. Your -- MS. HUSHON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your third -party conversations -- Page 29 of 64 1612A1 January 5, 2012 MS. HUSHON: What they did was to pass it and to put a whole series of stipulations, which you have and I'm not going to go over. I have concern for the active panther, for the adjacency to CREW, for the Corkscrew Rookery. This is going to create a lake so deep that it will be dead, ecologically dead except right around the edges of the littoral zones. So we can't say that we're creating something that's environmentally positive. It isn't. Our wood storks are not going to be particularly happy there. Related to panther, the increase in predawn trips on Route 82 -- that is actively crossed by panthers now -- could have a devastating effect. We may want to consider what we would do to protect from (sic) panthers on State Road 82. The problem is that's in Lee County, so we may not be able to do anything. The water drawdown in CREW could be disastrous during the construction of this. And we are expecting dry for the next couple of years. That's at least been the predictions that we've been seeing. This, on top of that, could have very bad effects on CREW. I just would throw that out. Loss of groundwater recharge -- and I've put a map on. You can see that this is an active groundwater recharge area. This is an old map. It's 1995. It is the latest one the county has, and the county's redoing it now, but it's still a groundwater recharge area. So we are taking away groundwater recharge. This fits along with the fact that this area just to the north in Lee County is called their DRGR, which is groundwater recharge area, and so we are -- it is designated as that sort of an area. I have a real concern that most of the impacts from this -- the property is in Collier yet almost all the impacts are in Lee County. The dollar a load that we'd get for here isn't going to go to Lee County to offset their problems with State Road 82 being torn up, et cetera. The project is going to have traffic. It's going to have noise. And it is opposed to the DRGR guidance from Lee County. And Lee County Commissioners, I believe, voted that they were opposed to this. So I think we, as a county, cannot -- have to be very careful about doing things unilaterally at the planning level that will have adverse effects on our adjoining counties for maintaining good relations. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Judy. Appreciate it. Bruce, for the record, do you want to state your objection on the microphone and specifically what you're objecting to? MR. ANDERSON: I object to her characterization of a hearing she did not participate in and any side conversations that she may have had that led her to a conclusion that they didn't know what they were doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next -- is there another -- any more rebuttal witnesses from your side? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MANAHAN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Scott Manahan. I'm with Schlumberger Water Services. I'm a water - resources engineer. I've worked in this area on water- resource studies and wellfield design and development projects for over 20 years. Our firm did a hydrogeologic investigation of the Lost Grove Mine site, and that investigation included drilling some test borings, doing aquifer testing, constructing monitor wells, and also doing groundwater modeling. Lee County staff had some -- raised some concerns and issues in the previous hearing, and I'm here to address some of those concerns. There were three primary issues that Lee County staff brought up, and I'll address each one individually. The first issue they indicated that the land surface across the mine site slopes and that groundwater generally follows the topography. With regard to that, we do agree that groundwater does flow downhill and that there's also going to be some flattening of the water -table gradient due to excavation of the mine pits; however, it should be noted that the agricultural operations that currently occur on the site have been affecting the groundwater flow directions and levels for some time, probably for over 20 years at the site, and they're the primary driver that influences water levels on and around the project site. There was groundwater modeling that was conducted as part of our investigation, and the results of that modeling generally show that groundwater levels are anticipated to rise across the area as a result of the mining, the change in land use from irrigation of citrus to mining operations. And the primary driver there is reduction in irrigation pumpage. Page 30 of 64 16 12 A I January 5, 2012 Currently, the agricultural operation has a maximum month allocation of about 500 million gallons per month that they're allowed to pump. So as some of that agricultural land is taken out of production and converted to mining uses, there will be a reduction in irrigation water use, and that's the primary influence on the water -- water -level impacts at the site. The modeling that was conducted was the approach, and the results obtained were reviewed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Their staff includes numerous professional geologists and professional engineers. They reviewed the modeling and accepted it. And, in summary, their comment was that the net result would be an improvement in water quality and water quantity as a result of the change in land use at the site. Again, Lee County staff had brought up the flattening effect of the water -table gradient, and that does occur to a certain extent, because the water surface tends to follow the land surface. And once you create a lake that -- you know, the lake is essentially flat. So that is a situation that occurs. But the site has been developed for agriculture, so it's essentially flat now, so there's very little further flattening that can occur. So that effect is not great. Also, the plan for the mine, instead of one just large lake covering the whole property, it's been broken down into three separate lakes, and the general alignment of those lakes is parallel to the hydraulic gradient. So that also reduces the flattening effect of the water table, and the use of the three smaller lakes further reduces that -- that impact just by breaking it down into smaller chunks instead of having one large lake at the site. The CREW lands that are of concern are located on the down - gradient side of the property, so these flattening effects or water -level impacts would actually tend to result in higher groundwater levels under the CREW lands, which might help improve the hydroperiod. So just by the nature of the hydraulic gradient out there and the relative position of the site to the CREW lands, it should actually improve water levels there on the CREW land properties. Another -- the other primary impact that Lee County staff brought up was that the applicant did not provide a method for establishing baseline conditions. They indicated that there were no background water -level data and that, ideally, there would be a few years of data collected prior to initiation of the mining operations. Well, the -- I think the staff hadn't thoroughly reviewed the FDEP permit because we, in fact, do have ongoing groundwater monitoring at the site, and I've got a figure here that I can put up. This figure just shows ongoing monitoring at the site. We've got eight -- eight water -table aquifer wells and three very shallow what we call wetland piezometer wells. These wells are equipped with electronic data loggers, and what they do is they continuously monitor the water levels out there. So we initially started some -- our work at the site in 2008, and these wells have been continuously monitored for -- since sometime during 2009, so for approximately two- and -a -half years. So we actually do have quite a lot of background water -level data, and I think the county concern was that you wanted to have an adequate period of time to include rather wet years and more average years. And I think this past year was rather wet, and the year before was kind of average, so we do have a good background data collection at the site. Also, during our initial investigation at the site, we did collect water - quality samples out of 15 wells that were constructed on the site. And on those 15 wells, we just did rather basic water - quality parameters, such as chloride and conductivity, but then we also did more detailed water - quality sampling in five wells at the site, and that included parameters such as TDS, sulfate, nitrate, and other parameters that are of interest particularly to the DEP. They typically request some water - quality data as part of the permitting process. And, also, it should be noted that the DEP will require monitoring as part of the ERP. I've got another figure here. This just shows the monitoring the DEP will require once the mine is in operation. It includes several of the existing monitor wells but also includes a couple others that they had requested during the permitting process. Monitoring of rainfall, water levels, and water quality will be required as part of the monitoring report, and every year an annual report is prepared that summarizes all the data collected, and that data is reviewed and, you know, it's determined if there are any impacts based on the monitoring conducted at the site. Also, as part of the pen-nit for blasting, the DEP requires pre- and post -blast water - quality sampling to make sure that the blasting doesn't impact water quality in the mine lakes. And this is pretty much a standard condition included with all the recently- issued monitoring -- or mining permits. And we've done that out at the Jones mine. For example, it's -- water samples are taken immediately before, and then up to 24 hours after the blast, and the results are compared. The other primary issue that Lee County staff brought up was that wells might go dry due to the mining operations. I think county staff provided some figure that, again, showed that flattening effect of the water -table Page 31 of 64 ..:�. 161LAI January 5, 2012 gradient and just the concern that some wells would go dry. Again, we do stipulate that there is some flattening that occurs but, again, the primary driver is the reduction in irrigation pumpage, and that actually results in a raising of the water levels. And so those modeling results confirm that, and it's contrary to Lee County's position that wells will go dry. In fact, if anything, the water levels might come up slightly in the wells. And when I refer to water levels, that's the water -table aquifer. Most of the wells in this area actually tap the sandstone aquifer, which is the next aquifer down, and water levels in that aquifer would not be significantly impacted at all due to the mining operation. The buildup in water levels that occurs is primarily -- you know, is on the down - gradient side. Again, that's where these, you know, natural wetland systems are. So, if anything, that may help increase the hydroperiod to those wetland areas. Also, it should be noted that these water -level impacts are fairly localized. You know, they don't extend a great distance. So what -- with the setbacks and other buffers that are being proposed, the actual impacts to another party are likely to be very small one way or the other. It's probably not going to change a whole lot. There's also been some concern that dewatering at the mine operation may impact either wetlands or other people's wells. I think there's -- there may be some misconceptions about the dewatering operations. The mine itself is not going to be dewatered to the depth of excavation. The only dewatering that occurs is when they remove what they call the overburden, which is the sand and shell or other material that lies over the rock. And just to facilitate the operation, they will dewater during excavation of that. But that dewatering typically only occurs to a depth of 10 to 20 feet or whatever thickness of overburden there is. And, also, it's generally done in cells. So, in other words, if this lake covers a hundred acres, they're not going to dewater that whole hundred acres at one time. What they'll do is they'll have a 5- to 10 -acre cell, they'll dewater that, get the overburden off, and then they'll go to the normal rock - mining operations after that. So the dewatering is not conducted over huge areas at one time, and not for a long period of time at any one particular location. Let's see. Also the dewatering operations are -- have to be permitted through the South Florida Water Management district, so there will be a separate permit required for that and there are certain conditions and monitoring that will be stipulated by those permits also. Again, with regard to the concern expressed by Lee County that the mines might make the wells go dry, we think it's unfounded. I've got a figure here. This figure actually shows the Lee County public supply wells basically right within mine lakes, and so they're -- within 500 feet you can see the kind of circular areas around the wells. Those are due to the public water - supply rules regarding setbacks to mines from public - supply wells. But as you can see, the wells are in close proximity to existing and previously excavated mines. And, in fact, the Lee County Integrated Water Resources Master Plan, which was recently completed and accepted by Lee County, states that the mining lakes may be beneficial to the wellfields by providing rapid recharge. So -- and that's something that we also agree with is the -- basically you've got increased storage in the mining lakes, where, previously, when the aquifer material was there, you had rock, you had sand, and you had water within the rock and sand. And there's a hydrologic parameter we call specific yield. And that, essentially, represents the porosity of that rock and sand, and that's -- roughly 20 percent is a number commonly used. So out of all that material, only 20 percent of it is water. And when you excavate the lake, of course, it's 100 percent water. So basically those wells there are more rapidly recharged, because there's much more water around them, and that helps limit drawdown impacts away from the wells. And I think that's basically it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we ask any questions, I'd like to understand from Bruce -- Bruce, before you walk away -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how much further testimony are you going to have for rebuttal? I'm just trying to time things for this afternoon. MR. ANDERSON: One other witness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you'll be done with your rebuttal? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we'll probably go in- -- we've got -- we're going to have questions, and then after that we have to go into our -- some of our discussions on various conditions. Page 32 of 64 1612A1 4 January 5, 2012 Okay. Well, I think -- Brad, you got a question now, or do you want to wait till after lunch? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of this guy. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go ahead and ask some questions now. We're going to break at twelve o'clock for lunch. We'll take a one -hour break at twelve. MR. MANAHAN: Bruce brought up one point that he'd just like me to make, that these wells in question here are within the DRGR area in Lee County. So that's just --the DRGR actually means Density Reduction Groundwater Resource area, not recharge area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- you mentioned that adjoining wells are in the sandstone aquifer. How deep is that? What strata is that at? MR. MANAHAN: The sandstone aquifer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. MANAHAN: It's deeper. Around the project site, it typically occurs at depths, you know, below which we'll be mining, because there's a confining unit between the -- between the, you know, water -table aquifer and the sandstone. So wells tapping the sandstone aquifer in that area often are the 120 to 150 feet deep, something along those range -- in that range. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're going down 145, so -- MR. MANA1 AN: That's at the very southernmost. The geology is variable there. I've got a figure that will -- kind of illustrates that. So, yeah, the depths to the tops and bottoms of the aquifers vary based on the geology. And I've got a figure here I'll show. This figures just shows the stratigraphy which basically shows how the different geologic layers are arranged in Lee and Collier County. Our site is right on the county line there. So you can see the blue -- kind of light -blue area that looks like bricks. That's the actual limestone that is going to be mined, and that's the water -table aquifer. The darker -blue material above it is just the sand or shell overburden, and then that green area beneath is the confining unit. And the sandstone aquifer occurs below the confining unit, so the darker -blue layer below the green layer. So it varies, you know, depending upon where you are, but -- and at this site it's actually quite variable from north to south. So -- but generally those sandstone aquifer wells are deeper than the water -table aquifer wells. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing strange on this, though, it shows your confining layer, which you said is green. What is that break in it, you know, about the area we'll be mining? MR. MANAHAN: The -- to the upper right there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, down below. In other words, you say the brick pattern is the stone you're looking for, you're mining. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. This stuff here is what we'll mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use that portable mike if you're going to talk away from the other mike. Everything has to be on record. MR. MANAHAN: Okay. Hello? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And right where you put your pen point, why does it go into blue without going into a confining layer? Just -- come down, go to the right. Right there, that boundary. What is that? MR. MANA14AN: That's -- I am not sure what that is. That's another layer of sand or some other material. Yeah, it's sand, because in some of these areas, they actually have to drill wells that are screened, and it's sand. It's not hard rock. So during our investigation, that's why we drilled a number of wells or borings to make sure that it's solid rock. That's the mining material that they're looking for. Now, this isn't exactly at the project site. I've got another figure showing where this cross - section is. It's really for descriptive purposes. This cross - section's a little north of the project site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern that I seem to be developing here that you might be taking material out that doesn't have a confining layer, is that incorrect or -- MR. MANAHAN: No. We'll just be mining the water -table aquifer. Probably -- probably the most representative site would be between 614 and 615. This kind of shows generally the same geology as at the site where we have a thin layer of sand on the top, and then we have a thicker layer of rock, you know, anywhere from, you know, 50 to, let's say, 100 or 150 feet thick, and then below that is the confining unit, and this confining unit separates the water -table aquifer up here from the sandstone aquifer down here. Page 33 of 64 16 12 A 1 �t January 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What would happen if you did break into that on the other side, on the Collier County side? What if you did accidently break into that; what would happen? I mean, you're -- MR. MANAHAN: Break through this confining unit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Go up. Break into that sand. That -- where your brick -- MR. MANAHAN: That dark blue? That's just sand. That's part of the same aquifer. So it's -- there's -- the water levels and everything are the same because they're what we call hydraulically connected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break before we go on with any questions. We'll resume questions of this gentleman when we get back from break. We'll be on break for one hour. Come back at one o'clock. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from lunch. We'll try to resume the meeting where we had left off. But Mr. Straw is -- oh. We're done with him. We're on to you. Okay. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. It's Scott Manahan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Scott, thank you. I think we're just getting into questions. And, Bill, you'd indicated you had a question, so why don't you proceed. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Scott, you indicated that you use 500 million gallons of water a month. MR. MANAHAN: That is the permitted maximum month allocation for the existing agricultural operation that's on the site now. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Not just the 1,382 acres. MR. MANAHAN: No, it's the entire -- entire operation. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I believe previously there had been testimony that the natural water flow, groundwater flow is from the northwest to the southeast. And that would indicate water flow would be going into the CREW lands; is that correct? MR. MANAHAN: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And then before lunch you stated that this operation should improve the water levels in the CREW land. Can you get a little deeper into that explanation of how that's going to happen? MR. MANAHAN: Okay. Basically it's mostly because of the flattening of the water -table gradient -- I've got a figure that kind of illustrates it. Yeah, this figure kind of shows the physical phenomenon that occurs. When there's land -- slightly sloping land surface like we have here in Southwest Florida, the water -table elevation generally follows the land - surface elevation. So you can see before the lake is dug, there's a slight slope to that water table. And then, of course, when you're in a lake, it's totally flat just because the water can flow easily. And so what you end up with is, as it shows in the figure, on the upstream side you get a slight drawdown effect, and on the downstream side you get a slight build -up effect of those water levels. And just because of the way the land is situated in the relative position of the project site to the wetland -- the wetland's on the downstream side, so that's where you get that -- you know, the slight build -up. And on the other side you would have a slight drawdown effect. And that's just due to the flattening of the hydraulic gradient. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Excuse me. I'm still trying to understand that, because if I look at the diagram and just -- the way I'm thinking about this, the amount of water, I'll say, displaced on the upstream side versus the increase on the downstream side are relatively the same, by your diagram anyway. And had that lake not been there, that same amount of water would have flowed into -- you know, into the CREW lands in my example. And I just -- I don't understand how the imposition of a lake in the middle of that flow increases the overall amount of water flowing into the southeast corner of the area. MR. MANAHAN: Well, just the flattening tends to increase the water levels in the wetland areas. So just the fact that they're higher would indicate that when the rainy season started, those lands would probably hydrate quicker, so -- and -- but I think it's important to point out that the flattening of the water -table gradient is just one effect. In this case, the major impact is the reduction in irrigation water use. So, you know, whenever you pump a Page 34 of 64 1612 January 5, 2012 well or, in this case, several wells, you always have some drawdown. And so, conversely, when you turn them off, you get a rebound effect. And that's the biggest influence on water levels in this case. So you'll have the flattening of the water -table gradient and all the rebound of water levels due to the reduction in pumpage. So the net result should be a rise in groundwater levels in the CREW areas. And what -- and that's just a qualitative discussion of it. But we did groundwater models to simulate that, and the model results show, you know, those levels. And there could be as much as a foot of rebound under those wetland areas, so -- at the end of the -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They're hypothetical results. MR. MANAHAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, there's no -- there's not a high degree of certainty to it. I mean, there's -- MR. MANAHAN: Well, they're based on our -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's probably going to have -- MR. MANAHAN: -- best knowledge. And we did do aquifer testing on the site. So we collect site - specific data. So we're pretty confident in the models, you know. It's -- they're widely used by the water - management districts, and the FDEP reviewed the model construction and results. So we're pretty confident that they're fairly accurate. Yeah, you know, it is just a model, so you can't be 100 percent certain that you're going to get, you know, 0.5 feet of water -level rise. But the general theory and trend is all consistent, and we do anticipate that -- primarily just because of the relative locations and the existing hydraulic gradient, we will see some water -level rise in those areas, groundwater -level rise at the end of the dry season. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks for your explanation. I'm not sure I understand it completely, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Well, let's start with the diagram you have here. MR. MANAHAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- to the south side of the lake -- to the left, I should say -- you're going to increase the water table but you're going to decrease it on the north side. The north side doesn't have any homes directly to the north, if I'm not mistaken. The homes are to the west. But the effect of the change in the water table on the north would have a slight depression in the water tables' levels. So if you have a well, how would that be affected if you were in the north? I don't think anybody is; I'm just curious. MR. MANAHAN: Well, yes, you would, if you were on the up- gradient side. And if we were only looking at the flattening effect, yes, you would have some drawdown impact. But, again, in this case, the reduction in irrigation pumpage has more of an influence. So we found that at the end of the dry season, even on the up- gradient side you had a slight -- very slight rebound of water levels. But, again, that was primarily due to the reduction in the irrigation pumpage. Now, if that weren't there, then, yeah, you would have a slight drawdown effect on the upstream side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you talk about these drawdowns like you do in here, the influence to the lake, what's the cone of influence around the -- how far out from the lake does it go? MR. MANAHAN: It's greatest right near the lake, and then it steadily declines. If you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Near the lake; can you define near? MR. MANAHAN: Within, you know, a few hundred feet of the lake, and then as -- the further out you get the less the impact is. So once you're, let's say, I don't know, a quarter of a mile or half mile from the lake, then you're only probably looking at a tenth of a foot of drawdown impact, so, you know, maybe an inch of water level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the cone of influence have any -- is it impacted by the flow? Meaning this is a north -to -south flow. If you have -- how far to the west of the lake would that -- say, the influence of the lake drawdown occur versus on the north side how -- I mean, the north side's Alico's land. So you draw down their land; I'm not sure that's too concerning for them. MR. MANA1 AN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on the west side where there are potentially some residential areas, I'm wondering what the -- what they can expect. MR. MANAHAN: We do have the actual model figures, but I've reviewed them recently, and I would say to Page 35 of 64 4� 1612AI January 5, 2012 the western boundary, again, it actually showed a slight increase. So the impact is not great. But probably within a quarter of a mile, you're less than a tenth of a foot of impact, I would say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would it show an increase when you're showing on this table a north -to -south flow would have a decrease in the north? MR. MANAHAN: Again, it's mostly due to that irrigation pumpage effects. Because our model takes into account the flattening, it takes into account irrig- -- it takes into account all the components of the water budget, or at least as well as we understand them. And so it includes both the change in pumpage and the flattening effect that we get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how much of a change in pumpage on a gallonage basis did you calculate? MR. MANAHAN: The reduction in irrigation pumpage is about 40 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: OV Of the 500,000? MR. MANAHAN: Five hundred million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five hundred million. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 40 percent of that, say, around 200 and what, 25,000, or somewhere in there -- 225 million gallons is what they're not going to be using on that consumptive -use permit? MR. MANAHAN: Right. There'll be a reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are they going to actually be submitting then for a reduction in their consumptive -use permit to reflect the savings of the 225 million gallons? MR. MANAHAN: Yes. When the mine goes into operation, the mine operation itself will have to apply for a water -use permit for the industrial uses, and that's just wheel washing or putting water on the ground to control dust, you know. There is some water use at the mine, although it's much less than irrigation of a bunch of, you know, citrus trees. So it's -- so they'll have to apply for a water -use permit for that portion of the project that becomes a mine, and that -- during that process, they'll request a lesser amount than is currently permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I'm going to be hanging conditions if that's the way this thing ends up going, on things you are saying. So you're saying 40 percent of 500 million gallons on an average month is what you're going to be reflecting in your reduction in your consumptive -use permit? MR. MANAHAN: Let me confirm the numbers. I'm just going from my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you're making a mistake and they need that for agriculture and then they can't meet that condition if that's one of the things imposed, then that could be a problem. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark? MR. MANAHAN: Well, right now the maximum month allocation for the entire Alico citrus grove there is 520 million gallons per month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much per year? MR. MANAHAN: I've got the number. I don't have it right in front of me. But it's not 12 times that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. That's why I asked, yeah. MR. MANAHAN: It's -- I think it was about 2,000 million gallons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two billion. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, two billion gallons a year, roughly. So -- and in our report we state that it's about a 40- percent reduction. So I think probably the best way to go about this would be to -- I can, you know, review the numbers and give you the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come back in March. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have a question. Now I'm confused. You said the 520 million gallons a day (sic) is for the entire grove? MR. MANAHAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VONIER: How many acres is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a month. MR. MANAHAN: It's about 3,000 acres, I believe. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. And so we're only talking about 740 acres of lake plus some other ancillary stuff that is -- will not be -- will be taken out of the grove. Page 36 of 64 16 12 At 2 January 5, 2012 MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VONIER: So we're talking about, we'll say, 800 acres out of how many? MR. MANAHAN: Roughly 3,000. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. That's a percentage, and we can use that percentage directly? MR. MANAHAN: No. There's going to be a lot -- excuse me. There's going to be the mine processing area. And I think the overall mine site was -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's what I said. Yeah, I -- MR. MANAHAN: -- 1,300 acres. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just under 1,400 acres, which is what you'd be taking out of agricultural production, so that's the amount of acreage that you'd reflect as a credit against the consumptive -use permit. MR. MANAHAN: Exactly, yeah. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. MR. MANAHAN: And there will be a perimeter, a bit of the grove -- I think part of the buffer will be maintained right around the perimeter of the mine so that will have to be irrigated, but -- so we will probably have to review those numbers and make sure we're accurate. But the number I recall is roughly a 40- percent reduction in the irrigation water use. But I guess we should refine and make sure those numbers are accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you should. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Do you monitor the water coming out? Do you have a reading like we have a water meter on each home? Do you have a meter? MR. MANAHAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the groves? MR. MANAHAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you know exactly what comes out; all your wells and everything they're completely metered? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. All the wells have flow meters, and reporting is required by the Water Management District. So those numbers are reported, I think, quarterly to the Water Management District, and they reflect the pumpage that has occurred in the last previous three months. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you can account for everything that you use? MR. MANA14AN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MANAHAN: Yes, that's correct. Yeah, because in some years they may not pump as much, you know, in a rainy year. In a dry year they'll probably pump up to their max. But many years they do pump less. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, did you want to throw something in? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes, I would like to, chairman. For the record, Don Schrotenboer. Just as a reminder -- I know we're talking about this reduction of agricultural use. Whether it's 30 percent, 40 percent, I'm not sure, and Mark's -- or sorry -- Scott's going to confirm those numbers. But it's not a one -time adjustment. This is a 30- to 35 -year mine. And the intentions is that the mining, as we've always indicated, would start at the north and move to the south over those 30 to 35 years. So the reduction in irrigation will be over that period of time. So to -- all I'm suggesting is to set a condition that indicates that there will be reduction of X over -- you know, it has to be over so many years. It's not a one -time reduction the day that this thing is approved. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you. Back to this map. You're going to have a loss in the water table in the north and throughout the -- wherever the cone of influence is as this lake is dug and finished, but you're going to have an increase to the south. Most of the residences that are occupied are to the south. So what can they expect in additional concerns not just with the elevations of their wells, which would probably be a positive, but standing water or ponding water within their properties? Page 37 of 64 1612p1 + January 5, 2012 MR. MANAHAN: Well, the actual flow direction is generally from northwest to southeast, basically following the topography. And there's actually very few residences in the southeast. That's where the CREW lands are. I know just to the south of the lake there were a few residences. So they might expect some -- some increase in groundwater levels, but, again, these increases we're talking about when we do our modeling scenarios are what we call end of dry season, because that's typically when the greatest concern is over the water levels. So they'll see an increase in dry- season water levels which shouldn't be a problem. But it -- you know, if they're already in a floodplain -- I don't know if they experience any flooding problems now. If anything, yeah, there may be a slight increase in water levels in that southern area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you said there were a few residences, that -- actually, I -- since I've driven that neighborhood, there seemed to be quite a few residences. And of all the concentration of residences, that seems to be the most concentration that are adjacent to the mine. It turns out that the residences that are supposedly on the west don't really exist to the extent that the maps indicated they did, but they do on the south. MR. MANAHAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think -- I'm -- that was the point of my question. I wanted to make sure that if there's any increase in water table down there that it's not negatively affecting those people to the south. Likewise, the perimeter berm and canal that wrap -- typically wrap agricultural fields, just like this one has now, what is the timetable for removing that, or is this expected to be removed by the end of the mine's excavation? MR. MANAHAN: The berm around the mine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You have a pit, or you have a canal. There's a perimeter canal around the whole mine. Is that going to be filled in? Is that going to stay? MR. MANAHAN: I'd probably refer that one to John, John English. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason -- that does affect your water flow, and it's -- I mean, it looked like there was probably 8 to 10 feet below grade. I'm not sure how deep it was for sure. But when I saw the site, I noticed around the entire --just typical, that's like all the farmers have around -- all the farms have in the county. They have perimeter berms and dikes and canals where they collect the water. But that does have an impact on how water flow's going to be, I would assume. MR. MANAHAN: Yes, yeah. In fact -- well, yeah. They have pumps and the drainage system. So, for instance, in the summer when it rains a lot, they don't want the orange trees to be flooded, so they'll pump out of those ditches and into the water- retention areas that they call them. Again, this is kind of outside of my area, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're a hydrologist. That's the only reason I brought it up to you. MR. MANAHAN: Well, we mostly stick with the groundwater. But the -- but, yeah, they do pump out of that just to lower the water level in the summer, and that water is directed to the water resource areas or basically these wetland areas, and then ultimately that -- when those overflow, they go out to the CREW -- CREW lands. So that's all part of the water - management system for the grove, and that will change as we excavate the lakes. But, ultimately, at the end when they reclaim the mines, all those ditches and pumps systems will go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I want to confirm. Are the ditches going to go away? Do you know that for a fact? MR. MANAHAN: Yes. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take into consideration in your analysis the impact of those ditches after they were gone? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, yeah. Our -- basically, our modeling scenarios include the way the system is now and then the way it would be in the future, with the future being the ultimate future at -- when all the lakes are dug and they're done and out of there. So our scenario is kind of before and after, and then that's how we calculate the impacts. We look at the water levels before and then after, and then we subtract, and that's how we determine if we get a rise or a decline in water levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as dewatering goes, they're not going to dig it in the dry. They're digging it in the wet. They're using a dragline, so they're not going to really substantially dewater except for the top surface when they first go in where the overburden is, is what I believe they said. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, that's correct. It's just -- the upper 10 to 20 feet of sediment is sand or shell, and it's Page 38 of 64 :4 16 12 A January 5, 2012 just more efficient to dig that in the dry, so they will dewater that. And, again, they typically dewater in cells, you know, not, like, the whole 200 -acre lake or whatever but, like, 10 -acre cells, and that's the typical procedure there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they dewater and they pump into the cells, they do that so that the water can evaporate and percolate down back into the ground system; is that right? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. When you get your permit for dewatering, typically the requirement is that you maintain the water on your own property. So in a normal situation, they would be dewatering, let's say, a 10 -acre area, and that water they would pump over to another area that's, let's say, maybe the next area to be mined, and just build up a berm and kind of have their own little mini lake there. They call it a retention pond. And, also, if there are any wetland areas or homes or anything in the proximity, typically the Water Management District will make you construct what's called a recharge trench. So that's just a trench that you also fill with water that's between your dewatering operation and, let's say, a wetland area. And by pumping water into that trench and maintaining it at typically two feet above land surface, you kind of recharge the aquifer near the wetland or near the area of concern, and that way you limit drawdown in those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the quantity of gallonage that you'd be using as a maximum at any time during the dewatering process? MR. MANAHAN: Well, there's different levels of the dewatering permits that you get. The individual permit, the general permit. For a mining operation like this, I would estimate the max rate, they would probably be 10 million gallons per day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that wouldn't exceed -- 10 million? That's 300 million gallons per month. MR. MANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your current consumptive -use permit is up to 500 million gallons per month? MR. MANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at no time will you be exceeding even what you're currently permitted to use for the agricultural process and your dewatering process? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, although it's a different type of water use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it still results in the same recycling of the water. In agricultural they pump the water out onto the crops. The crops then -- and it percolates back into the ground or transpires through the leaves. In the dewatering process, it goes into a holding bed where it percolates back into the ground or evaporates into the atmosphere; is that a fair statement? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, although it should be noted there is a big difference. The dewatering is more of a moving water around, where the agricultural use is more of what they call a consumptive use of water. When you apply that water to the orange tree, it actually uses that water and, you know, it transpires the water out through its leaves. The fruit has water in it. So that water really is lost when you use it for irrigation of crops, where when you're dewatering, you're essentially just moving a pile of water from here to over here, and then you're going to let it flow back. You know, it's not really so much a consumptive use as just a -- kind of a management of the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The net result is that basically both systems put the bulk of the water back into the ground? MR. MANAHAN: Well, the consumptive use actually uses the water. It doesn't go back into the ground so much. The method they use for the citrus -tree irrigation is called a micro drip, so they have a little hose and a little emitter running to each tree, so it's actually a very efficient method. So that only apply enough water to that tree that it actually uses that water. So not much of that goes back into the ground, where in the dewatering operation, essentially all of it or most of it goes back into the ground. There may be some evaporation, but most of it is just kind of recycled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point I was trying to understand is the first gentleman up today made a rather strong statement that the dewatering was going to negatively impact the water table, and I'm trying to understand the science behind that statement, because he was a layperson. He didn't offer any testimony regarding that from a hydrologist's viewpoint. So I'm just wondering, from your viewpoint, is his statement accurate? Is the watering that's going to be occurring on this site going to have any more negative effect on the water table, if any, compared to the consumptive -use permit uses that are now authorized on the site? MR. MANAHAN: No. The dewatering should have very -- very little impact, again, because it's limited in Page 39 of 64 Y 1612AI January 5, 2012 duration and size. Typically it's a 10 -acre cell. It might only take a few weeks, for example, to excavate and dewater that cell, so it's a very limited duration at a limited area, and most of that water goes back into the water table. So I would say, no, that's not a correct statement. It doesn't significantly impact water levels on a long -term basis or even on a short -term basis significantly outside of that immediate area where you're dewatering. And, again, there's a whole permitting process through the South Florida Water Management District. And the dewatering procedures that you propose and the monitoring that you propose all have to be reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District before you get a permit to dewater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The slide before this one that showed the Green Meadows Wellfield, can you pop that back up. That was quick. I think there are four wells on there, if I -- yeah, there's the four wells. Three of them are around close to what, apparently, appear to be mines. The fact that they mined around three -- those wells doesn't really give us any valuable infonnation. It simply says that somehow they got permission to mine around the wells. I'd be more interested to know if there was any -- what the change to the wells has been as a result of the mining activities. I mean, since wells and everything else are supposed to be monitored, have we seen any water - quality changes, water - elevation changes, or any kind of aspects to the wells that could be attributed to the mining around them; do you know? MR. MANA14AN: Actually, we've been doing a study near that central well there between the two main lakes, and to date we haven't noticed any adverse impacts. The study we're doing is primarily to determine if the well is what they call UDI, under the direct influence of surface water. And the concern there is that, you know, maybe you're losing some filtration or something by the fact that these lakes are there instead of aquifer. But there is a 500 -foot setback. And what we've been doing is measuring -- or doing these analyses they call MPA, microscopic particulate analysis studies, where we pump some monitor wells, and we just make sure that there's no algae or cryptosporidium or the surface -water organisms or pathogens reaching the well, and to date we haven't had any bad results. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a baseline before the mines were dug on those wells? MR. MANAHAN: No. I -- I don't think so. We've -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you -- MR. MANA14AN: -- been doing this study since -- you know, these lakes have been there for some time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you don't know if the lakes' presence have changed the quality or anything else involving the original wells' installation? MR. MANA14AN: No, but we do know that the water quality from the wells is good and, you know, it's -- they've been pumping for, I think, 20 years or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you probably know it's acceptable. It doesn't broach any standards. But I'm wondering how much better it may have been or how much worse it may have been depending on their proximity from the base to those wells -- to those open pits being around them. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. No, we don't have any information from before the lakes were -- that I know of I mean, there may have been some earlier studies done. But, no, we don't have any background before that lake was constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who is -- who are you hired by to do that well analysis? MR. MANAHAN: Another mining company. I don't know if I'm at liberty to really discuss all that. But, anyway, it's another mining -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not hired by Lee County, is what I'm asking. MR. MANAHAN: No, no, although they are aware that the study is ongoing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Has Lee County, do you know, any baseline information on those wells from the time it was -- from the time they were originally constructed up until the date, or thereafter, of -- well, of the pits? MR. MANAHAN: I would imagine, you know, there's certain -- since they are public- supply wells, there are certain water - quality testing qualities that the FDEP has for public- supply wells. So there probably is some long -teen record of the water quality from those wells from when they were initially constructed and, over the years, as they've been operated. I'm not sure exactly how old those wells are, but I imagine 20 years or more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that information would be public record. Why would not you have -- why wouldn't you have tried to acquire that in order to complete your -- do a more thorough study? MR. MANAHAN: Well, we were just concerned with what the water quality is now. And it was kind of a voluntary study that the mining operation did, just because they cooperate with Lee County, and that's what they were Page 40 of 64 161 e A 1 January 5, 2012 asked to do. You know, perhaps Lee County is reviewing that -- whatever information they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they'd be remiss not to know what the baseline was to start from to know if they're even having a problem to begin with. Just to check it now to make sure it's not contaminated or has any negative problems doesn't tell you how much it's gotten closer to a threshold it shouldn't be close to from the very beginning when it started. That information would certainly have been valuable to know in regards to the well concerns that we've heard here today, but -- MR. MANAHAN: Well, there is no problem that we know -- you know, there have been no reported problems. This was more of a preemptive thing to just, you know, look into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you've got something that's progressively getting worse and getting closer and closer to a threshold but you don't know it is because you haven't checked the baseline, I think your study isn't giving your applicant -- or your -- whoever you're working for all the possibilities they need to look at. But that's a whole 'nother issue. That's all I've got on hydrology. Does anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Bill and then Brad. COMMISSIONER VONIER: One question. You referred to wells being drawn down or built up a small amount. Are we talking about wells that are deep in the sandstone aquifer or shallower wells? MR. MANAHAN: Shallow wells. The sandstone aquifer shouldn't -- shouldn't really have any effect due to the mining operation. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And do we know the character of the wells in these adjacent homes? MR. NIANA14AN: Like, their depths, for instance? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. MR. MANAHAN: What we have is the information from the Lee County and Collier County well records. You know, they're -- they have a well permitting department, so that information on their depths and case depths is submitted when the wells are drilled, so that's the database we have to work with. So, yeah, we do have some information on there. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Do we have it? Have we -- do we know? I mean, can you tell me what they are? Are they deep or shallow? MR. MANA1 AN: Yeah. I think I have a figure that might show that. Most of the wells actually happen to tap the sandstone aquifer, so they would be below the water table. This figure -- I don't know if you can -- I'm not sure if you can read the numbers, but this figure just shows some of the permitted wells in the area. Most of them are off to the west of the mine site. And some are shallow. You know, there's some that are only, like, 35 feet deep, but many of the others are deeper, like, 125, 160. So they tap both aquifers, the water table and the sandstone. COMMISSIONER VONIER: But it doesn't look like you have the Collier County figures. MR. MANAHAN: The only ones that showed up in the database were well to the south there. Those were, like, 110 to 138 feet. And it may be that the Collier County database was not up to date. I don't know about the -- if it was -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, 1, for one, would be interested in the Collier County residents. MR. MANAHAN: Okay. We --this was the information we could find at the time just by researching the county databases. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Bill kind of asked the same question, but just to sum it up, how would a well fail? I mean, the people that are concerned about failure, what would happen that would cause that failure? You would draw the water down to what? MR. MANAHAN: Well, many of these domestic wells or home wells, for instance, like out in the Golden Gate Estates or these areas, you know, have -- the homes have their own individual wells, and there's two general types of pumps that you can use, either a submersible pump down in the well or a centrifugal pump. A lot of these homes, particularly, like, in the Golden Gate Estates area, had centrifugal pumps. And if the water level drops below about 20 feet, that inhibits or makes it impossible for a centrifugal pump to work and to draw that water up. Now, a submersible pump, it's less of a problem because you can set that pump down deeper. So that would be -- if water levels dropped quite a bit, that would be an impact that would impact, you know, Page 41 of 64 161 2. A 1 January 5, 2012 a homeowner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So these, like -- some of these wells are 35, 20; somewhere you've assumed the water level in those today are probably at, what, below grade? MR. MANAHAN: Probably -- in the summer, maybe one or two feet below the land surface, and in the winter, dry season, probably only five feet below land surface, something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you would have to call approximately a 10- foot -plus problem before they start becoming in jeopardy? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah, yeah. It would take quite a drop. And, again, the -- our analysis indicates that actually quite the opposite would happen. If anything, we might have a slight rise in water level, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VONIER: These shallow wells would be likely not potable water? MR. MANAHAN: It's possible they're irrigation wells. They could be domestic wells, but it's very likely they're irrigation wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on treatment, though, they could be anything. You don't know that they're irrigation. It could be potable or irrigation. MR. MANAHAN: Well, on this figure, if you noticed I have, like, an orange dot and then, like, a blue or green dot. The orange dots are Southwest Florida Water Management District permitted wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MANAHAN: So that's not like a home well. That's, like, a nursery or something, because individual homes don't need a Water Management District permit. So the orange ones would be more likely a nursery or somebody who has to apply for a permit from the Water Management District, where the green ones -- were Lee County permitted domestic or irrigation wells. So, again, the red ones were probably more like either associated with a farming operation, a nursery, or some other commercial interest, and the darker circles are more likely domestic wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question. I know there's wells on this grove. I don't see any. MR. MANAHAN: On which road? COMMISSIONER EBERT: On this grove. MR. MANAHAN: Oh. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You have no well sites on here at all. MR. MANAHAN: Yes, yes. Well, we didn't include our permitted wells. It was just the wells there were some concern that we might impact, I guess. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're bringing this back in March, correct? MR. MANAHAN: I --yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you put the Collier County wells on and the ones that are at this Lost Grove Mine? I mean, because it shows -- I mean, the only ones it really shows, the ones to the west. Shows nothing south or anywhere else, and that's not a true picture. MR. MANAHAN: Okay, yes. Yeah, we could update that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only ones you can update it with, though, are the ones that you can find on record, right? MR. MANAHAN: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because some of the wells may have been there much earlier than when records were kept. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. And sometimes they -- for a while they'll stop funding for whatever reason, and there are gaps, occasionally, in the data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything else about hydrology? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. MANAHAN: No, thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Strain, our next witness is a rebuttal witness. He's going to talk about the needs analysis that was brought up by Lee County and also another speaker today. Although he is a new witness, it is not Page 42 of 64 161 2 A I January 5, 2012 new evidence. It is to point out the deficiency in evidence that was presented by others. And I'll let him introduce himself Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DEPEW: Good afternoon. My name is David Depew. I am president of Morris Depew Associates. I brought a resume, which I'm going to give to the court reporter for the record. I am a land planner. Just as a little bit of background, I have a variety of degrees from the University of Florida, McMaster University, graduate work at John Hopkins, Kennedy Western. I hold a doctorate in public administration. I've been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983. I am the former director of community development for Lee County, and currently I serve as president of Morris Depew Associates. Just to build on Mr. Manahan's comments here, I want to talk a little bit about Lee County's Density Reduction Groundwater Resources area. And kind of to segue into the conversation that we were just having, I want to show you a bit of an exhibit here. And I've got to turn this the other way, don't I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, now you're 180. There you go, okay. That's okay. Almost everybody that uses that machine has the same problem. MR. DEPEW: On this particular exhibit, those are the Lee County potable water - supply wells. The wells that -- wells that Mr. Manahan was talking about previously are located right in this area here. You'll notice there's a number of other mines -- you can hardly see them on this, but they're down in this area here, and this is where the Corkscrew water - supply plant is. I'm going to provide you with another close -up of a couple of those. And you can see -- Ray, if we can go out just a touch. You can see the wells that we were talking about momentarily. Mr. Manahan was talking about these wells up here. There's also a series of wells down to the south. This is the Corkscrew potable -water plant, Lee County's plant down here, and you see these are the wells along here, just south of the University Lakes' excavation. This other smaller one over here, Bella Terra, is to the west and Corkscrew Woods and the old RMC mine, which is now closed, is located here. And Lee County Utilities negotiated a series of well easements along the westerly boundary of that particular mine as well. So the point really being here that Lee County Utilities has consistently negotiated a series of well locations for potable water - supply wells adjacent to these mine lakes on a regular basis and routinely install those wells at those lake sites. Many of these wells have been installed. In fact, as far as I recall, all of these wells have been installed after the mine lakes were in place, and the mine lakes themselves are being used, as Mr. Manahan quoted from the utility- supply study that was done by Lee County, as reservoirs for those potable -water wells. They serve as what, in essence, is are quick resupply or recharge facilities for those wells themselves. If I can move over to the computer; I need to get a PowerPoint presentation here. I think we're going to get -- well, I have it here. MR. BELLOWS: We have a blank screen. COMMISSIONER VONIER: We've got it here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We have it on ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to have that up somehow, Ray. Do you know -- well, while we're getting that issue resolved, before you start your presentation, can you go back to the first slide you had on that overhead projector. The yellow line represents the DRGR boundary? MR. DEPEW: It does, and the red is the Lost Grove Mine, and the green dots are the potable water - supply wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think what you -- MR. DEPEW: That's not even up now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not up on there. Well, let me ask my question. Since this was up, hopefully everybody can remember what it --just picture it in your minds. MR. DEPEW: Oh, there we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of them is. Is the other one behind you up? Oh, there it goes. Good. MR. DEPEW: They're older. It takes a little while to warm up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you said that the mines were first and the wells were second? Page 43 of 64 January 5, 2012 MR. DEPEW: On many of these. The three close -ups that I have -- the ones that I'm not completely sure about, because they're older, are the ones to the north that Mr. Manahan was talking about. I'm pretty sure, however, that those two came after the excavations, because those excavation lakes, at least the northerly excavation lake, is a very old lake. It was done back in the late'70s or early'80s. So that lake is, I believe, a very old lake. But certainly the ones down at University Lakes and at Corkscrew Woods, which are the other two to the south areas, are post excavation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you put that back on, Ray, the one we were talking about? MR. DEPEW: Just when we got it back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But since we started on this question, I'd like to resolve it. Where are the -- the bulk of the mines in Lee County, do they occur in this same area? MR. DEPEW: Yes, sir. It's tough -- if we can -- can we zoom in on this a little bit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't --just if you know that answer. You don't need to -- MR. DEPEW: I do, and I can show you exactly where they are. They're -- you can see them in this area in here, all of these kind of odd green color, those are the -- those are the lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me understand this then. The property owners came in and got permits to put these mines in in this area. The city or the county saw an opportunity to have wells in the area as well to supply the municipal water, and they came in. And now they came back in with a master plan that established the DRGR, which is supposed to restrict mining or possibly some other uses within the very area where they went to put wells because the mines were there. Is that what happened? MR. DEPEW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how -- doesn't make sense. Why would you put your most sensitive area around the area that's already dug and excavate it where you've chosen to put your wells? MR. DEPEW: That's where the water is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then if the wells haven't been -- if the wells haven't been monitored and there's no proven negative actions on those wells and they've chosen to put the wells there because that's where the mines were, I don't understand what we're -- what the issue in the DRGR is. And I certainly am not claiming to understand Lee County. But I'm trying to get that issue understood, because it's foreign to this body. We have not -- we don't have a DRGR down here. I'm just wondering what prompted everybody to put that boundary in the DRGR and then try to defend it as an area where no mines should be when -- MR. DEPEW: You have to understand the history of the DRGR. The initial history of the DRGR was not as a water - resource area. It was as a density- reduction area. At the adoption hearing, they changed it from the density- reduction -- or from the groundwater resource area to Density Reduction Groundwater Resource, but the whole agreement between Lee County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs was about reducing urban densities and creating an urban rural boundary. That's what this was about. And what they did was they decided to encompass the area where they were taking their potable water from as part of this overall agreement between the department and the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Okay. It's just a -- it's interesting. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. DEPEW: Happy to provide whatever I can in terms of history, but it's a long, varied history. There's lot of ins and outs. And, trust me, it's not something that we could do in even a three- or four -hour presentation, not that you'd want to hear three or four hours of planning presentation right after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the point was, the gentleman earlier today made a pretty strong statement about the DRGR, and I'm trying to understand and weight that accordingly, and that's what -- the information you had before. But Brad and then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point, too, is that since the ground is circular -- in other words, those wells are either there or they knew they were going to be there when they dug the quarry. MR. DEPEW: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just because of the shape of the round -- MR. DEPEW: Well, I mean, this map also shows you -- let me go back. One of the major features here -- this dark area here is part of this -- a major slough area. In terms of surface and subsurface water, this is one of the Page 44 of 64 r 16 12 All : January 5, 2 12 major areas in Lee County that's bringing water from the Lehigh Acres area down through the Corkscrew area and ultimately down into the Imperial Basin. I mean, if we throw a basin map up there, you can see this is one of the primary areas that brings water through here. And you see you've got these potable -water wells that are intercepting these -- this flow, this northeast to southwest flow up at the top as well as down here in the bottom. I mean, that's where the water is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Where is Lehigh Acres on this map? MR. DEPEW: Up in this area in here. That's Lehigh. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can snap back to your slides if they're working now. Thank you. MR. DEPEW: We'll try. Ah, there we go. I wanted to talk a little bit about the Dover, Kohl study because it was mentioned both by Lee County and by some of the folks here today -- I think Mr. Urich actually offered you a copy of the study itself. It is available online. I will tell you, over the years I've been involved in a number of these sessions, and I've undertaken a rather detailed review of the demand analysis that was part of this Dover, Kohl study. It was one of the appendices; Appendix B, by the way. And I will tell you that my expert analysis has led me to the conclusion that it lacked the proper methodological foundations that one would normally undertake a demand study for. It failed to consider readily available geologic, hydrologic, and surface -water management data that was available from private and public sources, including the United States Geologic Survey, as well as the Florida Geologic Survey. And as a result, it reached unsupportable positions that I believe were based on very questionable assumptions. Primary data sources for this needs study that was done that is continually cited as an example as to why there is no more need for additional aggregate mines was either a series of zoning approvals and zoning applications that had been done over the course of 20 years and some questionable monitoring reports that had been done, none of which were reviewed properly by geologists and engineers involved in the analysis or a draft geological study that was never sent out for peer review. As a result, I believe that the study itself and the conclusions reached are seriously flawed. The data quality itself is a problem. A graphic on this shows a little bit how these sorts of problems occur. What happens in this particular graphic -- we have two core samples, the black and white on each side. And each of the different hatch patterns in the core sample represent a different kind of material. And what we've done -- there's a thousand feet between this representative core sample -- is connect up in the colored lines and bands between what the actual strata would look like in this thousand -foot core sample. And what you find when you do this is that there are a series of voids that are in these strata, which are these little periods here. You have sand, you have a high - quality rock mixed with low- quality rock mixed with more sand, more rock, more low - quality rock, more sand, depending on where you are in the core sample. And these hatch patterns tell you what these different elements are as you go through the process. The analysis failed to look at those kinds of contextual and very specific elements that are associated with the geological make -up of any one of these given mine sites. It took into account very broad kinds of trends and conditions rather than the specific elements. It also didn't take into account the losses that occurred during blasting. For example, blasting itself will reduce the output of the mine by a certain percentage, because the material itself compresses as part of the blast, because the voids are removed as part of the blasting process. Additionally, during excavation and processing, there is loss of material as fines are brought out in the crushing process and ultimately washed out of the aggregate material. There was another assumption in the study that was done that 80 percent of the region's supply came from within the region and 20 percent of the supply came from outside the region. There was no basis for this assumption. And we believe that it was off by at least a factor of ten and that something only like about 2 percent comes from outside the region rather than 20 percent comes from outside of the region. They ignored developments in which rock is actually produced as part of the development and then used within the development. It was a study that only dealt with mining and the production of mines rather than the actual demand of aggregate that occurs as part of a developed -- a developed system. The average rock thickness was unsupported by specific geologic data. They failed to consider the practical elements that are associated with the market. The various segments of the market -- mining is a -- doesn't just produce Page 45 of 64 4 _ A 1 161 t January 5, 2012 one product. It produces a series of products. It produces FDOT -spec aggregate. It produces non -FDOT -spec aggregate. It produces certain kinds of sands. And there are a variety of different kinds of sands that range from sands that are particularly good for use in septic fields versus sand that's not good for that and is only good for embankment -type fill. So the timing of the market is also critical. If an operation has a certain amount of sand available, it's stockpiled. But the demand is for rock, and they have no place to put the -- or stockpile the rock; they'll push the sand back into the pit, and ultimately that material is lost. So as a result, those kinds of losses are not calculated into what demand study Lee County did. And all of this suggests a lack of the fundamental understanding of the operational constraints that were part of the study. Mr. Noble, in his slides, showed you the acreages now approved by Lee County for mining. The yellow is the additional Florida Rock Mine No. 2, which is coming up before the Lee County Commission in February for a reapproval of its Operating Master Concept Plan, and he suggested that no more mining operations will be required through the year 2030. However, the study upon which that was based was undertaken prior to the adoption of Lee County's new mining regulations. As a result, it did not consider the new and more restrictive elements that are associated with Lee County's mining regulations, and underestimated, we believe, the kinds of areas that are going to be needed, both gross and net, to result in the proper excavation quantities. The study itself used short tons, not metric tons, which is the normal USGS standard. There were a series of projection and estimate errors that from a statistical standpoint, were inexplicable and unrepeatable. Incremental projections in five -year increments were used rather than continuous projections, as an example. That alone reduced the overall estimate of demand by approximately 10 percent. As I said, the USGS and the Florida Geologic Survey data was ignored. We believe they failed to estimate the necessary area as a result of the amendment to the Lee County regulations. The study itself used a split for its population projections, basing 75 percent on growth in population based on the University of Florida population projections, but then it inexplicably used 25 percent of its projection to base on building - permit data that was achieved from other sources, sources that were not generally approved as data sources by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other agencies. And it was unsupported, I believe, by any serious empirical connection, and the connections between these projections and the population figures that ultimately were brought out as part of the study were not connected by any kind of reliability test. There was, as I said, an 80/20 split between supply, suggesting that 20 percent of the supply came from outside the county. There was absolutely no foundation for that particular assumption. They also used bathymetric data that was questionable, in the least, and in some respects may have been simply in error. They ignored planned policies and confused urban and rural uses. A lot of folks have talked today about the fact that mining is an urban use. And, point of fact, it is not an urban use. It is a rural use. It's a use that you don't put into an urban area, as is clear by the conflict of residences and mines. And, in fact, the Florida Administrative Code, up until last year, defined it specifically as a rural use. They lacked any correlation analysis as part of the study to determine whether or not the conclusions had any level of plausibility, and at a number of points in the study itself they talk about the methodology that they used as "inferred" rather than specifically detailing the methodology that was used for the projection and, ultimately, the needs analysis. I would suggest to you that that does not reflect any of the currency -- current regulatory requirements, and there was a complete ignoring of any reviews by any other agencies whatsoever. As a result, the underestimate that was done -- and we did a comparison between using both the U.S. Geologic Survey estimates, which is the green line, and the Florida Geologic Survey estimates as compared to the BEBR per capita figures for Lee County. And just for Lee County alone, the underestimate between the red line, which was the demand analysis undertaken by Lee County's consultant and the analysis that's associated with either USGS or the Florida Geologic surveys is the area between the two curves. In other words, if you use USGS, the underestimate is the area between the green and the red. If you use the Florida per capita attachment to the BEBR, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, it's the area under the purple curve by the time you get out to 2030. What this means, ultimately, for the region is there's going to be a serious production gap. What was not considered as part of the study was the fact that some of these mines are going to play out. We've gotten estimates Page 46 of 64 6 ' qO--uary 5, 2012 from most of the mines in the area and used those estimates to come up with, basically, production -- a production gap that is going to take place as each of these mines are played out. What happens by 2028 is there's going to be a single producer left, Florida Rock, that yellow set of areas in the prior slide. That's going to be what's left by 2028. Everyone else is going to be mined out. Those producers are going to be gone. We included Collier County mines as part of this analysis as well. And another -- another flaw that was not really considered was simply the flaw about production limits. Most of these mines have four - and -a -half to five million tons per year production capacity. And so the normal response is, well, that's fine. We'll just increase the production capacity. Well, there's no -- there's absolutely no reason to increase production capacity when you can simply increase the price. So, ultimately, we believe that as supply becomes more constrained, the price for the material is going to increase significantly. One other element that was asked about involves where the mine is located vis -a -vis residential areas. This is another one of the Lee County slides. And you'll see here in yellow the Lost Grove Mine site. In red are the areas that Lee County has characterized as residential areas. I didn't argue or quibble with any of those. I simply wanted to add where some of the other mines are in relation to this and add some of the residential areas that weren't included. In the light -blue area you see over in here these are played -out mines. There are currently development orders for residences around these two lakes, actually these -- all three of these lakes here. This one up here has also got some initial entitlements on it as well for development. Florida Gulf Coast University is right under here. This is the Corkscrew Woods project, which has currently got a platted subdivision on it and is now in for a comp plan amendment and a rezoning request to move the residential area up into the north and produce a more preserve area down on the south end. These are the University Lakes areas over in here. North of University Lakes -- and this is West Lakes. It's a complex that is normally referred to as the Youngquist mines -- we have the Mallard Lane residential area, and then we have the Devore Lane residential area. These are the Florida Rock mines. This is the CEMEX mine up in here. As recently as 2010 the Florida Rock mine achieved an additional approval over in this area here for excavation. The black outline is the Florida Rock Mine No. 2 that was the yellow on the prior slide that I showed you that is coming up before the Lee County Commission for a reaffirmation of its master concept plan in February. The white over here is a fill pit mine that has been in and out of operation for a number of years. This is State Road 82. It comes through on an angle. This is Lehigh Acres in the red up in here. Finally, the Westwind mine is down here. I believe that is not in operation at the moment, but it has permits or entitlements to do mining, I believe, to 50 feet in depth. This is Corkscrew Road as it comes through here and then curves along, ultimately coming out here to meet State Road 82. So I wanted to add that, because it's got a -- it's kind of an interesting additional perspective which I felt you didn't get during the initial presentation here about the DRGR, because it shows you where the mines are, where the mining activity is, and what mines are existing or have been entitled in the past, and then what's actually happening for those mines as they have -- as they have closed down. As I said, the blue ones in the blue outline are the ones that have closed down and are now in the process of reclamation as residential -- residential developments. Conclusion: I would tell you that the demand study, I believe, fails to use the potential data that was available and was the most proper data to be used. It failed to adequately provide both the quantity and the quality of aggregate material that's going to be necessary over the next two decades based on USGS and Florida Geologic Survey data. It leaves a single producer in control of the resource with no guaranteed ability to meet the local demand by the end of this particular planning horizon and will be guaranteed to produce higher supplies of -- prices for this material as supply is constricted. I believe that Lee County's presentation to you here was unsupported by proper empirical data. It lacks substantial competent evidence for any kind of finding with regard to needs and -- as it's associated with the DRGR and really provided no relevant prospective upon the current request. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of the applicant? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Kind of a comment more than a question. It's hard to evaluate your claims because we haven't seen the study that you're talking about. Page 47 of 64 January 5, 2012 MR. DEPEW: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And no one is really going to be able to rebut you. So that's my comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. You said that one of your -- one of your slides you said that you incorporated the Collier County mines as well, and I think that was the total volume for demand available. MR. DEPEW: Yes, sir. We took a look at regional mines. And it wasn't just Collier. We looked at Charlotte and Hendry and Glades as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number did you use for Collier for volume? MR. DEPEW: I'd have to go back and look at the data. I don't know right offhand, but it was fairly substantial. It was, I want to say, five to seven million per year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because Collier County has over a hundred million unexcavated but approved. MR. DEPEW: I was just talking about aggregate in that calculation, not sand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also you seem to have gone to quite an extensive amount of information to unjustify the demand analysis that others have referred to. What drove you to that as a condition here in Collier County? MR. DEPEW: Well, I was going to actually give you a little bit of background on some of the litigation. Usually -- usually I'm in court testifying about this stuff. We've been involved in mining cases and court cases, ultimately, against Lee County. And I think that Lee County staff gave you a little bit of that. Resource Conservation Holdings versus Lee County went to trial in August. We're still awaiting the Circuit Court decision on that. They were one of my clients. And so as part of that I did undertake an analysis of the studies that the county had been (sic) done. The Troyer mine in Lee County is another one of my clients. That went to hearing in front of the County Commission in November, I guess it was, November 21 st, I believe. That court case was filed December 21 st as a challenge to the denial by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners. And, finally, on the comprehensive plan adoption of Map 14 in the Lee County Comprehensive Plan that was based on this demand analysis, that trial was in October, I believe it was, and we're still waiting for the administrative law judge decision on that one, which we would anticipate in the next 30 to 60 days. So this is something that Alico realized that I'd been involved in and tapped into that and asked me to come talk about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But since this is Collier County -- MR. DEPEW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where this Collier County's -- what policies or codes within our county make you believe we have an issue with the demand as part of the criteria for this conditional use? MR. DEPEW: None whatsoever. This is solely to address the issue that had been brought up by Lee County speakers as well as a number of other speakers that came up here and to suggest to you that, first off, the demand is not an issue that is relevant to this particular question and, secondly, to tell you that this is not a guaranteed fact as was presented to you that you have enough aggregate for the year 2030. It's simply not -- that's simply not the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This board has to make its decisions based on Collier County codes. MR. DEPEW: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're bringing an issue up that I thought was not relevant to Collier County's codes. I understand it's an issue. But it's a Lee County issue and, unfortunately, it's not one that is within the criteria for Collier County, at least that I can recall, unless somebody else can provide that. Staff sure didn't. We'll have to look at that in regards to their position. And I've been trying to keep this board separate from Lee County, because the concern up front was we don't -- this isn't Lee County. This is Collier. We have to approve or disprove things based on our codes and our laws. And I just wanted to make it clear that this whole issue on demand I don't recall being an issue in our conditional -use process. So while it's relevant, it's nice information to have, I appreciate you supplying it, I'm not sure it really relates to this board's zoning issues. So with that, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Something that you said concerns me a little bit, and I guess this is a question to our legal department that when the Troyer mine was recently denied by the Lee County Commission, that there's a Page 48 of 64 .4 January 5, 2012 MR. DEPEW: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And no one is really going to be able to rebut you. So that's my comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. You said that one of your -- one of your slides you said that you incorporated the Collier County mines as well, and I think that was the total volume for demand available. MR. DEPEW: Yes, sir. We took a look at regional mines. And it wasn't just Collier. We looked at Charlotte and Hendry and Glades as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number did you use for Collier for volume? MR. DEPEW: I'd have to go back and look at the data. I don't know right offhand, but it was fairly substantial. It was, I want to say, five to seven million per year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because Collier County has over a hundred million unexcavated but approved. MR. DEPEW: I was just talking about aggregate in that calculation, not sand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also you seem to have gone to quite an extensive amount of information to unjustify the demand analysis that others have referred to. What drove you to that as a condition here in Collier County? MR. DEPEW: Well, I was going to actually give you a little bit of background on some of the litigation. Usually -- usually I'm in court testifying about this stuff. We've been involved in mining cases and court cases, ultimately, against Lee County. And I think that Lee County staff gave you a little bit of that. Resource Conservation Holdings versus Lee County went to trial in August. We're still awaiting the Circuit Court decision on that. They were one of my clients. And so as part of that I did undertake an analysis of the studies that the county had been (sic) done. The Troyer mine in Lee County is another one of my clients. That went to hearing in front of the County Commission in November, I guess it was, November 21 st, I believe. That court case was filed December 21 st as a challenge to the denial by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners. And, finally, on the comprehensive plan adoption of Map 14 in the Lee County Comprehensive Plan that was based on this demand analysis, that trial was in October, I believe it was, and we're still waiting for the administrative law judge decision on that one, which we would anticipate in the next 30 to 60 days. So this is something that Alico realized that I'd been involved in and tapped into that and asked me to come talk about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But since this is Collier County -- MR. DEPEW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where this Collier County's -- what policies or codes within our county make you believe we have an issue with the demand as part of the criteria for this conditional use? MR. DEPEW: None whatsoever. This is solely to address the issue that had been brought up by Lee County speakers as well as a number of other speakers that came up here and to suggest to you that, first off, the demand is not an issue that is relevant to this particular question and, secondly, to tell you that this is not a guaranteed fact as was presented to you that you have enough aggregate for the year 2030. It's simply not -- that's simply not the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This board has to make its decisions based on Collier County codes. MR. DEPEW: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're bringing an issue up that I thought was not relevant to Collier County's codes. I understand it's an issue. But it's a Lee County issue and, unfortunately, it's not one that is within the criteria for Collier County, at least that I can recall, unless somebody else can provide that. Staff sure didn't. We'll have to look at that in regards to their position. And I've been trying to keep this board separate from Lee County, because the concern up front was we don't -- this isn't Lee County. This is Collier. We have to approve or disprove things based on our codes and our laws. And I just wanted to make it clear that this whole issue on demand I don't recall being an issue in our conditional -use process. So while it's relevant, it's nice information to have, I appreciate you supplying it, I'm not sure it really relates to this board's zoning issues. So with that, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Something that you said concerns me a little bit, and I guess this is a question to our legal department that when the Troyer mine was recently denied by the Lee County Commission, that there's a Page 48 of 64 4 16 12 A-41 � January 5, 2012 court case now; you're suing Lee County because they decided that the mine was incompatible and you have a right to sue on something like that. What would -- could that happen in this case? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think whether or not this gets approved or not approved, there's a possibility of litigation. So I don't know if that answers your question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess it does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the rule of thumb is anything can be litigated. I mean, they can litigate all they want. It's just part of the game, I guess, so -- okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Mark, I'll ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't it true -- if this demand isn't there, wouldn't this then lessen the activity of this, the mine, thus lessen the impact of this mine on roads and everything else? MR. DEPEW: Certainly. If the market doesn't require the amount of material, then certainly there's going to be less pulled out, so there's less road traffic, there's less blasting, there's less everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So less market could be a good thing with some of the concerns they've had? MR. DEPEW: Certainly could be for certain elements, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question from you. You said how many in Collier County total cubic yards do we have avail -- or are permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there was a chart provided to us by the engineering department, and I think it showed there was 137 million yards available, and 37 million have been extracted, leaving 100 million, approximately, on the table. That's the only thing I was trying to find out in the demand analysis -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as far as when he stated that he used Collier County's numbers in regards to the analysis of the demand. MR. DEPEW: And remember that chart I showed you was on an annual basis, demand on an annual basis -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DEPEW: -- region wide, and it was for aggregate. So I don't know what the Collier County breakdown between sand and aggregate was, so I just can't tell you it's apples to apples, because I just haven't seen it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I read it that way. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Collier County's numbers. Okay. If there are no other questions -- thank you. MR. DEPEW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Bruce, does that end your rebuttal? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, until March 15th, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, first of all, I'd like to ask staff a couple questions. I have one question of Lee County's hydrologist, and I see he's here, and then we'll get back to you on how we're going to wrap up for the March 15th. I'd like to try finishing this today by three so we can finish up the last hearing we have today before we all go home. And that should work since you're coming back on the 15th anyway. Okay. So with that, John Podczerwinsky, John in the back. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Podczerwinsky, John Pod. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had a series of presentations this morning by the traffic consultant for the applicant. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A couple of things, questions that I'm interested in. The -- that real difficult turn on Corkscrew Road, the one that goes from -- going west to directly south, it's a 90- degree turn. It drops down to about 10 miles an hour. Page 49 of 64 A-1 6 12 Jari nary 5, 2012 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the county have any plans on improving that turn, and if so, what are they and what kind of improvements are you talking about? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point I checked, there's nothing in our current five -year Capital Improvement Element. I did check with our road and bridge maintenance department, and their response was -- let me see here. The question that I asked our road and bridge department, I said, "Is there any plan to address the radius of the existing curves on this roadway in the process of performing maintenance in years to come ?" The answer was, "This should be done under construction due to the right -of -way limits. It could be a problem that there's not enough space." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slide that picture that's on there up and point to the area in question so everybody knows what we're talking about. Ray or -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's towards the bottom of the page that you've got there now, and it's right there at the very lower left -hand corner. For those -- I think everybody, except Brad maybe, visited the site. You may have turned that corner. And the concern is real about the amount of truck traffic that would then hit that corner and have to turn and slow down at that speed and speed back up again. One thing, when trucks loaded with heavy material do turn, they tend to push the asphalt, slowly but surely, in the outside direction, because they'll be going through loaded towards the west. And that means as they make the turn, the weight's going to start trying to move and separate that road system. I'm concerned about that corner in particular and how it's handled. Have you ever thought of just bulldozing down Judge Starnes' property and running right through the middle of it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No comment. I'm not answering, sir. I will tell you that -- and I'm trying to pull it up on this at the moment -- we have investigated a little bit of the right -of -way that's there. The county line actually runs right down the middle of Corkscrew Road from the survey -- from the right -of -way surveys that we've got. We also did some research; myself and the applicant looked into this. The right -of -way, what would be in this portion of the road, that east/west portion of the road there, it looks like it ends at the county line before the curve is included. It's hard to tell exactly where the curve is based on the right -of -way survey that we have, the old right -of -way surveys that we have. It doesn't have the aerial image superimposed on that. So it's difficult to determine exactly whose responsibility and ownership that curve is under. It's -- my best guess at it is it's in part under Collier control; it's also in part under Lee County's control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you don't know of any -- there is nothing planned, though, to improve that at this time? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, not at this time there's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How dedicated is your department on seeing that an access in egress and egress (sic) -- ingress and egress to that mine site is added to Corkscrew Road? Because that's only going to encourage truck traffic, if they were to get approved, to be on Corkscrew Road and using that turn. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's -- the best answer that I can give to that is it's not staffs determination. It is the right of the land owner to connect to Corkscrew Road. It's not that we are requiring them to. It is their choice to do so. It is their right to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if that's their choice, then that's something that can be discussed. Last, John, is we showed a series of slides or we were shown a series of slides with the different levels of service on the road system. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a road is Level of Service F -- and I know -- I think I know what your answer's going to be, but I'd like to hear you say it -- what does that mean for county transportation department? What do they have to do with that road at the time it becomes F, and how long do they have to do it in? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Well, Level of Service F, in terms of capacity, is when -- actually, before it would reach F, we would try and project when it would reach F. And our intention would be to increase the capacity on the roadway at that time when it's necessary. At the current time, that's our requirement from the state to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it reaches F, what is your -- do you have to do? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In the case of Corkscrew Road, most likely we would, I guess, intentionally look at a widening or some kind of increase in service capacity, other issues that might allow additional trips to be placed Page 50 of 64 .g 1'0_iC A 1 January 5, 2012 on the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put a moratorium on the road? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Myself, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know you can't. In your experience in Collier County, if a road turned to F -- and I know we have had F roads -- do we -- are we in a position where we can say no to any future development tying into the road, or don't we have a certain time frame according to our AUIR, EAR, or whatever other -- the acronyms you want to use, in which we have to repair that road in order for development to proceed? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Per 5. 1, we are supposed to decline any -- I'm sorry. I'm probably misquoting this. But Policy 5. 1, we're supposed to turn down any applications for zoning that would cause a failure, that would impact a failing roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how long can we do that for? I mean, that's like -- that's imposing a moratorium. So what is the time -- do you know what length of time we're allowed to say no, and we just hold the road off from being improved forever and then say no forever? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Until that roadway is improved. So -- unless it's in the five -year plan. And I don't have an answer on a specific time frame that we can allow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't an F force it into the five -year plan? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means within a certain period of time it has to be cured? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know of any section of these road systems in Collier County that are at either E or F that are in Collier County's side of it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: On Corkscrew Road, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, it's not an F. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Podczerwinsky? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have been out to the site also. I did not realize that Corkscrew Road on the Collier County side was 55 miles an hour. Did not see any sign. And I know that I was told that it was 10 miles an hour going around this 90- degree -- I did not see a speed sign there. Can someone from Collier County go out and take a look at these two things? I think -- because I stood at that 90- degree corner, and nobody was doing 10 miles an hour, trucks or cars. They were doing 35 or more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As I approached that -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'll send that over to our road and bridge department and check on signage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, as I approached it, there's a 10- mile -an -hour speed limit sign on the south side, because I saw it as I was coming in. That's how I found where I was going. Someone told me, just past the 10- mile -an -hour curve, and I thought, boy, I hope it's marked. And, sure enough, it was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because when I came the other way, it wasn't. Okay. You're saying the south -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You might have stood too close to the corner. Stand a ways back. Okay. That's all. Anybody else have anything of John? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And no laughing, John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. During the break earlier this morning, I had passed out to the Planning Commission a series of pages. There's nine involving the Jones mine with strikethroughs on where the petitioner expects to go for his -- their position on the Lost Grove Mine. Then after that there was an Exhibit A, which was the blasting limitations and restrictions that the petitioner was proposing to impose in response to the concerns on Jones mine that we came up with at that time, as well as concerns that we had up at the time these were created. I'm sure that other things have come about over today's testimony that will be further discussed. I gave - -1 Page 51 of 64 1612 A 1 4 January 5, 2012 don't know if the rest of the Planning Commission had remembered these or seen these before, so I want to make sure staff and everybody had them and take a look at them so that on March 15th my intention would be to walk through these as a beginning point of discussion to see where they'll go. Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, these are -- these are conditions that should replace, basically? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have a lot of directions to go. If we can find a series of conditions that form a compromise to reach a -- the criteria of our conditional uses and we can articulate those in some manner like this, then we could recommend approval with conditions. We could just recommend denial. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm just looking for the starting point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I— COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- because in prior documents there were conditions that the applicant had agreed to, or not agreed with, in Kay's side -by -side presentation that she put out for the first meeting, I think. So this is where we should operate from on a go- forward basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For organizational purposes, we need to accomplish a finishing of this on March 15th. This has gone on way too long. It's been necessary to go this long. But I think to get -- what we ought to do is start walking through this document item by item, make sure that we understand where the applicant is so that we can help us decide what we want to do as a recommendation to go forward by the end of the day on the 15th. These various items are things they have proposed. They've not been debated by this board. You've heard a lot of testimony. You may or may not agree with each one. I certainly have a lot of questions about many of them, and I'm going to bring those up on the 15th. But I would suggest to this board, if -- we come prepared to start with this and then work into any other documents that you find should evolve more questions or conditions or concerns, and then we move into those. And, Phil, I think you'll find that many of the questions and the charts formed by staff are incorporated herein, so that may resolve some of the issues. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Rather than try to go back to all the prior material where there were conditions agreed to and not agreed to, and then compare them to these, I would like to see that we could -- I could start here, and if there's something missing that I feel is necessary, then try to add it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've already got a list of things that are missing, so -- I've read this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Would you share them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean, I can't do it until the 15th. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've already started a list of things that I heard comments made during the applicant's presentation, comments made by the citizens, by everybody else that's talked to us in Lee County, Collier County. And so by the end of the 15th, I want to be able to walk through all those comments and figure out where the applicant stands on each one, and that will help make -- help this board, hopefully, make a decision. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who produced these documents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce Anderson produced these documents at my request. I asked him where he stood on the Lost Grove (sic) stuff, and he -- we talked a couple times, and he decided that one of the best ways to handle it was to do a strikethrough, and I think it was a pretty effective way to do it. I attempted to do it by chart form, but this is better. And that's kind of where it's at. Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mr. Chairman, are you going to use your 42 points from the Jones mine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what these are. These nine pages are the Jones mine points. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. Just redone? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Plus staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They're actually repeated. But the parts that are either not applicable to this new mine or, let's say, not acceptable to the applicant have been crossed out, and then there's been new verbiage added. And so that's how we should look at this. This is a counterproposal to the discussion on the Jones mine. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then after that, they've attached an Exhibit A, which is all about the blasting issues that were part of the 1 through 42 stipulation of the Jones mine. Page 52 of 64 16 12A 1 January 5, 2012 Now, this doesn't mean that this mine is going to be approved or disapproved. It means we have a lot of pages of discussion to have on the 15th of March. So with that in mind, the balance of the 15th we're going to start the meeting off with a presentation by the applicant on the audio, then on the visual. We'll have the questions from the Planning Commission, any comments from staff on those new items. I'll ask any citizens in attendance who want to address specifically those two items to come forward and speak. Then we'll end up rounding up any further questions on those items on the Planning Commission. Then we'll probably -- then the applicant's going to have concluding remarks. Prior to the concluding remarks, Judge Starnes will have a few minutes to make his presentation. We'll go into the concluding remarks by the applicant, then we'll go into discussion and we'll walk through with the applicant these pages to start with, if that works for everybody on this board. It's the only way I can see of organizing this massive amount of data that we've received over a course of the three meetings so far. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And they are going to try and get this other information to us as soon as possible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They will get that other -- and you're not using your mike, Diane. They will get that other information to us two weeks prior to our March 15th meeting. They will get it to county staff three weeks prior to the March 15th meeting, so we'll have it on time. And, Ray, on the 15th, I would suggest you leave the day for this and not schedule anybody else. MR. BELLOWS: We have one item already on the schedule, and that's the PUD rezone for the Cultural Arts Village in Bayshore. That's the only item scheduled at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I can't remember that one, but -- is it a new PUD or is it a redo? MR. BELLOWS: It's a new PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll do our best to get to it. It will have to be second up, because this will be first up on the 15th. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Bruce, is there anything you want to say before we motion to March 15th? And this will be at the request of the Planning Commission. The applicant was prepared to finish today, but I didn't like the idea of going forward without all the information. So with the applicant's concurrence, we are moving to the 15th. MR. ANDERSON: I have nothing else to say except thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Is there a motion, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we continue this to March 15th at 9 a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. This meeting will be -- this portion of this meeting on the Lost Grove Mine will be continued to March 15th Page 53 of 64 16 12 4,1 , 1' ua 5 Al at 9 a.m. in this building in this room. Thank you all, and we'll see you then. Why don't we take a break for 15 minutes, come back at 2:45, and we'll try to go into the next hearing. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back from the break, everyone. ** *The next item up and the last item up for today is another advertised public hearing. It's ST- PL2011 -677. It's the Gordon River Greenway Park. It's for an ST, special treatment, development permit. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't -- can't think -- I don't think I've had any either, come to think of it. If I have, I've forgotten them so they're in trouble. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one question, Mark. Since I sit on the parks board, do I have to disclose that I've seen this before? Not specific -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you should. Just say --just say you've -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The proposal I have seen before in a previous parks board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, are you the man making the presentation? Welcome. MR. MARSHON: Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Thank you for hearing us this afternoon. My name is J.P. Marshon. I'm a registered professional engineer with Kimley -Horn & Associates. With me today is Ray Loraine, an environmental scientist from Cardno ENTRIX, working on the project. From Parks and Recreation we have Tony Roberto, and Alex Sulecki from the Conservation Collier is with us today also. I want to go through -- as was mentioned, this is for the ST overlay permit for the Gordon River Greenway Park. The park itself is proposed to be located south of Goodlette -- or south of Golden Gate Parkway and east of Goodlette -Frank Road. The graphic that you see north on this graphic is to your left. Golden Gate Parkway is on the left there, Goodlette -Frank Road to the bottom of the slide, and the park area is outlined in yellow. It's approximately 124 acres total. We have presented this to this commission several months ago as a -- as a rezone packet, so you have seen some of this before. One point to mention here is the land's -- the ownership, if you will, is divided up. Conservation Collier manages the lands to the southern portion of the project; that's all this here south of the red line. The rest is Parks and Recreation managed properties. The zoo is located just -- right here is the existing zoo. Conservancy of Southwest Florida is here. Gordon River runs through the site from north to south right through there. This is the Golden Gate Canal, and the airport is right there. Overall -- this is a piece of an overall bigger project. I think it's important to mention that -- part of an overall trail system and a north/south pathway system. It's proposed as a passive park with a trail system, two park nodes for access, and some additional stormwater treatment of currently untreated roadway runoff from Golden Gate Parkway to help improve the environmental aspects in the area. It will eventually link up both to the north and south and provide opportunities for even commuter -type bicycle opportunities. What we're talking about here today is the special treatment overlay. The area inside the red lines in here is the area that is of concern today. This is the area that is inside the ST overlay district. The overall concept plan -- just to show what's going on here, again, Golden Gate Parkway on this side of your screen and Goodlette -Frank Road to the bottom of the screen, Gordon River running right through here. We have a parking and access node and restroom and maintenance facilities located at the northern portion of the site right here. There's an access road proposed to get into that parking area. Then we have boardwalks located throughout all the wetland portions of the site and asphalt trail on the upland portion of the site. They are connected and go from north to south. It will be extended through here onto the airport property. There's a pedestrian bridge proposed that goes across the Golden Gate Canal right here. Another pedestrian Page 54 of 64 A 1 `+ January 5, 2012 bridge linking this shared parking and kayak launch area to the rest of the facility would cross the Gordon River right here. In terms of the ST overlay district, the affected area is shown on the map here. We've highlighted the ST area again, and then just showing the footprint, if you will, of the affected areas within the ST overlay district. Again, it's that northeast parking and recreational area node and then the trails that are located in the ST area along with the bridge located across the Golden Gate Canal. A little more detail on the parking node up at the northeast end of the site. This is the proposed access drive coming off Golden Gate Parkway. The parking facility is here. It provides parking for 50 spaces. All of the interior parking is grassed parking. Only the handicapped spaces and these spaces right up next to the facilities are -- would be paved. We have a pavilion -- an open -air pavilion, a restroom, and a maintenance building. It's really for storage of equipment. There's not going to be any permanent people there, but it's for storage of maintenance equipment and the like. We'll be taking stormwater off of Golden Gate Parkway and treating it in a treatment box and a swale system as well before we discharge it. All the stormwater coming off of this parking area will be treated in a dry- retention area, and it's been designed as if all of this was paved parking. So it's an over -- overly conservative stormwater design. Based on our calculations, there would be no discharge at all coming off of -- out of that dry retention pond for most of the storm events, well over 90 percent of the storm events in an average year. hl summary, the ST district is -- encompasses 64 acres of the entire 124 -acre site. The altered area, in other words, any area within the ST district that would be changed in any way whatsoever, would be 6.9 acres, and that includes temporary impacts, and then the impervious area proposed to be impacted in the ST area that would eventually end up being impervious -- so the parking facilities, the access road, the asphalt trail, the buildings -- total 2.4 acres. Over 90 percent of the area would be unaltered except for exotic plant and species removal. And the applicant and staff agree that the project achieves the conservation goals of the ST district. I think I'd like to take a minute and just talk a little bit about the Environmental Advisory Council recommendations. They recommended that this northeast parking node be -- the parking there be eliminated to just a few spaces, the lighting there and on the trails also be eliminated, and that we include a provision for a flyover, a pedestrian flyover across the Golden Gate Parkway. Our original affected area did not include possible impacts to this area here if a future pedestrian flyway is put in, so we've added that. So the numbers that you see here, the 6.9 and the 4.2 acres, include impacts from a future pedestrian flyover across Golden Gate Parkway. There is -- that is part of the overall trail network that I had mentioned before, this bigger trail network that this is a piece of. It's just not apart of this project that we're dealing with right now, but we decided that it would be a good idea to go ahead and include that in this ST permit so that it's taken care of for the future. Regarding the other recommendations from the EAC, the elimination of the parking and the trail and parking lighting, the applicant, parks and rec, wants to keep all that in there to serve the public and to provide the facilities that they feel are needed to be able to use this park. They propose to keep the park open until ten o'clock, so they want this trail system, the computer (sic) -- commuter trail, in particular, to be available to people after dark, especially this time of year. And so they want to keep the lighting there as well. Staffs recommendation includes keeping the parking and the lighting. We've gotten no issues from any environmental agencies relative to the lighting. They typically don't have concerns for that sort of thing, and in this case haven't indicated any concerns either. We would request your approval of the ST overlay district impacts and permit, and we'd be happy to try and answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Maybe you can't answer this question, but what was the rationale of the EAC in recommending the elimination of all that parking up there? I mean -- MR. MARSHON: I believe it was primarily from environmental concerns that less impacts would be better and that there was access to the site from -- let me go back to this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: From the zoo area? Page 55 of 64 f f Al 16 January 5, 2012 MR. MARSHON: That there was other access to the site. Remember I mentioned the bridge here? There is a large shared parking facility proposed here. It will be used by the zoo primarily but also for the kayak launch that's here. So there is a different access there. And then the pedestrian flyover, when that's built, would provide access to Freedom Park. So I think their thought was twofold; one, less environmental impacts, possibly providing some funds early out for a pedestrian flyover, and then their feeling was that there was sufficient access. I think that's what -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One of the principal features of this concept, however, is a trailway that runs from the north down through the area to the south, correct? MR. MARSHON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And so if you eliminated the parking for the population at the north end, people would, theoretically, have to come in through -- and utilize the zoo parking and either take a left or a right on the trail system. MR. MARSHON: That's correct. They would be able to access it through this trail and boardwalk and then get onto the main spine trail here. But Parks and Recreation, in their experience with these kinds of facilities, believes that it's necessary to have this, and we would agree with that, too. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I agree with that, also. I mean, part of the experience would be to start at the north and traverse to the south or vice versa. But to start in the middle, I -- never mind. MR. MARSHON: And I believe at this point the extension of this to the south is -- in terms of the other stakeholders involved, the airport, the City of Naples and others to the south, that this connection in the southern area is probably more likely to occur sooner than the flyover across the Golden Gate Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the applicant? Bill and then Brad. COMMISSIONER VONIER: What's the rationale for 10 p.m. closing rather than sunset? MR. MARSHON: I'd have to ask Tony maybe to answer that one for me. MR. ROBERTO: Good afternoon. For the record, Tony Roberto, project manager of Parks and Recreation. This is basically more for public use, and it's more or less not an experiment, but something we know that we're trying to take the pedestrians down the trailway than possibly using automobiles, et cetera. I think one of our meetings we also had some good feedback from the schools where the kids might be using this trailway from north to south to get back and forth from school. And we figure that, like you said, especially in the wintertime, it gets dark five, six o'clock, we'd want some kind of light just for security -wise and just to accommodate the people that would be using this trailway. Most of our parks, except for the soccer fields and baseball fields, they do shut down at ten o'clock. And like we said in the past, most of them do shut at sunset, but it's a different type of situation here. This is basically more of a trailway for public to have access from one area to another area. So that's why we're -- right now we'd like to have -- start with a ten o'clock shutdown, let's say, and -- but we're going to be -- make provisions. It depends how the public will react to this scenario. If we don't put the lights and then lights are required, then it will be a big construction cost up front. We are going to have some future gates in case we do have to close the north and south and the east area -- or the west area, but right now, to go ahead with this, we'd like to just introduce the light and use this till ten o'clock and just see how the public is going to use the facilities or the pathway to go from one area to the other. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Will there be dedicated security? MR. ROBERTO: Well, security -- we have park rangers, and there will be patrol in the area. You know, whether during the day or at night, again, it all depends how the public reacts to the pathway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, instead of the word "pedestrian bridge" over Golden Gate, you're using the word "flyover." Is that -- everybody know enough what you that means? I mean -- MR. MARSHON: Well, yeah. It's just a pedestrian bridge going across Golden Gate Parkway so you can get across without having to walk across the street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would be defined -- a flyover, everybody knows that's a bridge then or -- MR. MARSHON: It's a bridge, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If they could fly, they don't need a bridge. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Enclosed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions of the applicant? Page 56 of 64 1612 Al January 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Enclosed, so it's caged? MR. MARSHON: Most likely. There's been no design or anything like that, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would think caged. MR. MARSHON: -- something to keep things from getting thrown over into the cars, I would think that would be part of it, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To close that loop, this proposal does not include quote- unquote, a potential -- does not include a flyover? That -- you're reserving some land, as I understand it, on that north boundary for the steps to come down and allow people to come in, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you show the north boundary? MR. MARSHON: Right. This ST permit application includes the impacts of such a -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MR. MARSHON: -- bridge in this area right here. So this crosshatched area is shown as an affected area. But the current project, the construction plans, for example, that we're working on now for this park project does not include the -- that bridge. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's a discussion at a later date. MR. MARSHON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Potentially. MR. MARSHON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report? MS. ARAQUE: For the record, Summer Araque, land development services. And your staff report has staff recommendations on Page 9 of 10, and we are recommending approval with the conditions noted. Would you like me to read those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. We've got them written. That's good enough. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3 you refer to, up on the top, "Collier County will be providing access to two development areas pursuant to several developer contribution agreements." What are those? I mean, I didn't know any existed. And we didn't -- they weren't included in our packet, so I couldn't -- didn't have the ability to read them. MS. ARAQUE: Right. If you'll notice in the beginning we talk about how we're going to give you a description of the overall project and then get into discussion of the special treatment overlay. So that's actually discussion of the overall project, and if you'd like, I can have the applicant tell you about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I would like someone to send me the "several developer contributions agreement" that exist. So could you just send them tome by email? MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. That would have to be from the applicant. But, yeah, they can send that to me, and I can forward it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care who sends it to me. It's part of -- it's referenced in our record, so I would like to read it. I'm comfortable enough with the project. I don't need to read it ahead of time, but I would like to know what it's all about. And if there are several of them, that certainly means more than two, so I'd certainly like copies of all of those that you have involving developer contribution agreements for this project. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. We can -- is that something that you can get to them? MR. MARSHON: Yeah. I just want to point out, one of those was for this access drive, but the -- it was with a landowner further to the south, that they were going to build an access drive all the way down to their property. Needless to say, with the environment -- or environmental -- economic conditions being what they were, they never did it. So this construction of enough of that access drive to get to here became part of this project. Page 57 of 64 161zAl ki January 5, 2012 So there is still an agreement that this guy -- developer would eventually build this road all the way down to his property, but it's kind of become a moot point now because he's not moving forward with his development, so he's not building the road. So we've included in this project, the county has, this portion of that access road. But that's one of the -- what was spoken of there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're going to send me all of them, right? MR. MARSHON: And we've got those, right, Tony? MR. ROBERTO: Yes. MR. MARSHON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to have them because you said they exist, so now I want to see them. Now, as far as where this developer's property is, now that you've brought the point up, where is his property? MR. MARSHON: Sure. It's this triangular piece right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So without that access he's landlocked? MR. MARSHON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if he wants to develop his property, which -- MR. MARSHON: Eventually he's going to end up building this all the way down to here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, now, let's go back to that page you were just on that showed the layout of your park. Now, that asphalt trail -- so now you're telling me that that asphalt trail's going to be up against a road all the way down to that triangular piece. MR. MARSHON: Similar to what it looks like right here, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. The trail actually starts, I think, where the road -- or is that part of the trail itself? MR. MARSHON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not much of a trail up against a road, but I -- MR. MARSHON: No, but -- correct. But in order to get from this point down to there, especially until that gets done, it's the only way to get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just -- MR. MARSHON: Yeah. In order to get from this point to here, before this road gets in, we needed a trail there of some sort, and this way they're off the road again, which is part of what we're trying to do also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have two speakers, Judith Hushon, to be followed by Marcia Cravens. MS.14USHON: Good afternoon, again, Judith Hushon, EAC. I wanted to let you know why we did what we did. Maybe I can actually explain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you speaking on behalf of the EAC -- MS. 14USHON: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and authorized to talk for them then? MS. HUSHON: I am speaking on behalf of the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. 1 USHON: I think I'm the only one here today who can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.14USHON: The -- we looked at that footprint for that north pad section and decided we probably didn't need to take that much land away from the ST area. And with 50 -plus spaces over at Freedom Park and with 600 spaces down near -- in the middle, that at this point in time we would rather be looking at how we're going to connect those 50 spaces at Freedom Park and start on that side and bring it down rather than adding 50 more spaces up at the top that would have to be maintained. This didn't seem like the smartest thing. So parking at that little north node we thought, no. We just wanted to allow enough for them to do their maintenance, get to the maintenance shed. A bathroom there might not be a bad thing, a bike rack there may not be a bad thing, because maybe you don't want to take your bike up and over if you've been biking on the trail. So those were -- that was our decisions on that part. In terms of the dawn to dusk and having to bring in the lighting, we had concerns that the lighting -- there is a bird rookery where the Gordon River jogs a little bit to the left. There is a -- the zoo has animals along the Gordon Page 58 of 64 161 1 January 5, 2012 River, as does the Conservancy in their Wildlife Rehab Center. Putting lights in an ST area seemed like an unnecessary thing. This is special treatment. This is to be kept more wild. We also were very concerned if you did put in the lights and if you did open it till ten, this is a very deserted, long walk with many little turns and things in it. I wouldn't want to be out there at night. I have no desire to be out there. Maybe some big guy might not be timid about it, but I am. And I wouldn't want my children out there either. They were talking about children coming from school. I wouldn't allow my children to do that. So I'm just saying I don't think that's smart. Freedom Park is only dawn to dusk. Why should we be pushing this? If we're pushing this, why not just have some parking -- some lights in the parking area so -- in case somebody gets back a little late they can get to their car; fine, okay. I didn't have -- and for safety reasons that's often a good idea. But I didn't have -- I don't like the rest of it in terms of the lights. And we voted 5 -0 not to have lights, not to have the parking in the north, but to include the flyover and start -- the pad for the flyover and to start thinking about the flyover rather than putting in those 50 parking spaces. Let's make this all connected. Let's not make it easy to not be connected, if you understand what I'm saying. The goal was connection with Freedom Park. That was the original goal of this was to start up there, come all the way down, and go all the way down. This is the first piece. We did Freedom Park. This is Piece 2. So our next -- we really should be thinking about that flyover as a very soon - coming -up piece. Our thought was that some of the extra money that we might spend on this development we might be able to put toward the flyover. That was a good thing; that we really didn't need all those lights; the birds and the animals don't need those lights; and being in that park at night wasn't the best thing for the health and safety of our community. So that was why we voted as we did. I think it was all pretty much up. And I'll be glad to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: How well utilized is the parking area at Freedom Park? MS. HUSHON: Not. They tend to have -- at most you might see ten cars, at most. And that would be on a well - populated day. And one or two of those are often county cars, because there's a building there which has -- staffed building, which has staff in it. And I've noticed that there is often a county truck there, and then there'll be -- there are, like, two people in the building, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Unless and until -- this is a statement, I guess, not a question. Unless and until that flyover would ever be built, then how would folks get from Freedom Park parking to access this trail? MS. HUSHON: You would have to walk across the street. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: At the intersection? MS. HUSHON: At the intersection. You'd have to go right there to the intersection, you'd have to come across. You'd have to go down and back in where the -- you could either -- go on either way. There are two ways to get in. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, you could go in through the zoo, but that wouldn't access -- MS. 14USHON: But you could get in the upper end walking or on a bicycle. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. The issue is from Freedom Park. Okay. MS. HUSHON: No. Parking, you could park at Freedom Park. And then you can get in on your bicycle -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand. MS. HUSHON: -- your roller skates -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand that. MS. HUSHON: -- or whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, you might want to limit your discussion. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it's going to do any -- MS. HUSHON: We're talking about the ST area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it's going to do any good, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Never mind. MS. HUSHON: But this was -- we were trying to have it achieved being a special treatment area -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more -- MS. HUSHON: -- not have it become -- Page 59 of 64 1.61 A.;1 January 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more question. Who would fund this potential flyover? MS. HUSHON: The county would end up -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The county? MS. HUSHON: -- in parks and rec. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would be a county funding instead of Naples funding? MS.14USHON: It might be joint. Who knows. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MS. HUSHON: I don't know how the county would like to fund that. But the thing was to start planning for it so that it might work. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think it's planned for. Thank you. MS. HUSHON: Well, it wasn't before. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It is now. MS.14USHON: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Marcia Cravens. MS. CRAVENS: Hi again. And I'm authorized to speak for the Sierra Club's Calusa Group on any kind of conservation issues in Collier County. And while we applaud having more passive recreation parks, I would just have to comment that ST development is kind of an oxymoron. ST, by definition, discourages development for construction in environmentally sensitive areas. And the minor beginning phase of this project looks like the construction facilities were limited, but it sounds like there are additional planned construction as you go forward with it and -- have to wonder how much of this area then can really be considered to being kept essentially in its natural condition. I think you have to be very careful with it, because it could set in motion -- there's a potential that this sets in motion an environmentally destructive kind of perception that ST areas can be developed, that you can have development in ST areas, and I hope that we stay away from that. I would urge that, perhaps -- and I might be nitpicking at this a little bit, but the language of this project maybe not be termed "ST development," but rather that it be more of a kind of a PUD or something for passive recreation park. I just really kind of bristle when there is anything that potentially causes more facilities and more construction in our environmentally sensitive areas that have been designated as ST. And I know the EAC strove hard to try and limit the amount of alteration within this area, but, again, what we've been shown is really only kind of a first phase. And I'm concerned as to what any additional phases might involve. This has the potential for becoming a very popular park, which I wouldn't be opposed to at all. We certainly would like to get more people outdoors and enjoying passive recreation. I just don't like that it's still being termed as ST and being called ST development. So I just would like to see it maybe tweaked a little bit in the way that it is described, and if it is going to continue to be called an ST area, that you have to be very cautious about additional phases of construction projects there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who have not spoken who wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any rebuttal by the applicant? MR. MARSHON: Thank you. Yeah, just a couple things. Okay. Relative to the project itself and other phases, there are no other phases being proposed for this project in this area. Like I said, north and south of here the trail will continue, but not in this area. That's why on this ST permit application we added the potential impacts of the future pedestrian bridge so that the ST impacts are done, finished, there's no coming back to do those again. The other thing I would mention is I think the comment was correct in that this is a minor beginning. The it part is, I believe, is absolutely correct, but it is not -- it's not another phase, so it's more than a minor beginning. It's a minor permanent proposed impacts. When we're talking 90 percent of the area is unaltered, I haven't seen very many developments that have left 90 percent of a site unaltered. So I believe this is a very appropriate and Page 60 of 64 161 L Al January 5, 2012 good use of public lands in the ST area. I think -- we've talked about the lighting and the parking area. Just an analysis of the parking requirements based on the facilities that are proposed in that northeast node, we come up with a minimum parking requirement of 30 spaces. And based on parks and recreation's experience, they wanted to include that up to 50. Again, all but six of them are grass parking spaces. So, again, we would request that the Planning Commission approve the ST permit application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I have a question, sir. MR. MARSHON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the approximate cost of a flyover over a six -lane arterial road that would have to be provided to clear trucks of the capacity on that road as well as the ramps to go up and down to accommodate all lifestyles of people that may want to use it? MR. MARSHON: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, give me the closest 10 million. MR. MARSHON: The bridge that we're -- the pedestrian bridge that we *e dung across the -- this bridge here, which is -- has a span of approximately 200 feet, it's a little bit over a half a million dollars. My partner Ray pointed out that he's familiar with a bridge across U.S. 41 in Sarasota County that recently got built; the cost was closer to a million dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's a very expensive bridge. MR. MARSHON: Yes, sir. It's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the needs for the county go to many more important things than a bridge over that particular parkway at this time, so I can't see that being budgeted anytime soon. So the reality of those people that park to the north, they'll end up having to walk down to the intersection, cross there and walk back again. That will discourage a lot of people from using this facility, and it's too good of a facility to see it discouraged like that. MR. MARSHON: It's a fairly long trek. The entrance to Freedom Park is right in this area here. It's about a half mile to the intersection and another one -half -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to bring all their kids and walk down to that intersection, cross, then go back up to the park. It's not likely. Thank you, sir. The staff. Could I ask one question of Summer? I know the answer, but I'd like the record -- this is in the urban area, right? MS. ARAQUE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the limit to the urban area is way out in 951, quite a few miles from this location, right? MS. ARAQUE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: If you get into kind of planning questions, I might defer to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just want to make sure -- MS. ARAQUE: We do have the planner here if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that if you have a park of this magnitude in the urban area with the lands around it for the public to experience, and at nighttime, which I find so limiting in this county, because I try to stay in the parks after night, and I'm not allowed to. This one is fabulous. I will use this extensively, and I will use that parking lot, because I don't -- from the direction I come, I don't need to go down and make a left and drive down to the zoo and then back in that way. I'd want to start at the north, go to the south. So I strongly oppose the EAC's positions on Nos. 1, 2, and 3. I'd have no problem with their No. 4. I think that's practical. But we certainly should have a parking lot there. The amount of time it's going to take to have a flyover is going to be way too lengthy. And as far as the opening it up at night, I think there's good experience in the -- in the preserve areas at night, and this will be a great location for it. And I can't think of a better one in an urban area. So that's my thoughts on it, and I congratulate the parks department on an excellent design. So anybody have any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Page 61 of 64 A 1 16 tx January 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the staff resolution, which does include the pad for the flyover, which I still think we should call a bridge, and -- because there is an automotive. A flyover's really a loop and -- a car ramp takes, but, anyway -- it does include the hours, so -- MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. It's referred to as the "pedestrian crossing over Golden Gate Parkway." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The version I have they have flyover, but whatever. But it does -- it is the staff recommendation. It does include the hours and does include the flyover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff recommendations are on Page 9. So you're saying, that No. 1 and No. 2 of the staff recommendations, you're not including the environmental EAC recommendations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. If you look at the resolution, they gave us two as an example. One is -- says "resolution approved by county attorney." The second one says "alternate resolution." It's the alternate resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me find my page of that, Brad. MS. ARAQUE: There's actually a cover sheet for each of the resolutions. The second one is the alternate, and that includes the additional 0.7 acres for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the alternate -- the alternate resolution is at the last part of our packet, and it includes the northeast development node with its storage -- with its buildings, pavilion, and the parking. It includes the passive park amenities such as recreational, multi - purpose, bicycle trails, boardwalks, and associated structures, and lighting. It includes a fishing platform, the water - quality treatment facility, the utility piping and water /sewer and stormwater, and the pedestrian bridge over the Golden Gate Canal, and provisions for a flyover across the Golden Gate Parkway. That does not limit the hours, so the hours are still as the parks and rec department wants them. Is that COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- and it also has exhibits referenced on that page, which were included in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just want to understand because I --I just want to make sure you're in agreement with the staff and you're in agreement with the parks and rec on how -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that the right resolution? MS. ARAQUE: Yeah, if you -- if you want us to revise that in any way between now and the Board of County Commissioners, we can -- we can do that. If you -- regarding the verbiage of flyover, I think that's what the applicant provided to us, and then I think we revised it in staff report but didn't revise it here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll buy the Kimley -Horn on the semantics of, you know, planning things, but to me a flyover's always a road that went over and looped. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It never made sense here for pedestrians to cross. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. So change that to pedestrian crossing -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Pedestrian bridge. MS. ARAQUE: -- pedestrian bridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pedestrian bridge. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's what it says here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's alternate -- the alternate resolution with those particulars. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Brougham. Discussion? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I certainly will support it. I think it's a good job. I'm glad to see this finally coming to reality for Collier County citizens. It's a good move. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 62 of 64 1612 Janua ry 5 2012 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Thank you all. The balance of our meeting, Ray, one thing that I wanted to kind of point out, on March 15th, if -- your applicant for that particular day, you might advise them that they're second -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it may be worthwhile for them not to appear that day because they could be broken up into a couple meetings. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that might be not as beneficial to them. So I would suggest -- MR. BELLOWS: We'll see if they can reschedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you leave that day clear, if you can. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Also, talking about the 15th, to me a lot of what transpired in the meeting today, which was supposedly rebuttal, was really repeating a lot of the information that I already heard in the other meeting, and if you could sort of maybe direct them to try to stick to new information and not repeat what we've already heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem is during rebuttal, and especially when an applicant's putting testimony on record that they know is probably going to be appealed -- from what I hear it's -- one side or the other's going to appeal that. That means it's going to go to court, and that means the only way you can use the information in court for your defense is to have everything clearly on record. So I think once someone from the public -- and it's called lay testimony. It's not necessarily expert testimony -- says something, they've got to make sure that they've countered that -- those comments adequately on record in order to use it in the next level up. And so I think that's what they're trying to do. I don't see that as a bad thing. It takes more of our time. But I think in knowing that as controversial as this one is, we -- it's crossing your T's and dotting your I's, so I certainly thought it was the right thing to do, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can appreciate that. I just -- it felt very redundant to me sitting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no old business, new business. Public comment? COMMISSIONER EBERT: One thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why are they doing this so late in the game? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's doing what? What are we talking about? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The Lost Grove Mine. Why is the developer doing this so late? Why did he not have that expert, the stuff to us before? Because don't they have to have it here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm -- what stuff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're bringing all new testimony they said, all new -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. As a result of the testimony in the first two meetings, they felt that they needed to get on record expert testimony to rebut some of the things that were said regarding the noise and the visual aspects of the mine. They tried to get it done through the holidays to be ready for the 5th. Their expert couldn't get the work done because it involves reports, measurements, sound waves and all this other stuff. But they feel they can comfortably get it done by the March meeting, and that's -- so that's what they're preparing to do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: February, March. Two months later. Okay. Page 63 of 64 b.. �a ? 161 2A I it January 5, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's their nickle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and usually you'll find the opposite. Usually the applicants are in a hurry and we're trying to get more data. In this case -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're trying to provide more data, and so I'm not sure we need to be in a hurry. I'd rather see as thorough of a job as we possibly can provide. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- okay. With that, I think we're -- motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Want a motion, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry or Diane. We're all in favor. We're out of here. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on f as presented V or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 64 of 64 1612 Al January 19, 2012 0 X (DIRRYS TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE F E E{ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 19, 2012 LAY- ............ 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: ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton- Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 51 Misc. Corres: Date:\ \ \ 0i Item #: \Lo= 2 4,4 1 Copies to: Fiala _j� / - CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Hiller Henning William H. Vonier Coyle �.. Brad Schiffer Coletta C Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton- Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 51 Misc. Corres: Date:\ \ \ 0i Item #: \Lo= 2 4,4 1 Copies to: f 16 12. A l January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is not here or not here yet. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not here yet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: 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. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have one cancellation or actually withdrawn item, and that's 913, BDE- PL2011 -857, the Wheatly boat dock, and it's been withdrawn by the applicant; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we won't be hearing that today. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting ironically -- we've got a couple of meetings coming up. First of all, the EAR meeting is January 26th. That's next Thursday, and Friday as a carryover day. Now, the EAR we've already had in at least one or maybe two workshops, so I don't expect us to need the carryover day, but we never know what could unfold. Does anybody have any -- know if they're not going to be able to be here next week on Thursday or Friday? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll assume we'll have a quorum for both days. The three -ring binder that you received this last week is for that meeting, and we had a handout that was provided to us today that supplements that binder. So next Thursday that's the documentation that we'd be using. The meeting after the next week's January 26th meeting is our February 2nd CCPC meeting. At this time there are no scheduled land -use petitions. So at this point I can see not having a meeting on that date. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, so I keep trying to move to the next meeting to ask who's going to be here. The next meeting is February 16th. There are no land -use petitions scheduled for February 16th. So, again, I can expect that we would not have a meeting that date. MR. BELLOWS: There's still time for items to get scheduled, so we'll know more by next week if that's actually going to remain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just to be safe, when you find that out, would you poll the commission to make sure there's a quorum, because that's why I ask the question ahead of time. MR. BELLOWS: I'll definitely do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like then our next regular meeting would be March 1 st. There are some things for March 1 st. Page 2 of 51 16 12 A 1 w4 January 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: He jammed it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That might be a two -day meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. That might be a two -day meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is interesting. Nothing in February, but we have the March 1 st meeting that could end up being a lengthy one. Ray, is there a reason we couldn't move some of those to February 16th, or could you look into that at least? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is some of those items got continued from the February meeting to later dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they were already attempted to be February? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, yeah. I think the variance and the boat dock, I believe, are companion items, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll deal with it when it -- best we can when it happens, so -- Okay. Approval of the minutes from December 15, 2011. Does anybody have -- and, by the way, let the record show that Mr. Midney has just entered. Any changes, corrections, to the approval of the minutes from December 15th? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier's name was spelled wrong. I guess you didn't see that. And on Page 7 at the bottom of the page it mentioned Chairman Lefevbre. It should be Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's from the Code Enforcement Board, I think. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, will the minutes -- will the records reflect those two changes. Is there anybody in disagreement with those changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there approval subject to those changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion by Ms. Homiak, seconded by Ms. Ebert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And we're at 9 -0; everybody's here. ** *First item up is the consent - agenda item from last meeting. It's Sabal Bay MPUD. It's PUDA- PL2011 -47. And we all received a rather detailed packet in our package for this particular project. I had been contacted by the applicant and asked if there was anything that I saw. I expressed to them a few items that ought to be considered, and they're going to be relaying those to us this morning. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant. Yes, we received comments from Chairman Strain and Mrs. Cicko, and I'll just go through those. From Mr. Strain, we made a change to Section 2.14(9), and that is to -- his comment was a 12- foot -high wall or fence could also be in combination with a berm, and so we modified it to read an 8- foot -high wall or fence on top of a 4 -foot berm. Page 3 of 51 1642 r% A,1 January 19, 2012 Also, he made the note in Table 1, Footnote 5, and I'll just read it. There is no actual height for multifamily /time share. Since they can go in the "R" areas, they should be included. You do call for a mid -rise for Tract R, but there are no mid -rise development standards and no definition of what a mid -rise is. I would suggest this be changed to the multifamily /time share for that parcel if that is what was intended. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you walk through the specific changes that that would result in then -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Bruce, if you could read the page number you're on, too, then we would -- I could get there a little faster. MR. ANDERSON: The first one I read is on Page 2 -8. This last one that Mr. Strain mentioned was on Page 3 -5. Where it says "mid- rise" in the third sentence, that should be struck, and it would read "multifamily /time share." And the last comment -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave that one. Back to the actual height, though, we need to correct the reference to mid -rise because there wasn't such a product. It was -- I'm sure you were referring to the multifamily /time share, is what I believe. But you did clarify actual height in Asterisk 5. But I think what I was trying to say is you don't have an actual height for multifamily /time - sharing (sic). If I remember -- I'm trying to -- best I can remember -- MR. ANDERSON: It says it shall have a maximum height of 10 residential floors over parking not to exceed 150 feet of zoned height as measured pursuant to LDC section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there it is, and it's the last part of the sentence. It says, "actual height of 165." Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. And Mr. Strain's last comment was on Deviation No. 9, again, on -- I don't have that page with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be Page 2 of the Exhibit C, list of deviations. MR. ANDERSON: Then it's No. 9, and the "o" in "owner" has now been capitalized. Ms. Cicko's comments were on Page 3 -3, Section 3.5.B.2.i, double I, and three I and four I, Roman numerals, that "structure" be replaced with "principal structure." And on Table 1 on Page 3 -4 in the column under ALF, CCRCs, that would be the last column, and for rear yard the reference has been added per Section 3.513 referring to that section in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, does that mean if you go down to the ALFs column and you go down to rear yard where it's blank you're just going to put it in that blank space? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not as a footnote. MR. ANDERSON: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: And the last two are to spell out rather than simply abbreviate for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. That's Page 8 -4, and the top of 8 -5. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And then with the paren with the abbreviations. MR. ANDERSON: And then on Page 8 -6, instead of the abbreviation or the acronym "LASIP," we have instead added the full name, the Collier County Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project permit. And those were all of the changes that we had received. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And then also on that same page where you've got the abbreviation for the Rookery Bay you're going to write it out and define it with the parens again so that 10, 20 years from now people know what we were talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in agreement? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any other changes or suggestions to clarify this last one? Go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What about the actual heights on the ALFs and CCRCs? It was mentioned in Page 4 of 51 a January 19, 2012 the minutes on the last minutes that we just went over on Page 21, that these -- that on Table 1 on Page 3 -4, and that's -- it is in the footnote that the actual height for the first four categories would be the 45 feet, and then the last three categories would have 15 feet added for the actual height, I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It seems like everything else is covered except the -- all clubhouse buildings and the last two categories, there's no actual height. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I spoke with Mrs. Perry, and the actual height would be 80 -- 95 feet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that's going to go where? In the 3.5, into 3.5? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, 3.5.13.4. Okay. Anything else, Karen? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you're in agreement with all the comments that were made and -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody wish to make a motion subject to the revisions noted on the record today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we accept, as amended, PUDA- PL2011 -47 as representing what was at the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Barry made the second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you, all. ** *Next item up is -- it is a consent item for the ST permit from parks and rec. It's ST- PL2011 -677. Does anybody have any comments on that particular item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation for approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward ST- PL2004 -677 as representative -- representing the hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert. Page 5 of 51 a 161 A I January 19, 2012 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries 9 -0. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have to abstain because I wasn't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 8 -0, Ms. Homiak abstaining. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And I have to abstain, too. I wasn't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're working our way down, 7 -0. Ms. Homiak and Ms. Ahern abstaining because neither were here for that meeting. ** *Okay. We're on to our first advertised and our actually only advertised hearing at this point. It's PUDA- PL2011 -343, the Tuscany Reserve PUD. All wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I met with the applicant's planner, the applicant's representative, and the applicant's attorney. We went over a series of questions that I had that will be re- brought up for discussion today. I guess nobody else? MR. VONIER: I talked to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move on. Okay. Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. My name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant. I'd first like to introduce some folks to you. I have with me today Ms. Erica Rogan, who's the vice president of legal services for Kitson & Partners Communities; and also with me is John Asher, the director of land development for the Tuscany Reserve PUD; and a familiar face, Wayne Arnold, the project planner. Before I get to the substance, I need to note in the record that the applicant has filed a name change for the petitioner, and it is -- the new name is KE Talis Park Properties, LLC. It is the same entity, just a name change, and that will require a change to the cover page of the PUD and also Section 1.3 of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, before we leave that issue, so we don't get lost in further discussion, are you intending that to be one of the changes that you want on record today? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, is there any problem with that being added to the record in today's meeting versus how it was advertised or how it was presented previously? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think there's a problem. He's telling you it's a name change as opposed to a sale or a new unrelated entity, so there is not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure we focus right. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. The Tuscany Reserve PUD is a 461 -acre property that was acquired a year ago by a limited liability company affiliate of Kitson & Partner Communities. Tuscany Reserve is a beautiful, partially developed project that became a victim of the recession. It's located on Livingston Road, and it abuts the boundaries of the city of Bonita Springs. The changes that are requested in the PUD are reflected -- reflective of changing market conditions in Southwest Florida, and among the most important changes are adding villas as a permitted type of dwelling unit, adding development standards to decrease side -yard setbacks, in certain instances, adding actual height limitations for all uses, and retaining the existing approved zoned height limitations with one exception, that exception being, is adding five feet to the maximum zoned height in the village center. That would go from 45 to 50 feet for the zoned Page 6 of 51 161 A I Janua ry 19 2 , height, but it is still subject to the existing overall three -story height limitation. Other changes proposed for the village center area of the PUD are to allow for small -scale retail convenience, goods, offices, and other personal services solely for the residents of the PUD, and they are as allowed by the village center provisions of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. A deviation from the Land Development Code has been requested with respect to timing of when commercial uses can be constructed as well as the distance within which retail commercial is from the dwelling units that are finally constructed in whatever locations they wind up being. The Land Development Code currently provides for phased construction of village center commercial. As the PUD is built out, you can go higher and higher percentages. And the deviation is to request that that be allowed to be constructed up front because the clubhouse and the village center are going to become one, one building, one area, and those -- those commercial uses would be located in there entirely interior to the project. And the distance limitation, the Land Development Code contains a requirement that 80 percent of the dwelling units be within a third of a mile of the commercial in the village center, and simply because development layout plans have not been finalized for where all units are going to be placed, the request is to allow that percentage to be 70 percent, just to be on the safe side. This amendment would also allow both types of dwelling units to be constructed within the -- dwelling units authorized in the PUD to be constructed within the village center subject to a cap of 200 dwelling units instead of just 100 as provided for in the current PUD. A definition for golf club cabanas was added at the request of staff, although a maximum of ten golf club cabanas has always been approved for this PUD as an accessory use to the golf club. And, lastly, the native - vegetation preserve area acreage has been modified to reflect a right -of -way taking by the Florida Department of Transportation for the widening of Interstate 75. The PUD will still exceed the minimum preservation requirements. It's really more of a housekeeping item. And, finally, I would note that Tuscany Reserve is also classified as a development of regional impact, or DRI, and an amendment to the DRI approval document was previously approved by this commission and the County Commission to extend the project buildout date to January 24, 2021. With that, Mr. Arnold and I are available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I'm interested in -- if you could define a little bit better "villa." I see here it says, "Clustered single - family residential dwelling units." That's kind of the definition you're using? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'm going to let the planner give you some more detail. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold, professional planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. Mr. Midney, we have developed a product that we're calling a villa. It's a unit type that's been built through many of the master -plan communities. Many of those are older PUDs that allowed flexibility when you came through a site -plan review process. We don't use the same process that those may have been built under. So the developer has come up with several concepts of kind of the same thing. And let me just show you a few of those examples, if I could. This is one example, and this would be a depiction of something that could be constructed in the village center. And those are small cul -de -sac type lots that -- the cul -de -sacs themselves wouldn't necessarily be rights -of -way. They'd function as more of a motor court to serve four units or so. Those would be individually owned. And since they're really not to be functional through streets, the setbacks have been reduced to be a very minimum to allow flexibility in siting those. Just another example. Some of these are in color; some are not. But this one is one that depicts a straight in with the backout movement but, again, the same concept of these, you know, handful of units being clustered around that. Show you another one that depicts a few units in it. Again, another similar concept where you get the idea that we're trying to cluster these, and it's a -- kind of a nontraditional street system. If you have any other questions -- but that's what we were trying to -- I know it's hard without the visual to really gain what we were trying to do, but that's an example of what we're trying to achieve. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems like it could be attractive. Page 7 of 51 ,..>. A1 16 1 L January 19, 2012 MR. ARNOLD: We think so too, and I think it has been built successfully in Pelican Bay, for instance. I know Grey Oaks, I think Lely also has similar examples of this type of product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until you said that, I was kind of -- didn't have too many questions, but this particular product that you have has a 7 -foot set -- distance between buildings. Where in Collier County do we have that previously? You're just telling us we have other projects in Collier County with 7 -foot setbacks between buildings? MR. ARNOLD: I didn't say they have the exact same development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Your examples are not really example -- accurate examples. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I did speak with Mr. Asher, and we're not quite clear where the number -- the 7 -foot separation came from, and I think that number should be 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would solve a lot of problems. That's even better. Okay. Before we even got to it, you solved one of the problems we had from our meeting. Good. MR. ARNOLD: And that is on the development table. And when we get to that page, I can point out exactly where that change would be made, if that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, when we walk through the PUD and we get there, if anybody -- I'm sure there's -- Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question on your master plan, or this aerial, is good. There's specifics in here as to the buffering and the been and so forth along I -75. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you plan buffering along Veterans Memorial or Livingston? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. There is an existing buffer on Livingston Road. It's a real narrow frontage where the project entry and sales center is located. The Veterans Memorial extension, which was east/west Livingston at the time, will get a buffer at the time that we come in for a plat and development adjacent to that area of the project. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And until then it's -- you won't have one? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start at the beginning. Page 2 -1. When I met with you, we had talked about an actual change that started on 2 -3, and it was under your model home sales office, 2.5. In this particular paragraph, you struck through the previous reference to our 91 -102 LDC, which was, in the third line, Section 2.6.33, and you replaced it with the LDC reference from our new code, 04 -41, 5.04.04, and you did that as well in the last sentence. But then if you go read in this document everywhere else, all the references are to the old 91 -102 code, which really makes it hard for any new person coming on in the staff to follow. So as we discussed, my concern, and I think the solution that we discussed -- and I've already brought it up with staff -- is that wherever there's a reference to the LDC either by division or LDC reference, we would simply say "per the LDC." And you were going to check to see if that caused you any concerns. And does that -- did you check, and did you have any problems with that? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I think -- we did discuss that in our meeting. This goes back for several months in our discussions with the County Attorney's Office. And our reluctance was simply because we weren't sure what had been constructed to some prior code provision that may not be applicable today. So what we did do in Section 2.2 of the PUD on that Page 2 -1, we added the language to reference that at least things that were constructed under the prior LDC provisions that may no longer be applicable or at least not deemed nonconforming. And with that change I think we don't have a problem to change the other code citations to those "per the LDC." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's take it a step at a time, because my questions started on 2 -1. But before we try to refine the language on 2.2A, subject to some clarification language, you don't have a problem with any other references going to per -- "per the LDC "? MR. ARNOLD: Correct, unless there's a specific reference to the new LDC, or there were substitutions that were called out. Those were the way we treated what we would now call a deviation. They were substitutions to Page 8 of 51 1612A1 January 19, 2012 design standard. Those did have specific references, and I'm not sure I want to change those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the -- can you give me -- can you take us to those references just for an example? MR. ARNOLD: If you go to the section on -- it's in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us a page, if you could. MR. ARNOLD: Section 7.6 on Page 7 -2 of the PUD document, that's where those start. And some of those -- and, Mr. Strain, the only reason I say those might be the exception is because I think I need to go back and double -check on those. But the general change throughout the document to reference "per LDC," I don't think is a problem. But in this one, these are deviations that were called out from specific code provisions when this was adopted back in 2003, and these were called substitutions to design standards. And I know those sections have now changed. I don't know if -- I don't know if our attorney, either county attorney or Mr. Anderson, have a comment on that. But there may not be an exact code change, and the deviation may have changed if the language changed. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, I have two points that I can make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They've reopened the PUD, so they've reopened all the issues that you can discuss and changes you see appropriate for compatibility in the other criteria that you have set forth in the staff report. The second thing is if you agree that the old provision -- you know, you're going to accept the old provision, then I've said before, not necessary -- I wasn't the attorney assigned on this PUD, but what I've said before on other PUDs with Mr. Anderson is if you attach the LDC provision that you're saying is going to be applicable, then I would be willing to accept that. I'm -- I don't think it's appropriate that staff has to hunt down and figure out what year, what version of this section applies. But if you agree that the old -- you can see the old provision and know what you're approving, then that's satisfactory to me if it's attached as an exhibit, the language, so staff doesn't have to hunt it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's important to clean up every PUD that comes through that has a possibility of cleaning up for less -- to reduce confusion in the future. As the county starts building up and gets more busy, we're probably going to have more staff. They may not have the background and the knowledge and history that many of us have today. I would rather not see a staff member having to go back to a'91 code and try to understand what was intended by this document. So I think there's two solutions. Look at the substitutions you have at 7.6 and provide a current reference to the LDC that you're substituting for. And by the fact that you were provided this in the existing PUD, I would suggest that is comparable to a deviation and, therefore, consistent. And where there is not a comparable section in the new LDC that references the same language that you're trying to reference in the old, that instead of using the number, you actually list what the LDC reference is so it's spelled out in your PUD and we haven't got to go back searching old ordinances and amendments to old ordinances to see which is the most current one that you were talking about at the time. MR. ARNOLD: As I read through some of these, Mr. Strain, while I was listening, the -- it may be even easier in some cases, to delete LDC reference, just to state what the substitution is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine, too. That's a third alternative. MR. ARNOLD: I mean, that may work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think those -- I think this section should be cleaned up so there's some continuity between what a new staff member might come across when they read this. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I just want to wholeheartedly second that thought, and it's like I was reading your mind, because as a new commissioner I read through here several times, and I'm searching the current LDC. And I'm saying, what's wrong with this document, you know. And I finally spoke with Kay, and she explained the old references. But I was finding it -- I found it impossible to approve or disapprove of all these references. I had no frame of reference. I had no comparison between the old LDC reference and the new. And I agree, Mark, on a go- forward basis, I would really endorse that anything that come before us either reference the new LDC or, if it's an amendment, that, like you suggested, there be -- or Heidi suggested, there be some Page 9 of 51 A l 1 January 19, 2012 sort of a cross - reference and an explanation because otherwise, you know, it's impossible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And if you're referencing -- and I haven't looked at it, because I can't find it -- the old LDC, if there's a reference there to a specification, I -- there may be instances where there's loopholes, gaps, omissions between the old and the new, and that could be a big loophole for someone to take advantage of, perhaps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, even if you had found the old LDC, you would have found, first of all, it would start at 91 -102. The problem was, there were 18 very substantial amendments to that LDC up through the few months prior to adopting 04 -41. And those 18 -- and they were very comprehensive. Just to follow that paperwork is hours and hours and hours of research, and I don't think we can expect that to be done in a time frame acceptable to anybody in the future by staff members. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just want to point out that when you amend a PUD that has existing development that was based on the development standards at the time it was approved, years later when you do an amendment and you start changing those citations to meet the current code, there could be changes to the current code that adversely impact those existing developments creating nonconformities. So staff is very careful when reviewing amendments to a PUD that we're not affecting some existing development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then -- that's what led us here. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're asking Wayne to have -- to check all the references. He's come up with a section of references that might be concerning. We've also offered now three alternatives to how those could be worded to be acceptable, but then we've still got to go back to Section 2.2A and study that sentence they added as the catchall to address the issue just brought up. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where we're headed is to make sure that what you're just expressing does not happen. So are you understanding where the direction is at this point? MR. ARNOLD: I think I do. I just spoke with Mr. Anderson, and I think we can -- it can either be a combination of things. As Heidi suggested, maybe it includes -- including those code references or maybe simply just modifying the substitutions that are written to insert the new provision or to generalize the provision that we're deviating from, as long as what the deviation results in is expressed in the document. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And I think you're mixing questions, because Mr. Strain's initial question was related to 2.2A, and then we went off on the other sections that deal with the other provisions. So I think where Mr. Strain was getting at was a method of identifying those properties that have already received development approvals so that when staff goes through and has to look at it, they know which ones are already -- have already been built and are under older provisions as opposed to what is going to be new. So perhaps an exhibit or something that could identify; is there a method of doing that? MR. ARNOLD: Heidi, I think the difficulty in doing that is that if you look at the aerial and you see how much infrastructure's been installed, including the primary code, the gated entries, individual cul -de -sacs, the clubhouse tract, I mean, I don't know where you start, because a lot of that -- it's not the vertical things that I'm worried so much about. It's what's underground and what was approved as part of the plat and construction plans. That's my -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, then, perhaps that's the way to reference it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Construction plans and plats -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- plats already been approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- applied for approved to date would be the exception that may be needed to be listed in there, not by specific plat reference, but just in generality. Anything as of this -- anything dated prior to the approval of this amendment is grandfathered in, or whatever provision we want to call it, deemed approved pursuant to prior LDC language, and that would get you away from being legally nonconforming, which I know you want to avoid. MR. ARNOLD: Right. Page 10 of 51 16 12 A 1 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't blame you there at all. We're not trying to put you in that box. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get us there? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. We just need to have a meeting of the minds as to what's already deemed approved. And so however you think that can be addressed, put it on an exhibit, or you could list it here. MR. ARNOLD: I mean, maybe we come up with a round date. I don't think there have been any approvals since December 31, 2011, for instance. I mean, is that a date at which we could express approvals prior to that date? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, my problem with it is not just the legal issue but the administrative issue, and then how -- does staff have to go -- whenever one comes in, now they've got to go back and try to research it and figure out which one is -- applies. So I'm just trying to make it simple for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Heidi, with -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody comes in on this project for a change in the road underground, a new tap or whatever, they're going to have to pull up the construction drawings from at the time it was approved. And if we subject something to any approval -- any development orders prior to December 31, 2011, you would simply see the date on those prior approvals and acknowledge that it was under that particular reference. It was prior to 2011. So I'm not sure that's too hard to do. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SIRE and all the rest -- and CityView -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and all the electronic research abilities we have now are pretty fast when you want to pop into things like that. I can pull a PUD upon any project in the county in two minutes. It's just not that hard to do anymore. So, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: You raise a good point. The PUDs are online and easily researched. The one that was just approved on the consent today, the Sabal Bay, I think has a format that I think will work in many cases. When amending an existing PUD, the deviations are treated -- deviations to the previously- approved language, and then they went on to have deviations from the current code. So it's clear to staff what they're looking at in regard to an existing PUD and development that's already in place versus new development that the petitioner is in control o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're suggesting then that they would take the substitution section of this PUD and replace it with a deviations exhibit? Because they're not under the new PUD fonnat. They're still under the old PUD format. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And if the -- if they're not changing anything from the currently approved PUD but it is not consistent with the current LDC, then it could be listed as an LDC so you know that it's not -- it's an older standard that's still going to be retained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne? You look like you were about to say something. MR. ARNOLD: Well, no. I think, in my mind, changing generally all the references to "per LDC," I think, works for us, and then we craft some language in Section 2.2A, if that's the appropriate place, that protects the nonconforming status of anything that may have been approved or constructed, any /or constructed but unbuilt, because we have infrastructure on the ground that's -- some of it's platted and improvements are at different stages. I mean, that language, I think, gets us there. I'm only more concerned about the substitutions at this moment, how we're treating those. And I just need to make sure -- it may very well be a general reference still works, Mr. Strain. I just don't know. Those were the only things that came to my mind, because I hadn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the purpose of me meeting with you -all two days ago was exactly what is now not happening. I wanted all that stuff on the table so today's meeting could be expedited in regards to those issues. It didn't happen. I'm concerned about where you're -- how you're going to be wording your substitutions, not in a sense that I'm objecting to any of them, but I want to make sure that the clarifications and wording are in a manner that can be easily understood by future reviewers as this goes through the processes, because you're going to be building these parcels Page 11 of 51 161 January 19, 2012 out and coming in for plats and doing building permits and everything else, and I'd really rather see it go quickly as it comes through the process rather than being hung up on research that doesn't need to be done if it's done clearly today. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. If I'm understanding them correctly, we're talking about, you know, development that's been constructed, but we're also talking about development that's been approved but not yet constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If they're already in with -- working drawings and approvals but the work hasn't been done, there's -- we shouldn't be penalizing anybody for what they've met pursuant to the earlier codes. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Anderson was just showing me the exhibit that was prepared for the prior consent item. I think we can format these substitutions in a similar manner and either write the former -- the former and compare it to the new LDC citation where it's applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think that's difficult. I just do it from a form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think you understand the point, and I think the point's been made clear, so hopefully that will come across that way. And as long as it doesn't change anything, it wouldn't necessarily undermine any vote that we have today, as long as it's consistent with what's already there. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question. I think that type of a table exhibit cross - reference would certainly help me, or would have helped me. I'm not sure it helps me today. But on a go- forward basis, is that -- are we going to adopt some sort of a standard on future items that come before us that they will see things in a standardized way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we already did that. The problem is, some of the older PUDs, if they're not coming in for a complete rewrite and the repeal -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's hard to get them into that new PUD format. Everything new, a new PUD in Collier County -- we changed that back a few years ago at the request, actually, of this board, and the format is much more to what you're used to seeing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where, unfortunately, there's a lot of lingering old PUDs out there, and when the economy picks up, we're going to be dealing with a lot of them. And they have a lot of ambiguity, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But to the extent those come forward, they will be subjected or will conform to what we're talking about today with this one as far as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depends on if they're either amending or repealing. If they repeal, then they -- I would -- if they repeal, the new ones have come through with the new format. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they amend an old format, we have to basically fit it to the old format. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that would be accompanied with this cross - referencing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From now on it would be, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what I'm talking to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't had this issue pop up before that I can recall to this extent until this one came along. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I'm concerned with the go- forward, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, I think we would do -- I would imagine the precedent that's being set here today would be requested of any future applicant. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. Can I ask a question on 2.2A? In that same paragraph, you say where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the county Land Development Code shall apply. What is the most similar district in the county Land Development Code? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it would depend on what portion of the project you're looking at. If it was a single - family residential, I think the county staff would tell me and agree with me that you would go back to the most similar R district in the LDC to try to find a comparative standard, or if it was in the village center, there's a village Page 12 of 51 1612AI January 19, 2012 center section in our Land Development Code. You would go to that section and then try to find the standard that would be most applicable. CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: But, actually, that whole sentence on a new PUD wouldn't need to be said, because that is what happens. If the -- where the PUD is silent on the language, it always falls back to the Land Development Code. That's redundant language that has been omitted from the new PUD format, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All righty. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Can I add one comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? I'm sorry. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Do you want to strike that language then, or just keep it in since it's older? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it matters one way or the other. It's still a -- it's an amendment to existing language. We have so much redundant language in these old PUDs. If we start striking one sentence, we'd be striking half the PUD. So I don't think it hurts anything. Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Can I make one comment to build on what Mr. Brougham said? And that would be one cautionary statement that there are provisions right now in your code that talk about what's insubstantial, what's minor, what's major. There are minor provisions that affect less than ten lines or something like that. I mean, there may be situations where it would be a difficult situation to update every cross - reference in an older PUD that's substantially built out if they need to come in and make such minor changes to it. I'd just offer that. It has no effect on what we're talking about today, but just as you move forward, that might be a thought you want to keep in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, were you going to -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think maybe the thing that we need to do is look at the procedures that are currently contained in the LDC to make it more clear what needs to be provided for a minor amendment where, as Mr. Arnold had indicated, there's only a few lines of text being changed. Maybe you should not, as the Planning Commission, be seeing the entire PUD but only those lines being changed. So we might get one sheet of paper contained in an ordinance saying this page is being changed in the PUD showing strikethrough and underline, if it's just that minor of a change. Now, if -- when you have an amendment that's as large as this one when they're changing development standards and adding uses, that can't really be treated as a minor, per se. And as the County Attorney's Office had indicated, then you're dealing with a wider range of issues that can be nonconforining -type standards that aren't consistent with the current code, should be brought up to code. But we just have to be cautious not to impact those developments that have already been approved under the older standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the idea of providing only a certain section of the PUD as a reference to a minor amount of changes -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. What you may review may have a higher level of competency than what a new person who we don't even have employed and has no history in this county may review in regards to that issue. And then, regardless, I would still want to review the entire PUD and any references to any previous documents that that PUD may have just to be sure that nothing was missed. And I think that's what this board's responsibility is. So I understand what you're trying to do, Ray, and I don't see it as bad, but on the other side, I think this board's comprehensive review is to catch all the things that may not have been caught as it went through a more limited review, per se, if anybody stuck to just the one or two pages it affected, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'd still want to see the whole thing. Let's try to move on. On Page 2 -2,1 pointed out previously, Wayne, that your table there doesn't agree with the table on the master plan in regards to golf course open space and preserves. You have 138 here, and we're over 200 to 300 on some of the other tables that I've seen. Did you have a solution to that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, you had suggested that we change it to a number that was reflective of the golf open space. I went back and -- I mean, that was a simple calculation number of the minimum open space. That's 30 Page 13 of 51 1612 Al *4 January 19, 2012 percent of the overall project acreage. So that's sort of the minimum project open space in, I think, the master plan. I think the bottom line is, I think leaving it as -is is fine. The master plan documents the fact that we've got golf on open space and lakes and preserves that far exceed that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could we put the word "minimum" in front of "open space" so we know we're not looking for 138 acres; we're looking for a minimum of 138 acres for those items? MR. ARNOLD: I think that'd be a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page -- well, 2 -3 we already went over. That's the LDC issue. So we won't beat that to death. Under Page 3 -2, the last paragraph is an interesting change, and I want to make sure we understand what it is you -- you're intending to accomplish with that paragraph. It's 3.5F. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the way it used to read, housing structure types including lot orientation for single - family detached dwelling units such as zero lot line versus non -zero lot line orientations may not be mixed within the same development tract. And you struck the word "not" so that now you may mix and match development types with the exception, single - family, which is fee simple, and multifamily, which would be SDPs, couldn't be mixed and matched. Well, that part makes sense. But I just want to understand the limitations that we have if we get into mixing and matching units on parcels. And first of all, it also brings back into the question how would you -- did you intend this to address platted parcels? Because you have some parcels where people already own property out there, nice, larger homes, and I'd hate to see a zero -lot -line home go in next to them. So I think we need to have some clarification and limitation on where and what this applies to and then how you would handle a zero -lot -line home going into a single- family home where you have different setbacks. And then if you were to build a whole parcel out with mixes and matches -- and say you had two zero -lot -line homes on each side but your single - family homes in the middle with a setback of five or six feet but you've got 10 foot between principal structures, you squeeze that remaining lot down to almost a no -build lot by taking 20 feet out of it, 10 on each side. How did all this play out? How did you see this happening? MR. ARNOLD: Well, first of all, I don't think we -- first of all, let me say that it was not the intent to apply this type of standard to streets that have already been started with vertical construction. We do have platted unbuilt tracts out there, so there could be replats, Mr. Strain. But the intent wasn't to come in on the street that's got six homes, as you can see there, and now put two zero lot lines between those large estates single - family homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you understand the way it's reading -- MR. ARNOLD: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it doesn't say that. So we need to make that correction. MR. ARNOLD: I agree. I think we need to provide that limitation. And I don't know exactly what that language is off the top of my head, but we can think about that. The other question you had was related to when you mix the two -- two different product types, how do you control it. And it may be as simple as referring back to the unnumbered footnote that's immediately following Table 2, which talks about where we use even the zero lot line, you have to demonstrate a plan when you go in for your permitting to demonstrate that you can meet all those setbacks. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You might want to tie it to a date. That would be an option. If you're saying after a certain date, this section, as amended, applies, that would be one way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. That's two different questions. So he was -- the first point, though, is the clarification of 3.5F, and you're suggesting we could tie it to a date so that any particular parcel that was built on or developed prior to this date would not apply. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. Because he just got done saying it wasn't intended to apply to what is already built. It's -- or approved to be built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or platted, because you've got some parcels that have been platted, and it's typical to replat if you want to change product. So they'd have to really go to -- beyond that point. I think that's something they could suggest to us. Page 14 of 51 16 1 - A I January 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to wait till we got to the master plan, but -- well, let me wait till they're actually paying attention. Wayne, the question I had is, that, you know, in the master plan we show everything as residential. We have five residential types. So there's no way at this point in time you can kind of show where these different residential things will be placed? And wouldn't the existing people living there kind of want to know that now or -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the easy answer is they bought in with the same master plan that we have with the exception of the villa type that we've added. There was no indication on that master plan where the different product types would be constructed, except for maybe the village center where we only had multifamily that was a permitted dwelling -unit type. We think that inserting a villa product or small lot -- zero lot line in the village center makes a lot of sense, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're saying that a multifamily could be built next to a single - family home right now? MR. ARNOLD: No. I think the limitation that's in there that we are referring to under 3.5F prohibits that situation currently and moving forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 3.517 previously would not have allowed what you just said. So they couldn't have done that previously. Even though they had a variety of product to pick from, if you did a parcel in single- family, had to be that type of single - family, the changes they're suggesting is that they can still pick a parcel to do single - family on but it can be any one of the five -- or any number of the single - family product on the same parcel instead of limiting it to just one type of single - family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you say "development tract," what do you mean by that? I mean, is that half a road, you know, I mean, a couple sites? I mean, that's the other thing that's not defined. Could a single - family home be next to a development tract with multifamily? MR. ARNOLD: It could, and it could be currently or -- and in the future, but that brings into play setbacks and buffer requirements between those different dwelling unit types. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put a picture of your product, your master -- could you put the master plan on the overhead? And this may get to Brad's question visually. If you come in the south entrance off of the east/west Livingston Road extension, which is now Veterans Memorial Parkway, and you see the two Rs down there, they're undeveloped, unplatted at this time. If you were to apply this, could you, theoretically, put on the north side of either one of those cul -de -sacs a multifamily and on the south side a single- family, or is the cul -de- -- is the entire cul -de -sac roadway parcel subject to all single - family, all multifamily, and then do we start triggering the -- in those particular ones any mix of the single - family? MR. ARNOLD: Well, your first comment, yes, I think you could come in and plat the north side of a road with multifamily and the south side with single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your tract issue that you were asking about. MR. ARNOLD: It would be referenced to a platted tract of land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is -- let's go back up into the older part. If -- there was a street in the north side probably with tract -- all single- family, let's say, can you go back and replat that and put on that same north side a big tract for multifamily? I mean, is there any way at this point in time you can show us what development tracts have already been placed there? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we have -- MR. ASHER: You want me to try to? MR. ARNOLD: You can. I mean, you can try and answer that, John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have three that have been -- MR. ARNOLD: There are several platted tracts of land, and there are intended to be replats. I think one was recently created -- one of the tracts near the sales center, for instance, was single - family; next developer thought it needed to be multifamily; the current developer thinks it needs to be back at single - family. I mean, things do change, and those development tracts have been the trigger for all of these. I mean, what we have isn't unique. And I go back to the standard. If we didn't come forward with this amendment, we still have Page 15 of 51 1612 knulary 19, 20 012 the same standard. This was really to allow us a mixture of single - family dwelling unit types to have flexibility to mix some different product types in a different streetscape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you would have a different standard than what Brad's asking about, so I think that statement isn't really accurate. If you didn't come in with this amendment, you would be building out the tracts basically all single- family or all multifamily. You wouldn't be mixing and matching, because you weren't allowed to do that. MR. ARNOLD: But what I'm trying to say is, the tract is based on what I plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd plat those cul -de -sac current tracts as two tracts instead of one potentially. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. I think that's -- that would be possible today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how much of it has been -- how many development tracts have been established so far? MR. ASHER: Good morning. My name is John Asher, and I'm with Kitson & Partners, the KE Talis Park Properties, LLC, and I'm the land development director for the project. Very simple. What's built today is basically two streets with homes on it. This street along I -75 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the portable mike, John. MR. ASHER: This street -- how's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. ASHER: The street out here is called Pistoia, and that is almost completely built out. There's four vacant lots remaining. And then the other street that's built is this street here. It's called Prato, and there -- I think there's seven completed homes on that. So what we're proposing would not have -- we would not make any changes on those streets. We wouldn't mix or match product or product type. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ASHER: I think the whole purpose of this request is just to add the flexibility with the market that we're seeing. Right now we're switching to smaller --you know, smaller, narrower lots. But as the market gets better, there might be a demand for the larger hundred - foot -wide lots. So we don't want to be -- we were shoehorned in with the larger lots previously. I worked for a home builder prior to this, and we were stuck with large lots, and you couldn't sell them. So we needed to downsize and change product and replat. And, you know, we're seeing quite a bit of that right now going to smaller lots. And that's part of the reason, but we could go back up to larger, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So would you have a problem that -- in anything that was developed far -- any other development tracts that were established prior to this amendment? Would they stay -- can they stay the same? MR. ASHER: No. I would say we're willing to commit to any tracts that have vertical, you know, homes on them, we would not change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when the tracts that were built, the two streets you showed, were those tracts on both sides of the street? I mean, was the subdivision -- MR. ASHER: Yeah, both sides of the street are built on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are subdivided? MR. ASHER: Are subdivided. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And recorded already? MR. ASHER: Recorded? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On those two cul -de -sacs. MR. ASHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ASHER: And so we would -- I think we could commit to not going in and replatting those two streets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you tell me, John, how many homes you have there right now? Page 16 of 51 16 l 2 A I January 19, 2012 MR. ASHER: I believe we have approximately 30 -- 33. There are 14 on the street, the first one that I showed; I think there's seven on the second, and then there are two 6 -unit multifamily buildings that are built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And where these single- family homes are now, how large are those lots? MR. ASHER: The street that's furthest along that has the 14 with only 4 vacant, those are 75 foot wide; the street that has only 7 homes, those are 125- foot -wide lots. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question. John, since you're up there and I know you have some engineering background. The infrastructure has been installed in quite a few of your parcels, and a lot of your roads are in, which means all your taps are in, your water /sewer lines, your placement of your cleanouts and everything will be, and maybe even your FP &L transformer pads, your UTS, your Sprint pads and whatever else you've got out there. You start mixing and matching units, you're going to be off center on the placement of some of your buildings and driveways and things like that. How would you -- are you intending to modify all your infrastructure as you go along, parcel by parcel, depending on who picks what for each parcel? I mean, that's what you'd almost be forced to do. MR. ASHER: Essentially, that's the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an expensive process. I mean, I know what it takes. I've done it twice. MR. ASHER: Absolutely. The streets that are -- there are several that are partially completed, and there are several that are approved in the original Phase 1 plat that they stopped prior to installing them. The infrastructure is about 80 percent completed on this first street, and that's -- and WCI already revised it once to take it to multifamily, and we've got large backflow preventers for the multifamily buildings. We are adjusting the utility services to fit a smaller single - family product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the purpose of your new product mix, which are basically smaller units, is to be more competitive in the current economy, I would assume. MR. ASHER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're just driving the price up by allowing the mix and match. I mean, at what point will you make a decision on what goes where, or will it be a buyer making the decision? MR. ASHER: It will all be market driven. I mean, we -- there's people that have a desire for a condominium unit, but there's not a developer out there that we're familiar with that would build a condominium product in a golf course community right now. There's just too many resales on the market. I mean, we would like to get the -- get a few more units out here density -wise, but no one's willing to commit to anything like that, thus the need for the clustered product that we can come in with a little bit better price point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that product doesn't bother me as much as -- because you'd plan for that. If you're going to do that clustering, you'd have a whole infrastructure layout that only aligns itself with that type of product. But your mix - and -match product on your single - family standard tracts, depending on, at the time, how it's picked, could require a redo of almost every tap and alignment as you go down that roadway, and I'm -- that's what is a little concerning. I mean -- MR. ASHER: Well, it's cheaper to change the services if you can get a product that sells rather than to hold onto the property indefinitely with no use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's either -- it's also -- could be cheaper to come up with a design and a product that's consistent and works than try to market it for a period of time on a short quantity than commit yourself to miles of quantity. MR. ASHER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- oh, well. MR. ASHER: Well, no. We're stuck with what we have, and we will be phasing -- you know, doing smaller phases at a time on any of the new stuff that hasn't been developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was just going to say, it's good for the construction industry if he's moving taps all over the place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I don't see how it's going to work, but that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a stimulus program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But no, let's get back -- and I guess we started -- we'll get back to Wayne, then. If Page 17 of 51 1. 161 January 19, 2012 you mix and match and you start putting in zeros -- say you've got a 50- foot -wide lot, and a 50- foot -wide lot could have a single - family detached with, you're looking at now, side yards of 5 feet, so that would be -- your net buildable is 40. But if you end up putting zeros on both sides of that 50- foot -wide lot, your net buildable is 30. Are you prepared, then, to build a -- you know, do you have a product that you could market on -- I mean, the last thing we need is to say, well, the county allowed you to do this mix and match and you built yourself into a corner and you walk forward with a hardship saying, well, we now can't build on this lot, it's unbuildable, it's not fair. We want to have a buildable product. Are you going -- is that a possibility that's going to be coming up, or are we putting ourself into a corner? MR. ARNOLD: No. I think it's a remote possibility given the fact that -- what it's referring to, we need to come up with a concept plan for that tract if we're going to mix those development types, was one of the suggested changes that I made. Right now if you use zero lot line the way the PUD is written, I have to show the county conceptually how I make my units fit on the zero lot lines to avoid the same situation that you're referring to so that the guy in the middle doesn't get squeezed out of an opportunity to construct on the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd have to show it over the entire duration of the plat? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So every one of your units on the plat application, instead of having a diagramatic showing a typical setback of a lot that you'd be putting there, you'd be putting five different typicals with the scenarios that show how each one would influence the net resulting lot in the end. MR. ARNOLD: I think, potentially, you could. I doubt if you're going to be mixing five different types. But as you know, having been in the industry, most of the developers do lot -fit studies anyway where they depict their different footprints on their conceptual plans once you get a little bit further down the development process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how about this as a solution. Since you're going to show them on the plat, why don't we make 3.517 where it says -- instead of "may not be mixed," but subject to the approval of the plat showing the configuration you intend to use, so that once you're platted you can't come back in and add in one of the units that you didn't anticipate at the time you sent it into county for planning. I gotcha. MR. ARNOLD: Well, let me think about that. That's a lot to take in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, think about it. You're going to show a plat, and you're going to show your typical lot, and in this case you're going to maybe show two or three different scenarios on that typical lot that's going to go on that plat, but then later on a buyer says, gee, I'd like to put a villa on that lot, not the zero, not the single - family, not the duplex or not the -- whatever it is you've got there -- one of the other ones. Not the -- yeah, not the two- family, I want to put -- or the townhouse. Instead of the three you've chosen for the plat, I want to do a fourth. Well, now the plat doesn't show us the scenarios that would --that we could potentially have as a result of that. Why don't we just limit --whatever you do is pursuant to your plat. And if you don't want the particular product after you've picked the three or four that you've decided and you want to add another one, you've got to come back in with a plat to show us how that's going to work in the overall picture of the parcel, a replat. I mean, you could do that -- that would force you to do the scenarios at the plat time, which is what you want to do anyway, isn't it? MR. ASHER: I don't think there's any objection to coming back in with some sort of site plan showing how it's going to work. I mean, we'd never intend to just randomly let someone pick "we want a zero here and we want a 50 there and a 75 there." There wouldn't -- it wouldn't be a random thing. I think this -- what we're looking for is the flexibility to make a change driven by the market. You know, we had a zero lot line, a smaller product, and we're having trouble selling those. We want to be able to change the product to a bigger product or something a little bit different. So coming back in with some sort of site plan approval process to say this is how we're going to meet the building separations, this is how it's going to be laid out on the rest of the tract or the portion of the tract that we're looking to do it, there's no objection at all. What I think Wayne -- Wayne's struggling with trying to understand on a plat, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the site plan approval process for a fee simple? MR. ASHER: It would be a plans and plat, but -- Page 18 of 51 16 12 A I January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- MR. ASHER: I think -- there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we're back to where I suggested. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, if you look at just under Table 2 that's on Page 3 -3, there's a paragraph that talks about establishing your minimum yards and thing -- and lot sizes, but there's also -- in the third sentence it says, for all -- it had patio, villa, zero lot line. I think maybe we reference back the same process on the prior page so that we have to come in with a plan of how that's going to be developed before we pull the first building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, now, what are you going to call this process of submitting this plan? Because it's going to be out of the normal sequence. Is it a standard format of submittal? I mean, the plat is. Everybody in the county knows what a plat is. Staff knows what a plat is. They expect it. How would they know about this? You're looking for a different process? MR. ARNOLD: No. I don't think it's a different process. There are several other PUDs of this generation that use -- it's not a formal site development plan process. That process is really driven by infrastructure. This is really one to depict building configuration, and it's not a true site development plan, but it's a site plan depicting your unit types at the time you're going in for your building permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PSP? MR. ARNOLD: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be like PSP? MR. ARNOLD: I guess it could be similar to the PSP process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if I'm barking up a tree the rest of you aren't concerned about, somebody on this board should say so. Because I'm -- this bothers me, not in the sense I'm against what you're trying to do. I'm trying to get a way so that staffs going to understand what it is you're trying to do, and when they go out and inspect it, they know what they're looking -- or when they review it. That's all I'm trying to get to is clarification of the process; otherwise, you guys could get tied up in submittals and rejections for eons, and that shouldn't be the case. We should make it clear here. So you can help me get there by a standard process that we've already got that we understand and that everybody's used to. That's fine. If you're going to invent a new process, we need to understand what that is then, too, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the process is already in place, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you call it, then? MR. ARNOLD: I think it's called what's referred to in this sentence. It's not a site -plan process. It says we have to provide a typical building configuration submitted to the customer service department with the application for the first building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but that goes for the building permit. There's no reflection to zoning review on the plat. That's what I'm concerned about; it goes to the building department review. Does anybody from staff have any ideas how this can be done? I see you both looking. Jump in. You guys MR. BELLOWS: In my opinion -- for the record, Ray Bellows. My understanding of what's being proposed, I think, could be addressed by listing in the PUD document those tracts that have development that are going to keep the current development standards, and then their proposed standards on the tracts that haven't been developed, just list those standards -- the new standards that they were proposing, that way there won't be a mix and match. Now, if they want to be able to switch -- typical PUDs have language. A developer starts a tract with certain development standards. You stay with those development standards and you can't switch them midstream. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's exactly the issue we're having trouble with. That's not what they want to do. They want to mix and match as the market dictates. MR. BELLOWS: That becomes very problematic for staff to be able to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I've been arguing about. Right, that's what my concern is. I'm not saying, though, we're against it. I'm trying to figure out a way to clarify the process. I'm more concerned about staff review and how to get this right than have staff criticized later on for missing it because the language is so poorly written. Page 19 of 51 16 1 Al an uary 19, 2012 Kay, do you have a suggestion? MS. DESELEM: The only thing I was thinking -- for the record, Kay Deselem. We could, you know, exclude the developed tracts -- they're identified in the plat -- and then reference that plat book and page. So even if they're replatted, it's still goes back to that. Right now it's platted as Tuscany Reserve in Plat Book 39. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Kay, I have no problem with the platted part. We can clarify that. But if they wanted to come in for one of those northern tracts, that's -- as a replat or to do as a new plat and they wanted to have the ability for all five single - family unit -- type of units on that tract, how do you see that getting through a review process to know that the setbacks and all the distances between buildings and footprints are properly portrayed in the plat process? MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I could be wrong -- Ray can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't think zoning normally looks at plat reviews. I mean, when they come in for plans and plat, I don't know that we have anybody in that realm that reviews that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John Houldsworth reviews it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and John Houldsworth reviews it and -- if there are zoning issues, making sure, basically, the lots meet the minimum lot size and area of PUD. He'll coordinate with the zoning to make sure that it's -- that it is -- MS. DESELEM: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: -- consistent. There is a possibility that they could provide a typical detail of a tract as they proceed in the future. But it still boils down to, if you're in the middle of developing single - family with a certain lot size and then all of a sudden you change that to a four -plex, let's say, it's not going to fly on the same tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're not suggesting that. They're saying if they would develop a single - family lot of 75 foot wide on any one of these tracts but they found a buyer who wanted to provide a -- have a 40- foot -wide zero lot line on that same tract, they just pop it in that tract and do it. Is that something staff can monitor effectively? MR. BELLOWS: In regards to building permits pulled for single - family dwelling, they're going to look at the PUD to determine what the setbacks are for that tract. Now, if there are multiple setbacks that apply, it will be very difficult to understand what -- you know, I think an error could be made in that case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're spending a lot of time protecting them from themselves, but I'm more worried about the people living there. Because one thing this thing doesn't do -- it just says everything is residential, so it's kind of a no man's land until they come along and provide a plat. There's no minimum -size plat. It could be for one lot on the street. It could be for the whole street, the whole cul -de -sac. And then people go in, and they buy a product, then the next product is going to be what's ever marketable next door. And I'm worried about the people that would start off down the street and see this nice single - family. The next thing you know, hey, let's do some multifamily here. Then, Wayne, let's go back to cluster here, then let's -- you know. And normally these plans show us regions in which different densities are going to occur. This thing doesn't have it. They're just going to cut it off as they eat it, so to speak. So, you know, that's the problem I have. Your problem could be there, but I think where they'll get cut more than anything is they have minimum lot sizes, and they'll probably be subdivided minimum lot sizes. So if you've got a 3,500- square -foot lot, you're not going to build a -- you know, the 4,000 product won't fit. But enough said on that. Ray (sic), one question is, on the two- family, you're saying that it is 3,500 per unit on that lot? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. lot? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So at a 35 width, if I wanted to do a duplex, I would have a 200 - foot -deep CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two hundred - foot -deep lot? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not following. Page 20 of 51 16i -� A Z m January 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the duplex is -- the minimum width is 35 feet, right? MR. ARNOLD: The minimum lot width is 35 and the minimum building area is 3,500. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And the minimum lot depth is 100. So I start out at, I have a 3,500- square -foot lot. I can only put one unit on that, though. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right, isn't it? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd have to either make it twice as wide or twice as deep. MR. ARNOLD: Well, that would be in form of -- in that particular reference, that's a two- family or an attached single - family, I think, is the more common reference, where you have a common wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd have 70 feet for two -- for that unit to be complete. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There would be a common parting wall; 35 feet on each side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's what I'm trying to get to, that you're not building a duplex on 3,500 feet. In the note, I think -- the two- family would have a property line, common property line, you know, in a parting wall. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, your suggestion of taking some of that language from that paragraph and trying to supplement it into clarification on 3.517, I think that might be the way to consider going. MR. ARNOLD: I think Mr. Anderson and Ms. Ashton are -- have discussed that, too, and we may have an answer for that before we complete it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It just needs further clarification rather than leave it like it is, and I think you've -- heading in the right direction, so I'd certainly like to see that happen. Boy, we're moving -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one more question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The customer services department, what is that just out of curiosity? Is that downstairs where I get my beach pass or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably need to refer to the correct -- that's the old language, so CDES or whatever they call themselves now. Yeah, you guys change your name so much over there, it's hard to keep up. MS. DESELEM: My understanding, the customer service department is part of the business center which is, in essence, when you go into the building at 2800 North Horseshoe, when you get in the lobby, that's the business center area and the customer service people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's the department now called? MS. DESELEM: The overall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It used to be called CDES. MR. BELLOWS: Growth Management Division. MS. DESELEM: Now it's called Growth Management Division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why don't we just substitute that in. That takes care of -- no matter what lobby you walk into, you've got to submit it to that division. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well --and also we wouldn't want them just to walk in, walk up to a counter, you know, get a number. When the number's called, and that's where this is all worked out. Like, something a little bit deeper than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's the process we've asked to have clarified in the previous page. MR. ARNOLD: We'll clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 3 -- the table on Page 3 -3 we've already started touching on a little bit. One of the issues -- your definition -- the old definition for building height is in here. I asked you to consider accepting -- striking that Asterisk 2 and just use whatever the zone definition is, because you went to the new "actual" as another category; do you have any problem with that? MR. ARNOLD: I think we do. When we initially spoke, I wasn't sure. I consulted with Mr. Asher, and he Page 21 of 51 12 A 1 January 19, 2012 reminded me that the multifamily structures that are actually built on the lake in the village center, those units are at lower- than -road elevation because they created the height for the village center area and the bulkhead for the lake. So you have units that are down closer to the water, and those, essentially, are three -story units that progress from -- so your first finished floor is actually below the road elevation on those units, and that's why we'd be hesitant to remove that standard, because they were constructed using that standard. And there's still other development along that lake bulkhead to be constructed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing's easy with this one, is it? Got to walk through every one of these. MR. ARNOLD: That's the difficulty of dealing with a project that's under construction. It's one of those where we need refinements. And I know it's not easy, but it's the process we have to go through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under F -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, one thing, too. Zoned height, that is not the description of zoned height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it isn't. That's why I wanted it struck and just use the definition of the LDC. But the problem is, they've relied on their definition, which isn't uncommon at the time. That definition was used by many PUDs at the time. It gives them more latitude because it measures into your heights, not exterior, as you well know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it's -- they've already got property slated to be used with that height calculation in mind based on other infrastructure improvements, I'm not sure it would be beneficial to change it or how to change it at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actual is measured from, you know, average road to -- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the uppermost part of building. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. And that was one of the other changes that Mr. Anderson previously referenced. We were asked by staff to add an actual building height to the zoned height, to which we have complied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you would have been asked by us to do it anyways, so staff was just giving you a heads -up, so -- MR. ARNOLD: They listen to you, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Asterisk No. 3, this is different. I understood your explanation. I want to make sure everybody on this panel understands it, because normally the front -entry garages are a minimum of 23 feet. You've reduced it to 20. The basis for the reduction is that the 23 feet is from back of curb -- or back of sidewalk so you don't block a sidewalk. In this particular case, you don't have any sidewalks. You have no homes facing sidewalks in this particular project; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's correct, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 6 was a twist. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They have no sidewalks? MR. ASHER: On the cul -de -sacs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the cul -de -sacs, so the only place you've got residential. None of the cul -de -sacs in this project have sidewalks based on prior approval. That was done in -- I forgot when. It was a scrivener's error back -- I u 1:x:7 C� ► [ � ] � �A ►� I I I I L' � CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2004. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So none of the roadway exhibits are in the cul -de -sacs, the sections? Well, they have sidewalks, so the answer has to be no. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. The deviation at the time was to not provide sidewalks on the cul -de -sacs. And the other road cross - sections, the primary -- primary road and any other street that's not a cul -de -sac would be constructed to those as they're currently referenced in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what street would not be a cul -de -sac? The road from the primary to the village center? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Entrance to -- yeah. All up the spine road down the middle it looks like. All the Page 22 of 51 16 I A 1 •s January 19, 2012 cul -de -sacs feed off of it. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's the primary and then the road. MR. ARNOLD: And that's not to say that it couldn't change. But, yes, the primary road has the sidewalk, and then the cul -de -sacs do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about that loop road that goes along the north and connects over at the star the center point by the village center? That's not a cul -de -sac road. MR. ARNOLD: Are you referring to the northernmost east/west road, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, then it turns north/south when it goes to the west side -- east side of the project. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. It's got a sidewalk, right? MR. ASHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That has a sidewalk? MR. ARNOLD: It does have a sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the additional one. Back on that page, now we get into the issue of the variables zero lot line. This board is used to seeing standards like zero feet on one side and 10 on the other, and you can move it back and forth. In this particular case it's variable. It can be anything from zero to ten, but you maintain a 10 -foot separation. So one property could have zero. The other next to it would be 10 feet. But if one property is three, the other's got to be seven. Is that what you're proposing? So the zero lot lines are -- you could have five and five. How do you differentiate a zero lot line from a single- family detached at that point? MR. ARNOLD: That is -- I understand your comment, and we did discuss that. Mr. Asher has been building a zero -lot -line product, as they call it. We're calling it variable for this purpose, because Heidi would point out to you your definition of zero lot line requires one wall to be built on the zero. This would allow the developer some flexibility to have certain portions of the building at zero if they chose to. But I think in reality, if they start a street with a three and a seven, it's going to be a consistent three and seven, or five and five, if that's the case. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think the variable lot lines are a problem. We have had problems in other developments. I think Wyndemere is an example of that. And if you're going to allow it, perhaps they can come up with some kind of control so that you don't have a property owner who does have zero lot lines on each side and then they have to be the one that has to the build the smaller home or not get the kitchen extension that they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have a definition in the LDC for zero lot line? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: You do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This varies from that definition? If it does, is that a deviation? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I can read you the definition. MR. ARNOLD: I would call it development. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The only thing zero lot line says is the location of a building on a lot in such a manner that one or more of the building sides rests directly on a lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this isn't a zero -lot -line unit if it goes -- if it has a variable distance. So now, we're into a -- we're into a definition issue. Ray or Kay, if this isn't a zero lot line because it no longer rests on the line, under what definition does it become in the code then? And, then, how do we -- MR. BELLOWS: Single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's single- family, then we fall under category -- which was Category 1, but then your setbacks don't work. So now we've got a single- family with a variable setback. Is that what we're looking at? MR. ARNOLD: Are you asking me or staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm trying to understand it, Wayne. This is probably -- I don't -- I understand Page 23 of 51 A 1 16 .� January 19, 2012 the creativity. I understand all that good stuff that PUDs are supposed to have, but this one is certainly one of those creative ones. We're trying to understand it; that's all. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Since it doesn't meet the definition of a zero lot line, it can't be a zero lot line. So, like you say, it's probably going to have to be some kind of single - family attached unit and then set forth the standards for that, because you can't deviate from a definition anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not attached, though. MS. DESELEM: So you can't -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Single - family -- go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: One -- some older PUDs that I've noticed they might say Type 1 development standards, single- family Type 1, Type 2, then you have your second set of development standards, then you would note on the plat that it's going to be Type A or Type 1 development standards, single - family. That way you're not trying to fiddle with the definition or trying to shoehorn a project to meet a certain definition. Certainly it's not a zero lot line by definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it becomes variable, and you don't have part of the building on zero, then you don't have a zero lot line, that means your whole table becomes what? What do we go for then? MR. ARNOLD: Could we just retitle the zero lot line to say "variable lot line "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be better than trying to use the -- MR. ARNOLD: Variable, single - family, or something like that because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- term that's got a definition. MR. ASHER: With the commitment that it not change the standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I under- -- and, John, you're not on the record, but I think Wayne can repeat what you just said. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'll let John speak. MR. ASHER: John Asher, for the record. The purpose of this is we've gone to smaller products -- and I'm putting on my builder's hat. And it had a twin -villa product that was basically a duplex, and then we separated it. But that product works out much better architecturally if you come in from -- have a side entrance versus a front because of the narrowness. And to do -- but the true zero lot line causes problems with roof overhangs and drainage, so we found it much better to have a 3 -foot setback on the one side that accommodated the roof overhang and minor drainage issues, left you 7 foot on the other side to put in a small landscape hedge and a sidewalk and still keep it off the property line. So we avoided all those cross -use easements and all those headaches that residents never understand and end up being basically arguments in an HOA down the road. So that's the desire. It isn't to have, you know, zero on one lot and three on the next and five and five on the next. It's to come up with a standardized plan that allows flexibility that minimizes headaches for the residents but allows you the side entry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're trying to do, and I don't have necessarily a concern with that part of it. I'm just trying to figure out how it should be worded so that anybody reviewing it can understand it. And your explanation helps. Thank you. MR. ASHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Terri might need a break. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Does he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm going to do that now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you forgot the fire code, which is a good reason we'll be back, too. Number 8, Ray, the way that's worded, I mean, I read that last sentence. Everything was going well until you got to -- the 150 feet's important because a dead -end, the fire department cannot back down anything greater than 150 feet, so you have to have a massive cul -de -sac or T turn. But then you say for nonemergency - vehicle access. I don't think you have to say that, and the reason that could be a problem is that if you're telling them that vehicles -- emergency vehicles can't go into that cul -de -sac, then Page 24 of 51 161 � A 1 January 19, 2012 you might start throwing some of the buildings that are on the far end of that having to be sprinklered and stuff like that because of the fire department access distance. So you may want to review it with the fire department. But I think you could remove the notation that you're saying that's not for emergency- vehicle access. The 150 feet is a brilliant number. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we had a -- would have a problem. I think we put it in there for assurances that it wasn't going to be an issue for emergency vehicles. But if we don't need the language, then I'm happy to take it out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're saying that it's not to be used for emergency - vehicle access, correct? That's how I'm reading it. I mean, if it's -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That wouldn't be good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, the point is, you would want to go the 150 feet and then give you immediate access to a unit down at the end. I mean, I've had trouble where if you get past the 150 feet you actually have to start sprinklering the building because the fire department access is so far from the building, in some jurisdictions, not here. Anyway, work it with the fire department to get it worded -- MR. ASHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so they can use it but you don't have to put a full -blown cul -de -sac or T turn on the end of it. MR. ASHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a break while we can for the court reporter. We'll be -- let's come back at 10:45 and resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is abnormal. Sorry we're being -- we're coming back late. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Late? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Late. It's 10:46. It's supposed to have been 10:45. I know how punctual Mr. Brougham likes things, and so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I was looking at you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured you were. When's he going to get up here. Okay. We left off with the standard's -- development standard table on Page 3 -3. Brad had asked a question about the last paragraph, and I certainly wanted to understand it better myself, but a different issue than Brad had found. And, Ray or Kay, it really leads to staffs issues. It says in the second sentence, the county manager or his designee may approve substitutions to the design standards in the Collier County Construction Standards Manual in accordance with Section 10.02.04, yada, yada, yada -- good luck writing that, Terri -- of the LDC. Now, are you comfortable with the processes that they're talking about, in particular the reduction in road -- in right -of -way width down to 30 feet? And if you are, why have we had that listed as a deviation in so many previous PUDs? It's almost a standard deviation request now if you can apparently do it administratively. John, did you pop up because you had something new to contribute or -- MR. ASHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You want to strike that whole paragraph? MR. ASHER: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to strike that whole paragraph? MR. ASHER: Oh, no, not at all. We'd add a few more thing -- possible flexibilities in there, but no. We met with Jack McKenna and John Houldsworth on this language and tried to show them what we were trying to accommodate, and this was derived as a result of those conversations and giving the county manager or his designee -- who in this case would probably be Mr. McKenna -- the ability to, you know, authorize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but, unfortunately, we've had many PUDs, and Wayne's brought some of them here where, because we wanted to vary the right -of -way width from the standard that's shown in the LDC down to 50 feet or some other number, we've had to always put it through as a deviation. So this is kind of saying we never needed to do that because it can be done administratively, which I'm a little surprised at seeing it like that, and I'm wondering how many more of those conditions are tucked away under this process or in the reference to this manual that we don't know about that nonnally we would have seen as a deviation Page 25 of 51 .t -A9£ A IL 16 1 January 19, 2012 as we had in the past. And I don't know if Ray and Bill and Kay are listening to any of this -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, we are. For the record -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The Constructions Standards Manual is in your Code of Laws and Ordinances, so it's not in the LDC. And there is some current ability under that ordinance to grant, I don't know if I'd say deviations or variances, but there's that authority there already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To who, the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: To the -- yeah. This recital here deals with the authority that's already in the Construction Standards Manual. And I can get that section for you if you want to see what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but then let's go back to the question at hand. Why have we been looking at changes in right -of -way widths as deviations? Kay? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. What I've run into is when the developer comes in with a project, he doesn't want to wait till that stage because that's usually done at SDP. They want to have assurance up front as part of their zoning that they can have the approval to deviate from those standards. So instead of going through the process to do it at SDP stage, they want to do it as a deviation at the zoning stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They haven't asked for a deviation, though. MS. DESELEM: I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't a deviation. That's a footnote to a development - standards table. Did they ask for a deviation for this? MS. DESELEM: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: I'm thinking of the substitution table. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm only getting more confused. And I apologize -- MS. DESELEM: That's my fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --because -- MR. ARNOLD: May I try and address that? Again, Wayne Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ARNOLD: Under your preliminary plat procedures that's referenced in the Land Development Code, you can ask for design substitutions as part of that process. Mr. Asher net with Jack McKenna and John Houldsworth to show them the various product examples that they had, and we believe that the two numbers that are referenced with regard to the standards are what we need assurances to be able to construct that product given the substitutions that we can ask for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, again, I'm back to the process as a problem, not what you're asking for. If you want to put a 30 -foot driveway in instead of 50 -foot or a 60, that's practical. I'm not worried about that. I'm more worried about the process. And the process that you've brought up basically says that this can be done administratively. It's never been done administratively from those applications sent before this Planning Commission. It's been done as a deviation. So now you're asking for a -- you're telling us something can be done administratively asking for prior approval of it when we're -- we only issue deviations through the LDC. So I don't understand why this issue is coming up to here. And if it's already something that can be done, why is it even listed in this as a need to even express itself. Why aren't you just following procedure? And if the staff can already do it, let staff keep doing it. I'm a little puzzled as to why we have even the prior deviation request of the 50- foot -wide road widths. Can you answer that question, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There's -- the section cited in this Footnote Number 8, Section 10.02.04.A.3 of the LDC, is part of the platting requirements. And as Kay has -- had mentioned, there has historically been an ability at the time of platting or Site Development Plan to ask for deviation -- or those substitute design standards; however, during rezoning, the board and the Planning Commission has historically wanted to know if they were planning on doing those things. And we Page 26 of 51 16 12 A-4 id January 19, 2012 tried to list those as deviations so you know that they are proposing either a smaller right -of -way or that the cul -de -sac length is going to be extended greater than what's allowed in the LDC. So we tried to -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair? MR. BELLOWS: -- address those as soon as possible up front at the time of zoning. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You've got some roadway design standards that are in the LDC. And when we're deviating from the LDC, we put it specifically as a specific deviation, okay. There are also standards in the Collier County road right -of -way handbook which is in the Code of Laws, and we have been getting requests from the development community to deviate from that section. And because we don't give deviations to the Code of Laws, we have been structuring it a little bit differently. We've been looking at the authority under that ordinance for the transportation administrator to grant deviations, and on occasion we have specified under the deviations section that he's granting that deviation. Do you understand what I'm saying? So it has shown up under your zoning approvals, but its been as the transportation administrator granting that deviation prior to getting to the SDP stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Without me having that section of our code in front of us, what is the minimum right -of -way width provided by the LDC; do you recall? You said it was in there, and I believe it is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe it's in the LDC under 6.06.01 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But what is the minimum width called out then? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty feet? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- 60. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what are they asking for; 30? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thirty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is 60 more than 30? Yes. Is 30 a deviation, then, to the Land Development Code? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then where's the deviation being requested? It's as simple as that. MR. ARNOLD: Well, if we need to restructure this in the form of a deviation, I'm happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I would think you do. And I would think that we take out the language that you're entitled to already if you believe you are, because by putting it in here subjects us to have to understand your entitlement. And I don't really want to go through that Construction Standards Manual in -- paragraph by paragraph with this board stepping through all the things you could possibly ask for as unsolicited deviations, more or less. So if you want a deviation to what's in the LDC,1 think you need to list it as a deviation, Wayne. And if you want to go from 60 feet to 30 feet, I think you need to say so. And I am puzzled, though, as why staff would have seen this as not a deviation in this case but a deviation in other PUDs. And that still -- at some point we probably need to understand how often this is going to occur. MS. DESELEM: Let me see if I can confuse you again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Like I said, the LDC allows them to do substitutions at platting or at the SDP stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: And that can be done administratively. But if they want to have it up front as part of their zoning, they are allowed to request a deviation, but they're not required to because they still have the ability later to come in as a substitution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that they could take an LDC standard that says 60 feet, substitute 30 feet administratively later, and never have to go through a deviation process? MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything in the LDC they couldn't do that for? MS. DESELEM: It's only for those portions that are listed, like in the substitutions where you saw it earlier identified as substitutions. And I think it's, like, 6.06.0 of the LDC where it allows for those specific things like they were saying that the engineer -- the county manager or his designee can allow for those substitutions. Page 27 of 51 16 l Al �� January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the substitutions they're asking for are not 30 feet. They're down to 40 feet. So how are we getting to 30 feet? That's another substitution on top of the deviations that are -- the substitutions in this document today would have been deviations. MS. DESELEM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's consider them as deviations. And they have been previously approved. If you go to Page 7 -3, Paragraph 7.6C, you've got various widths of cul -de -sacs. They appear to be 40 -foot widths. They're now asking for, in a footnote to the Development Standards Table, to go down to 30 foot -- 30 feet, 30 foot, yeah -- 30 feet, yeah. But you just said these are deviations that are basically complementary to the substitutions that are -- already been approved. Well, they haven't been approved at 30 feet. They've been approved at 40. So now it's another deviation? MS. DESELEM: They can either do it as a deviation or add it as an underlying segment for the substitution list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why have they got any of the substitutions in there? So you're saying if they wanted to change the LDC in the future, they can just sub- -- they can do it through staff? They don't come through -- they don't have to do that approval process through a deviation? MS. DESELEM: Only for those items listed in LDC Section 6.06 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Boy. MS. DESELEM: -- having to do with right -of -way widths, cul -de -sacs, lengths, that kind of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a segment in the LDC that allows that discretionary review? MS. DESELEM: I believe that Bill Lorenz has it. It's Section -- it's the same one that's cited in this footnote, 10.02.04.A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'll -- when I get time, I'll pull that one up and take a look at it and try to resolve it before the -- MS. DESELEM: I think we can get it online and read it -- the intro, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. This provision in the Land Development Code states that the county manager or his designee has the authority to approve requests for substitutions to the design standards contained in the Collier County Construction Standards Manual, provided those requests are based on generally accepted, sound and safe professional engineering principles and practices. Requests for substitutions shall be made in writing and shall provide clear and convincing documentation and citations to professional engineering studies, reports, or other generally accepted professional engineering sources to substantial -- MR. LORENZ: Substantiate. MR. BELLOWS: -- substantiate the substitution requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to think where it stops. I mean, basically it -- go ahead. Wayne? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That seems to relate to preliminary subdivision plat approvals, preliminary. MR. ARNOLD: It is. It's related to the infrastructure improvements that are related to subdivisions. It wasn't meant to apply to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you add this as a substitution and take it off as a footnote to Development Standards Tables so it's up front and everybody knows what we're talking about. MR. ARNOLD: You want me to add it as a deviation or substitution? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That second sentence under Asterisk 8, you just need to strike it completely, then you need to take whatever width you want and stop the reference to the county construction standards manual. Whatever deviation you're asking to -- for the LDC, list it as a -- one of your sub- -- either the -- do you have a new list of -- you have another couple deviations you're adding to this, so why don't you just add it to that list, and that'd be a new substitution or deviation. MR. ARNOLD: That's probably the cleanest way to deal with it. As long as the Planning Commission has no objection to that, I'm happy to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm asking -- I guess if anybody thinks 30 feet is a problem, state so now; otherwise, I think that's the direction to go just for clarification. Footnotes to --how many times have we missed footnotes to Development Standards Tables? They just generally don't get caught. And this Asterisk 8 of paragraph Page 28 of 51 Y a 161 A I January 19, 2012 and width doesn't work. So, anyway, I think that's where it needs to go. Is anybody -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To understand what's left behind -- because the 150 feet is an important part of that, so that's going to still stay, correct? MR. ASHER: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: I think I'll just rewrite one deviation that applies to the width of that right -of -way for villas. And I can even make it specific to our villa product, because that's the only place we're asking for that to apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you were to decide later on you want to apply it to another product but it met the intent of the process in which it can be done by staff, don't muddy the waters. Do it that way. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're not asking you not to do something that has been previously allowed, but this is -- the way you're bringing it up, I think, again, is the question. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Let's go to -- MS. DESELEM: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DESELEM: If I can add on. It's Kay over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Hi. hi Section 6.06.01.0 of the Land Development Code, in part it reads, private street rights -of -way and design may be determined on a case -by -case basis in accordance with Chapter 10. In the event the applicant does not apply for a preliminary subdivision plat, the applicant's engineer may request that the county manager or his designee approve an alternative private right -of -way cross - section, has to be in writing accompanying -- it goes on similar to what you heard Ray read. So they link together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: But that's where it comes from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, Kay. Thank you. Okay. Page 4 -1. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question on the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne, I talked to you briefly, but I just want to make sure. The rear -yard setback for principal and accessory structures on lot tracts, setback from the lake and all principal and accessory uses may be zero. I always thought there was a 20 -foot setback. And you said something about they sit right on top of the water. How is the lake maintenance ever done? MR. ARNOLD: One of the lakes that's constructed that surrounds the village center, for instance, it's a large -- it's got a seawall, in essence, a bulkhead, that has been developed, and the buildings have been cited out to that bulkhead line so that they're closer to the water. It was a -- it was the design element that the predecessor developer wanted. It created a unique situation where you could have units that were literally down close to this man -made lake, and they tiered away from that lake. But it's allowed where they have that bulkheading. And the maintenance then occurs from the water side of a bulkheaded shoreline, which the Water Management District has previously approved for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on. On 4 -1 you start a discussion on the golf open space, the GO tract, and in it you list a series of uses, most of which I'm finding are duplicated in the village center. And the village center is where you're actually going to have your clubhouse; is that right? MR. ARNOLD: It's under construction right now. It's been sitting there vacant. They -- the predecessor developer started their golf clubhouse structure. The golf and open space, as you see, allows tennis clubs, et cetera, community buildings similar to other communities like a Pelican Bay that has a foundation or something similar. So the golf course and open -space tracts could have more than one. The village center is meant to be the clubhouse for the golf course, the primary clubhouse. But the golf open space does also provide for there to be club facilities. MR. ASHER: There is an existing facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a temporary club facility over -- but I notice that the parking for that is on a residential parcel which -- I mean, off -site parking isn't unusual. But I'm assuming, though, if you intend to retain Page 29 of 51 16 12 k I t4* January 19, 2012 that, you build that residential parcel out, you're going to have to move the parking into the GO; is that right? MR. ARNOLD: Correct, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On 5 -1, the village center, this one is another one of those fun, confusing requests. We have an NVC, a neighborhood village center, requirement in our Land Development Code, and it talks about the maximum amount of acreage you can have based on the population you have anticipated, or not the population, the number of houses, density you have for your PUD. In this particular case, you have to max out the neighborhood village center at 4.5 acres. Your current village center is 21 or 2 1 -and-a-half acres. And this says that you're going to limit those uses not associated with a golf and tennis community club facilities, which means the other personal services, small -scale retail, and convenience goods to 4.5 acres. And as I pointed out to you at our meeting the other day -- and you showed me a layout of the golf club and where you intended to put that. Could you show that to us so we can get a picture view and everybody on the board will realize what you're talking about? MR. ARNOLD: Give me one second to locate that exhibit. I think this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I think this is the exhibit. This highlights, really -- if you're familiar with the community and remember the aerial, the oval park area that's there has an obelisk in it, and it also has a fountain. It's a very decorative feature as you come into this village center. The clubhouse facility that's under construction is located where the larger brown structure's depicted on that drawing. If you take in the area that's depicted as -- I can't read the building number. It's Building -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between D and B. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, there it is. That area's envisioned to be the clubhouse structure of which these small -scale retail and personal - service items could be located. The entirety of the area that's inclusive of a club and its parking is about 3.9 acres as currently configured. So I think we're already under our four - and -a -half acres, and we can depict that on the Site Development Plan for the clubhouse and those small -scale convenience items that would come through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for the calculation of things like parking -- let's start there. Certain -- of the parking lot, you've got a C, G, and H parking lot. Certain portions of that parking lot are attributable to the neighborhood village center portion of the project, as would be buffers and roadways and other things. I'm not sure how you're going to show those, but you do know that needs to be done. But in -- look at D, for example. I think, from the last time we spoke, D is an open courtyard with table seating potentially for diners or cafes or whatever might be there, some of which you may have in the golf club, which would be F, and could be in B, which is more retail. How do you define how many tables and what space contributes to the 4.5 acres when you get in a mix like this, and also, since this is the neighborhood village center and it's supposed to be for all of the residents of Tuscany, is Tuscany then, all the residents there, going to have an ability to use this golf club and these retail spaces as well, or is it going to be limited to some kind of membership? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think it's all been defined, but the intent is that all of the small -scale retail and anything that's non -golf related that would be subject to this particular LDC standard would be open to all residents of the PUD to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the intent doesn't work. You need to know what it's going to be. And the reason for that is if you're not going to allow the whole population to use the retail space but the retail -space acreage is based on the full density count, I'm not sure it's fair then to say that 300 or 300 -- typically a golf club is 350 members. That wouldn't get you as much available commercial as 799 would. So can -- someone just tell us for the record that it's going to be open to all residents of Tuscany? MR. ASHER: Yes. For the record, all the residents of Tuscany will be members of the club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. ASHER: There's a mandatory social membership, and everyone will have access to all those facilities. The golf membership will be an additional level above that, but the social members will not be precluded from any of the facilities. Page 30 of 51 A 1 16 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Thank you. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 5 -2, and it's B6. Where do you see those things going in? And they don't count as residential, correct? The golf -- essentially you're describing, I think, a hotel, right? MR. ARNOLD: Are you referring to the golf club cabanas? Just to make sure I'm in the right -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 5 -2. MR. ARNOLD: 5 -2, okay. Well, this language -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- before you go into it, why is there a 5 golf club cabana and a 6 for the purpose of this PUD golf club cabana? MR. ARNOLD: I think it's because of the way we have formatted. It's -- it obviously applies to No. 5, but we labeled it 6 because it's clarifying what it is. I think we could certainly call it 5A. It wouldn't have to be No. 6. But the golf club cabanas were envisioned with the initial project. Staff asked us to try to help better refine what that product is, so we tried to add a definition to address it, which was largely based on maybe a combination of what's cabana in your LDC and what's also defined as a guest unit in your LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it also sounds like a hotel room. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think the concept is far enough along in this developer's mind to know how they might utilize that. I know how the predecessor developer intended to utilize it, and it was meant as just a convenience. And I don't know that anybody got into the nuance of whether it's a hotel or not. I have no idea what technically becomes a hotel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where would you see them -- it would be in this area. Where do you see those being built? MR. ARNOLD: Probably as part of, most likely, the golf club structure itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, is that -- what is E on your drawing here? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it looks like a swimming pool to me. MR. ASHER: It's a swimming pool. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's a swim club, part of it. Okay. The area on the island here to the north, what's intended for that? I mean, here's the thing is that since there's no limit to these, the only limit is the maximum size. I mean -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're limited to 10 of them total, 10 golf club cabanas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right. Once you link it with the golf club cabana, okay. I'm good. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- that was my next page of questions, and that was the issue. So let's continue with that. Your golf club cabana, if they were to be built at a thousand square feet, they would be bigger than your villas, bigger than your multifamily dwellings, and equal to all of your single- family units. MR. ARNOLD: One difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- one difference is they don't have a full kitchen. MR. ARNOLD: No. The Table 2 that you're referring to, those are minimum square footages. This is expressed as a maximum square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you could build any one of your product to a size equal to or lesser than what a golf club cabana is. So a golf club cabana is a structure that has water and sewer, which impacts infrastructure in Collier County, as a partial kitchen, not a full kitchen. So instead of an oven you have a microwave or you have a wall oven or something, one unit shorter than what a full kitchen is. It's bigger than some of your product can be, and it's as big as some of the smallest levels of your other product yet it's not counted as a unit; is that what you're telling us? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is that rational? I mean, you've got 799 units. You're going to have full buildout in this project? Because what I see happening here is we don't -- do you pay impact fees on these 10 units? Bill? Ray? Kay? Is anything -- are these -- how are these looked at from the county? They're just 10 freebie units Page 31 of 51 AJa'nluary 1612 19, 2012 with no concurrency issues for Collier County? MR. LORENZ: I don't know. I'd have to check that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ASHER: I think we can make it simple here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I would love simple. MR. ARNOLD: If your issue is whether or not they're a dwelling unit to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whether they're counted as a unit in your overall density. MR. ARNOLD: I think, in consulting with our client, he's happy to do that, if that makes it easier for everybody else, as multifamily units, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you do that, then let them put a kitchen in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter what they do at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let them put a full kitchen. You could use them for staff housing; you could use them for guesthousing; you could use them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I would suggest you strike the restriction language in regards to that. Leave the maximum and minimum if you want, but don't -- you don't need it restrictive to a kitchen size of any type. And I think Brad's got a good point. But if they are units, let them be units. And it makes it a lot cleaner for everybody to handle in the future. MR. ARNOLD: I guess we will clean up Item No. 6 accordingly. Because if it's a dwelling unit, maybe we need to -- MR. ASHER: 5A. MR. ARNOLD: It becomes 5A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, when we -- then we get over to 5 -3, and D3 brings back in our little -- now that you've made these units, they're still an accessory use because now you're saying they don't need parking? Because if they don't need parking, then they'd have to be -- how is that going to factor into your plan? I mean, I -- if they can be units and you can either sell them, lease them, use them, whatever you want to do with them, put full kitchens in them, you have the potential of having someone living there, so why wouldn't parking be part of it? Because the way that D3 is written, it's all accessory uses, and you'll put these under accessory uses. MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's why -- I think if we're going to commit that we count them toward our dwelling units, then I think -- it may be easier -- and I need to consult with, I guess, the client, too -- maybe we don't need to worry about what a golf cabana is. We can just build another dwelling unit in our village center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which you already have permission to do. MR. ARNOLD: We already have permission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anywhere in -- yeah. So why don't we just strike 5 and 6 completely? You don't need them at all, then you take away the issue of the parking not being counted or whether it should be or not, and it just becomes dwelling units built within your clubhouse. Does staff see any potential problem with that? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. No, we don't have a problem with that. That works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't there a limit as to how many residential are on that? So can we just add 10 to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of 200, it'd be 210. John, you look like you're anxious to jump up and say something. You're thinking. MR. ASHER: I'm thinking. I guess the only concern is I'm thinking if they truly are more of a --you know, a cabana and they're only a couple hundred square feet and they become integral to the clubhouse facility and not spread out throughout the whole village center parcel, then the parking would be integrated with the clubhouse parking. And that -- you'd be parking at the club, but you just happen to be staying overnight there, and not -- you wouldn't need separate parking and all the kitchens and all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think parking will take care of itself. You've got -- you're going to have excess parking with the residential -- with the golf club -- for the club you're going to have X number of parking spaces, and then you're going to have additional spaces for the retail. So, yeah, I think that -- the parking should not be an issue for having it as accessory, so -- MR. ASHER: All right. Page 32 of 51 1612 Al January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, if you're going to be taking out the references to golf club cabanas -- you know, you might want to leave them in just so you know how to treat them if they're put within the clubhouse, meaning setbacks, development standards and all that; otherwise, you're going to have to list another residential product under your deviations -- under your Development Standards Table. So I would second guess; leave the language in, then that way you're covered. I would just change --I would strike the part about full kitchen because you can have whatever kitchen you want in them. And then that matches up better with the language on D and F of the next page so everything, then, stays kind of smooth. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First time today we've had something stay smooth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a 5 -3 question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray (sic), in B 1 you are using the word "zoned height" and "actual height," so which -- these will be -- I'll wait. Okay. Ready? MR. ARNOLD: You asked Ray, but I -- your question was B 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5 -3, B 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You were using "zoned height" and then "actual height." In this case, since it's not defined, you're going to use the LDC version of that term, correct, as -- I mean, there's no way we'd go back to the footnote on the other table. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you get down to 4 and you describe that you're allowed to build -- you know, if you put a level of parking, you're allowed to build on top of that and measure -- assumably, I don't know, I'm not sure what -- but from the top of the parking garage you'd start measuring your height instead of grade. How about actual? Because actual has a different method of measuring. It's based on streets. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure how that section of the code -- there is a section in the LDC currently that allows you to increase your building height where you have underbuilding parking, and then there's an open -space provision that you have to have open space above the minimum. But I don't know how that affects -- whether it affects actual or zoned height. Ray, do you know? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wouldn't because "actual" came in later. I mean, "actual" was supposed to get rid of the word "tippy top" but instead has become a requirement in LDCs. So it's -- "actual" has grown in its function a little bit too much. But -- anyway, I think you'd really have trouble mixing it with this concept because there wouldn't -- you couldn't change because of the parking. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe you're correct. That's an older terminology for exemptions to building height that was in the code prior to the definition of "actual." There could be a conflict if somebody was -- have an approved PUD with actual building heights listed and then at some point in the future tried to utilize those other exemptions from building height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because "actual" is road to, here it goes, "tippy top." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- MR. BELLOWS: Therefore, if the applicant felt that they were going to use it, they should reference it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem? MR. ARNOLD: If I'm going to use what? I'm sorry. I was trying to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The actual height. MR. ARNOLD: I'm trying to make sure I didn't have a problem with the actual height for the clubhouse structure, because I think it is going to be designed with cart storage below and then building above. I'm just trying to clarify that from the center line of the primary road that's in front of us we're not going to exceed 60 feet for that structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that includes the golf -cart parking, potentially, below it, right? Which if I think is -- that's typical, so that's not a -- should be what your design would be. MR. ASHER: Well, we're at a grade situation where the golf -cart parking is, literally, underground from the road level, but then on the golf course, or the lake side, and -- it's at a grade out there, natural grade out there. Page 33 of 51 16 Al January 19, 2012 This whole center island with the obelisk and the oval and the green, that's elevated 15, 20 feet above natural grade. So those two existing multifamily buildings, the main floor is the second floor, and there's a -- I guess I'd call it a walk -out basement, basically, that takes you out to the lowest level on the lake with the vertical bulkhead that's built right on it. So, again, if we're measuring from the road, then we're good with these dimensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a solution, first of all, based on the extensive amount of rewrite and language discussions we've had here today, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable voting on this today, but I would be comfortable voting on it in combination with a consent agenda at the same time, not -- so that time is not wasted on your behalf -- at the next round you could come in by. And since we have all of February free, you've sure got some playtime there. But I think you ought to find that out and have Wayne -- Wayne knows the code real well, and he knows the definitions real well. Make sure that the definitions or the references you're using here you can live with with what you've got planned, and then firm it at our final meeting. And at that meeting we'll -- if this board agrees, we can have a vote at that meeting, and then the consent will be done at the same time so we don't delay the process any. MR. ANDERSON: Which meeting are we talking about now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next one you'd be up for is, I think, May or June. I'm not sure which. If we come back on this one for the final hearing and then a consent at the same time, I don't know why we couldn't come back in February, either one of the meetings that is -- everything's completed by. We've got nothing scheduled for those dates anyway. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sixteenth? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When were you thinking you'd be coming back? MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because as of today we had nothing -- we weren't going to have a meeting in February, so you wouldn't be coming back till March. MR. ANDERSON: No, the -- we're checking what date we're scheduled for the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: It appears to be scheduled for March 13th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you could even come as late as our March 1 st for consent. But -- well, staff wouldn't get the paperwork done in time. So had we not asked this question and we didn't have meetings in February, you guys would be already in trouble. We need to compute these things. Anyway, I think the suggestion is verify what you need in that "actual" for that clubhouse and confirm when we meet again. MR. ARNOLD: Well, would it -- I mean, I think the easy point of measurement is from the finished grade, because it's all been finished anyway. I mean, it is what it is. And I think that -- you know, as John said, I think the basement issue doesn't affect us one way or the other because the actual height's being measured from the road. But, I mean, is the question really in reference because we're saying "above finish to grade "? Because I think that's how that was originally envisioned. Because it had always been envisioned that this area was going to be sort of the high point of the community and all things focused to the village center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular case, would you use the natural finish grade or would we use the finish grade that's been the -- built up in this property? MR. ARNOLD: I think I'd use the grade that's been established to date. MR. ASHER: Paved road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's three different grades then. We've got natural, we've got what's been established today, and now we've got paved road. I think that's -- we need -- why don't you guys -- first of all, see if the definition for "actual" will work, and if it doesn't and your plans are already underway and you've already got a partial clubhouse there, we can understand why this has got to be treated differently -- come back with a suggestion and a confirmation of what will work, and we'll deal with it at that time. Is that -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, the easiest thing is get rid of the -- in B 1, get rid of reference to "actual." I mean, I know we all don't see eye to eye on the use of "actual," but this is a place where it could trip them up, unintended consequences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't really have any other questions on the PUD, but I have one ownership Page 34 of 51 1612AI i January 19, 2012 question. I just want confirmation. You have a CDD out there, and in discussing with you, you told me the CDD doesn't own any property at this point. I just want a reconfirmation for the record of that. MR. ASHER: The CDD does not own any property out there. They do maintain the lakes and the conservation areas and have easements to the -- you know, to do that work, but there's no -- been no conveyance to the Community Development District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- because if there were additional owners, it brings in more fun. Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I might, I'd like to go back to one of my original questions -- and you did answer it -- and that concerns your statement that you do not intend on putting any buffering along Veterans Memorial Parkway until platting, which is an unknown date sometime in the future, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Where is your -- where is your construction entrance or storage yard or currently your -- or where do you envision that? MR. ARNOLD: Construction entrance is currently off of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, as is the golf maintenance facility that is buffered from the road. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So that's on what would be the southwest -- okay. MR. ARNOLD: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know what the requirements are for that. There may be none. But it would seem if that's going to be -- and is your construction area, potential construction yard, it's your maintenance area, all that type of thing, aesthetically it would sure benefit the neighborhood if there could be some buffering put in there sooner rather than later. MR. ARNOLD: Understood, but I think we're in compliance with the existing Land Development Code and how it treats buffers. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You may be. That's not my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have an established buffer by code that's going to go in there? Just -- are you going to use code standard? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand that a lot of times it waits till plat approval, but a lot of times we have stipulated they be done prior or at a certain stage of construction. Concerning Mr. Brougham's view and his potential vote on this outcome, when you get back to us, is there a possibility you could take a look at this and consider putting a portion or some of that buffer in, since you know what it's going to be, at an earlier stage? MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Mr. Asher address you again. MR. ASHER: The problem with doing that, in considering it, is that we don't know what's going to go there. It might be a 4- foot -high berm with an 8 -foot wall. It might be a thick, dense landscape buffer. We don't know the product of the development that's going to go on that parcel and how much room we have in order to create that buffer. It may be, the code minimum, a couple trees and the shrubs, or it may be something exorbitant. But at this point if I plant a landscape buffer, there's a good chance it's going to get ripped out, and that's the reason why, you know, we would prefer not to do it at this point in time. No matter what I put in, the ultimate design of that is going to be something different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Across the street from that entrance, is there a buffer on the property to the south? MR. ASHER: Well, there wasn't. They removed -- they had a Brazilian hepper pedge (sic) -- pepper head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brazilian Pepper. MR. ASHER: Brazilian pepper hedge. And it was on county property, it got removed, and the residents were a little upset. And so they have now since planted a landscape hedge in there. I don't know if -- there's no trees. I don't think it meets any code, but -- so -- MR. ARNOLD: If I might address that. The project that you're referring to on the south side of Veterans Memorial is the Strand, as it's known as. They have golf course tracts that are adjacent to Veterans Memorial Parkway. There is no buffering required from a golf course to a road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they don't like the view, they could put a buffer in on their side, too? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think what Mr. Asher said, they already did start. They planted a small hedge Page 35 of 51 164: Al January 19, 2012 recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your PUD Exhibit A, on the Veterans -- it used to be called east/west Livingston, you have access limited to right -in, right -out, left -in when road is four - laned. Is this road ever going to be four - laned? MR. ARNOLD: That question's probably better left for the county. It's a roadway that -- I don't know if it currently does, but it has been on your long -term needs plan, and it was envisioned to fly over I -75. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're going to have to get that clarified. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Jumping in. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, transportation planning. Just to clarify, I checked in the 2035 LRTP. The east/west portion of Livingston Road, what we call -- used to call Livingston east/west is now referred to as Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The section east of Livingston Road today between Livingston and 75 is not planned at any time to be a four -lane road. That is the current 2035 LRTP, and it does not cross over I -75. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good. But then let's remove this from when (sic) it says "when it is four laned," because really all you have on your south side is you have traffic coming from the back side of the Strand and then your traffic coming out. So -- MR. ARNOLD: Ms. Ebert, I think on a two -lane road segment we have full access. I don't think that's a question. I don't think we have a problem removing the language as long as staff doesn't, because if the road reappears at some point they're not going to want us having full access movements that close probably to something that's going to be an elevated roadway, you know, for site issues and safety issues. And I don't think we have an issue with removing it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm going to ask that that as well as the other one that says "full access" be removed and that only arrows be depicted showing that they can go in and out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Being that it's a two -lane road, it probably shouldn't matter at this point. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We shouldn't be putting turning movements on our site plans, master plans, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Thank you, Heidi. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, can I go back at that just for a second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I heard what you folks said, and you're going to be coming back. I'd appreciate it if you could at least give some thought as to what minimum buffering you might be willing to invest in there. I take your point that you want the flexibility for the future and you don't want to put something in and have to tear it out. I would think that you have two or three ideas of what would probably go in there. And my concern, again, is just the unsightliness and the view, the dust, the disturbance that you're going to see from that roadway. Just, if you could, humor me for the next meeting and give us some thought, and we'll talk about it the next time. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: We'll do that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to staff -- okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. Ray (sic) -- and it's on 7 -3 -- have all the roads been platted and laid out already? And the one I'm concerned with -- here's what I'm concerned with is some of these cul -de -sacs are really long. The one that's the P on the screen now where the "P" for property is at is probably 2,000 feet long. So could you add another cul -de -sac at this time in the center or the ability for a firetruck to do a T turn? I think the way you're doing these villa properties, you could create -- if the driveways are across from each other -- a T turn with their access drives. But if -- these narrow roads, an emergency vehicle's never going to be able to turn around till it goes through the cul -de -sac. So that's a long 2,000 feet, 40 feet wide. They make a long turn, you know, the guy with the heart attack on the adjoining street's got to wait. Page 36 of 51 A 1 1612January 19, 2012 MR. ARNOLD: What was the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you -- MR. ARNOLD: I understood the discussion. I'm not sure I understood what the question was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is can you add a cul -de -sac on that at least that one -- it starts off with I don't -- obviously, you haven't built it. There -- may have been laid out in a plat somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't think that property -- south of the village center, I don't think any of it's been platted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you have a -- you're waiving the thousand feet, but that's not exactly a good idea for the -- if you ever make a wrong turn with an emergency vehicle, or if you do pick the person up, you've got to run them all the way down the cul -de -sac. So, you know, this doesn't have to be a big freak, because you could -- if you get good driveways such that a T turn could happen in the middle with the villa driveways, for example, if they were across from each other, that would give them the ability to turn an emergency vehicle around; otherwise, on these narrow roads, they're kind of screwed until they hit the cul -de -sac. MR. ARNOLD: So I think -- if I'm understanding correctly, as -- in some other projects where there's been a deviation approved, we've added language that says there has to be appropriate turnaround for fire safety subject to their review and approval. I'm pretty sure the fire districts are involved in the plat review process. I'm not certain, but I think they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is, this is removing you from the thousand -foot requirement, which is a good requirement. And the reason for it is exactly that so that the vehicles can turn around quickly and get on with what they're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we aren't removing them from fire department requirements, unfortunately. So the fire departments have free reign over whatever's going to be submitted, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not sure they have a length distance; that's the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, God. I hate to give them guys any more than they already got. They destroy businesses as it is, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So from my understanding in conversations with them is this is the only shot we got at that length. I mean, they could maybe come back and give you, you know, second egress into the project and stuff, which you have, but what's the problem with adding the ability to turn around midway on that somewhere around midway? That a 2,000 -foot one. That's a long one. The other ones, we'll let them go, but -- again, that doesn't have to be -- all's it has to be is the ability for two driveways, especially with the villas, to align such that they have a T turn built in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, you've got to come back in again. Maybe you can research the issue Brad's asking about and find out if it's addressed already in a code somewhere. And if it is, that's --just tell us what it is. If it isn't, figure out some language that potentially addresses his concern. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. ASHER: Yeah. We can look at it. The problem is, if you put the cul -de -sac requirement, then you get, basically, 90 or 100 foot of asphalt pavement in there to meet a county- required cul -de -sac. So you're saying something different, though, I think, and it's basically some sort of ability to turn around midway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. All's we want to do is turn around. They can do a T turn. That's a good -- but do you get -- the circle does give you pavement, but it also gives you a nice little landscaped circle to dress up, too. It also would calm that road. I mean, you may find the kids living on a 2,000 -foot road like that might excel in their acceleration when they're playing with their cars. MR. ASHER: As long as it isn't a code minimum cul -de -sac and merely an ability to turn around, I think we can accommodate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that will be the code - minimum cul -de -sac. I mean, the regulations for a cul -de -sac I'm sure are the fire department's regulations. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a passenger vehicle. MR. ARNOLD: But I think as I'm hearing Mr. Schiffer, he's not expecting a mid -block cul -de -sac or turnaround. He's looking for some protection that, on these long cul -de -sacs, we have an ability for safety- service Page 37 of 51 r R# 161 �d January 19, 2012 vehicles to turn around before they get to the cul -de -sac. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, midway somewhere would be nice. But there's nothing wrong with a cul -de -sac. That can look nice if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, do you want to -- is there anything left for you to present? MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, Kay Deselem with zoning. And you've heard considerable discussion and changes. Suffice to say that the staff report's been submitted for the record. It is a document dated 12/20/11, Parens 2, and provides the background information for staffs review providing findings of fact in support of our recommendation. We are recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval. And we're in agreement so far with what's been proposed as far as changes or -- and we'll look at whatever the applicant comes up with to see if we're in agreement with the final wording at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Kay. Is there any questions of county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anyone here today wish to speak on this item? Please come on up and use one of the microphones, identify yourself for the record, and I'll have to confirm that you were sworn in when we started earlier today. MR. L'APPETITO: My name is Paul L'Appetito. I live at Tuscany Reserve. I reside in one of the condos on the island, and I've lived there for about five years. I'm also the president of the Tuscany Reserve Condo Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in earlier, sir? MR. L'APPETITO: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you stand up, and were you sworn in earlier? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. L'APPETITO: Firstly, I want to thank you for your attention to detail to preserve the essence of what we originally bought into at Tuscany Reserve. We really appreciate that. I'm here today to petition against the name change to Talis Park. More specifically, I'm petitioning to -- against the word "park" in defining our golf community. I don't know of a single person at Tuscany Reserve that likes the new name. We think it's more suitable to describe an RV park or a trailer park than to define a golf community. Many of us wrote to express our views. Some of us met with management. We said we'd prefer the name to remain Tuscany Reserve, but we said if it was imperative that you change the name, how about calling it Talis Reserve rather than Talis Park? I don't know of anyone that got a response from management. No letters were answered. No response to a meeting with management was ever received. Collectively, we that live at Tuscany Reserve have a greater investment in our original purchase of real estate than the developer. You know, you would have to say the concession we were asking for was not really a big deal to get rid of the word "park." At best it seems to be a non -caring attitude; at worst it seems to be just arrogant. We don't care what you think; we're going to do whatever we want to do anyway. Tuscany does not have a bad image in Naples or elsewhere. Anyone who has been there or who has played that golf course falls in love with it. It just has to be developed. WCI ran out of money, sold it to AB Naples. AB Naples was risk adverse; never even opened the sales office. What Tuscany needs is development. Golf Digest just named Tuscany Reserve one of the top 100 golf residences to live in the United States. Only one other golf course in Naples made that list. It's hard to understand how you'd want to walk away from that endorsement. Collectively, we like some of the things that the developer plans to do, but we sure don't like the name Talis Page 38 of 51 t _ 1612 A I , January 19, 2012 Park. The name is already an inside joke in the Naples real estate community. Unfortunately, you may not be relevant either. If you were to call Tuscany Reserve this morning, you would find the name has already been changed to Talis Park. I think that's pretty arrogant. I urge the body not to approve the name change. I've been in marketing a long time. I worked for a Fortune 500 company. I had 18,000 people in my organization; 10,000 people were direct salespeople. I know from experience that sometimes you get just so you fall in love with your idea so much that you can't possibly think that you're wrong, and I think that's one of these occasions. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I guess the county attorney and staff, I have questions as a result of this gentleman's presentation. We have never had a name challenged or concerned at this Planning Commission that I can recall. Is there any criteria in the Land Development Code that allows the Planning Commission to have any influence or decision- making capability over a name other than if it should conflict because of addressing or emergency response? Either one of you. MS. DESELEM: Okay. I can jump in and say that as part of this particular petition there is no request to change the PUD name. I do understand, however, that there is a petition pending for a street name change, but that has not been scheduled before the board. That petition will go directly to the board. But it's not an issue within this PUD at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. They introduced the PUD this morning with that caveat that they were changing the name; do you recall? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I understood they were changing the name of the applicant/owner, but they weren't -- I wasn't aware until this gentleman spoke the name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not changing the name of the PUD. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. It was a name change for the Tuscany Reserve, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're not changing the name of Tuscany Reserve on the PUD. It's staying the same? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then it's a non -issue for this board then. There's not much -- I don't think we have jurisdiction over -- regarding that. We can only hear things that pertain to the Land Development Code and the processes in front of us, and they're not changing the name. So -- at least with us. I'm sorry, but that may be our limitation. So that's what I was trying to find out. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to recommend to the applicant, at the request of the Planning Commission, that we continue this hearing to whatever date we now discuss is reasonable to refine the issues that we have outstanding in regards to the review today. And I'll reiterate some of the more important ones; there are a lot of small ones. The villas were going to be reduced -- be changed to 10 foot between buildings. You're going to change the various LDC references to "per the LDC" and come back and redefine to us ones that cannot be. You're going to amend the references in 7.6 to provide continuity with the LDC in some manner or form, as we spoke about. You're going to address what has already been deemed approved in the paragraph, I think it was 2.2, or something like that, that we had that one sentence added. Going to clarify 3.5F for the mixed product. You're going to talk about a variable lot -line product instead of a zero lot line, and you're going to -- that will change that terminology. And the court -- I mean the golf -cart cabanas and multifamily -- will be multifamily units as far as density count goes. You're going to go rewrite the parts that need to be written to address that more appropriately. You're going to provide some language concerning turning movements in the east/west Livingston Road, and you're going to take a look at Mr. Brougham's request for the southern buffer. That's the highlights of what I think we need. And I would rather -- I would feel as a Planning Commission member a lot more comfortable with seeing the final language that comes out of all those, because some of them are Page 39 of 51 k 6 16 12 January 19, 2012 extensive in regards to LDC references and things like that, and deviation clarifications, rather than attempt to vote on it today without seeing that stuff and waiting for consent when we don't have as much input. Is that the consensus of this board? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the applicant in agreement with that scenario? And what we would attempt to do is whatever date you tell us you can have this put together in February, we'll hear it first up on that date, but it will be as a combined final action and consent that day. Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: I just wanted to clarify one other point. One of the other -- maybe it was embedded in what you discussed, but we were going to break out the villa definition to add a deviation for the reduced right -of -way width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Yeah, that was -- I'm sorry. That was part of that footnote change in No. 8. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: And I don't know what our possible dates are in February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second or sixteenth. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sixteenth? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need time to get it to staff, they have to get it to us, and everybody has to go back and forth, and it may be the County Attorney's Office is especially involved in the clarification language of the substitutions and deviations. MR. ARNOLD: Did staff confirm that we're on the March 13th board? I want to make sure that whatever date we establish is not going to jeopardize that board date. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, you're on the 13th. MR. ARNOLD: Then I think the second meeting in February before CCPC works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the February 16th meeting, okay. Then if that's the consensus of this board, I need a motion to continue this to the February 16th meeting, combine both the final hearing and the consent in that one day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. We will see you on the 16th of February. Now, we have a couple of items on new business that are being presented by staff. And before we start their presentation, I want to talk about timing. One is the LDC amendment cycle 2012. Can someone from staff tell us about how long that will take for them to present? We have to make a decision whether to break for lunch and come Page 40 of 51 161 F A I January 19, 2012 back and continue this afternoon or go right -- take a short break, and then skip lunch. MS. CILEK: Caroline Cilek, for the record. My presentation should only take about 10 to 15 minutes; however, I do see individuals in the audience who may like to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the second thing is Mike Bosi. And Mike stepped out the one time I need him. Bill, do you know how long Mike's presentation on the RLSA will take? MR. LORENZ: I'm thinking 10 to 15 minutes at the most. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we probably have potentially an hour more by the time you combine the two with input and other issues that may come up. I'm not saying that's a guarantee, but that's a suggestion. It's lunchtime. We could take an hour lunch, come back for an hour -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or hour and a half Is that what you prefer, Diane, or we could take a break for 15 minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Break. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Break. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm hungry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You all hungry? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd rather break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many want a break, just raise your hands. One, two, three. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, just a 15- minute break. How many want a break? One, two, three. Three for a 15- minute lunch break, and I'd be four. And that's 4 -4, so it's a tie, so we leave it as a lunch break so -- we'll have to take a break for lunch, but before we go for lunch, let's try to start the -- well, I guess it wouldn't be good to start it and then break and come back after lunch and finish it. Then you guys have to -- you think we can get gone before lunch? MS. CILEK: I can give it my best shot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's try it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's your tie breaker. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here's the other voter. MS. CILEK: ** *All righty. Good morning, barely, Commissioners. Again, my name is Caroline Cilek, and I'm a senior planner with the Growth Management Division, and I am coordinating the current LDC administrative cycle with the assistance of Fred Reischl and Chris Scott. They're going to wave. And today I'm here to provide you an overview and an update of the 2012 LDC amendment cycle. And following the overview and the timeline, I'd like to give you a brief highlight of some of the amendments that are coming forward. The LDC amendment cycle began last summer with the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. Applicants were welcome to submit LDC amendments from June until early October when we then worked to form them into the LDC forms and post them online. All of the LDC amendments and related documents can be found on the LDC amendment web page which is located on the Zoning and Land Development Review website. Amendments were collected from the county departments, private entities, such as CBIA, which is the Collier Building Industry Association, as well as those that originated through the BCC's direction. Once the amendments were drafted, they were reviewed in November and December by the Land Development Review Subcommittee. This is a group that is made up of DSAC members, which is the Development Services Advisory Committee. And DSAC is made up of private- sector engineers, general contractors, planners, architects, and attorneys. The subcommittee members were all familiar with the code and provided comments and reviewed each of the Page 41 of 51 r� 1612AI A January 19, 2012 LDC amendments. These meetings were publicly noticed, and interested parties were encouraged to attend. Following their review, the subcommittee provided their first round of recommendations in January, and they're finishing up their round of recommendations in early February. The next step is to present the LDC amendments to the Environmental Advisory Council, and the amendments that are going forward all have an environmental component. Then the amendments will come back to the Planning Commission, and then the BCC has public hearings. Staff from both the comprehensive planning section and the zoning services section are also reviewing these amendments. We are also holding public meetings. The first one is going to be on January 30th, and they're called 2012 LDC Amendment Cycle I In Focus, and we are encouraging anyone who's interested to come become -- to come, comment, and become more informed. And then to give you an overview of the timeline of the LDC amendments, we are starting public meetings this month, then we present to the EAC in February and March. We'll be back to the Planning Commission in April and May, and then the goal is to present to the BCC in June and July. This cycle we have LDC amendments from several Collier County departments. There are 14 prepared amendments from the Growth Management Division ranging from creating administrative procedures to clarifying environmental provisions. The Administrative Code will also be coming forward for approval concurrent with the LDC amendments. This is an ongoing project of the county's. We have one amendment from parks and recreation, and 13 amendments from pollution control, and these include all the wellfield and related amendments. The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle and the Immokalee CRA each have revisions and new provisions for their overlay districts. It's important to know that these LDC amendments stand independent of any other documents. The Collier Building Industry Association is presenting 11 amendments which I will highlight shortly, and there are also several amendments to the definitions section of the LDC, and multiple amendments that will provide corrections to typos in the LDC. I'd like to highlight some of the amendments today, but all of the amendments are in draft form, and they're all being publicly vetted. So I'd like to briefly describe them, but there will be ample time at future meeting dates to review them in detail. From the Growth Management Division, we have the administrative adjustment which aimed to address a wider array of low- impact non - use - related issues, and the administrative adjustment would allow for specific deviations concurrent with a site development plan or a site improvement plan. There is the administrative boat -dock extension which would allow single- family residential boat docks to be approved administratively so long as that -- the request meets the threshold for the length of the boat dock, and all of the objective criteria are met. Those that could not be approved administratively, so either for length or for the criteria, would appear before the Planning Commission and be approved. We have amendments that extend time frames for Site Development Plan and Site Improvement Plan, an amendment which seeks to create an -- creates to -- seeks to make an insubstantial change, which is a type of site development plan, more efficient and clear. We have revisions to the PUD monitoring report programs that simplify the process, and revisions to the environmental sections which seek to provide clarity. This cycle we are also presenting an LDC amendment which will help form the new Administrative Code. The Administrative Code is an ongoing project which seeks to create a user - friendly guide detailing the procedures for development within the county. The amendment will specify which sections of the LDC will be removed in whole or in part from the LDC. The CRA Overlay Districts each have new provisions to assist with their redevelopment and development efforts, and the Parks and Recreation Department is presenting an amendment regarding grass parking provisions. The Collier Building Industry Association, CBIA, was asked in the county to identify over -- was asked by the county to identify overburdensome provisions and areas for improvement in December of 2009. Since that time, the following amendments have been drafted: Two amendments dealing with preservation standards, a proposal for an alternative landscape design standard, modifications to be usable, open -space standards, transportation- related Page 42 of 51 1612A1 January 19, 2012 proposals, a digital- submission requirement change, clarification to the permitted -use process for PUDs, and a proposal to extend a conditional -use application. That concludes my presentation on the current cycle, and open it up for questions, or we can wait till after the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't normally get such comprehensive updates. It's a -- we appreciate it. Thank you. MS. CILEK: Well, you're very welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gives us something eagerly to look forward to this -- MS. CIL,EK: I'm sure. Me too, me too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. And welcome aboard. You're one of our new members. I think Chris is, too. So good to see you all coming -- people getting hired back here. It's a good thing for Collier County. MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, no other questions, we will take a break, and we'll come back at one o'clock and finish up on the RLSA discussion. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did anybody find Mike Bosi? MR. LORENZ: No, we did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is his stuff still back there in a pile? Steve's nodding his head yes. He's checking, looking hard. Do you find anything at all? Oh, you got some information, Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: Just -- I was going to make an LDC comment real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on up. Waste some time. MS. JOHNSON: Oh, I can do that. MR. BELLOWS: I hope you have a long speech to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we want two hours out of you, Nicole. MS. JOHNSON: Oh, you opened that door. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy. And I hadn't initially planned to comment on the LDCs, but I really felt compelled to make a brief observation, and that is, I have been involved in a number of LDC cycles over the years, and this has been, I think, the best cycle so far. When the amendments were initially drafted, the Conservancy had lots of questions, a number of concerns, and Caroline and the staff have sat down with us. They've made themselves available for our questions, asked for our suggestions, incorporated, I think, a lot of our recommendations and suggestions into the language. So it has been a really tremendous, transparent, open, interactive process, and it's been a very, very good process. And I wanted to compliment staff because this really has been, I think, one of the best LDC cycles that I've been involved in, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. We always like to hear positive things. So does that mean, for our benefit, we're not going to get a 10 -page written letter from you that we have to digest? MS. JOHNSON: I can't promise -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. JOHNSON: -- but we're going in that direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bill, what do we do? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Does anybody have his cell? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does he have a cell that you can -- I mean, he wasn't here before lunch, but everybody -- and I'm -- MR. LORENZ: We've been calling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would he have done if we decided not to have taken lunch and decided to finish up? Page 43 of 51 A 16 I January 19, 2012 MR. LORENZ: Yeah. We've been calling cell phones, numbers that we've gotten. We haven't been able to raise him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And nobody seems -- well, at this point, I guess the commission can decide what to do. I'm -- to be honest with you, he was gone before lunch. He didn't know when we were coming or going for lunch, and we could have just worked through lunch. I don't know if -- when he would plan on being back, but then again, I don't know if the issue is that time sensitive. We just couldn't wait till our February 16th meeting to handle it then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does Bill know what it's about? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He's going to present the LDC schedule and layout of how it's going to be -- RLSA schedule and how it's going to be -- go forward. MR. LORENZ: Mike was pretty much working with other staff with that directly. I'm not familiar with the details of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's give him 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll -- that's fine with me. I'm -- benefit of the doubt. Let's recess -- wait a minute. Someone's coming in. Oh, the star is here. It's a shame all those bad things you said about him, Bill. MR. LORENZ: We'll pull the tape. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought they were good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you don't have a cell phone that's -- do you want to give -- provide the world with it by telling us publicly what it is or -- MR. LORENZ: At least the numbers I was using, it wasn't working. MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning manager. A tad bit out of breath. I didn't expect -- I thought I'd come back from lunch, watch the end of the hearings. You guys, obviously, decided a different route. The item that we're here to talk about simply is just a discussion item. There's nothing for decision- making purposes on the table at all. It's related to the Rural Land Stewardship Area, the proposed amendments associated with the five -year review that was conducted in 2007/2008 and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2009. And at the December 14th meeting, continuation of the December 13th meeting, we asked the Board of County Commissioners how we were going to proceed forward with the Rural Land Stewardship amendments. As you may recall, as part of the EAR report that was accepted by the board on the 31 st of January of 2011, last year, we had said that the five -year review in the proposed amendment were going to be our structural review or EAR review of that subdistrict within the Future Land Use Element and that -- but we were going to wait until the completion of the Habitat Conservation Plan before we were going to initiate those amendment processes. Some circumstances had changed. Some information had come to the county towards where we proposed an alternative towards that route, which would have been acceptable if the board had decided, but they had decided on the alternative, which was to move the amendments forward, have the firm Stantec package the data associated with the amendments, and provide a cursory analysis. Staff would review that analysis and the data to make sure they were complete based upon the newly revised statutory requirements for Growth Management Plan data amendments related to a previous growth management bill that was passed last year by the Florida Senate. A lot of issues that are going on. The board decided to move forward, but they also decided to move forward with the additional partnership of the Conservancy of the Southwest Florida. Andrew McElwaine had offered $90,000 to the process to retain an outside consultant to be able to independently review the data that was provided with the -- with the amendments to make an evaluation as to whether they believe that data supported the amendments based upon the new regulations, based upon the new laws for what is needed to proceed with the Growth Management Plan amendment. Within the memo I had sent you related to the -- not only the outside consultant but the amendment process moving forward, I had indicated five individual things that, from a staffs perspective, we would be looking for for the consultant to do. And just to let you know, that we're in discussion with the Conservancy with Stantec to establish a meeting to finalize these areas of review or work -- scope of work for that outside consultant, and that is ongoing; that process is Page 44 of 51 A 1 1612 January 19, 2012 ongoing. The five, in summary, were to review the Rural Land Stewardship Volume I and H, which was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners; review the proposed RLSA amendments package and the data that's supporting the proposed amendments; review the existing RLSA regulations and evaluate the maximum credits, the maximum yield that the current regulatory system would provide for and then what the maximum yield, the proposed amendments would provide for. That's one of -- to me that's the 50,000 -foot question that we start with this process in terms of the maximum intensity of the current regulatory environment compared to what the maximum intensity will be with the proposed amendments. I have heard -- there's been a lot of discussion. There's a lot of numbers that have been thrown out. There's a lot of, I think, individual understandings of what could be the maximum yield, but I'm not sure if there's a universal definitive agreement towards what those numbers could be and what the numbers could be with the new proposal, and that's why we're going to -- would ask this outside, independent firm to make their own evaluation as well. A fourth thing would be to write a detailed report evaluating whether the data supports the proposed amendments and draw individual conclusions upon each individual amendment and the data that supports it, and along with the proposed amendments, whether those proposed amendments were what was, indeed, accepted by the Board of County Commissioners at the April 21, 2009, meeting. And I know that you've received some correspondence from the Conservancy reiterating that desire to make sure that what's going to be put forward through the process is what was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. And I think we can address those, and actually I think we address those within these individual -- within these individual requests, because we're asking that outside consultant to review the minutes of that meeting, review those two -- those two phases, those two volumes of the report of the Five -Year Review Committee, and make sure that they were all consistent with the actions of the Board of County Commissioners. And I know that the Conservancy put forward some issues related to the EAC recommendations, the CCP (sic) recommendations, and maybe some disparities between what those two bodies had recommended and what the Five -Year Review Committee had put forward to the Board of County Commissioners. And when we asked them to review Volume I and Volume II, Volume II contains the recommendations from the EAC, contains the recommendations of the CCPC. So they're making that evaluation -- they're making that evaluation with that first request that we're asking them to make in correspondence with the fourth request, meaning that not only reviewing those -- both of those volumes, but they're consistent with what the board had directed us. And fifth would be that they would attend the transmittal hearings for the EAC and the CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners, provide that independent review, and be available for questions or dialogue or whatever -- to address whatever concerns or questions that the Planning Commission, the EAC, or the Board of County Commissioners may have. The -- and the second portion of that memo really went --just was strictly to remind -- or not remind, but to clarify from staffs perspective of how we see this moving forward. We see this moving forward as acceptance of the Five -Year Review Committee's report. The amendments that were proposed and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, those would be the starting point, the basis of how we would move forward. Each -- staff, the EAC as the advisory board, the CCPC as the advisory board would be able to make comments, suggestions, proposed modifications, proposed deletions, whatever we would think would be the necessary adjustment as a board towards those original -- that original starting point, meaning the amendments, as proposed by the committee that were part of the phase -- the Phase 2, Volume II report. An additional factor that we would look to do, because so many of the Planning Commission members are new to the dais, have not maybe had the intimate experience of four to five individual meetings to discuss potential changes to the program, we -- we're proposing that before we would start that transmittal process that we would have a workshop that we could familiarize not only the Planning Commission but some of the individual staff members as towards the larger concepts within the Rural Land Stewardship Area, some of the history about -- some of the history, some of the reports that's contained within Phase 1 talks about the program achievements to date, and then Phase 2 talks about where it's going to go. So just a general opportunity to expose some of the issues outside of a regulatory transmittal hearing, and we think that will provide the Planning Commission a little bit added benefit, and staff as well, to get everyone familiar Page 45 of 51 j. t Al P4 16 January 19, 2012 with the amendments that will be coming forward within the transmittal process, and that was the second part, like I said, to clarify how the process is going to start, but also to reiterate what we start with at the beginning of the process normally is not what we end up at the end based upon suggestions and modifications from all the advisory boards, from staff, from public as well. We shape the document regulatory authority as you -- as this commission does on a regular basis with the proposed PUD or any conditional use or variance or any other issues that would come before you. I mean -- and, essentially, that was the intent of this -- of this discussion item, to talk about what we anticipate that outside consultant to do and also how we're proposing to move forward with these proposed amendments and to maybe try to address or understand whatever concerns or issues the Planning Commission may have regarding this upcoming amendment process. And we, as a staff, know that there is going to be a tremendous amount of public involvement, there's going to be a tremendous amount of interest groups that want to have a voice at the table, so we want to make this as open we want to make it transparent, and we want to make it as inclusive as possible. And with that, I would like to entertain any questions or comments or anything from the dais. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: 1, for one, would -- I had made a note before you had made your comment. I had made a note to get together with you so I could get some background in RLSA and sending and receiving and TDRs and this whole mess. So your idea of a workshop -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fantastic. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- I think, is really good. MR. BOSL• Well -- and just from that very statement, it almost confirms that need, because sending, receiving, TDRs -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's all a big stew -- MR. BOSI: -- those are our rural fringe mixed -use districts. That's -- those are terms that are associated with a different subdistrict within our Future Land Use Element. This -- the Rural Land Stewardship Area, based upon the same concept, has a different approach to it. So, yeah, we understand, and that's -- I think that's why the suggestion was offered -- was proposed to have that workshop before we would start the process. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And I concur. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We have two to come to such a workshop, three. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Four. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's a lot of new people. Now, the last time the Planning Commission heard that we went through a rather lengthy series of meetings, and some of those were attended by experts from the outside that the new members wouldn't necessarily have the advantage of. They were experts in all different kinds of issues. But, Mike, I know we did an extremely detailed paragraph -by- paragraph report from this Planning Commission about our concerns, and as -- and then it was forwarded to the BCC. I know it didn't move forward -- nothing's moved forward, from what I understand, to date, and that's what we're now talking about. But my personal starting point is going to be paragraph by paragraph what this Planning Commission did and recommended prior to today. We did a -- we spent days and days, and I spent countless hours of my life putting that together, and I certainly am not going to dismiss it for no reason at all. And unless somebody can prove new information is available that disproved something we had originally looked at or has another way we should have considered, then I don't know what else there is, but I certainly will start that way. MR. BOSI: And that's another thing that we -- we're asking the outside consultant do is ensure that any reports that -- the Panther Technical Report wasn't finished by the time that the board had heard this in 2009. That report has been completed, and that would be part of the data that would be supplied to support the amendment, and I think it would -- it would allow for some of the discussions and the continuation of some of the discussions that were had with this body. All of those information points that you felt were relevant then are relevant now, and I think your approach Page 46 of 51 161 2 A I January 19, 2012 was anticipated by staff, and we expect that those issues will surface again. We will vet them with this body, gain a majority of a perspective, and put forward that prospective to the Board of County Commissioners who are the ultimate arbitrators within the county decision - making process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, as a staff member, distribute to the Planning Commission our prior report? I mean, I know you've got it because -- I think it's the one that the Conservancy may have distributed already, but I'd rather see it coming from you guys as the one that you officially have on record that was sent to the BCC; that way we've all got the original, you know, the true copy. MR. BOSI: You want the report that was the -- post CCPC workshops? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. The one we finished where we had CCPC in blue letters across it. That was the one that -- that was an accumulation of everything we had done. And that was a -- that was what I believe was supposed to go to the Board of County Commissioners. That's what it was written for. MR. BOSI: Would you --and, obviously, I have hard copies, and I will be able to just deliver them when -- with -- I don't know if you guys are meeting in February. Did you guys decide? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 16th we're going to meet. MR. BOSI: Sixteenth we're coming back, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be fine. That way we -- and then -- now, lacking in that report we didn't have information that is available today on some elements, and one of them being at the time the property owners wanted, certain issues, kind of wait to see what happened with this panther study. I know the panther study was done. So that may be helpful for this board to have, too. It's things like that. There may be other new information that we haven't got. But anything that -- if there is new information that should have been weighed in, I'd certainly like to have it all, because it may change some of the positions. MR. BOSI: Yeah. I anticipate those will be part of the data package that's going to be provided to support the amendments, and we would, obviously, give those to you in anticipation of a workshop. But pre that -- that package being put together, we can most certainly get an early read for you, the CCPC prospective report that went to the Board of County Commissioners for the 29th -- or the 21 st of April. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on that workshop, it might expedite -- I don't -- I would hate to see us have to spend five more meetings on that. I mean, that was real tedious last time, and it was the first shot, and everybody had a lot to say. It might be helpful if we know where the measures of agreement are so we haven't got to dwell on those; we can just go to the issues where the property owners or that committee feel that they're in total disagreement with the -- either the Planning Commission or the other groups that participated so we can focus on those. That might save some time. MR. BOSI: Okay. The -- and I know the committe has been officially dissolved. It would be probably a difficult task to try to reconvene that committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Your report to the board said something -- I thought your -- well, I thought your report to the board incorporated those issues where the committee was in agreement with the Planning Commission in the final review that the board had. And if that's the case, that's all I'm trying to say is let's -- MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- sort those out, and when we go through the process, let's try to shorten the process by not rediscussing everything that's already been agreed to. MR. BOSI: Well, and I -- and with that -- with that suggestion, what I'm hearing is, highlight where that disagreement is; where there is the agreement, there's no need to spend, you know, a tremendous amount of time just -- other than just verifying this is an agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And maybe explaining it to the new members. If they have a different perspective on it, great. But I think you'll find that the biggest issues of contention probably are the only ones that really are going to be as impactful for this board to address compared to some of the smaller ones. We had -- a lot of it was clean -up language. I mean -- and I think a lot of it was agreed to. In fact, if I remember the word, "substantially" agreed to. So that may be the best way to approach it to save everybody a lot of time. MR. BOSI: Understood, and we'll take that approach. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 47 of 51 16 January 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We really do need a refresher where we left off to bring it up to date. That was, like, three years ago, right? I mean, a lot of stuff has fallen out of my head since then. MR. BOSI: Well -- and the Phase 2 report has details of the recommendations and the actions of each of the advisory bodies, which will be a good -- I mean, it's a pretty voluminous, you know, material. It's going to take a little bit to get through, but it's there. The -- where -- to get you kind of up to speed towards what had happened with -- up and to the Planning Commission, to the Board of County Commissions, it will be documented within the Volume 11 report. So we'll be able to at least provide you the opportunity to get up to speed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Nicole sent her letter around -- which was way too lengthy, but she still sent it around -- with it were some attachments, and then I saw that -- I remembered that draft that we had written up, or not the draft but the final report from the board, that's why blue letters brought back those wonderful memories after reading it, and so a lot of it started coming back, and I remembered some of the detail. So it would be a lot nicer if we didn't have to go through all that again. You know, I mean, unless the new board members have questions on some of the mundane stuff that seems to be settled, we don't have to go back into it. MR. BOSI: And I think that will be -- that will definitely become apparent, and that will be another advantage of the workshop. We'll be able to really identify those areas where -- not only where the past CCPC members but the current members are in agreement so we know where that focus is once the transmittal starts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would help out a lot. Thank you, Mike. Anybody else have any questions of Mike? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on timing. What's going on happen? MR. BOSI: Well, there's going to be a need for a request for proposals for an outside firm to come in, perform this work. That process is going to take a little bit of time. We're trying to set this meeting up with the Conservancy to make sure that we are attending to all of their expectations as well as the expectations of the Planning Commission and staff in terms of the work associated with it. I would -- tentatively would hope that we could be in a position to hold the workshop April, May. And then based upon those results, we could, you know, schedule those transmittal hearings in close proximity based upon the number of issues that we have identified during those workshops. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BOSI: But because of the need to have -- to follow the public process for the bidding and the retention of an outside firm, there's going to be -- have to -- you know, a series of procedures that will need to be followed to make sure that we're above board and following everything that needs to be done to retain that outside firm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, thank you. Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this issue? Okay. Oh, Nicole's getting up. This better not be a 10 -page speech. MS. JOHNSON: My letter was short. Lots of attachments, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short? Nicole, you write these lengthy letter, my goodness. Yeah, it was only seven pages; you're right. MS. JOHNSON: It's seven pages, come on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, okay. MS. JOHNSON: For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy. I think that from the discussion today we seem to be going in the right direction. I think -- and as Mark -- Mike said, we haven't had an opportunity for the Conservancy to sit down with the county and talk about some of these things that we really think need to be specified in the scope of work, but we would like to see it very specifically written that the RLSA report did contain all of those recommendations of the Planning Commission and EAC just so that there's no confusion on that issue and to potentially reference some of those very specific studies that need to be part of the review now, that panther review team study. So those are things that we haven't had a chance to really write down what our suggestions for the scope -of -work input would be, but we're going to do that, and it looks like we're going in the right direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Andrew? MR. McELWAINE: 1, not only don't have 10 pages, I don't have 10 seconds to give you. Page 48 of 51 r: 1612 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can have more than 10 seconds. MR. McELWAINE: Thank you. I'll be very, very brief Andrew McElwaine. I work for Nicole. The Conservancy agreed to "pay up" to -- those two words get lost -- "up to" $90,000 to support independent review of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now the whole mike's lost. MR. McELWAINE: One way to shut off public comment. Hello -- up to $90,000 to support this. You know, and what we're going to -- all we're asking for is that it truly be independent, that the process of identifying, selecting, putting out the scope of work, and then conducting the analysis be independent of all the stakeholders, myself included, and all of their affiliated entities and subs be disqualified from those roles. And I think that's going to be very important to going forward. We really want it to be independent, independent, and that includes my outfit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And I appreciate what you -all are doing to try to keep it independent; however, the best thing this board can have is more information. So the more the better. We want to make the right decision for the long term Collier County, and that can only be done with all the facts on the table. So we're not going to shy away from the facts. Whether we agree with them or not, we'd like to have them. So -- and KD, you coming up to speak? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just fixing the mike. MS. ARNOLD: You done good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Al, you guys want to speak at all? I'm not -- it's up to you. I saw you sitting here for some reason, so -- MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. Al Reynolds with Stantec, only to say that we've had, you know, considerable conversations with the county staff about the role that our company is going to play in helping to put together the data that will support these amendments. We have a clear understanding with them as to what the county expects us to do, and we're looking forward to moving this process forward. We think it's timely, and we're pleased that the board made the decision to go ahead and get these -- get these amendments underway before we hit the 10 -year anniversary mark of the program. And I do think that the workshop is going to be very productive and very important. It is -- it is a very unusual innovative program, and I think during that workshop it will be good to not only learn about what has happened in Collier County, but to understand that the rest of the State of Florida sees Collier County's Rural Land Stewardship Program as the model that should be embraced across the state for these kinds of incentive -based conservation programs. And so it's something that the county, I know, is proud of and should be proud of, and a lot of folks are looking forward in other parts of the state to see the results of this process because it was a new program and because the five -year review process has -- has resulted in some recommendations that are going to make some pretty important enhancements to the program. I can tell you from working all across the state that there are others who would like to think about doing a program like this, and they're looking forward to seeing Collier County complete the process of its update. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? No? Oh, Mitch. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: For the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus. We are one of the landowners with -- that's located within the Rural Land Stewardship Area. I didn't have any comments, but I did feel it was appropriate to just give you a little bit of perspective, and I think Al indicated it, and so did Chairman Strain. We've been in this process for a long time. And so as one of the landowners who has actively been working on a better solution -- and I think if you'll remember back from where this all started, it was how can we do a better job of putting the right land uses in right location, how can we think regionally comprehensively about environmental restoration, and how can we do that in a manner that respects the efforts and the stewardship that the landowners have put out there, respect the property rights, and does it in a manner that is a win -win for everybody. And as somebody that's been in the program for a long, long time, I'm looking forward to this finally moving forward with the support of the Planning Commission, the support of the commission, to ultimately achieve the goals Page 49 of 51 fi •g k 1 61 2 Al 4 January 19, 2012 that we've all been talking about. And I encourage each one of you, as I'm sure that you'll do, to look at the information fairly and impartially and remember we're trying to strike a balance between how can we protect property rights and encourage -- make people want to make sure that at the end of the day we've achieved something that didn't used to exist, but that we can all look back and be proud of. And so, just as a landowner, I want to let you know that's the position that we come at it from. But we've been in this for a long time, and so we're looking for the opportunity for it to move forward. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Mike, thank you. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill said you needed a half hour. You took 20 minutes, but that's okay. MR. BOSI: I ran upstairs fast, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Well, with that, then I guess we're at the end of our meeting today. I don't believe anybody else from the public is here to discuss anything. So is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Barry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. Page 50 of 51 16 1 A 1 January 19, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:31 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on o�A/ , as presented v or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 51 of 51 1612 BEGET V LmDry 18, 2012 FEEL 2 2 2012 BMW of County CJmmi;,;,lCn3r;, MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING January 18, 2012 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala V Hiller Henning -F_ _ Coyle— Coletta X ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN Vice Chair: Lee Horn Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Michael D. Gentzle, Esq., and James F. Morey, Esq., Attorneys for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Mist Cwes. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer �e:`--t1 \6�►2 Item �: ICQZ2�H 2 1 Copies to: 161 2 A 2 January 18, 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Lee Horn called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. All members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Deletion: • Under Item VII, "Public Hearings" — Case #2012 -02, Raymond V. Trotta, was removed from the Agenda. The case will be continued. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Kyle Lantz moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 21,2011: Corrections: Page 4, Item VII (A.) — the Board member is Patrick White Page 8 and Page 12— the consulting firm is Turrell, Hall & Associates Page 12 o 1St Paragraph, 8th Line — the word "correct" was changed to "corrected" o 2nd Paragraph, 4th Line — the word "refusal" was changed to "failing" Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the December 21, 2011 meeting as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: Thomas Lykos stated at the December meeting, he requested back -up information for the financial statement distributed by Ken Kovensky. Since he had not received it, he again requested the information. Michael Ossorio stated he contacted Ken Kovensky. As soon as the documentation has been received, Mr. Ossorio will forward it via email to the Board. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In each of the cases heard under this Section, and Section VIII, "Public Hearings," the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Robert Walters — Contesting Citation(s) (Mr. Walters was not present.) 2 16 January 18, 2012 B. Michael Reglar — Contesting Citations(s) Citations: #6772 (Working Outside Scope) and #6773 (No Building Permit) Date: December 8, 2011 Fine: $300.00 each Description of Violations: (6772) Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business of, or act in the capacity of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified. (6773) Commence or perform work for which a Building Permit is required pursuant to an adopted State Minimum Building Code, without such permit being in effect. Michael Regular stated: • The Citations were excessive • He was hired to replace drywall (20 sheets) in a condo (2- story) which he thought he was licensed to do because it was a "residence" • He is a Certified Residential Contractor • He obtained the proper permitting after Citation 6772 was issued • He obtained a second license at a cost of $700 Michael Ossorio, Supervisor - Contractors' Licensing Office, suggested reviewing each Citation separately. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the following background information: • December 8, 2011— Conducted a site visit and observed molding being cut outside the condo unit • He spoke with Michael Reglar, Michael Reglar Carpentry Contracting, Inc., who stated he installed approximately 20 boards of sheetrock, plaster, molding, and interior doors. • He advised Mr. Reglar that he was working outside the scope of his license • Citation #6772 and a "Stop Work" Order were issued. • Mr. Reglar sent a letter contesting the Citations to the Contractors' Licensing Office • A Permit was applied for on December 91h and issued on December 21" to Benson Homes of Florida, LLC • A Certificate of Completion was issued on January 5, 2012 Michael Ossorio: Mr. Reglar came to the Office promptly and we reviewed the applicable Florida Statutes and the County Ordinance He obtained the necessary Building Permits The homeowner was inconvenienced — his move into the unit was delayed A 2 if 16 1 Zanuary 18, 2012 Thomas Lykos: • There are two separate Citations — one is for working outside the scope of his license and the second is for working without a Permit. Patrick White: • Mr. Reglar testified that he made a mistake — he admitted to the violation • The relevance is how could someone operate under the false impression that working on a 2 -story condo could be considered "residential" and within the scope of his license Kyle Lantz: • A residential contractor can't just do any job he wants —I learned that the hard way and had to upgrade my license • It is clear in the Code what "residential" is and a condo is not a residence Vice Chairman Joslin: • Ascertained the development was identified by signage and more than one building was located at the address • Asked Mr. Reglar how he could consider the project as a "residence" when there was more than one building — residential means a single structure Thomas Keegan: • There were two buildings, two stories, four units in each building, with a common area between the buildings Patrick White: • There is no question that it was a condominium • But Mr. Reglar did what he needed to do and did it before the date of the Hearing • There is some potential — from what is suggested on the forms and information supplied by a Board member — that there is some basis for a degree of confusion or lack of information • There are options to consider when disposing of the Citation • There is no doubt in my mind that there is a violation and the Citation is valid • Mr. Reglar stated he thought the Citation was excessive — not that he thought it was wrong Vice Chairman Joslin: • There are two separate issues • We are discussing unlicensed activity — a Contractor working without a proper license — that's number one. • The second Citation may reflect on what Mr. White has said — a permit was applied for and obtained prior to the Hearing 4 1612 A42 January 18, 2012 Michael Reglar: • I also obtained the extra license I needed — I needed a Cabinetry License in addition to my Certified Residential Contractor's license • I finished the trim work — baseboards — under my new license • The drywall was already done Karin Reglar: • Co -owner of Michael Reglar Carpentry Contracting, Inc. • We know we can't work outside a or build a condo — or anything • We weren't moving walls — we were doing repair work — that was it • We know you don't need a permit to hang drywall — that's why the permit wasn't there • We didn't think we were doing anything wrong — we were 100% cooperative when this gentleman [Investigator Keegan] came in • We didn't think it was "commercial" because it was inside a residence • But that's how we got messed up • We know 100% now and we call the County to double -check to make sure because there's no way we are going to be in this situation again — nor have we before Patrick White: • In this instance there seems to be a lack of awareness that is your responsibility — that's no excuse • You are not coming in here stating the Citations aren't valid • My point is given the value of the job and the amount of the fines per Citation, that you think they are excessive • The facts discussed are applicable to both Citations Michael Reglar: • Before he hired me, the homeowner called the County to make sure that I was properly licensed • He asked if I needed a permit for the project and he was told "no" • There was confusion — it was wrong Jon Walker: • What type of work did you do in the residence> Michael Reglar: • He had a flood — another Contractor came in and removed four feet of drywall, approximately 20 sheets • I installed the new drywall — replaced one to one — and the baseboard Thomas Lykos: • A permit is required to replace drywall. 61 " 16 I :. A 2 January 18, 2012 • I understand that there might be some confusion as to whether this is residential or commercial, but it is critically important that the people who are licensed to do this type of work actually do the work. • In a multi - family environment, there are fire -rated walls separating the condo units. • If someone without the proper experience or license goes in and does those repairs, a situation could be created where a fire starts in one condo and spreads to another. • The intention of the current laws, Ordinances and Building Codes is that a fire should not spread from one unit to another — the units are meant to be separate entities from each other. • If somebody who doesn't understand the Codes goes in and makes repairs, a fire break between one condo unit and another could be removed creating a situation where the attached residence is at risk. • It is critically important that you have an understanding of what your license does and does not allow you to. It is not necessarily how the space is used — it quite often has to do with the construction of the building. • Regardless of how the interior space is used — it isn't about the value of the work — it isn't about whether or not you are even capable of doing the work — it's about understanding the type of construction — of how the space is being used. • The fact that you came in here today and said that you don't need a permit for drywall is exactly why your license doesn't allow you to do this kind of work. • I understand that our Ordinance allows this Board to waive the Citation if the proper steps were taken prior to the Hearing — but I do not want to glance over the severity of why you were given the Citations to begin with. • We don't know the type of firewall that existed — that separates one unit from another — and it sounds like you did a lot of drywall work. I have no doubt that you ended up working on a fire wall in that building. • Fortunately, a permit was issued, inspections were done, and any fire walls that may have been impacted were properly addressed. But this is exactly why there are limitations on the different types of licenses that are issued — whether by the County or by the State. • It is critically important that we do not allow a fire /safety issue to occur when we have the chance to address it using proper procedures. Michael Reglar: • We did get the proper fire inspection. Terry Jerulle noted the Board did not have the authority to reduce the amount of the fine — it could either waive the Citation or increase the amount of the fine. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve upholding Citation #6772 and the $300 fine as issued. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. 1612 A2 January 18, 2012 Chairman Horn called for discussion of the second permit ( #6773). Vice Chairman Joslin stated in the past similar incidents were heard by the Board. He reminded the Board that the Permit had been obtained and the work completed/inspected prior to the Hearing. There were no damages to the home owner. He further stated the Board has the ability to waive the Citation and he suggested doing so. Kyle Lantz asked who was the General Contractor who pulled the permit and how he became involved. Michael Reglar stated Steve Benson was a friend who pulled the permit as a favor. Kyle Lantz objected to a Contractor pulling a permit who was not under contract to the homeowner. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Reglar, as the Residential Contractor, was ordered to find a General Contractor to pull the permit. He hired the GC to do it for him. Mr. Ossorio reiterated it was not a case of aiding or abetting an unlicensed contractor. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve dismissing Citation #6773 and the $300 fine. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. C. Jay C. Hollinger — Application to Reinstate License without Re- testing • He is petitioning to reinstate his painting license • He was licensed from 1985 to 2005 • He moved to Highlands County in 2004 and let his license lapse although he did painting and pressure washing — a license was not required • He returned to Naples in 2011 and has an opportunity to resume his painting business • Corporate Name: Hollinger Enterprises, Inc. • D /B /A: Hollinger Painting and Decorating. Michael Ossorio: • No complaints on record • Recommend reinstatement • Re- testing would be superfluous • Mr. Hollinger will pay back fees before his license is issued Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Hollinger about his credit problem. Mr. Hollinger stated that, due to his finances, there was a foreclosure and short sale of his personal home. It had nothing to do with the construction business. Chairman Horn concurred the only negative on Mr. Hollinger's credit report was the foreclosure. Kyle Lantz asked Mr. Hollinger if he was familiar with the EPA's RRP Rule for lead paint. 7 1612 A 2 w January 18, 2012 Jay Hollinger stated he was familiar with the lead paint, especially in older homes, checking to make sure the paint is not lead based. He further stated he had never experienced a lead paint situation in his painting career. Kyle Lantz noted Mr. Hollinger had been inactive in the painting industry for a number of years. One of the big changes that affected painters more than any other profession is the EPA's Lead: RRP ( "Renovators, Remodelers & Painters ") Rule. Mr. Hollinger stated he would need to update himself on the Rule. Mr. Lantz suggested that Mr. Hollinger enroll in the EPA's one -day class. Thomas Lykos stated he is RRP- certified. He noted Mr. Hollinger was tested approximately 27 years ago. Federal laws have been enacted concerning the treatment of lead paint. He further stated the fines for improper removal of lead paint are very steep — thousands of dollars per day for violations. He mentioned another concern — the treatment and remediation of mold and the newer technologies, policies and procedures to be followed. He stated it was in Mr. Hollinger's best interest to do some research and take the test again. Mr. Hollinger stated he can conduct research on the changes. He stated he deals with Sherwin Williams and Florida Paint and there are very helpful. He confirmed he will educate himself to become current. Patrick White asked if there were any educational requirements for painting contractors. Mr. Lykos stated you cannot even test for lead unless you are RRP- certified. When you test, you must file reports with the Federal government. Mr. Lantz said if Mr. Hollinger only works on post -1979 projects, it is not necessary. Chairman Horn stated it was a good suggestion but it could be too much of a burden to require that he become RRP- certified. Robert Meister noted the information packet contained a letter from the manager of a Sherwin - Williams store where Mr. Hollinger worked. He had knowledge of the various paints. Terry Jerulle moved to accept the County's recommendation and approve the application for reinstatement without requiring re- testing. Second by Robert Meister. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " /1— "No. " Mr. Lykos was opposed. A. Robert Walters — Contesting Citation(s) Chairman Horn again announced the case and Mr. Walters was not present. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Walters requested the Hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes and had received notice of the date /time. He further stated Mr. Walters will be sent a letter informing him of the Board's order that fines will be imposed. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if a motion was required. Mr. Ossorio confirmed a motion was not required. 161 2 A 2 1 January 18, 2012 VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Chairman. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Case 2012 -01: Gregory Leonov (D /b /a: L & L Enterprises SW FL, Inc.) Michael Ossorio noted the Respondent had called the Contractors' Licensing Office on January 17th and stated he would not attend the Hearing due to medical issues. He requested a continuance. Mr. Ossorio confirmed the County was ready to proceed, the County's witness was available, and the Respondent had been properly served with notice. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, confirmed he received a call from the Respondent who stated he had been involved in a car accident and could not attend the Hearing. Mr. Leonov also stated he would send the re- application to the County. Michael D. Gentzle, Esq, Attorney for the Board, noted the Respondent was a State - certified Electrical Contractor. He stated the Board had the power to proceed and revoke the Respondent's permit- pulling privileges. The action would be reported to the State with a recommended penalty. He further stated given the severity of the penalties, it is the Board's decision to place the case on the next Agenda or proceed with the Hearing. Chairman Horn confirmed the Board had the power to proceed without the Respondent being present. Attorney Gentzle reiterated proper notice had been sent and received by the Respondent. Patrick White stated the Respondent requested a continuance due to a car accident. He asked if proceeding would prejudice the Board and deny the Respondent due process. James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Board, stated he had concerns about the issue of due process based on the representation of a medical issue. Since the Respondent is a State - certified Contractor, the sanctions are severe. Granting the request for a continuance would be more cautious. Chairman Horn asked if the request for a continuance was due to the medical issue or to obtain a permit. Michael Ossorio stated he called the Respondent prior to the Hearing to confirm the information given to Investigator Keegan. He stated the County's position was the Respondent had been properly served and the County is ready to proceed. Patrick White noted there was a risk of a potential appeal. He stated if the Board was prepared to accept the risk, he would support proceeding with the Hearing. 16 12 A2 January 18, 2012 Steve Williams, Attorney for the County, confirmed it was within the Board's discretion to continue. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Board had decided to grant the continuance in a prior case with similar circumstances. If there are medical issues, he would prefer to continue to the next month. Thomas Keegan stated the Respondent had not been hospitalized -- he called from his office. Terry Jerulle asked if the Respondent had pulled other permits for job within the County. Mr. Keegan stated the Respondent had a long history of this type of action. Chairman Horn supported granting a continuance. Patrick White reiterated the County was ready to proceed — there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that a physical reason prevented the Respondent from attending the Hearing — there was no formal request for a continuance. He stated given the risk that another circumstance could arise, he preferred to hear the case. Michael Boyd stated he holds the same license as the Respondent. He noted the Respondent was cited in August but had done nothing in the interim to clear up the problem. It was his own fault that he was cited. He supported proceeding with the Hearing. Robert Meister concurred, stating the Respondent had a serious case of "the dog ate my homework" syndrome. Jon Walker noted even if there was a long history of similar actions, testimony was presented by Mr. Keegan that the Respondent claimed to have a medical issue. Chairman Horn stated the medical issue was not the reason for requesting a continuance — the Respondent stated he wanted additional time to obtain a permit. He stated if the request was solely due to medical issues, he would agree to continue the Hearings. Patrick White reiterated that nothing had been presented to the Board — there was no formal request for a continuance. He stated he was prepared to hear the case. Chairman Horn outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII, "Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489. • The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. • Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply. • Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings. • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida. • Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. 10 16 I L A 2 January 18, 2012 • The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions. • Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness before the Board. • Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. • The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his /her defense as described previously, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • After the Respondent has presented his /her case, the County will present a rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: • Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. • If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. 11 16 12 A 2 January 18, 2012 • After the matters are decided, the Chair/Vice Chair will read a Summary of the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order. • The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering Case No. 2012 -01, State License Number ES0000345 and Collier County License #CC 22007, Board of County Commissioners vs. Gregory Leonov, d/b /a L&L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., into evidence. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "A. ,9 Michael Boyd asked if he should abstain from voting since he holds the same license as the Respondent and is a competitor of the Respondent. He stated he had never met the Respondent although he was aware of the Respondent's company. Attorney James Morey noted if Mr. Boyd had no direct dealings with the Respondent, no personal knowledge, and was not bidding on the same job, there was no conflict. There were enough members of the Board to hear the case if Mr. Boyd declined to do so. Patrick White stated even if Mr. Boyd abstained from voting because he felt there was a direct conflict or the appearance of a conflict, he could still participate in discussion of the issues. Attorney Morey concurred, stating by broaching the issue, Mr. Boyd's actions did much to dispel the appearance of impropriety. Chairman Horn concluded Mr. Boyd could make his decision at the time of the vote. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: • Gregory Leonov was the qualifier of L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., located at 913 SW 15th Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida 33990 • State License Number: ES0000345, Collier County Certificate #22007 • Mr. Leonov, the Respondent, was not present at the Hearing. • The Respondent was not represented by Counsel. • Violation: Ordinance #2006 -46, Section 4.2.2 — Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. Case in Chief • On August 9, 2011, Mr. Keegan received a complaint from Diana Compagnone, Signs Plan Reviewer for Collier County. • Ms. Compagnone stated four open permits had been canceled or expired because inspections were not conducted and C /Os were not obtained for the permits issued to L & L Enterprises. 12 161 �A2 i January 18, 2012 • The following permits were issued: • Permit #2009111338 -- 1552 Lake Trafford Rd, • Permit #2008120150 -- 2314 Immokalee Rd, • Permit #2008021004 -- 5431 Airport Rd N, • Permit #2010121633 —1427 Pine Ridge Rd. • Mr. Keegan called Mr. Leonov on August 9th and advised him of the Building Code violation. • Mr. Leonov requested that Mr. Keegan fax copies of the expired permits to him and the documents were faxed prior to the close of business. • From August 20 to September 12th, there were phone conversations with Mr. Leonov during which he stated that he would re -apply for the permits. • On September 15th, 2011, Michael Ossorio spoke to Mr. Leonov and advised that he will be charged with a willful Building Code violation and a hearing would be scheduled before the Contractors' Licensing Board. • On September 12th, Mr. Keegan received a call from Mr. Leonov who stated he was meeting Ms. Compagnone on September 23`d to resubmit plans for the permits. • Mr. Leonov did not attend the scheduled meeting. • Mr. Keegan's last conversation with Mr. Leonov was on September 1211' • The issue has not been rectified. • On December 29, 2011, Mr. Keegan received a letter from Interim Chief Building Official Thomas DeGram confirming that Mr. Leonov's failure to comply was a willful violation of the Building Code. Mr. Keegan noted he also spoke with the Respondent on January 17, 2012. Patrick White referred to Page 7 of County's Exhibit "A" which was a copy of the notification letter sent to the Respondent and proof of delivery provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. Keegan confirmed the letter was sent via certified mail, return receipt. Mr. White noted the "green card" indicated "G. Leonov" received the document on November 23, 2011. The letter notified the Respondent that a Hearing was scheduled for Januaryl8, 2012 and specified the time and location. It further instructed the Respondent that he could present evidence at the Hearing and be represented by his attorney. The Respondent was provided with a copy of the County's information packet. He was instructed to prepare a defense packet and given submittal instructions. Mr. White noted the Respondent did not submit a defense packet nor formally request a continuance of the Hearing. He concluded the Respondent received more than adequate due process. Michael Ossorio called the County's witness, Thomas DeGram, to testify, and referred to Mr. DeGram's memorandum dated December 29, 2011 (E -15). Mr. Gram confirmed that the document was his memo and confirmed it stated his opinion that the Respondent willfully violated the Building Code. 13 161ZA2 January 18, 2012 Patrick White noted the memo stated the "applicant's failure to comply" was the basis for the willful violation. He asked, "You don't know that it is willful on the applicant's part. You are inferring that from the fact that he failed to comply after repeated opportunities to come into compliance." Thomas DeGram concurred. Thomas Keegan stated the signs were installed, permits were applied for, but no inspections have taken place. Chairman Horn asked Michael Boyd about the risk to the public since the signs have not been inspected. Michael Boyd replied the signs have been installed on walls that are probably not accessible to the public. He stated everything was to be built to UL Standards and he hoped that they were, but without an inspection, there is a potential for electrical or structural issues. Mr. DeGram noted Permit #2009111338 was failed — the method of installation or attachment was not approved but the electrical did pass inspection. Thomas Lykos asked when the permit applications were originally submitted. • Permit #2009111338 —expired on May 24, 2010 —applied for in 2009 • Permit #2008120150 — expired on June 3, 2009 — applied for in 2008 • Permit #2008121004 — expired on June 19, 2008 — applied for in 2008 • Permit #2010121633 —expired on July 26, 2011 — applied for in 2010 Patrick White noted the expirations reflected a pattern of conduct indicating a disregard for the rules. By 2010, a degree of non - compliance was established because the Respondent failed to file a simple Notice of Commencement. He asked the other members to explain the degree of difficulty involved in filing a NOC and abate the expired permits. Discussion continued. Michael Ossorio concluded the process was simple and payment was required when the re- application was filed. He stated the County case was concluded. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn read the Charge: Violation of Ordinance #2006 -46, Section 4.2.2: "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. " • Permit #2009111338 Violation address: 1552 Lake Trafford Rd, • Permit #2008120150 Violation address: 2314 Immokalee Rd, • Permit #2008021004 Violation address: 5431 Airport Rd N, • Permit #2010121633 Violation address: 1427 Pine Ridge Rd. 14 1612 A[ January 18, 2012 Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board: • The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent • Pursuant to Section 22- 203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of this matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay by itself is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the only ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. It was noted the violation pertained to 2007 Florida Building Code, Section 109.1. Kyle Lantz moved to approve that, in Case #2012 -01, Collier County Board of Commissioners versus Gregory Leonov, Respondent, doing business as L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., State License #ES0000345 and Collier County Certificate of Competency #22007, the Respondent was found guilty of violating Count I — "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. " Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes "W — "Abstention." Michael Boyd abstained from voting. 15 A2 1612 Zo12 January 18, Attorney Gentzle stated the Sanctions were set out in Section 22- 203(b) (1) of the County's Ordinance, as follows: (1) The Board may deny the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building Permits or require the issuance of Permits with specific conditions; (2) Notification of information concerning such Permit denial shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation within 15 days after the Contractor's Licensing Board made its decision. Attorney Gentzle advised the Board that when imposing disciplinary sanctions on a State - certified Contractor or person who was found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) The evidence presented at the Hearing; (2) The gravity of the violation; (3) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (4) Any actions taken by the Respondent to correct the violation; (5) Any previous violations committed by the Respondent, and (6) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation or the violator. He continued, stating in addition to any action that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board may take against the individual or business, and any fines that may be imposed, the Board shall issue a recommended penalty to the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. The penalty may include: a. A recommendation of "no further action "; b. A recommendation of suspension or revocation or restriction of the registration; c. A fine to be levied by the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. d. Any combination of the above. Michael Ossorio confirmed the limit /maximum for the fine is $10,000. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Respondent's business is located in the City of Cape Coral and asked if the Board had the authority to notify the municipality of the result of the Hearing. Attorney Gentzle responded the Board will notify the State and the State can forward the information to another jurisdiction. Chairman Horn requested recommendations from the County and a report of the Respondent's prior history. Michael Ossorio stated the goal is to obtain compliance. 16 161 � AZ January 18, 2012 The County recommended restricting the Respondent's license to the four outstanding Building Permits for a period of one month. Mr. Ossorio stated, if directed by the Board, a notification letter will be sent within 15 days to the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board concerning the restriction or suspension of the Respondent's permit pulling privileges within the City of Naples, Marco Island, and unincorporated Collier County, and recommending imposition of a fine of no less than $5,000. Mr. Ossorio explained after the four Permits have been closed, the Respondent may petition the Contractors' Licensing Board within 20 days for a re- hearing for reconsideration. He stated the Respondent's permit history will be reviewed with the Building Official and the Respondent. Patrick White suggested: • denying the Respondent's permit pulling privileges with the exception of the four expired permits, • imposing a fine, • if compliance is not achieved by a certain date — enhancing the fine, and • requiring him to take and pass the Business and Law exam before his permit pulling privileges will be reinstated by the Board. Mr. Ossorio reminded the Board the only option available was to restrict, modify, or revoke a State - certified Contractor's permit pulling privileges. The Board can also recommend sanctions to the State to impose. He explained: • the Respondent's permit pulling privileges would be restricted for 15 days. • If the issues with the four expired permits are resolved and compliance is achieved, the Respondent may petition the Board for a full review. • If there is no compliance after 15 days, his privileges will be revoked indefinitely. A lengthy discussion ensued. Concern was expressed regarding the 15 -day limitation. Mr. Ossorio explained the Respondent was to submit a re- application for the expired permits within 15 days — "issue status." He reiterated the Respondent's license would be suspended and his permit pulling privileges restricted to the four expired permits. After 15 days, if compliance was not obtained, the Respondent's license would be revoked. Attorney Williams noted Mr. Ossorio's obligation was to notify the State of the results of the Board's decision. The State will notify other jurisdictions. Mr. Ossorio confirmed the State will open a file in the matter. 17 1612 A 2 r+ January 18, 2012 Chairman Horn summarized the Board's recommendations: • Suspend the Respondent's permit pulling privileges, except for the four expired permits and permits currently open as of January 18, 2012; re- applications ( "issue status ") are to be submitted within 15 days; • Request that the State Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose a of a $5,000; • Request that the Respondent is required to test and pass the Business/Law exam; • Issue a public reprimand; • After compliance has been achieved, the Respondent may petition the Board for reinstatement of his permit- pulling privileges; • If the Respondent fails to achieve compliance after 15 days, his permit pulling privileges will be revoked. Michael Ossorio noted the State may or may not consider imposing the educational requirement. Discussion continued concerning the recommendations. Patrick White moved to approve the following recommendations: • Suspend the Respondent's building permit pulling privileges for 15 days or until all expired permits and currently active permits (as of January 18, 2012) are inspected, approved, and closed out, • The State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose a fine of not less than $5,000; • Mandate taking and passing any testing consistent with the Building Industry Business/Law exam prior to reinstatement of permit pulling privileges; • Issue a public reprimand; • If the Respondent fails to address the expired permits within 15 days, his permit pulling privileges will be revoked. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried 8 — "Yes"/1— "Abstained." Mi[c ael Boyd abstained from voting. It was noted the Respondent must ap ryto the Contractor's Licensing Board for a hearing to reinstate his permit pulling privileges. Chairman Horn reminded the Board that the State is not required to accept its recommendations. Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on January 18, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against Gregory Leonov, d/b /a L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., the holder of record of State License #ES0000345 and Collier County Certificate #22007. 18 1612 AZ " January 18, 2012 • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issues its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact: • Gregory Leonov, d/b /a "L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc.," is the holder of record of State License #SES0000345 and Collier County Certificate #22007. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Gregory Leonov, was not present at the Public Hearing held on January 18, 2012. • The Respondent was not represented by Counsel. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act • The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Count I, under Section 4.2.2, "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: o The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: o The Respondent violated Section 4.2.2 of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Order of the Board: • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 8 in favor, none in opposition, and one abstention, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 8 in favor, none in opposition, and one abstention, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of State License #ES0000345 and Collier County Certificate of Competency #22007. 19 161 2 A2 January 18, 2012 • Sanctions: o Suspend the Respondent's building permit pulling privileges for 15 days or until the four expired permits and all currently active permits (as of January 18, 2012) are inspected, approved, and closed out; o Request that the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose a fine of not less than $5,000; o Mandate taking and passing any testing consistent with the Building Industry Business/Law exam prior to reinstatement of permit pulling privileges; o Issue a public reprimand; o If the Respondent fails to address the expired permits within 15 days, his permit pulling privileges will be revoked. o Respondent must apply to the Contractor's Licensing Board for a hearing to reinstate his permit pulling privileges. Chairman Horn noted the case was closed. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 11:15 COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Lee Horn, Chairman 20 161:, A 2 January 18, 2012 The Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on , 2011, "as submitted" [I OR "as amended" [_]. 21 1612A2 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the forth must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I Michael Boyd , hereby disclose that on January 28 2012 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) Q inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of _ which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: The respondent that was the subject of the complaint in questions holds the same license and provides the same services as I do. The respondent did not attend the public hearing and did not provide testimony. While I am not aware of any direct special benefits I would receive by the possible disciplining of the respondent, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or subsequent argument by the respondent that I may have voted in such a way to take advantage of a business opportunity and thus obtain a special benefit, I disclosed my concerns orally at the meeting on January 18, 2012 prior to participating in any of the discussions. Moreover, I decided that abstaining from the vote on the measure was proper under the circumstances. a--- Date Filed -�A� Sign NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 1612A2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Boyd, Michael Collier County Contractor Licensing Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5340 Tamarind Ridge Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: [:]CITY I] COUNTY []OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Naples, Collier County, 34119 N Collier County DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: 1 ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE January 18, 2012 WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) A t FEB 1 "-)' 2012 1612 A 3 January 20, 2012 ........................ MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD EMERGENCY MEETING January 20, 2012 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:00 PM in EMERGENCY MEETING SESSION, at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: i V ia!a CC,yI ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: James Talano, MD Vice Chair: Chief Robert Metzger Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher Rosemary LeBailly, RN Todd Bethel, MD (Ex- Officio) Misc. Comes: Date: L-1 Item U�'�`Z �A 3 CopAes to: Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Walter Kopka, Interim Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Relations Orly Stolts, Chief, North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District James Cunningham, Deputy Chief, N. Naples Fire Control & Rescue District 1612A3 January 20, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Robert Metzger called the meeting to order at 5:05 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. A quorum was established. Three members were present. (Note: Todd Bethel, M.D., attended in an "ex- officio " capacity since he had not yet been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners) 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES: A. Approval of Agenda Changes: • The topic, "Tablets," was added to the Agenda as Item (B) under "3. Old Business." Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Rosemary LeBailly, RN. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (Chairman James Talano, MD, arrived at 5:07 PM.) B. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 2011 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. Medication/Protocol Changes — Walter Kopka, EMS Interim Chief (A copy of a letter from Dr. Robert Tober, CC Medical Director, to J. Christopher Lombardo, Chairman — North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District dated 12/15/2011 was included in the information packet provided to the Board members) Interim Chief Kopka: • Dr. Tober granted permission to all fire district paramedics to use medications (except narcotics) Requirements: • Accountability (Q /A Process) o Image Trend is a software utilized by the County, North Naples, the City of Naples, and the City of Marco Island to ensure the Office of the Medical Director ( "OMD ") has access to patient care reports • Monthly Reporting o Reports of procedures and administered medications will be sent to the OMD for review • Transport Vehicle Response Time o Recognized: A transport unit may arrive on scene at a different time than an ALS First Responder which may arrive first 2 161 2 A3 January 20, 2012 o Providing a full protocol of medication and procedures to the Districts and Cities allows ALS to be administered prior to the arrival of a transport unit Chairman Talano asked if response times for First Responders or the transport units would be reviewed. Dr. Robert Tober replied "both." The correlation between arrival of a BLS unit and patient survival rates will be examined. Chairman Talano asked if comparison data was available. Interim Chief Kopka stated EMS response times have been tracked for years. Chairman Talano asked what was the data being compared to, and if a standard had been established. Dr. Tober replied there are national standards for BLS to arrive within 4- minutes travel time — and that ALS arrive within 8 minutes travel time — with one minute turnaround time. Interim Chief Kopka noted the standard was 90% of the time. Dr. Tober stated there was not as much data from the Fire Districts as from EMS. Chairman Talano stated it was important information to have available. Interim Chief Kopka continued: Medication /supplies o Will be purchased and distributed by the Cities and Fire Districts Call -in o City and Fire District paramedics were required to consult the receiving facility's ER physician(s) before administering medication or performing a procedure outside of their standard protocol. • Evaluations o Six -month timeframe Discussion: Dr. Todd Bethel commented: • There was some validity to the concern that more risk accompanied having more "toys in the tool box." • He cited his experience teaching BLS, stating the paramedics kept up with basic skills and compressions. Adding more things to the arsenal could become more of a distraction. • The goal was to place the patient on a rig and bring him/her to the hospital as quickly as possible, rather than playing around with different meds while in the field. • In certain cases, administering meds may be lifesaving. • The data should be monitored. • Dr. Tober: • Previously, Collier County EMS paramedics administered the majority of drugs • The program was expanded to include District Fire paramedics — to equal what is available to transport medics, minus controlled substances 16 12 A January 20, 2012 o Information will be obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration ( "DEA ") concerning what type of control EMS is to assert over controlled substances Dr. Tober noted there are new, severe rules for Medical Directors. He stated a consultant will conduct a seminar to explain the most agreed -upon methods of controlling drugs. He continued the new rules require better security regarding drug storage and access, and some "wasted" drugs will be sent to a lab for testing. B. Tablets (added topic, per Amended Agenda) Interim Chief Kopka: • Background: At a previous meeting, Chairman Talano asked if the use of tablets had improved response times. • Response times for November and December, 2010 were compared with response times from the same period in 2011; o Result: Almost all zones showed improved times (2 did not) • There were two 12 -hour ambulances in 2011 • Will have an "apples to apples" comparison using January's data at the next Board meeting 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. House Bill #739 — Automated External Defibrillators( "AED ") Interim Chief Kopka: • Topic has been discussed in previous meetings • Challenge for Sheriff's Office: notifying a caller of the location of a AED — concern was potential violation of patient's medical privacy (Public Records law) • Bill 739 was introduced into Florida House of Representatives — would permit a 911Dispatch Center to contact the owner of a defibrillator during a coronary emergency • Has been attached to another Bill — moving along in both the House and Senate Chairman Talano reiterated that, currently, information concerning the location of the nearest AED cannot be released under any circumstances. Dr. Tober confirmed the concern was related to patient privacy and confidentiality of medical information. The Attorney for the Sheriff's Office advised releasing the information could violate State laws. Interim Chief Kopka thanked North Naples for appearing in Tallahassee during the most recent Legislative session to help push the bill. B. North Naples COPCN Renewal Application — Review/Recommendation to BCC Vice Chairman Metzger: • Stated he read every page — the document appeared to be substantively complete 4 ,E 1612 A3 January 20, 2012 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the document and recommend renewal of North Naples COPCNApplication to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher. Discussion: Battalion Chief Butcher asked if there were any statistics regarding the impact of the COPCN on the community. Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera stated when North Naples initially applied for a COPCN, there were very specific requirements that the Board of County Commissioners mandated were to be met, i.e., response times and providing appropriate care within the confines of the protocol developed by the Office of the Medical Director. The requirements have been met. Chief Butcher asked if there have been instances where the COPCN has been a benefit, i.e., the ability to administer drugs. Chief Orly Stolts noted North Naples was not able to administer drugs until after the COPCN had been approved. Dr. Tober responded the same drugs were available under the ALS Agreement. Deputy Chief Aguilera reiterated the drugs were carried on only one truck. Battalion Chief Butcher asked if having drugs on additional trucks has made a difference. Deputy Chief James Cunningham provided the following statistics: • Total Medication Administration 0 2010-177 0 2011-343 o 2012-28 • BLS Procedures 0 2010-1809 0 2011-1987 o A drastic increase was noted in call volume toward the end of the year. ALS Procedures 0 2010-278 0 2011-776 0 2012-32 Assisted EMS to Hospital 0 2011-279 o Number of Personnel — 310 o A commitment was made to the BCC that if ALS was administered prior to the arrival of EMS on scene, North Naples personnel would accompany the patient to the receiving facility to ensure continuity of care — especially for cardiac or seriously ill patients. Deputy Chief Cunningham noted the figures were updated on January 16, 2012. He also stated until last month, North Naples could not provide ALS beyond its boundaries even though its engines responded to calls in East Naples and Golden Gate. Vice Chairman Metzger asked if data was available that addressed patient outcome. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated data was not tracked beyond instances of cardiac arrest. 1612 A 3 January 20, 2012 Interim Chief Kopka stated trauma alerts are tracked and survival rates were up in all Districts. Deputy Chief Wayne Watson confirmed there was no information from Immokalee but they went up in North Naples and in Golden Gate. Interim Chief Kopka stated he requested the statistics to be fine -tuned — track if AED was used by the public or the Sheriff s Office — who was first on scene. He stated there have been several changes in the cardiac arrest protocol — CPR has changed. It is difficult to know which one of the changes contributed to the increase in survival rates. Deputy Chief Watson replied: • City of Naples — 29% survived to discharge (all rhythms) • East Naples — 12% • North Naples — 12% Interim Chief Kopka stated it was hoped that linking the computer systems to the receiving facility versus the necessity to make a phone call in every instance — the paramedic's impressions — admitting diagnosis — hospital discharge — to link the three electronically for tracking purposes. Chief Stoltz cited an example of a call made to "911" due to an allergic reaction to a bee sting — the patient did not have an "Epi pen" — North Naples arrived on scene first and dispensed Epinephrine. The patient was very grateful the correct medication was available for him. Interim Chief Kopka will research if more detailed data is available from Medicare in addition to any data from hospitals. Dr. Tober stated there was no automatic way to obtain the information — he has hand - pulled cardiac arrest outcomes from the charts. Interim Chief Kopka stated there may be a way set up a link. Deputy Chief Cunningham stated the working relationship and interaction in the field was very good. The program is working. He asked EMS for recommendations for the field personnel concerning ALS practices. Interim Chief Kopka noted morale from North Naples was good. Dr. Tober stated he has received both positive and negative comments but did not have any specifics. Deputy Chief Aguilera asked about the possibility of instituting a joint Quality Assurance program. Dr. Tober stated until recently he had received very little information from North Naples and did not know North Naples would be receptive to a joint bi- lateral Q/A program. Deputy Chief Cunningham replied North Naples will share its data with anyone — also sharing protocols — the goal is to be transparent. Every month reports are sent to EMS. Deputy Chief Aguilera confirmed emails have been sent to Dr. Tober and Collier County EMS since March, 2011. Deputy Chief Watson asked for specific questions — data to be tracked in addition to survival rates and other activity reports — to direct training to any perceived shortcomings Deputy Chief Aguilera stated questions about whether or not the program is effective should have been answered. We are working together and looking at the entire call — not just the mechanics of whether an IV was started. Whether the Level of Service provided *; 16 12A3 January 20, 2012 to patients is meaningful is a comprehensive Q/A question. He further stated, "We all should be sitting at the table and looking at the data from first engagement to diagnosis to discharge." Deputy Chief Watson replied the system success rate for RSI, for example, goes up each year — or it if remains consistent within a high percentage of the national standard, shows the standards are being maintained. It gives a general comparison of whether skills have improved through the training offered — outcomes are variable based on the criteria. His point: there should be agreement regarding the type of information being reported. Deputy Chief Aguilera concurred, stating a coordinated, joint effort should be part of the EMS system. Vice Chairman Metzger agreed stating it was a journey in the right direction. He asked if anything had been heard or seen to compel the Advisory Board to deny the application. Vice Chairman Metzger restated his previous Motion: To recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the North Naples application for renewal of the COPCN. Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Chairman Talano called for a vote on the Motion. The motion was carried. (6: 00 PM- Vice Chairman Metzger left.) 5. STAFF REPORTS: • Interim Chief Kopka cited a newspaper editorial which mentioned EMS overtime. He stated the overtime is factored into the paramedic's salary ($52,000) and voluntary overtime is less than 1/3 of the budget and is federally- mandated overtime. • The editorial suggested placing all paramedics on a 40 -hour work week. • Result: Would be required to hire approximately 144 new paramedics • There is approximately $1 M in the budget for discretionary over -time. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) 7. BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION: (None) 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: • Friday, March 23, 2012, at 3:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 6:05 PM. 7 Eli A3 January 20, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James Talano, M.D., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on "as submitted" [I OR "as amended" [_] 8 2011, 1612- 1 �D F oodplaln Management Planning Committee � �� ^ � o, 1 A 4 A Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice- irman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Jack McKenna _ ... .......... .............. J rry Martz Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears Jim Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 5 -2 -11 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 9:28 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Jack McKenna, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Chuck Mohlke (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley. Absent: John Torre, Christine Sutherland (Excused), Duke Vasey (Excused), Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa Carrera. There were two (2) additional staff in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. [Note: The recording of the meeting discussion was lost through a file corruption, so only the brief npkb taken bff are documented below.] Hiller Henning OLD BUSINESS: Coyle Coletta �G 1. Approval of minutes for the 4 -4 -11 Regular Meeting —Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes and if not, then a motion for approval. Joe Gagnier motioned for approval and the motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement (Bill Lorenz) — Bill Lorenz discussed the proposed reorganization of the FMPC staff positions and the proposed workload of the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) revision. The thoughts are to assign Jerry Kurtz to represent the entire Growth Management Division. This still needs direction from the County Manager on how it will be implemented. It is proposed to bring a revised FMPC membership resolution to the Board of County Commissioners in January 2012. The anticipated revisions to the FMP will be the focus of the FMPC starting in January 2012, so staff will be preparing the document in the interim. Phil Brougham discussed tweaking the current planning process compared to the budget process. Phil also suggested taking the issue to the Board of County Commissioners in November/December of 2011, adjusting the FMPC membership to an odd number to avoid tie votes (have 8 members of the public, 4 staff, and �rol&hh of the 3 municipalities), developing an update of new issues prior to the January 2012 FMPC meeting, and sending out an end -of -the -year status briefing. Chuck MIlce discussed 1104 item* ICfz2lg y Copies to: Page 1 of 2 16 12 A4 possible municipality issues and the need to reach out to the municipalities to inform them of FMP priorities. 3. Annual Report on Beach, Dune, and Coastal Pass Maintenance — Gary McAlpin did not attend the meeting and give his scheduled presentation. Phil Brougham requested that the "No report" be reflected in the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report. 4. Presentation and Review of the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report (Robert Wiley) — Phil Brougham motioned to approve the amended report which reflected changes from the previous meeting. The vote passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Comments — None. Next Meeting: [TENTATIVE DATE] Monday, January 9, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Motion to adjourn h3 J-QevGagnier passed unanimously at 9:28 a.m. Ray, inith, `Chairman Robert Wiley, S f Coordinator k "ru Page 2 of 2 possible municipality issues and the need to reach out to the municipalities to inform them of FMP priorities. 3. Annual Report on Beach, Dune, and Coastal Pass Maintenance — Gary McAlpin did not attend the meeting and give his scheduled presentation. Phil Brougham requested that the "No report" be reflected in the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report. 4. Presentation and Review of the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report (Robert Wiley) — Phil Brougham motioned to approve the amended report which reflected changes from the previous meeting. The vote passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Comments — None. Next Meeting: [TENTATIVE DATE] Monday, January 9, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Motion to adjourn h3 J-QevGagnier passed unanimously at 9:28 a.m. Ray, inith, `Chairman Robert Wiley, S f Coordinator k "ru Page 2 of 2 161 p A4 Floodplaln Management Planning Committee F E B 2,41 1_ + -� i Ray Smith, Chairman John Torre, Vice iairman......•••....• Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Joseph Gagnier Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Christine Sutherland Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Jerry Kurtz Dan Summers Christa Carrera (Naples) Bob Mahar (Marco I.) Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 1 -9 -12 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:36 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, John Torre, Phillip Brougham, Joseph Gagnier, Brooke Hollander, Lew Schmidt, Christine Sutherland, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Jerry Kurtz, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Raquel Pines (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley. Absent: Pierre Bruno (Excused), Christa Carrera, and Bob Mahar. There were three (3) additional staff members in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. Ray added an Item 6 t�qjfj New ess to discuss the Committee's attendance policy. Hiller Henning / OLD BUSINESS: Coyle Coletta 1. Approval of minutes for the 5 -2 -11 Regular Meeting —Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes and if not, then a motion for approval. Joe Gagnier motioned for approval and the motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement (Bill Lorenz) — Robert Wiley informed the Committee that Raquel Pines will be replacing Chuck Mohlke as the representative from Everglades City. (The discussion was temporarily interrupted to allow Nick Casalanguida to give his presentation/discussion.) Raquel provided a brief discussion of her background and current work with Everglades City. NEW BUSINESS Discussion on direction for revising the Floodplain Management Plan in 2012 (Nick Casalanguida) — Nick informed the Committee that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) recently adopted the Watershed Management Plan, so the County can begin to move forward with action on that. Also, the BCC gave direction to move forward with the Strategic Surface Water Business Plan which Jerry Kurtz is developing in 2012. With the floodplain maps getting updated and adopted by the BCC this spring, the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan (LASIP) is a part of the 5 -year capital imprcvi . G"an and is scheduled to be finished within the 4th year, and there is a new 5th year planning and programming, we have a deficit backlog of asset management issues t h a t wR* also `t l 16112 Item * I Lem 214'x! Copies to: Page 1 of 13 r a 16 1 LA4 concerned about. We are now starting to lay the groundwork in planning for what needs to get improved in the next 5 years. Maintenance of the existing system is the top priority. We don't want to start adding to the inventory of assets until we can make sure we have good control of what we have in the ground (e.g. existing Golden Gate City underground drainage facilities that old, steel culverts that are rotting). Nick is asking the Committee and the BCC to put an additional task for the Committee to look at issues of floodplain management, water quality, rehydration which are all tied together. The Committee would work with County staff to prioritize projects with a special favor toward flood management. As staff develops the projects for the Business Plan and 5 -year Capital Plan, the Committee would review and look at these over the next 6 to 12 months and give your endorsement or critique and comments. Staff is going before the BCC to change the resolution that established the Committee and add that as part of it. Phil Brougham commented that he has no disagreement with the expansion of the Committee's duties, but some of the Committee members have no understanding of the Watershed Management Plan, etc., and it would be helpful to the Committee at a near -term date to have a brief presentation on how the various plans integrate and complement each other. If the Committee is going to evaluate project priorities, he would feel better if the Committee could understand the objectives and touch points of the plans. Nick agreed with Phil and directed staff to give a brief presentation on the Watershed Management Plan and the Surface Water Business Plan that was also given to the BCC. Phil requested the presentations prior to the next scheduled Committee meeting date in April. Christine Sutherland asked if these new guidelines fall in with what FEMA wants the Committee to do. Nick responded that there is an overlap in that they are not all FEMA driven. Some are water quality driven, but water quality projects cannot be completed without addressing floodplain issues. Christine then asked for confirmation that there are certain things that the Committee must do for FEMA, to which Nick confirmed the Committee will stay compliant with those issues. Duke Vasey asked if the Committee could talk about NPDES permitting, what the County's responsibilities are, and how they tie together with Code Enforcement for the compliance portion. Nick responded that regulatory compliance issues are better directed to what the Pollution Control Department is doing as well as what Steve Preston's program participation involves. Nick stated that Steve Preston can certainly present information to the Committee. Ray Smith agreed with Nick on the connection of some of the Pollution Control Department's programs with the NPDES permitting. Duke then asked for a clarification in the handout on the Surface Water Management Business Plan as to whether the taxpayers were the stakeholders to which Nick agreed. Duke then requested that the term stakeholder be removed and replaced with taxpayer. Nick agreed and so directed staff to make the change. Ray Smith then requested for a motion and Duke Vasey motioned to approve the direction provided by Nick, taking the Watershed Management Plan and Business Plan summary handout documents as the core documents, with a unanimous vote of approval. jThe following discussion on New Business Item 1 occurred upon completion of discussion of New Business Item 4 and is inserted here.] Page 2 of 13 SE 1612A4 Robert Wiley commented that under New Business Item 1, Nick Casalanguida got it started on the Floodplain Management Plan, but what Duke Vasey just talked about (his comment on the document that Mike DeRuntz revised) was one of the new issues that we need to bring to you today. In that regard, in 2012 the Committee needs to officially go back through and review the Floodplain Management Plan. This is the one that Mike DeRuntz worked on and we brought you back to vote and approve and get submitted. We basically put it on hold because now is the year to submit it. We want to go back through it again and see if we want to make any revisions to it. I know one of the issues is to talk about the size of the document. What I am hoping we can do is see if everyone still has it (staff will get Raquel Pines a disc with a copy of the document) and go through it and make sure everyone is happy with it, particularly with the goals. I know that some of the issues in there that we had, I was specifically told that there is no funding to even do them this year. When we come back to you in our April meeting with our annual progress report you are going to see some of those statements that had no funding and some of the stuff we may at that point want to revise some of our goals. We have until about October to get this thing put through the Committee. It would go to the Planning Commission and then the BCC, so the BCC would have to adopt it by the end of December. They only have one meeting in December and it is going to be their first meeting so we have a goal that we are working towards. He wants everyone to be aware so we will start with that in our April meeting. Nick wants us to spend minimal time on it because we have already spent so much time on it in the past, but it is just a process that we have to go through. Ray Smith asked whether we did approve this Plan. Robert replied that the Committee did approve it, but then it sat in his office for the past year because now is the year to submit it. We do it every 5 years. Ray Smith asked if there have been any changes to it since we approved it. Robert responded that the issue that he just talked about was Nick's direction on the current list of goals that are in there. Nick directed that we are not able to do some of the items right now, so we will need to go through those and do some modifications. That is some of what we are going to start discussing in our April meeting. Phil Brougham asked if we would be modifying the entire Plan or only highlighting areas for recommended changing. Robert responded that he intends to keep the Plan, as much as he can, in its current condition. One of the things he wants to do, with Committee agreement, is do like Rick Zyvoloski did on the Hazard Mitigation Plan and break out certain portions into appendices so that we can address and amend an appendix without having to go in right in the middle of an 800 page document and have to re- paginate and re- paragraph. Hopefully that is something that we can all come to agreement on what we want to do but not really changing text, just a formatting of organization. Ray Smith then moved forward to the next item under New Business Item 5 (Public Comment). 2. Discussion on Watershed Management Planning and Stormwater Business Plan (Nick Casalanguida, Mac Hatcher and Jerry Kurtz) — Nick Casalanguida briefly gave a background for the development of the Stormwater Business Plan. Stormwater is a business. The proposed program looks at surface water holistically as a utility. The City of Naples draws water from the upper aquifers in G.G. Estates, yet we are sending large amounts of water runoff into Naples Bay while we need to keep more of the water to recharge the aquifers. We are tied together as municipalities and the County. Without getting a business plan Page 3 of 13 16 together, we are in trouble. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is setting up some meetings with the City of Naples and County to talk about these issues. The Big Cypress Basin is the over - authority that taxes us, and really we should be coordinating through them to drive the bigger plan. Nick wants to try and bring back the County tax dollars that are currently going out to Water Management District projects on the east coast. These are issues that the Business Plan will look at. (At this point Nick had to leave to attend another meeting.) Jerry Kurtz discussed the handout distributed that is a plan to create the Business Plan. Stormwater improvements are changing. For years the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) has been the big focus, but it is coming to an end. One of the intents of the Business Plan is to lay out all of the ideas for future project, revenue stream, and begin to prioritize to make the best use of the monies available. Many municipalities take this type of business approach. Stormwater management is a business with customers and risks. We need to know our risks, where they are, their current and potential costs, the cost of service delivery (what level of service do we provide and what will it cost us), a plan to identify these risks and costs, and come up with something sustainable. The Surface Water Business Plan will be an effort to address these issues. We'll use the data from the Watershed Management Plans. Watershed Management Plans are really the science behind a lot of the issues of what is happing within the watersheds. The big thing is the prioritization and programming of the future needs as it relates to surface water and stormwater management. We want to get a lot of taxpayer collaboration through workshops and group meetings. The Business Plan goals are comprehensive and nothing that hasn't been discussed before. Initial efforts will address the repair, replacement or rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. Phase I will focus on what is already there. There are always responsibilities to various federal and state agencies for the operation of facilities. The stormwater system facilities are referenced in the NPDES permit as MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System). We have developed a basic schedule to create the Business Plan over the course of the next year, but the first phase is proposed for completion in the first quarter of 2012. The remainder of the year will look to developing a 5 -year outlook. The major staff participants will be Jerry, Mac Hatcher and Steve Preston. The stakeholders (taxpayers) will be adding to that effort as well as input from various County departments. There are many types of projects for consideration. Some focus on future growth, some are environmental related (e.g. rehydration, aquifer recharge), some are strictly stormwater management, there are canal and weir improvement projects, maintenance /replacement projects, agricultural land and better land management projects, wetland rehydration projects, primary or secondary system improvement projects, tertiary system projects. The list is approximately 150 projects for now. The available revenue is 0.15 mil of taxable value. Program development will use rough project cost estimates to lay out initial prioritizations. Grouping projects with those of the Big Cypress Basin can increase efficiency and support. Funding partners and grant partners are important considerations. Many flooding issues are limited to flooding of land and not homes. There will be evaluations of potential for building flooding, street flooding, and comparisons to the new FEMA flood maps, etc. All of this is a quick summary of what will be involved in developing the Surface Water Business Plan. Page 4 of 13 1612A4 Duke Vasey asked if the aquifer impacts will only address the upper and lower Tamiami aquifer, or will it also include the Hawthorne? Jerry couldn't answer this detail, but addressed how there is a fine line in managing the stormwater in the summer to avoid draining off standing water to keep people from becoming so aggravated, yet still being able to hold it inland where it needs to be held to provide recharge to the aquifer. Duke also commented there is no mention of productive water bodies in the plan summary, and asked if there is the intention to include Lake Trafford as a productive water body. Jerry agreed. Duke then asked Jerry how he would approach the BCC to write a letter to the SFWMD governing board to use County -owned lands for mitigation in permit applications for public facilities. Jerry responded that that issue has come up previously, and Duke said the letter has always been written to District staff and not the governing board. Jerry concurred with Duke's interest in getting the issue resolved. Phil Brougham asked if Jerry could bring back to the Committee a more detailed presentation of what he is going to be doing, how to measure success, and how to include the Committee's feedback and suggestions in these steps as we go forward. If the Committee is going to provide feedback and benefit the project, then the Committee must be worked into the project. For example, the Committee's input should be obtained prior to going out to the public for feedback. Phil requested more specificity on how the Committee interacts with the project plan and how they can provide input into the priorities as they are set. Ray Smith suggested setting up either the next quarterly meeting or a special meeting to give Jerry a time to provide this information to the Committee. Phil noted that in the handout there is already identified an April 30'h deadline for the project ranking and prioritization. Duke Vasey asked to see a copy of the asset inventory to know what it includes. Does it include the 4000+ retention ponds, or is it limited to NPDES. There are many permit holders throughout the County. What about the 40,000+ number of private wells? An asset inventory needs to include wet and dry detention facilities which have been permitted with obligations to the permit holder. There are also consumptive use permits. The inventory alone could take a year to resolve regarding what to include. He asked when he would be able to see the inventory listing. Looking at the available funding, there is going to be a focus on what is needed to protect public health and safety. None of the other stuff will get done unless there is a way to influence creation of this work, other than grants or Big Cypress Basin/SFWMD funding, this effort will not be productive. He likes the idea of a Watershed Management Plan, and knows that an inventory is critical. He felt one of the first efforts should be to get the Big Cypress Basin inventory information and merge it with the County's. Then there is the cooperation of the municipalities with their own permits. We're looking at a big drainage problem, and each watershed, each PUD, each pond, each large farm creates either a domestic water requirement or they create a specific drainage problem. If that's the inventory we are talking about, then maybe we are looking at 2025 to get this thing some place. There may be some things we can do before that. Jerry Kurtz responded that the County has an inventory in many layers in the GIS (geographical information system). There has been work for quite a few years on the inventory, and there are different levels on how to approach this. Duke responded that he is interested in the numeric nutrient criteria that will be here in March from the FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). The County will have to respond to the nutrient levels that we have, the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) is gone. That will be a huge Page 5 of 13 12 A4 4A problem. Jerry responded that the County is working with the FDEP. They are indicating the County will enter into the BMAP (Best Management and Practice) process on some of the impaired watersheds. He thinks we will enter into these one at a time, and Mac Hatcher is taking the lead on this. Basically the 0.1 mils provides around $4 -5 million dollars annually for capital projects once LASIP is completed. That is the funding we will need to program for spending in a master plan way. The County is in pretty good shape on its inventory and the District knows its inventory. One of the challenges is to do a life cycle analysis on the structures, and that analysis will have a pretty high priority. Duke asked if that would consume the $4 million to which Jerry replied it should not take too much to do a quick structural analysis of the hard infrastructure. Then they will be prioritized in their life cycle, select a few that need quick replacement, and then see where all of the others will fall in line over the next 20 -25 years. Some projects are pure construction and some are planning and assessment projects. Duke Vasey commented that this then leads into Phil Brougham's question on timing. Phil commented that it needs to be sooner than later. Ray Smith commented that the Committee doesn't want to be holding up the progress. Jerry Kurtz responded that staff is resource limited with who is available, and staff is really lean (e.g. Mac's staff is just himself, he got the Watershed Management Plan completed but it took a long time). Available staff is basically Jerry and Mac and a few others. The County will hire consultants when needed, but there is probably 5 years worth of work for 20 people and there are only 3 or 4 people available. Phil Brougham commented that if this Committee is going to be the sign -off and input body, as earlier proposed, we are going to have to be brought into the process. He understands the County doesn't have a lot of resources, but if what Jerry is suggesting is that he is going to move faster than the Committee can keep up. Therefore, if you won't be bringing back to the Committee proposed priorities, etc. then we need to go back and revise our newly amended charter. The Committee is either going to have input based upon Jerry coming to the Committee or they're not going to have any responsibility to it. Jerry responded that as this plan is developed, staff will go as fast as they can, but getting input as they go. If the schedule needs to be revised, then it will be revised. We're not going to bring this plan forward without adequate input from this Committee or others. Phil offered that if Jerry needs more meetings from the Committee than once a month, then he was willing to meet more often than once a month. Jerry suggested that maybe we could use workshops, if needed, instead of full regular meetings. Bill Lorenz commented that watershed management issues will be added to the Committee's charter through a resolution before the BCC on 1- 24 -12. This idea for using the Committee has evolved over the past several months. As Jerry was getting the Surface Water Business Plan, and Mac was getting the Watershed Management Plan, ready for BCC presentations in December, and this Committee was getting ready for the first meeting of this year, all of these ideas have coalesced, and now we need to develop a comprehensive project management plan to identify the various individuals and/or committees that we will need to bring a variety of different issues to. Jerry's schedule was developed before when the idea of the Committee work was identified. Jerry's project schedule will need to be addressed to bring in the work of the Committee, and then this new schedule will be shared with the Committee. Phil Brougham responded that everybody wants a realistic project plan that effectively uses limited resources rather than a "show and tell" where we're going to Page 6 of 13 1612A4 accomplish all this stuff and then don't have enough manpower to accomplish it. Bill stated his agreement. The initial effort will be to identify what needs to be accomplished before putting the resources to it. Then we will have to develop a timetable for prioritization. If the schedule needs to be pushed out, then so be it. Ray Smith suggested that as we start off, and as we approach the approval of major points of the plan, consider having a workshop with the Committee and then a month later have a meeting to vote on the issue. Bill Lorenz agreed. Ananta Nath wanted to follow -up on Duke Vasey's request about writing a letter to the SFWMD governing board for using County lands for mitigation, he didn't think that the Board had a letter from the County or County Commission, so perhaps this Committee could make the recommendation or work with the BCC to write that letter. Duke Vasey responded that this issue goes back about 5 years when the SFWMD was approached about using County -owned property for the purpose of residential construction and permit applications. This led to the creation of the ROMA which handles residential. Then we began looking further at County -owned property and wondering why the County, as a public works project permit applicant wasn't using County property to mitigate the public works requirements. It was discovered that the SFWMD (Lower West Coast) had entered into a memorandum of agreement with a private contractor for creation of their own mitigation bank outside the functional watershed. When we approached Anita Bain, she said that could be done on small projects. But when we went into the first permit application, the SFWMD said to use the ROMA for that. This showed a lack of understanding of the problem. The BCC has a requirement to approach the Governing Board of the SFWMD and specifically ask if County - owned may be used to mitigate public works projects within the County or functional watershed. Since 1955 that has not been done. Duke requests that we go to the BCC and resolve this use of County -owned property for mitigation with permit application to the Board of Governors. He would prefer to take this to the Governor of the State of Florida, but will concede to wiser counsel that now says take it to the SFWMD Board of Governors. Jerry Kurtz responded that he thought Conservation Collier had an application in now to use Pepper Ranch as mitigation. Duke Vasey is unaware of what Conservation Collier is doing. He only heard the statement made that Laura Layman, an employee of the SFWMD, made a statement that they could not do it. She is functioning off of a letter of agreement signed by someone in the Lower West Coast office, but that was not approved by the SFWMD Board of Governors. Jerry suggested getting information from Conservation Collier, and Bill Lorenz followed up with a suggestion to get information from Conservation Collier staff as to what they have as a permit application and distribute that information to the Committee. Duke was willing to see the information. Mac Hatcher then began the discussion on the update of the Watershed Management Plan (WMP). They have been working on the WMP for quite some time, and it was recently approved by the Board of County Commissioners in December. The handout is a very brief summary of the findings and it lists the recommendations presented to the BCC that they approved. The WMP identified as watershed resource concerns • the excessive freshwater discharges from the canals, the drainage system doesn't meet the desired flood protection level, we have a potential problem with pollutant loading from development, and Page 7 of 13 ti's Ta , 1A 12A4 we have aquifer impacts due to the canal discharges, reduced recharge from development, and potable and agricultural withdrawal demands. The recommendations that were approved are intended to be developed by staff using existing stormwater budget and whatever grants and partners /joint funding we can scrape together. A lot of the matrices we use to value and quantify impacts can be used to move forward with quantifying improvements and keeping track of performance related to the water resource issues as we move forward. The first table is a list of the recommended projects, primarily to help with reducing drainage and improving water quality. The scores from the matrices are listed, and these were prioritized based upon the estimated cost to construct and the benefit to cost ratio. The second initiative proposed in the recommendations is the Low Impact Development (LID) treatment program which is to be implemented by developing incentives, and the LID treatment program will be in addition to the existing 150% water quality treatment requirement which has been in place since the interim WMP standards were set. The next initiative is a program to upgrade and retrofit the existing public stormwater treatment systems with LID best management practices (BMP) to maximize water quality benefits and recharge benefits. The next initiative is a fee -based stormwater utility to see if a fee structure can be created to provide incentive for private entities to upgrade their stormwater treatment systems through the fee structure process. That will be a 2- phased approach, with the first phase being a drafting of the basics used by other Counties and then getting direction from the BCC as to whether or not to move forward with more detailed incentive possibilities. We want to develop some flood protection land development code and ordinance improvements. As part of the WMP we developed discharge rate limits and the consultant also proposed we implement some volume discharge limits. These standards will be upgraded. They also recommended we re- evaluate the way we develop our level of service standards. We need to do some analysis to see if the way we develop the alternate level of service standard will adversely impact the way we have the different basins valued with the level of service. The next initiative is the North Golden Gate Estates Transfer of Development Rights ( NGGTDR) program. We are looking to send development rights out of some of the more sensitive Golden Gate Estates areas and get some additional storage where those development rights are sent away. This is also the recommendation of the Master Mobility Plan from Transportation. The WMP planning and Transportation planning efforts are trying to complement each other. In addition to the NGGTDR is the North Golden Gate Estates Mitigation Program (NGGMP), which is to see if an in -basin mitigation program can be created that complements the NGGTDR. If we are successful in this, then we will try and move this idea into other basins. We want to work with the SFWMD and Big Cypress Basin on the storage and structural enhancements when they come up for review. The water quality monitoring program will be coordinated with the FDEP and the SFWMD on enhancing the location of stations and the monitoring that is done to get the most benefit out of the program. We are looking at working with the SFWMD and other entities to development storage and treatment of stormwater in fallow agricultural areas. This is being pursued in some of the upper Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River basins now, and this may be useful in Collier County. Page 8 of 13 r 1612A4 We are also looking to development a stormwater treatment system certification program. The basis would be the proposed State's Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook as a guide for what types of inspections we would be requiring. The last initiative was the fertilizer ordinance which was passed and adopted. The Pollution Control Department is working with us on the education for that program. Christine Sutherland asked for an explanation of the term Total Normalized Project Score. Mac explained that there was no upper limit for scoring, but it is a combination of the evaluations that were placed on the project to get at their improvement to water quality, water storage, habitat improvement and flooding. The consultant worked up matrices that allowed an evaluation for each of these things, and the scores were developed for each of the projects. The normalization was requested by the Environmental Advisory Council to make sure that all of the different evaluations were on the same scale. The consultant pointed out that the proposed water resource projects will make an improvement over the existing system, but they won't get us where we need to go. We need to also develop the LID programs to keep water quality at acceptable targets, and we need to do other things to prevent over drainage and provide flood relief. Christine then asked if a low score was good or bad. Mac replied that the higher score indicates more value to a project. The Committee then returned to the Old Business item of Raquel Pines' membership. (see in Old Business, Item 2 above.) Revisions to FMPC Establishing Resolution (Bill Lorenz) — Bill Lorenz said that on 7 -26 -11 the BCC passed a resolution that changed the Committee's membership. The reorganization of the Transportation and CDES divisions led to staff being reduced from 10 to 4 individuals. They now represent the Bureau of Emergency Services, Communications and Customer Relations, Growth Management and Public Utilities. The incorporated municipalities remain the same with 3 individuals. The members of the public went down from 10 to 8. The County Manager reappointed the remaining 8 serving members of the public. We now have 15 members on the Committee instead of 23. Recently is the issue of going to the BCC on 1- 24-12 to add to the Committee's responsibilities the review and recommendations for surface water and watershed management issues, both water quantity and water quality. This is the same as the discussion we had earlier on Jerry's Surface Water Business Plan and Mac's Watershed Management Plan. As we begin implementing those initiatives, we will have to bring into our schedules, how to come back to get input from this Committee. That resolution is being proposed for the 1 -24 -12 BCC meeting. Bill then asked whether Nick Casalanguida intended for this discussion to receive any action from the Committee or if it is just intended for information. Robert Wiley responded that this is just an item for the Committee's information as to where we are going and give them the purpose for the expansion of the Committee's duties. Bill Lorenz then informed the Committee that this would also lead into the duties to review and provide recommendations for the development of floodplain management regulations and then review and provide recommendations for surface water and watershed management issues including water quantity and water quality. Assuming the BCC approves the resolution, we will provide the Committee with the final resolution since that is essentially the charter. Robert responded that the signed resolution will go into the Committee's record. Page 9 of 13 16I2Au 4. Revisions to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Robert Wiley) — The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) must be revised primarily to officially adopt the new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map ( DFIRM). The way the FDPO is written, we will be going to the BCC on 1 -24 -12 for adoption, but the official effective date will be 3- 30 -12. That gives the development community roughly 2 months from the day the ordinance is adopted to get ready for the impact. If there would be a change in the flood elevation at a particular location, they will be able to address their planning and the timing sequence for approvals so that they don't get caught in the situation that they have submitted an application based upon a currently effective flood elevation but by the time it is approved the new map is in effect. So this gives everybody plenty of lead to know to plan for when your permit is to be approved not submitted. Now a lot of times when we have code changes, as long as you are submitted by a certain date that works but that does not work with FEMA, it is when your permit is approved. So that is one of the big changes. The other things are the state flood plain management office has to review our flood damage prevention ordinance and give a recommendation of approval to FEMA. So FEMA can then sign off on it and say "Yes, it meets the minimum criteria ". When the state reviewed our current ordinance, and we were imitating closely the state model ordinance, they did discover that their model ordinance had omitted one federal requirement that we have to report information to the NFIP or FEMA within 6 months of our finding it if it will change or have an impact on the floodplain. That was in our old ordinance, but since it was not in the model ordinance we did not put it in because we were told to imitate the model ordinance, so we did. So in their review of us they caught it, but they caught it with a bunch of other people, too. So rather than find us non - compliant they simply said, "We know that you are going to have to be adopting the new map anyway, so at the time you adopt the DFIRM go ahead and make that change in it too ". So one of the changes is to add that additional duty. We have some other minor changes in there. They asked us to take out the word "cumulative" because they were afraid that it would be misinterpreted by FEMA. We specifically do not have cumulative damages as a consideration for requiring a structure to be rebuilt. But we had used it in there to explain to everyone that when you apply for building permits; it is the accumulation of all of the costs that go into that building permit that you have to be considered for a 50% threshold for substantial damages and for substantial improvements. And they asked us to remove the term accumulative at that point even, so it could not at all be construed by anybody as being the official "cumulative" that FEMA uses for a 5 -year or a 10 -year or life -of- structure or whatever time frame they want to have for it. So we are removing the word "cumulative" out of the definition. It does not hurt anything so we are doing that. The other issue that is being modified in the ordinance deals with what we consider as de minimis impacts. We have a greatly expanded flood plain with this new DFIRM that is coming to be in effect, and as a result of that we have had some discussions among staff. Exactly what do we want to allow without requiring the applicant to hire an engineering firm to do a detailed floodplain analysis? We know that we have within some of our existing regulations an issue for compensatory storage within the designated floodplain. Since that is going to greatly expanded now, and this led to some good discussions among us for the various situations the developers would be in, we are basically going to allow a stem wall house, where you actually fill inside the foundation of the stem wall to construct the slab on it. We will allow the placement of fill for a septic system and for a single lane driveway to Page 10 of 13 1612A4 � get up to the house. All those are to be considered de minimus because they are going to have a minimal impact and not require someone to develop a stormwater system. We do have some limitations on it so that it falls into compliance with the current regulations that we have for the maximum size of a house that you can put on a property before you have to consider other impacts. Those are the changes that are coming in to the BCC on the 24`h of this month. We are here to let you know that it really does not affect the stuff that this Committee reviewed, and there are no other higher regulatory criteria involved so we are still playing fairly low key with the impact. We are trying to make practical revisions, particularly in those de minimus impacts, so that single family home owners can try and get a house built out in Golden Gate Estates, and even more onerous in Golden Gate City on a vacant lot where there is no room to provide compensatory storage on that lot. The issue needs to be that they could go ahead and build because the accountability for that house is already there within the system. That is why we are providing the criteria. (Returning back to New Business Item 2) Ray Smith commented that he would like to go back and have Bill Lorenz provide the Committee with the website for the Watershed Management Plan instead of printing it out because it costs about $100.00 per copy. Duke Vasey requested to get a copy on his flash drive. Bill Lorenz agreed with the request and replied that Mac Hatcher can send the link for the website because there is also the development documents and a lot of other information that would be useful as well, and staff will see what they can do about getting it burned onto something else. Duke Vasey asked if this is the work that Mike DeRuntz was revising to which Bill Lorenz explained the difference that this is the Watershed Management Plan which Mac worked with a consultant, Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan which is now renamed Adkins, a had a number of meetings with a variety of input groups. Ray Smith commented it is Volume 2 and Volume 3 that discuss the existing projects or proposed projects. Volume 3 also discusses some other items that Mack summarized in his handout. Bill Lorenz offered Mac's assistance to Ray to help with orientation on the information. Duke Vasey commented that the Soil and Water Conservation District would like to get permission to link their web page to it if they could get it. 5. Public Comments — None. 6. Attendance Policy- (Ray Smith) The Floodplain Management Planning Committee (Committee) approved an attendance policy into the by -laws on July 12, 2010, and the purpose of the policy is intended to support full strength contributions of all Committee members. There are two standards associated with this, and everyone should have a copy of this, that the members need to abide by. 1.) If a member has 2 unexcused absences in a row or 2.) If the member has 3 excused absences within a 12 month period, the Committee chairman is suppose to contact that member and discuss the problem with the attendance. Ray thought it would be a good idea that we discuss this as we do have one individual, John Torre, who has 2 unexcused absences in a row. The action that the Committee takes with this policy is to recommend a) no action; b) replace or c) terminate. Ray's recommendation, as chairman, is that we take no action at this time, but he would like to offer to John the opportunity to discuss with the group what his thoughts are. Page 11 of 13 F -� 16 12 A4 John Torre responded that, as far as unexcused absences, he is being pulled in too many directions, so to be fair to the Committee he has a letter of resignation here that he will submit to the chairman after the meeting. Phil Brougham asked if John had a recommendation for a replacement. John responded that he has discussed it with the County Manager, and he will make the appointment. Ray Smith asked if, with the new approved committee membership, whether anyone will be representing Communications and Customer Relations. John responded that it is a public information position. Ray then asked if John will have someone attend. John replied that he has a recommendation for the County Manager that he thinks the Committee will agree to. Duke Vasey asked to clarify a point. He noticed in the reconstitution ordinance (resolution) that there was not a term stated for members. Most everything that he does has an expiration date, but there was not an expiration date for the term of appointment for citizens. Three consecutive absences and you have missed a year, now that we are on quarterly meetings. You might have missed 2 years actually depending on the scheduling of the meeting, so I am wondering if that was an oversight or very clever? Duke Vasey recommended not taking any action. He understands the complexity of the problem, and just always thought public information would be assisting us, but just did not know how. Looking at the Communications and Customer Relations, he thought the recommendation would be more than acceptable without a letter of resignation. Ray Smith asked Duke for a clarification. Duke responded that he did not want John to resign, but would rather have him solve this problem before it goes to using this document for a resignation. Ray Smith agreed. Robert Wiley commented that there is the ability for John to have an alternate who can show up anytime he cannot attend. Dan Summers has done this quite frequently with Rick Zyvoloski. He didn't think that anyone wanted John to resign. The Committee wants John to be able to come here whenever he can, or have an alternate. But, stay with us is what you are hearing. Ray Smith followed up by adding that he is just bringing this up because this is what we adopted, and John can contribute a lot. And his team can contribute. John Tone stated that he really didn't know how to respond. He will discuss it with the County Manager, as John had indicated to him that he was resigning and the County Manager agreed to it. John will revisit the issue with him. John went on to explain that he is having a difficult time making these meetings, especially the day before a BCC meeting. Ray Smith responded that John can send an alternate and we can work it out that way, and they can report back to you. Lew Schmidt requested to get a list of the current members and how to contact them. Ray Smith responded that there is a website where that is all kept, but he didn't know if it is up to date. Robert Wiley added that the list doesn't include how to contact them, that is considered to be private information, not going out to the public. If the Committee members all agree, he can give telephone numbers to the other committee members, but the issue then becomes that if you contact them you are in violation of the Sunshine Law. With that legal limitation, Robert didn't think the Committee members needed each other's contact information. He can give the names, but he recommended against contacting them. Ray Smith preferred that we not provide any contact information due to the concern regarding Sunshine. Bill Lorenz advised that, for the new committee member, perhaps we could get the Sunshine Law requirements from the County Attorney Office. One of the easiest ways to fall into a Page 12 of 13 1612 A4 problem with Sunshine is when you get an e -mail from, let's say Robert, and Robert sends the e -mail out to all of the Committee members and then if you want to respond back, you can respond back to Robert, but don't respond back to all because that gets into a problem with the Sunshine. That is one of the things that Ray is saying. The less you have for the contact the better off you are so you don't slip into some inadvertent Sunshine violation. Motion to adjourn was made by Duke Vasey and passed unanimously at 10:36 a.m. However, the meeting schedule had not been officially determined, so both the motion maker and the seconder withdrew their motions and the meeting was reconvened to decide the next meeting. Ray Smith noted that the next meeting date was identified on the bottom of the agenda as April 2na The discussion was then opened to discuss changing this. Phil Brougham commented that the next meeting date would depend on when something substantive could be brought back to the Committee in a workshop. Robert Wiley wanted to know about availability of Committee members. Does Jerry Kurtz get his information ready and then staff just picks a date? Ray Smith suggested visiting the items to be changed in the Floodplain Management Plan at an earlier schedule. Robert advised that we need to address some of the issues in Jerry's Business Plan to meet that deliverable schedule, and there was discussion about having workshops. Phil Brougham suggested setting the next meeting for the first Monday in February with the agenda to include the recommended changes to the Floodplain Management Plan and, if Jerry is prepared, bring information to the Committee on how these plans interface. If needed, the Committee can then go out another 2 weeks. Christine Sutherland supported meeting the first Monday in February, but not the 2 week later date. Lew Schmitt asked for a repeating of the motion. Lew also supported maintain the already planned April 2'd meeting. Rick Zyvoloski asked if the February meeting as a workshop would count toward the attendance record as he would not be able to attend. Ray Smith noted the 3 allowed excused absences within a 12 month period. Duke Vasey asked if a workshop required the same attendance as a regular meeting, to which Ray Smith noted that was not stated in the attendance policy. Lew Schmitt noted that if the workshop was a continuation of the current meeting, the attendance matter would not be an issue for those in today's meeting. Ray Smith read the attendance policy statement on regularly scheduled, publicly noticed meetings, to which Robert Wiley noted that since he has to notice a workshop, it would be inclusive as a noticed meeting. Workshops do not provide official direction, but there is still the noticing and getting together the same as a meeting. Rick Zyvoloski requested that if there are additional meetings outside of the regular quarterly meetings, they not be scheduled on the day before a BCC meeting. Phil Brougham motioned to meet on February 6th. The motion passed unanimously. Next Meeting: Monday, February 6, 2012, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. • Floodplain Management Plan changes (Robert Wiley) • Storm water Business Plan discussion (Jerry Kurtz) Duke Vasey motaionedio adjourn, and the motion passed unanimously at 10:42 a.m. Robert Wiley, ST-6& Coordinator Page 13 of 13 January 18, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETINVOF•T4&COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, January 18, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the -0,/ following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle -�- Coletta 3'c— ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Craig Woodward VICE CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey (excused) Matthew Betz (excused) Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny (excused) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor Ray Bellows, Manager — Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison Misc. Comes: Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Date: `4 110 11 -2- Item Copies to: 1612A!� January l8, 2012 I. Roll Call/Attendance Chairman Craig Woodward called the meeting to order at 9:23 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda - None III. Approval of the Agenda Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. IV. Approval of the Minutes: November 16, 2011 (No meeting in December) Correction: Page 4 line 11 word is Appropriateness Page 5 line 3 spelling is Ponce de Leon Patricia Huff moved to recommend approval of the Minutes of November 16, 2011, as amended. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously 4 -0. V. Old Business A. Chokoloskee Island Update Fred Reischl stated the issue was now in Appeals Court and had been assigned a Judge. A second Bond hearing will be held on January 251h. Ray Bellows noted Florida Grove requested the $10,000 bond, paid by the Smallwoods at the first Bond hearing, to be increased; after being ordered to pave the road. Patricia Huff commented at the first Court Hearing on the 291h of December, the Judge had ordered the road to be paved. The Smallwoods wanted it to be the same width as the original road. The Judge had also said Florida Grove had 45 days from the Court Judgment on the December 291h hearing; that was why Florida Grove was appealing. B. Revisions to the Historic Guide Copies of the latest revision to the Brochure -Guide to Historic Sites in Collier County was distributed and discussed for final input. • Several typographical errors were noted and corrected. • #43 - Monument Lake will be added. Photos will be researched. Craig Woodward noted he may have photos of the sign. • Page 8 - #9 Old Marco Inn - change completion date to 1896. • Better quality of pictures for Old Marco Inn, Old Railroad Depot, Marco Island Historical Museum, Monroe Station will be sought. • Additional funding sources for printing were discussed - United Arts Council and other interested groups. • #1 Naples Pier address correction- 121h Avenue South • #11 delete 2nd sentence. Insert 3`d sentence "The Church of God, originally constructed in Old Marco, was moved to its present location ..." • #6 Change address of Collier County Museum. • Re -do the Legend and Location map and corresponding numbering. • Research and add available websites at end of commentaries, with links. 16 12 A5 January 18, 2012 VI. New Business Fred Reischl distributed a booklet entitled Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida, published by the Florida State Department, Division of Historical Resources. It was a study and report by Rutgers University and the University of Florida, updated in 2010. He stated it was a good vacation guide and source of information on the Florida Main Street Program, Florida historic districts and museums; and, of the benefits of historic preservation. Ray Bellows explained the term "Local Certified Government" as governments having a Preservation Board; which gives the right to submit a property to the National Register. Fred Reischl left at 9: 57 a. m. Patricia Huff spoke about the signs being designed for Everglades City by the Historical Board for historic businesses and individual historic homes. The home signs will read Original Collier Historical Home circa 1925 and will be available to every homeowner who is a part of the Home Tours, and who have historic homes. Elizabeth Perdichizzi stated she would like to see the same signs for Goodland. VII. Public Comments- None VIII. Board Member Announcements Elizabeth Perdichizzi announced Martha Olds Adams, a relative of Drs. Mary and Charles Olds, had given some of the Olds' diaries to display at the Marco Island Museum. They were homeopathic doctors who lived in Old Marco. Just received, were more letters to Mary's classmates dated 1884, describing her home life. February 27th, Martha Olds Adams will present a program and read letters from the diaries; some, about the hurricane of 1910. Patricia Huff announced: • Museum of the Everglades exhibit of artist Brian Trainer. A reception for him was held on the 14th with over 111 in attendance. • In February, the Museum will feature Jeff Ripple, photographer of the Fakahatchee area, whose work is also displayed at Clyde Butcher's Big Cypress Gallery. • February 21 -24 will be the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Festival and tours. • February 29 will be the Bicycle Ride and history of the area. • March 10 will be the Home Tours. Craig Woodward announced: • The Highway Men paintings, colorful outdoor scenes of Florida, were on display at the Marco Island Museum. Paul Arsenault will give a talk on the painting January 19 at 6 PM. • Some of the actual painters will be coming to Marco Island next week. 16 12 A5 January 18, 2012 • Collier County had begun the building out of the Calusa gallery, a life - size village. A contract for $407,000 was signed to start the construction. • The Historical Society was working on the gallery where the Cushing Expedition items were displayed. The City of Marco provided $150,000. • Still to come was reimbursement monies from the Tourist Development Council. IX. Adjournment The next meeting is February 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM. There being no further business for the good of the County, Patricia Huff moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried, 4 -0. The meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:06 A.M. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board hairman raig Woodward These minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on 2 %`% /�'C ( Z as presented , or as amended Y 1612 "0 Fiala Hiller — Henning OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT Coyle ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Colefta VIC, HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 2011 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief, 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 Charles Frank Hawkins, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order at 4PM then roll call of attendees. o -TanTIE !�Eg BY........................ Ron Gilbert — He asked if there were any changes for the minutes of November 14, 2011. James Simmons — He referred to the minutes by asking Ron Gilbert if he has sent a note to Dan Summers in reference to an MSTU for funding the Station at Port of the islands. Ron Gilbert — Not he has not. James Simmons — He then brought up the paragraph on Page 5 of the minutes in regarding to Donna Fiala which Dan Summers states "If it is ok with the Advisory Board they will be brief her on some of these projects we are working on. Commissioner Fiala voted for the 1 -75 Station funding." Note — instead of they will be brief her it should be they can brief her. Frank Hawkins — The first issue that you brought up on page 4 regarding sending a note to the Chairman I tied that back into the fourth paragraph on page two that he is open to any discussion of options and for the Advisory Board put together a list of options one of them being a MSTU. James Simmons — That is what he is suggesting here. Ron Gilbert — He feels they should be able to re- submit the letter they wrote before regarding the MSTU determining the $200 per property owner. Chief McLaughlin — He feels is would be appropriate but they can have budget office review the letter. =_.177 1 Page 1 Date: L-41 l 611 -L itW *LL 1 2..4qr Copies to: 16I2Ab 'l Ron Gilbert — It looks like it is going to be next November before we get it on the ballot. He is going to find the letter to see if it could be re- submitted. Chief McLaughlin — The thing that came up before was that the CID offered to fund a loan but he doesn't know how it could be paid back. He feels their last option is to have a special assessment. James Simmons — He feels per the information in the last meeting minutes Dan Summers wishes them to pursue it. Ron Gilbert —As far as a list of options go I don't believe there is a list. Chief McLaughlin — I believe we are down to our last option. Frank Hawkins — Are we talking about new options or the options that haven't been explored with the pros and cons. Chief McLaughlin — We have searched out all the other options in the last three years. The last discussion he had with the director of the budget office he felt the only thin feasible at this time due to the economic condition we are in is a special assessment of some sort. It is almost like an MSTU with in a MSTU. Tony Davis — The negative side to that is the money doesn't come to us up front you have to collect the money first. Did you look into obtaining a loan once that is approved? Chief McLaughlin —There is a possibility of doing an internal government loan, $400,000 would be considered a small loan. If the MSTU is passed and it is going to be a year before its collection there is a possibility we could procure the loan and start the construction process. Then as the assessment come on board and the monies come in we could begin paying the loan off. If we borrowed the money from general fund as the dollars come in they would be transferred to general fund to pay the loan off. We could get a loan from general fund and once that is approved then we can start the process. Frank Hawkins — Those are options within the request for the MSTU that you would need to identify. Chief McLaughlin —Yes. Frank Hawkins — What kind of construction frame are we looking at. Chief McLaughlin — 90 days. Page 2 .assQ :oi ";.W) 1612 A6 Frank Hawkins — So you are going to need all the money up front. Chief McLaughlin — The project will be done before the money starts coming in. Frank Hawkins — So you would need a loan of some kind and pay it back over how long a period of time? Chief McLaughlin — For one year depending how much they are going to collect but it could be done several ways. It could be done for one year or $100 for two years or four years at $50 or $75. Ron Gilbert — We came up with $50 over four years. Frank Hawkins — He asked what geographical area would it cover. Ron Gilbert — Our District. Frank Hawkins — So it would not be just the Port because we get the value of having this thing here. Chief McLaughlin —That came into question. Frank Hawkins — It may not be approved by the rest of the people in the District. Ron Gilbert — But it benefits the entire District. Tony Davis — But Everglades City would also benefit having a fire station here as it is now if they leave Everglades City to go somewhere they are not protected. If we have a truck here Everglades could maintain their truck there. Chief McLaughlin — A permanent station at Port of the Islands benefits the whole District. You have to look at the District as a global response and how it affects the whole area. Ron Gilbert — There were some words in that other letter about that as to how it was important to the entire District. He will dig that letter up polish it a little bit and e-mail it to all the board members for comment. He will have a letter ready by next month's meeting. It looks like we are shooting for November to place the assessment on the ballot. Frank Hawkins — The last time this was discussed the earliest it could be placed on the ballot was November 2012 then the process engineering drawings and bids. Page 3 Chief McLaughlin — That is already done. 16 12 A.6 w , Frank Hawkins — So you just need the funds so it could be started right away if it is approved. Chief McLaughlin — We are ready to pull permits but we do not have the funding. Ron Gilbert — Once we get closer to November 2012 he will give a presentation to the CID Board regarding the assessment. He is going to contact some insurance companies for the purpose of obtaining a dollar amount as to what the insurance cost will be if the fire coverage moves out of versus what the assessment cost to finish the station. He feels it will cost $200 per parcel this way or each parcel may be subject to a $1,000 to $2,000 increase and fire service will be 13 miles away again. He wants to put that dollar amount out there. Chief McLaughlin — Some people could not get insurance and you will go back to where you were before. Frank Hawkins — We need to get that information out there. Chief McLaughlin — One of the insurance companies gave an automatic five just for us being here but some would not budge. Frank Hawkins — His insurance went from 9 to 6. Chief McLaughlin —The savings can be from $300 to up $2000. He had some people tell him their insurance went down $1200. Ron Gilbert — Besides giving a presentation to the CID he would like to put a circular out because not everyone goes to the CID Meeting. James Simmons — How about using the Port News to get the information out it's a good news letter. Ron Gilbert — Feels the newsletters editor Jeanne Kungle would be amenable to that idea. Frank Hawkins —That gets the information to the people here but you need to get it to the rest of the District. James Simmons — We could get it in the Mullet Rapper as a way of informing the Everglades City area. Page 4 X t Chief McLaughlin — That is already done. 16 12 A.6 w , Frank Hawkins — So you just need the funds so it could be started right away if it is approved. Chief McLaughlin — We are ready to pull permits but we do not have the funding. Ron Gilbert — Once we get closer to November 2012 he will give a presentation to the CID Board regarding the assessment. He is going to contact some insurance companies for the purpose of obtaining a dollar amount as to what the insurance cost will be if the fire coverage moves out of versus what the assessment cost to finish the station. He feels it will cost $200 per parcel this way or each parcel may be subject to a $1,000 to $2,000 increase and fire service will be 13 miles away again. He wants to put that dollar amount out there. Chief McLaughlin — Some people could not get insurance and you will go back to where you were before. Frank Hawkins — We need to get that information out there. Chief McLaughlin — One of the insurance companies gave an automatic five just for us being here but some would not budge. Frank Hawkins — His insurance went from 9 to 6. Chief McLaughlin —The savings can be from $300 to up $2000. He had some people tell him their insurance went down $1200. Ron Gilbert — Besides giving a presentation to the CID he would like to put a circular out because not everyone goes to the CID Meeting. James Simmons — How about using the Port News to get the information out it's a good news letter. Ron Gilbert — Feels the newsletters editor Jeanne Kungle would be amenable to that idea. Frank Hawkins —That gets the information to the people here but you need to get it to the rest of the District. James Simmons — We could get it in the Mullet Rapper as a way of informing the Everglades City area. Page 4 1612 Ab Chief McLaughlin — He said the owner pays the largest insurance coverage for the entire building but there is owner's content insurance as well however, the building owner will reap the largest savings. (The word content was added to this paragraph as a correction request by Frank Hawkins) Tony Davis — It could have been the change in carriers but the insurance costs dropped $90,000 at Orchid Cove. Ron Gilbert — The association insures the building each unit owner insures their condo. Frank Hawkins — Our condo association did not seek a decline when we first received your letter. Our insurance did not decline because they wanted to see a permanent facility. However, his owner's policy did accept the letter and reduced his rate. Chief McLaughlin — It would be a good idea to contact the insurance agent representing the associations for all the buildings and obtain some dollar amounts as to what the cost is now as to if the ISO Rating goes to a five. Frank Hawkins — You could get an insurance agent to give an estimate. Chief McLaughlin — They can tell you exactly what you will pay. Frank Hawkins — Yes, what would it cost to go from an ISO rating of nine to a five. Chief McLaughlin - They can tell you the dollar savings based on what you are paying now and at the lower ISO rating. Frank Hawkins — He commented that we could have built many fire stations out of the insurance premiums that have been paid. He asked what the letter would contain. Ron Gilbert — The letter states that the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board supports such an effort. Chief McLaughlin — It will go from the Advisory Board to the Collier County Board of commissioners and they will bring it up in a public hearing at a Board of County Commissioners meeting then it would go to the County Manager's Office over to the Budget Manager to see what can be done. The Advisory Board is directing the Board of County Commissioners to pursue the MSTU. Tony Davis — Donna Fiala has an open house at Port of the Islands he feels they should contact her regarding the MSTU prior to the event so that possibly it could be discussed at that time. Page 5 16 12 k6 Frank Hawkins — He felt it would be a good idea at least for the purpose of obtaining a loan from general fund to do this. Chief McLaughlin — If we get the loan from general fund we can start this process now then it would be done by the summer. Once the renovation begins per the experts it should only take 90 days to complete then pay the loan off in the next year or two. Frank Hawkins — I can't imagine them doing that until the MSTU is approved. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, they would have to create the MSTU to collect the funds before we moved forward. Tony Davis — We need to bring Donna Fiala up to speed as soon as possible in regards to the assessment. Frank Hawkins — Once the Fire Station is in place and paid for what is our assurance that it won't be closed sometime in the future will it always remain here. Ron Gilbert — Planning changes are always possible but he thinks the further we are along to having a permanent facility the less likely that will happen. Frank Hawkins — This is has been a very hard financial time worse than the 1970's & 1980's can you remember the closing of any permanent facilities? Chief McLaughlin — Yes, the independent District have but not the County. The Independent Districts have shut down stations for periods of time during the day or shut a facility down and move around. East Naples had to lay off personnel so they are using creative scheduling to cover their District. This is happening everywhere not just here and some places it's even worse. There are some Departments that have shut down multiple stations. James Simmons — That is one thing we don't realize how fortunate we are with the guidance we have here. Ron Gilbert — You have eight to nine hundred residents at Port of the Islands which is probably the most concentrated area of population in the District. Chief McLaughlin — There is probably five hundred in Everglades City, approximately two to three hundred on Plantation Island, another five hundred in Chokoloskee and a handful in Copeland then the rest of the population is scattered around all the way to Dade County. Page 6 1612 A6 Frank Hawkins — He asked if there would be a meeting room or activity center in the Fire Station. Chief McLaughlin —The plans don't provide for a meeting room or activity center. Frank Hawkins — if hypothetically if the station was closed down the community could still get value out of it. Chief McLaughlin — It could be used in that way if the station closed because then the space occupied by personnel and apparatus would be available for the communities use. It would still be a County facility and would be used for some purpose this is something the residents could bring up if it were closed. Frank Hawkins — He just wanted to know if there was an option encase it came up that the facility could be used by the community if the Fire Department vacated the building. Chief McLaughlin — He didn't think that the building would be used for anything else without the approval of the voters since they paid for the building. Unless the building was sold then how would the dollar value be returned to the community? Frank Hawkins — Maybe it could be made a community center with Parks and Recreation running the events. Ron Gilbert made a motion to approve the minutes of November 14, 2011, James Simmons seconded and they were approved. Old Business Chief McLaughlin —Around the first of January we should receive a call regarding an inspection of the new Water Tender we expect delivery either February 1St or March. We've completed most of our inventory and assessment for this year and we look like we are in good shape. We are doing uniforms right now. We have tightened up on a lot of things to keep the dollars down. We solicited quotes to replace the cabinets at station 60. We have been doing station cleaning. Station 66 and the Fire Apparatus out there are in great shape. We are going to install a foam tank on the pumper. The bunker gear was inspected recently everything is in good shape. The hose is in great shape. The final building prints for station 63 were delivered last week to us and have been reviewed by Dan Summers and myself. The prints will be sent to FDOT by the 15th then they will send them out to bid. They are soliciting bids as of June of this year so this is actually going to happen. We have not heard back yet as for funding for apparatus or personnel they told us we might hear something by April. He will try to get a copy of the drawings by the next board meeting so they have an idea of the concept. Page 7 Ak 16 12 New Business Chief McLaughlin — We are moving forward with a new reporting system program it still has some glitches in it we are trying to resolve. We hope to have it up and fully functional by January 15t. Right now we are working through the staffing, we've built the modules, the District and put the apparatus in. He is still covering Isles of Capri. He is trying to get personnel used to the new program at both Departments. There are a few things we would like to see this system do that our old program did not. The benefit of this program is it has an extensive inventory module that attaches to our equipment. This allows the Department to keep track of inventor outside of the County system. The County system only tracks items that are $1000 or more. It will probably take five to six months to in put the information but once it is we will have a total inventory for all items. Frank Hawkins —You can treat that like a repair history or replenishment data base. Chief McLaughlin — It has a very large reporting system for all the modules it tracks loss and repairs. James Simmons — Who is going to enter all that material? Chief McLaughlin —The information is being entered by me, Captain Morris and Captain Purcell. James Simmons — It's going to take a few hours to get it set up. Chief McLaughlin — It's going to take months. He's done the basic inputting. He is going to have each Lieutenant input the inventory. We are tracking items by serial number gloves we are tracking by manufacturer and model. The program is modular so it allows and adjusts as you add inventory items. They posted the Chiefs position for Isles of Capri last Friday so he doesn't know how much longer he is going to be an interim Chief. Hopefully after tomorrow it will start to settle down. Ron Gilbert— He asked the Chief if they were paying him for monitoring Isles of Capri. Chief McLaughlin — He said no. He brought up the fact that there might be a 10% reduction of the budget next year. Locally we will do the best to meet the challenges as we can. We rely heavily on our OMB Department with their projections in regards to our budget and trying to make ends meet. Page 8 i 1612 A6 Frank Hawkins — He feels there will be less Federal money trickling down. Chief McLaughlin — He feels this will be the last year we will have to take a reduction. He commented that the previous County Manager Jim Mudd felt it would be four years before the economy turned around and it looks like he was right. Frank Hawkins — Suggested that the inventory should have physical identifiers. Chief McLaughlin — He said all of our equipment is marked. We also have asset numbers for items over $1,000 that is assigned to our equipment through our Finance Department. Frank Hawkins — Is there a defined written charter or purpose for this board what we are supposed to do and what we are responsible for. Ron Gilbert — I think you can find that on line. Chief McLaughlin — I can get you that information. There is a defined charter that was created in 1975 and amended in 1978 from its inception there has been a lot of changes. Part of the original charter was that the Advisory Board creates the budget but that has never been done. The budget is created by the office of OMB and the Chief. The Advisory Board reviews the budget and can make suggestions regarding operations. The board was created as an Advisory Commission. In the charter the Advisory Board is referred to as a commission and the Board is the Board of County Commissioners. He will get him a copy of the ordinance and the amendments. Ron Gilbert — He said you can go to colliergov.com and search for Advisory Boards. Chief McLaughlin — You can't get the amendments there. There are some things that are so old they -are not on the web site. He is going to check to make sure that the letter can be sent out by the Chairman to the other board members. He wants to make sure it is not a violation of the sunshine law. Tony Davis — He could send it out for us to review only and then discuss it at the next meeting. Frank Hawkins — You are allowed to send information you just can't discuss it or do any business even if it is just an opinion. Page 9 1612A6 W Chief McLaughlin — Next week he will be picking up DVD's regarding the sunshine law to distribute to all the Advisory Board Members at Ochopee and Isles of Capri. A motion was made to adjourn it was passed and the meeting ended. Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee l=ire Control District Advisory Board Page 10 J Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta 1612 OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 9, 2012 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain 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 Charles Frank Hawkins, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order at 4PM then roll call of attendees. A6 i 0 3(r3)Xjrd3 FE B 7 BY........................ The date on the agenda sheet was wrong and corrected to read 1 -9 -12 instead of 1 -6 -12. OLD BUSINESS Special Assessment Letter: Chief McLaughlin — We held off on the Special Assessment letter until the meet and greet with Commissioner Fiala. Now that has happened it is up to the Advisory Board if they choose to go down that path then you need to assemble a letter have all the board members review it and then submit it. Ron Gilbert —We've already written one. Chief McLaughlin — He knows that but it needs to be updated. Ron Gilbert — The next election that will hit is in November 2012. James Simmons — You mean to get on the ballot. Chief McLaughlin — I don't know if you have to go to a ballot on that. The board may be able to assess that through the action of a MSTU because of the way you were created. Ron Gilbert — I would be surprised because when you start assessing people and they don't get to vote on it. Page 1 Misc. Comes: Dade: t'{. l 10� l 2 Nom # 1 (_d� '2-. Prto Copies to: ri I` e° r t 1612A6 Chief McLaughlin — We have to research it. H e was told that the board at times can do an emergency action but he needs more information regarding that from the County Attorney's Office. Ron Gilbert — I hope you can because I think it is warranted if we have to go that far to attach an assessment and a vote is a precarious situation you don't know how people will vote especially if they don't understand the issue you pay $200 to keep the fire truck here if you lose the fire truck your insurance rate is going up. Chief McLaughlin -- He knows that the Board in the past has made emergency caps to the millage in the Ochopee Fire Control District from 1 to 1.5 to 2 to 4 and he has the documentation to prove it. They did that as an emergency action of the Board of County Commissioners. On an MSTU the Board of County Commissioners has the power to raise the millage cap by an emergency action and readjust the millage without any vote. Ron Gilbert — So you think they can do the assessment along those same lines. Chief McLaughlin — If in the interest of public safety they can do that. The Ochopee MSTU started out as one went to one point five then to two then to four over the years. They made those adjustments to the millage rates to obtain man power and infrastructure. He has a RLS into the County Attorney's Office asking for an opinion on whether the Board can install the special assessment. He feels by the next meeting he will have a definitive answer as to what Board of County Commissioners can or can't do before the next meeting. Frank Hawkins — It takes so long to do these things I don't think we should assume anything. We ought to get this process rolling as soon as we can. You can always stop it. Ron Gilbert -- The problem I see with that is people will be less diligent in finding the money for this. Chief McLaughlin - When he spoke to Commissioner Fiala at the meet and greet she brought up grants and the pilt funds. We have exhausted our grant options they are not there. Also there is no pilt money. The only place where we could obtain immediate funding would be a a loan from general fund to start construction then pay that loan back by a special assessment on all the taxable properties in the District over a period of so many years but that would be an action via your letter to the County Attorney's Office as to what steps it would take to accomplish that. Once they received your letter it would start Board action then to the County Manager's Office then the Budget Department and then the Tax Assessors Office would get involved. We would have to go back to the Board with an Executive Summary to see if it can be done and they would have to vote on it. Whether that would have to be a public vote or if the Board of County Commissioners could take an emergency action on the issue for construction of the station that is the question. Page 2 .ataC .ik mpt•' 16 1 2A6 Tony Davis — About a year ago Mr. Shucart tried to create an MSTU to dredge the canal so they could get the live aboard boats in without contacting the community. However, a handful of people found out about it and complained at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting. The Board told them that they had to notify the community then they could come back. Frank Hawkins — There is a specific process that has to be followed, notifications papers for a public hearing. Tony Davis — Right and they didn't do any of that. Frank Hawkins — At some point there is some mailing that has to go out before it hits the ballot and is heard. So there are all these steps that have to take place. Chief McLaughlin — This falls into a different category because it could be seen as an emergency action to assists the infrastructure especially since it is a public safety facility. Tony Davis — This incident with the Mr. Shucart may not even apply the point is in that particular instants they did kick it back. So we need to investigate before we go too far with this MSTU. Chief McLaughlin — I recall reading that in the paper and what it looked liked to the Board of County Commissioners was that a private entity was trying to create an MTS for his business to get a better product and get the taxpayers to pay for it. Tony Davis — That was exactly what it was. Ron Gilbert — That was a commercial venture where as our Fire Truck is not it is a direct benefit to the neighborhood. Chief McLaughlin — I am going to pursue that action so by the next board meeting I hope to have a definitive answer from the County Attorney's Office on what that process is if we go through the special assessment and the loan part of it as well. The problem is dollars and the loss of dollars through revenue. He did not propose a millage rate increase when he spoke to commissioner Fiala. We are not asking for a tax increase per say what we would be asking for is the restoring of the tax base that once existed to continue to function at the same service level that was created at that point. Four years ago we created the service we still enjoy today but we are doing it with 35% to 40% less funding and we can't continue to do that. Either we have to give up some of the service we enjoy or restore the tax base back to the level that can fund it. It is not a tax increase if you don't go beyond the 2008 budget. Page 3 k. 1612 A6 Ron Gilbert — What people can relate to here particularly the condominium dwellers is a special assessment when you budget as adequately provided to do whatever you have to do or need to do immediately you have a special assessment that is not to say the budget had not done what we needed it to do but the source of revenue is just drying up because of the decrease in property values. Frank Hawkins — Everybody has an additional assessment on their property taxes for the water plant which is a similar process. Chief McLaughlin — A special assessment should be assessed to the whole District because Ochopee Fire Control District services the entire area. It is an easier bite to take if it is orientated to the whole District. In the conversations he has had with Ms. Kungle she was not in favor of a special assessment tax. He explained to her that at no time in the history of the Ochopee Fire Control District has advalorem taxes played any part in paying for the infrastructure every building has been built by Volunteer money there has never been a tax base to pay for a structure. Today with the new structure codes you can't build a metal building. Now it would cost a million and a half dollars to build the same building which is one of the issues we are looking at five times the expense. The only way he can see this occurring is by some sort of special assessment District wide with a loan from general fund to start the construction and then pay it back. Tony Davis — Did you say it was a dead end with Mr. Matwani in reference to obtaining the employee building on the north side. Chief McLaughlin — He does not own that building. Tony Davis — A relative or somebody he knows does. Chief McLaughlin — The gentleman that owns the building lives in Springfield Illinois. He received a letter from the owner who was willing to release the property for $325,000. Tony Davis — He would give us the building but we would have to buy the property. Frank Hawkins — It would probably cost a lot more to renovate that building. Tony Davis — Because the issue came back up again last week Mr. Matwani said he would give the District the building. Chief McLaughlin — He does not own the building a Dominic Morano does and the tax records show that. Page 4 1612 A6 Tony Davis -- Mr. Matwani claims he has control of the building even though it is not in his name. Chief McLaughlin — He missed a phone call from Mr. Matwani last week he hasn't called him back yet so it could pertain to this building. He would have to obtain legal documentation that he owned that building because if he is not on the tax records he does not have legal control of the building. Ron Gilbert —Are we done on the subject of the Special Assessment. Frank Hawkins — No I am confused as to what our game plan is. Chief McLaughlin — We are going to wait till next month when we get a definitive answer from the County Attorney's Office as to what action we can take as to whether it has to be by an election or not then put together a letter pursuing that action. If it is favorable then there would have to be public hearings. Frank Hawkins — As to oppose to getting the MSTU process started and somewhere in that process asking the BCC to consider alternatives. Chief McLaughlin — You can start the process by sending a letter but you don't know what you are asking for yet. You are asking for a special assessment that may or may not need an election. It would be better to ask for the special assessment based on how the process works. You could make the decision to send a letter asking for a special assessment and then wait for their reply that would be up to you. Tony Davis — You are better off laying out what you are asking for. Chief McLaughlin — If you are going to the Board of County Commissioners to ask for something you better have all the facts because they are going to ask. Ron Gilbert — Let the Chief do his homework about what specifically we need to ask in the letter and then we will put it together. Chief McLaughlin — I would feel more comfortable if you sent a letter with all the documentation backing what you are asking for behind it. It shows the board you have done your homework on the issue. Tony Davis — How about a letter to them if we pursue something to assist in our research bring that back to them. Page 5 r`i Y EX 61 2A6 Chief McLaughlin —The alternative to Frank's suggestion you could send a letter saying that it is you intent to pursue a special assessment and that you will follow up with more documentation and that you would like their support in the pursuit of this. That would be a little different than just telling them you want to do it because now you are telling them as a community you support this so when it comes to a vote we are ahead of it. Frank Hawkins — As coming from a stand point of having exhausted all options this seems to be the only alternative. Chief McLaughlin — Grants are out I can tell you pilt money is not going to happen. Frank Hawkins — It seems the only alternative is an MSTU. Chief McLaughlin — The special assessment is not an MSTU. It would be a special assessment it would come back to the taxpayers as a whole. The Fire District is an MSTU so it would be a special assessment for the purpose of building construction for all the taxpayers of the District which is different than creating an MSTU for Port of the Islands within one that already exists. We would be creating a special assessment on a singular need which is to construct a fire station within an already established taxing area. Ron Gilbert — It is not a MSTU. Chief McLaughlin —Yes. Frank Hawkins —That is a special assessment. Chief McLaughlin — All the taxpayers in the District will share the burden for this portion at a dollar amount. Frank Hawkins — What we learned from the dredging fiasco was that part of the MSTU process was to define the geographical area that would be included in the MSTU and then all the property owners in that area had to be included in that process. Chief McLaughlin — But a special assessment is not a MSTU. You already have a MSTU that is established for the purpose of fire protection. It is hard to create a second MSTU for fire protection but you can create a special assessment for a singular project within that fire protection MSTU if the advalorem dollars cannot fund it. l would like it more clearly defined that is what we have asked for, how do special assessments work, how do they operate and how are they created within an already existing MSTU as a single project. Page 6 16 12 A 6 James Simmons — What he is familiar with is usually a development for road ways it is for a specific development. Tony Davis — He thinks it would be best to send the Board of County Commissioners letting them know they wish to pursue the special assessment. Chief McLaughlin — We can massage the last letter and send that out to everyone individually and if you all agree on it you can send it back to me in an e-mail then he can have the Chairman Ron Gilbert sign it if everyone is in agreement. He wants to wait until he has a definitive answer before they massage the letter which he is expecting to hear back from the County Attorney's Office soon. Frank Hawkins -- Are we going to proceed in a process and a manner taken to consideration if we had to have a property owner vote that we could get that executed in November with a general election. Chief McLaughlin — We have six months so we will know after this what the process is. We will Know certainly no later than April. We started on this procedure once before so he is aware of what has to be done and because it is a general election there is no cost to it and if it comes to that we certainly can push that to the board soon enough. Frank Hawkins -- I am assuming that if we do have to take this path and we don't get it on the general election of 2012 with the cost of holding a special election it won't happen. Chief McLaughlin — No out cutoff date is April to get this done. We would have plenty of time to get it on the ballot. It also gives us several months to go out to the citizens informing them about the special assessment. 1 -75 Chief McLaughlin — We have received the go ahead for the preliminary release of dollars for operational costs probably for the upcoming fiscal year which begins July 1St 2012. Mr. Summers, Captain Morris and I spent most of the day working on a schedule draw that will go to the County Attorney then it will go to FDOT we ran that out to 2014 for final completion. The draws are for man power, equipment, when the draws will take place and the time frame for all of that. It took us about six hours developing this today but we actually had to review it several times to go through it. Nothing is in concrete yet but we are assuming that as of the July one date monies will be available. We are giving them three months to collect the fees so that at their first quarter which would be October first we would make the first draw and that would be for man power to relieve the pressure on the District. Page 7 1612A5 Inconsequently from those draws out go apparatus, equipment all these other things go along in a quarterly times to build up to a point our draws coming in a year in advance so we can go ahead and purchase a truck which would be a year build for that vehicle. So we are looking at all this to coincide with the truck coming in with in two months prior to the estimated completion. Two months to mount equipment six months prior to start equipment purchase so that it is on board once the truck is received. The hiring will be in a two phase process the first six then the second six would come in the second part just three months prior to completion of the project. The first six would be hired immediately to relieve the pressure to the District and the balance would be hired when the station is fully operational so this is a set time schedule we put together Mr. Summers has to go back and refine it but he is going to meet with the County Manger with this then he will give it to OMB then they will be meeting with FDOT on these draws. The good news is its coming. Ron Gilbert — Is that going to be an integral part of the Ochopee Fire Control District. Chief McLaughlin — We will staff it, we will operate it, and we will own the vehicle that is part of the contract the vehicles will be under our control under our Fleet Management. This is a fully burden cost the District pays for nothing out there. So that operation will be fully burden from the FDOT audits that was the agreement. In the state documents there is no ceiling on the dollars to be given there is no minimum there is no top they didn't put a cap on it. We put a very good budget together what we feel it will take to operate it annually. Ron Gilbert — Is that going to be on the County line? Chief McLaughlin — No it's going to be at the 63 mile marker. Ron Gilbert — How far is that from Broward? Chief McLaughlin — It is 18 miles from Broward County. Ron Gilbert —You won't go into Broward County. Chief McLaughlin — Oh yes we will this vehicle will be funded by State money from 1 -75. Tony Davis — So you have to cover 1 -75. Page 8 16 1 2A6 Chief McLaughlin — It is for 1 -75, we could be requested to respond back into the Golden Gate area which is the 83 mile marker back to the toll booth and as far as the other toll booth in Broward County if need be. The dollars that are paying for it are coming from toll booth to toll booth. Frank Hawkins —That is a log shorter than responding from down here. Chief McLaughlin — Oh absolutely, therefore if the vehicle is requested we will respond because that's what it is for. It has been purchased to cover that area so we are obligated to go if we are requested. For years Broward County has been coming into Collier County to help us. Ron Gilbert — If it is in Collier County it's your lead if it is in Broward County it's their lead. Chief McLaughlin — If it's in Broward County we will respond if they calls us and if we had something on the other side of the 83 mile marker and Golden Gate Fire Department was tied up we would respond. Frank Hawkins —44% of your calls were on 1 -75. Ron Gilbert — What percentage of them are dead calls? Chief McLaughlin — Probably 50 %. Captain Morris — It might just be negative injuries or hazards stuff like that. Chief McLaughlin — When an incident happens until the Sheriff's Office arrive we don't know if anyone has been hurt and usually we are well passed Jerome by the time we are notified no one was hurt. We expend a lot of dollars out of the District driving up the road 15 or 20 miles then driving right back. The 63 mile marker is right in the middle of 1 -75 it is 10 miles to the east or west so we will be there before anyone else so we won't be running those calls out of here anymore. We will save a lot of money on fuel and wear and tear on the vehicles. James Simmons —Are you planning on having an ambulance out there too? Chief McLaughlin —1 can't answer that question because it is a function of EMS. I can tell you there will be a paramedic. We are funding a paramedic to ride on the apparatus with the Firefighters. Page 9 Tanker 1612 A6 Chief McLaughlin — He spoke with Hallmark E -One the chassis and the body is in construction. We will probably go up by the end of the month for the pre - assembly before the body goes on the chassis once that happens it is a pretty quick process we expect delivery sometime in early March. We will go up for a final inspection somewhere around the ninth or tenth so we will take delivery in March. The tanker will probably be fully in service and completely equipped by mid April. New Business Ron Gilbert — He asked how much equipment does the fire department have out here? Chief McLaughlin — We have one truck. Ron Gilbert — The president of the Sunset Cay Lakes and Villas home owners association sent him an e-mail to let him know they are doing a control burn just west of Sunset Cay lakes do you know all about that? Chief McLaughlin — Yes, they called us up we are fully aware of it and we will be there when they do it. Frank Hawkins — Had questions regarding the training report attached to the January monthly Advisory Board Report in regards to training hours. Chief McLaughlin — He answered his question and that some of the problems are how the information is entered into the training program. Captain Morris — We are in the process of learning a new system. Chief McLaughlin — We are actually double reporting right now because we started a new system and we are still trying to learn it. It is complicated. He is requiring his personnel to continue to enter the data into the old system for at least one quarter so they don't lose any information. Till he is confident the information we are putting into the new system is 100% to what we were putting into the old system and right now it isn't. A motion was made to adjourn .t was seconded and the meeting ended at 4:4413M. Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 10 1612A7 I MUMT-7m PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION E Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit BY....................... NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012 THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012 AT 3:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Financial goals for preparation of FY 2013 budget 5. Discussion of Capital Projects for FY 2013 a) Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard loan /repayment "cash flow" schedule b) Repairing /replacing pathways loan /repayment "cash flow" schedule 6. Review "cash flow" sheets 1;r 7. Audience Comments Fiala Hiller 8. Adjourn Henning Coyle Coletta DC- ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. misc. cones: Dft Item i l C..� s- 2- "5 +o: 2/7/2012 3:53:25 PM 161 2 k7 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD JANUARY 17, 2012 MINUTES LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson John Chandler (late) John Iaizzo Keith J. Dallas Susan O'Brien Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz (absent) Lisa Resnick Also Present Tom Cravens Gerald Moffatt Dave Trecker AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Summary Update of FY 2011 Actual vs. Estimated Actuals contained in FY 2012 Budget; and Impact on Capital Funds 4. Status of FY 2013 County guidelines regarding salaries, benefits, and tax rates 5. Initial Discussion of Capital Funds for FY 2013 Budget and beyond a) CIP; and b) Other 6. Review format for Budget Preparation 7. Schedule for preparation of FY 2013 Budget 8. Discussion of current format for the Monthly Financial Report 9. Audience Comments 10. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Budget Subcommittee members were present. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Gerald Moffatt questioned whether having a large subcommittee of six members was inefficient. A Subcommittee agreed that a large membership encouraged participation and open discussion. SUMMARY UPDATE OF FY 2011 A AND IMPACT ON CAPITAL FUNDS Mr. Dorrill reported the actual FY 2011 Capital Fund expenditures expenses due to the Foundation paying a larger portion of th Mr. Cravens asked why the south berm restoration Management Fund. ve variance $154,000 and Beautification, and $80,000 less than estimated Clam Bay Fund and not the Water 16 12 AT .� Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes January 17, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said there is no rationale other than historically the south berm projects have been allocated to the Clam Bay Fund and the Services Division's FY 2012 Board of County Commissioners approved budget has the funds for this project in the Clam Bay Capital account. The Subcommittee agreed that going forward in future budgets they would consider budgeting and charging additional projects to the Water Management operating fund. STATUS OF FY 2013 COUNTY GUIDELINES REGARDING SALARIES, BENEFITS AND TAX RATES Mr. Dorrill said the County has not yet adopted the FY 2013 fiscal policy and estimated having the information in early March that includes indirect costs, information technology support, and annual rental amount in lieu of a formal agreement for the maintenance facility. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR FY 2013 BUDGET AND BEYOND CIP The Subcommittee discussed Mr. Dallas' preliminary FY 2013 CIP ad valorem and non -ad valorem cash flow sheets that describe that if the assessment and millage rates in FY 2013 remain the same rates as FY 2012 then the Services Division could fund certain identified CIP projects; and whether to perform a survey to prioritize future CIP projects; and directed staff to include in the preliminary FY 2013 budget three crosswalks on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of Myra Janco Daniels, North Pointe, and Crayton; redoing the balance of the pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard; and additional landscaping. Mr. Moffatt suggested the Services Division consider the CIP recommended project to install pavers at the three entrances to the community in the FY 2013 budget. OTHER The Subcommittee discussed other projects including staff developing a pathways repair program, landscaping projects plan; lake bank enhancements; continued refurbishment of street signs; and directed staff to include $5,000 for exotic removal and /or maintenance in the FY 2013 budget and all future budgets. REVIEW FORMAT FOR BUDGET PREPARATION The Subcommittee was pleased with the current budget preparation format. SCHEDULE FOR PREPARATION OF FY 2013 BUDGET Mr. Dorrill said staff would have a preliminary FY 2013 budget prepared for the Subcommittee to rev' arch, so the Subcommittee can make a recommendation to the full Board in May. DISCUSSION OF CURRENT FORMAT FOR THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT The Subcommittee was generally pleased with Mr. Dorrill's monthly financial report form Mr. Iaizzo suggested including a line item to explain the cost of outsourcing labor. Mr. Dorrill explained staff is required to use the state's chart of accounts, but he into Chairman Levy expressed satisfaction with the current format.', -. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at Michael Levy, Chairman 11 Resnick 2/6/2012 4:18:30 PM 161 %'A7 PBSD Budget SIC Feb 13. 2012 - Discussion Material Agenda Item 4. FY 2013 Budget Goal FY 2011 W/O CIP FY 2012 CIP Assessment per ERU $ 370.63 $ 27.50 Total $2,823,600 $209,500 Advalorem Rate 0.0531 0.0327 Total $273,200 $163,600 Goal Fund Operations within the FY 2011 level (w /o CIP) and strive to provide excess to help fund the CIP. Budget S/C to recommend amount to be added for CIP. Agenda Item 5. Capital Projects for FY 2013 a. Crosswalks: PB Blvd at Myra Daniels & North Pointe PB Blvd at Crayton $ 105,000 $ 53,000 For Discussion: Advance the above remaining cross walks into FY 2012 (Summer 2012) b. Pathways: Remainder of west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. $ 685,000 (Contingent upon recommendation from staff) Myra Daniels —Concrete side walk $ 39,500 c. Landscaping For Discussion: Is $150,000 enough; CIP landscaping total is $2,250,000? d. Other Items: Lake Banks Sign Renovation ? Additional Trees (per CIP)? ?Littoral Plantings (per CIP)? Total FY 2013 $ 150,000 $ 85,000 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $123,000 $1,365,500 1612x7 Agenda Item 6. Review "Cash Flow" Sheets. a. Capital Expenditures FY 2014 Pathways: Residential Neighborhoods — 5' Concrete $ 425,000 East side of Pelican Bay Blvd. $ 900,000 (Contingent upon recommendation from staff) Gulf Park— North Side $ 150,000 Sign Renovations $ 50,000 Landscaping $ 150,000 Lake Banks 85,000 Total FY 2014 ------------------------------- - - - - -- $1,760,000 b. Capital Expenditures FY 2015 Pathways: Gulf Park —South Side $ 150,000 North Pointe, Hammock Oak & Crayton $ 250,000 Landscaping $ 150,000 Lake Banks 85,000 Total FY 2015-------------------------------------- - - - - -- $ 635,000 c. Capital Expenditures FY 2016 Pathways: Oakmont Parkway (new) $ 150,000 Oakmont Lake ? Landscaping $ 150,000 Lake Banks $ 85,000 1612 A7 0 0 3coww % 49 ]B%........... ............. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 THE CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21 AT 4:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. Fiala AGENDA Hiller Henning 11� Coyle -- -�.. The agenda includes, but is not limited: Coletta C� 1. Roll Call 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Chairman 3. Clam Bay Tidal Monitoring Procedures & Purpose; Update on Status of 2011 Annual Report by Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers 4. Clam Bay Restoration 2011 Annual Report by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 5. Public Comments 6. Adjourn 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. Misc. Corres: D*: '—1 `I0�t'Z- Item L eT2 Kl� C'opin to' 2/15/2012 2:14:29 PM r! , February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Chairman Page 1 of 3 TO: PBSD Directors FROM: Dave Trecker Clam Bay Subcommittee SUBJECT: Clam Pass Dredging DATE: December 5, 2011 This is a brief update on the permit application for Clam Pass dredging. Collier County (Coastal Zone Management), in consultation with the Pelican Bay Foundation, applied earlier this year for a 10 -year maintenance permit to dredge Clam Pass. The permit request [SAJ -1996- 02789(IP -LAE)] was directed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The stated purpose: "Conduct periodic maintenance dredging over 10 years in the Clam Pass /Clam Bay for ecological improvement of this estuary, with re- utilization of suitable dredged materials for beach re- nourishment." Clam Pass was previously dredged between 1981 and 1998 to reopen the pass when closed by sedimentation and in 1999, 2002 and 2007 as part of a regular maintenance program. The current permit request would allow periodic maintenance dredging of a 80 -foot -wide entrance cut to "an historic target depth" of 3.6 — 5.1 feet at mean low water. Maps appended to the request specify the template — width and depth of dredging Clam Pass and the inlet extending inland 1,800 lineal feet to the start of waterways leading south to Outer Clam Bay and north through the mangroves to Inner Clam Bay. This is comparable to the actual dredging carried out in 2007. The permit request is silent on "triggers" — conditions that would justify or require future dredging. However, a response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) specified, "Periodic dredging of Clam Pass is `triggered' to occur when the average cross sectional area within the active portion of dredge template is consistently below 200 sq. ft. (2007 Humiston & Moore Monitoring Report). Tidal prism and phase lag will also be monitored and N 0 0 0 0 N Gi N H 16 f __2_ February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Am7n 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Page 2 of 3 used as indicators of when dredging is required. Monitoring and maintenance of the pass will be initiated by cooperative agreement between Collier County and Pelican Bay." The so- called "triggers" were based on data analyses by and recommendations from coastal engineering experts — Humiston & Moore, Atkins and Olsen Associates. It is unclear whether the response to the USFWS qualifies as an amendment to the permit application. It probably doesn't matter, because the "triggers" are largely subjective. No metric limits are assigned to tidal range and phase lag changes, and no length of time is specified for the cross - sectional template to be below 200 sq. ft. When Clam Pass is dredged would be a judgment call by the County and Foundation, presumably with guidance from their consultants. Critics of the permit request say an 80 -ft. entrance cut is excessive; a less invasive 40 -ft. cut would suffice. They also urge that biological monitoring be part of the permit. Some say "triggers" for dredging should include biological considerations. All parties agree periodic dredging of Clam Pass is necessary. Most agree the 1999, 2002 and 2007 dredgings enhanced the health of the estuary. Most also agree dredging is not needed at this time, since the estuary is healthy and current flushing is adequate. My take on the situation is as follows. While an 80 -ft. entrance cut may be excessive, it apparently does no harm. The 2007 dredge, which used an 80 -ft. cut, did little if any damage to Clam Bay. It was a net plus. The estuary remains healthy. Because the allowed dredging would not extend far inland, it should not lead to more boat traffic in the interior bays. Outer Clam Bay would remain shallow; Seagate would still have trouble getting its big powerboats to the Gulf. There is no evidence the allowed dredging would portend future "navigational dredging" in Clam Bay or inter -bay flushing of Moorings m 0 0 ,n 0 N 0 N d N H A d r` a 0 0 m 0 C' N O N ri 7 February 21, 201114aylu2mittee Meeting 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Chairman Page 3 of 3 Bay, both of which I assume would be vigorously opposed by everyone in Pelican Bay. It is my understanding that permit approval awaits two biological opinions — one from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (for the FDEP) and one from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (for the USACE). No action of the PBSD board is required or recommended at this time. 16 12A7 0 7/l7/2O12 COLLIER COUNTY WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MUST APPROVE BY NOVEMBER 2012 AND IMPLEMENT BY MAY 2014 LEGAL ACTION BROUGHT BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS CLAM BAY DREDGING .APPLICATION FOR... DREDGING FOOTPRINT COMPARABLE TO 2007 80 -FT. ENTRANCE CUT, 3.6- 5.1 -FT. DEPTH (MIN) EXTENDING INLAND 1,800 LINEAR FEET t.., 1- 6 -r —1--1 . 1 —. - 9 y ..qua C1 —l— CLAM BAY DREDGING NO BIOLOGICAL "TRIGGERS" IN PERMIT MANGROVE HEALTH ALGAE BLOOM DREDGING TRIGGER A JUDGMENT CALL BY COUNTY / FOUNDATION CLAM PASS DREDGING COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT APPLICATION U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAl- 1996 -02789 (WP LAEI FLORIDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 0296087 - 001 -IC PURPOSE: "PERIODIC MAINTENANCE DREDGING OVER 10 YEARS... FOR ECOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT OF ESTUARY... UTILIZING DREDGED MATERIALS FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT" STATUS: FLORIDA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION APPROVAL LIKELY WITH' 30 -60 DAYS CLAM BAY DREDGING TRIGGERED BY... DROP OF CROSS- SECTION OF DREDGE TEMPLATE BELOW 200 SQ. FT. TIDAL PRISM AND PHASE -LAG CHANGES a ge 5" 0 ob eo'o gg GZ I 11 16 12 A February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division foard (Submitted by Marcia Cravens) Page 1 of 6 From: Brad Cornell <millercornell @mindspring.com> Subject: Clam Bay channel markers and dredging Date: April 9, 2009 8:49:58 AM EDT To: Gary McAlpin <GaryMcAlpin @colliergov.net> Cc: kathyw <kathyw @conservancy.org> TO: Members of the Coastal Advisory Council, in care of Gary McAlpin FROM: Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society RE: Clam Bay channel markers and dredging DATE: April 9, 2009 On behalf of Collier County Audubon Society, I wish to share a couple comments on the discussion you will have today regarding both Clam Bay channel marker and proposed dredging of the pass: 1. While it is valuable to mark sensitive shallow areas in the bay and shallow flats area behind the pass, markers should not be used to suggest any inappropriate use of this shallow estuarine area by motor boats of any kind. Such uses would be in conflict with the shallow sea grass beds and other estuarine resources of this area. 2. Dredging of the pass should be only for the purposes of maintaining proper tidal flushing and not for a source of beach renourishment. Additionally, such dredging should occur only as needed and not on any periodic basis. The natural contours, directions and flows of the channels and streams should not be altered. If there are other salinity balancing measures needed, examination of eastern freshwater inputs should be made to consider any needed adjustments there, as well. 3. Any consideration of dredging needs must account for the entire ecological system needs and not just the narrow issues of tidal flushing or beach renourishment. Thank you for your consideration of our input on this discussion of management measures for one of the few natural estuarine /gulf inlet ecosystems in Collier County. Brad Cornell Southwest Florida Policy Associate Collier County Audubon Society 10208 th Avenue, South Naples, FL 34102 239 - 643 -7822 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board t (Submitted by Marcia Cravens) Page 2 of 6 � � 16,1 2 Linda Elligott, November 2, 2011 Please accept this correspondence for the record of File No. SAJ- 1996 -02789 (LE) and respond to its content by return email to the Sierra Club Calusa Group. We are an advocate for preservation and protection of the Clam Pass undeveloped portion of the coastal barrier island including the location of the requested permit activity. We request that the Corps conduct a permit Workshop to provide NGOs an opportunity for meaningful participation with the permit reviewers which is not accorded by the limitations of written public comments and is needed to remedy the deficient permit application. Background: Sierra Club members, other NGOs and general public advocacy to the Corps for Clam Pass /Clam Bay resources resulted in the Corps requirement for the Coral Ridge - Collier Property owner developers of Pelican Bay to abide by Corps permit Special Conditions which predicated Corps authorization to fill a maximum of 78 acres of mangrove wetlands in the far NW area for the Pelican Bay development only upon the owner /developers agreement that the remaining 570 acres of coastal barrier natural resources within Pelican Bay development boundaries would be set aside in a manner that restricted it to Conservation /Preservation in perpetuity. The Corps permit 79K -0282 issued on November 18, 1981 is as it required, a part of official county records pertaining to its Special Conditions of protection from further development of the remaining 570 acres Clam Pass /Clam Bay coastal barrier resource area. Sierra Club Calusa Group advocates on behalf of current and future members to retain their ability to enjoy passive activities that are compatible with and do not degrade the Clam Pass /Clam Bay Conservation and Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Preserve. The human benefits include its aesthetic beauty; opportunities to observe wildlife; guided nature walks; nature photography; undeveloped beach experiences; fishing in Clam Pass, the surf and backwaters; paddling through quiet meandering creeks with mangrove tunnels; swimming, wading, snorkeling, etc. The proposed dredging project is one of several projects planned by the County in the Clam Pass CBRS FL -64P unit. These projects individually would directly degrade natural resource characteristics that support diverse wildlife and that our members enjoy and benefit from. Secondary impacts from each project are expected to further degrade areas that our members and the general public expect to remain a protected natural resource preserve. Degradation of resources by construction /excavation is inconsistent with the prior JC permit authorization and inconsistent with the 1981 Corps permit Special Conditions. Cumulative impacts from combined construction and excavation projects in the Clam Pass FL -64P unit / Conservation and NRPA Preserve would reduce its functions of aquatic nursery, wetlands habitat, and beach /dune areas and constitute an unacceptable taking of established listed /unlisted wildlife and human uses. The 2009 application to dredge Clam Pass /Clam Bay doesn't conform to Corps and County requirements to primarily retain natural conditions of the waters, creek /lagoon shorelines, beach and dune areas with limited exceptions. Conformance to prior authorizations should limit any dredging re- authorization to the minimal amount necessary to keep the Clam Bays and creeks open to the Gulf of Mexico and never done to remove the maximal amount of sand possible from the Clam Pass system and should exclude dredging the Clam Pass ebb shoal for the purpose of taking sand to use for beach nourishment. Note that prior JC permits authorized placement of beach quality sand from minimal dredging events to reopen Clam Pass as an Incidental benefit and never as the purpose of those permits. No sand placement should occur on the natural beaches in the Clam Pass undeveloped CBRS unit 64 -P until and unless it's had severe /critical erosion of beach areas that's proven by comparison of historic measured baselines established prior to beach nourishment during the 1990s vs new evidence of enduring erosion in FL -64P unit. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (Submitted by Marcia Cravens) Page 3 of 6 161 2 A17 4 Summary: Sierra Calusa Group recognizes the current application to dredge Clam Pass /Clam Bay as incomplete for the following reasons: It failed to report the project area's special designations intended to protect nearshore and offshore aquatic resources, wetlands, and beach; It failed to provide County official records that protect the area from further development (construction /excavation) in the Clam Bay NRPA Preserve aka Clam Pass CBRS unit; It misrepresented the minimal authorized dredging template of the 1998 JC permit, improperly discredited the engineers of record and misrepresented that Tackney had not provded a model; It omitted important Cultural /Archaeological Sites that were shown by map and commented on by the Florida Department of State - Division of Historical Resources with specific conditions to protect those sites by avoiding disturbances to them for the 1998 FDEP JC permits; It failed to identify that its current offshore assessment of live hardbottom differs significantly from that submitted for the 1998 JC permits which indicates an apparent loss of approximately 150 to 200 ft seaward that may be direct/secondary impacts from dredging and beach sand placement. The applicant's failure to reference many comprehensive reports on the area's environmental characteristics which other researchers / consultants have referenced is likely to be largely responsible for a serious lack of understanding for the project area and deficiency of necessary information to inform a sufficient permit review by the Corps and its consulting agencies. Sierra Calusa Group requests the Corps to conduct a workshop with the consulting federal agency persons already involved in biological reviews and include our participation for submittal and discussion of materials we may provide that are missing from the permit application and therefore cause it to be inaccurate and incomplete. We request this as a means for meaningful participation to remedy the currently deficient permit application that is cause for insufficient Corps and Consulting Agencies review of it. Consider these concerns to also be the basis of a Corps permit hearing by the Sierra Club Calusa Group. Bobbie Lee Gruninger Chairperson, Sierra Club Calusa Group bleegruninger @comcast.net L October 28, 2011 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (Submitted by Marcia Cravens) Page 4 of 6 161IA7 Ms. Linda A. Elligott U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville Fort Myers Regulatory Office 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd. Suite 310 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Re: Permit Application # SAJ- 1996 -02789 Dear Ms. Elligott: I am writing to request that the Corps conduct a workshop in regards to permit application # SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) "Clam Pass ". There is still a lot of concerns in regards to this permit, specifically in regards to dredging dimensions and dredging triggers from various groups. The Conservancy is concerned about the possible environmental impacts in regards to this permit. As stated in previous RAI responses to your office we are particularly concerned about the following: Dredging Triggers - Sequence of Events that determine whether or not a dredging event is necessary to alleviate Environmental Concerns in the Clam Bay NRPA. Dredging Permit Discrepancies. There appears to be differences in the dredging template between the 1998 dredging plans submitted to USACOE and FDEP and the current permit seems to merge the two plans to yield the maximum dredge footprint. Monitoring Plans to ensure that the estuary is suffering no impacts as a result of the dredging activities Reference within the permit to dredging the ebb shoal as this was mentioned in an attachment of the original permit submission. I believe that a workshop would be beneficial to all involved so that concerns can be aired and hopefully alleviated. I believe we all have good intentions to protect the environment and hope that you would consider holding this type of forum so that all involved including FWC and other agencies that have been involved in this permit, the Conservancy and other environmental groups could work together to achieve the primary goal of protecting this mangrove estuary. Sincerely, Kathy B, Worley Co- Director of Science, Conservancy of Southwest Florida 239 - 403 -4223 kathyw @conservancy.org February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican (Submitted by Marcia Cravens) Page 5 of 6 t MANGROVE ACTION GROUP PO Box 770404 Naples, FL 34107 November 17, 201.1 Linda A. Elligott Department of the Army Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers 1520 Royal Palm Square Blvd — Suite 310 Fort Myers, FL 3391 Bay Services Division Board 1612 A17 Re: Clam Pass Dredging, Permit Application No: SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) — Request for Conference with Federal agency reviewers Dear Ms. Elligott, In June, comments were submitted by the Mangrove Action Group expressing concerns of our members related to the proposed permit to dredge Clam Pass. We understand that the application is substantially complete, with one of the few outstanding items being the biological opinion on impacts to wildlife required from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Before any decision is made, we request that representatives of the Mangrove Action Group and other non - governmental environmental organizations familiar with the Clam Bay system be afforded an opportunity to meet with you and the technical reviewers from USFWS and NMFS. We understand that the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and perhaps other environmental organizations from the region have submitted a similar request. Not only are there potential impacts to specific species of concern, including nesting sea turtles and piping plovers, but potential impacts on the mangrove ecosystem of which Clam Pass is an integral part. This protected coastal conservation area has been carved out of surrounding urbanized Collier County. It provides a nursery ground for fish and marine life and an important resting, nesting and foraging ground for a multitude of birds. Yet the dredging permit application does not indicate the key fact of Clam Bay's protected status in either its maps or responses to application questions. We are concerned that these considerations are not being fully taken into account. In responding to RAI #2, the applicant indicated that "... a working group was developed between Collier County and Pelican Bay Foundation ... to provide an open forum to encourage dialogue between the parties regarding the proposed dredging activity and JCP application_" However, it should be noted that this working group did not provide for public participation. The meetings were conducted between Collier County administrators and their consultants and the Pelican Bay Foundation administrators and their consultants. Environmental and community groups were informed of the results of the meetings and invited to submit comments, but were generally not involved as direct participants. Much of our input is not reflected in the application. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (Submitted by Marcia Cravens) i . ` Page 6 of 6 Clam Pass Drec'iging Application November 17, 2011 16 12A7 Page 2 That is vvhy we feel it is so important to have a chance to meet with you and the reviewers from USFWS and NMFS, so that our concerns and recommendations can be fully explicated and discussed before a decision is rendered- Sincerely, (� Mary cM Lean Johnson {/ President, Mangrove Action Group (239) 566 -7575 cc: Jeff Howe, USFWS Mark Stramak, NOAAINMFS February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Divi 6 rd Igu Z ession Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page 1 of 25 May 26, 2009 M IMANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 26, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special district as has been created according to law and 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: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Frank Halas Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager Page I s February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page 2 of 25 May 26, 2009 1612 A 7 Item # l OB THE CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM TIDAL FLUSHING OF CLAM BAY ESTUARY AND IS NECESSARY TO RE -OPEN THE PASS IN THE EVENT OF STORM CLOSURE - APPROVED W /CHANGES MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item IOB. Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit application that is required to perform tidal flushing of Clam Bay estuary and is necessary to reopen the pass in the event of a storm closure. Gary McAlpin, your coastal zone management director, will present. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Commissioners, for the record, Gary McAlpin, coastal zone management. The item you have before you is to obtain approval for the permit application. The existing ten -year permit had a one -year extension, and that extension will expire in July of this year. We need a permit so that we can continue to perform tidal flushing, maintenance dredging of the estuary, and also open the estuary in case we get a trop- -- a storm event and it closes. We need a permit to re -open it at that point in time. This permit application is for the cut, and the dredging is exactly the same as the previous permit. The -- where we placed the sand on the beach has changed because the dune elevations has changed, but the cut has -- and the cross - sections are exactly the same. We did that so that -- so that we could minimize the controversy associated with this permit. It went through the Clam Bay Advisory Committee permit Page 60 a February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessiorl, Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) A Pa%e 3 of 25 lkjyg 12009 subcommittee and passed 3 -0. It went through the Clam Bay Advisory Committee main committee, and the permit was approved 7 -2 on 3/19, and the Coastal Advisory Committee recommended unanimously for approval of this permit application. So we are looking at the permit application. The permit will take approximately nine months to get, and we are also seeking approval that -- to go forward with another one -year extension on the existing permit application. One -year extension on the permit application so that we can be covered until this new permit application is processed and granted by DEP and the Corps. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have speakers? MS. FILSON: We have six speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you please call our speakers. MS. FILSON: Marcia Cravens is the first speaker. She'll be followed by Rich Yovanovich. MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this most important issue for many of us who are environmental advocates and who love this outstanding natural resource area called the Clam Pass Natural Resource Protection Area. The first thing I'd like to address is a petition drive that the Mangrove Action Group, of which I am the president, has been (sic) conducted and which we have collected over 2,000 signatures of other environmentally minded people who do object to all of these projects that are targeting Clam Bay. If you would like to see all 2,074 signatures, I can certainly provide them to you. But right now I just have a letter and an example of the petition itself. In addressing the dredging permit, I just want to say that this permit application is not exactly what is currently in place. All these Page 61 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board egular Wssioa, Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) A / Page 4 of 25 16 l i May 26, 2009 little blue marks, these are places where it differs. Primarily, one of the big places where it differs is in the depth of the dredge cutting full area, which is -- the cuts in number four are in Clam Pass itself. Yes, it's true that that permit was modified to allow a dredging design that would widen Clam Pass as a trial, but that modification specifically stated that it would not change the depth, that it would be required to remain at the negative four MGD- -- 4 -foot MGVD. There's some other things that are wrong with this. It doesn't describe that it's in a NRPA, it doesn't describe that it affects wetlands, it doesn't describe that it affects seagrasses, and I won't go on from there. Another consideration is that all of this is within an undeveloped coastal barrier resource area in Cobra as Florida 64P. That is the outline of the OPA, otherwise protected area. That needs to be a consideration as you go forward with anything that occurs that might alter anything within this protected area. I also would like to read to you something from the South Florida Water Management District, Chapter 40E, surface water management, rules adopted. Conservation easement means a rider interest in property pursuant to 704.06, Florida Statute, which is appropriate to retain in land or water areas predominantly in our natural, scenic, open, agricultural, or wooded condition. Retaining such areas is suitable habitat for fish, plants or wildlife. Retaining the structural integrity or physical appearance of sites or properties of historic architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance are maintaining existing land uses which prohibits any or all of the following. And it goes on to talk about construction of various things, destruction of trees, excavation dredging, surface use except purposes that the permit is done. I had a lot more that I could say. But can I just add one thing? Page 62 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay ServiclDiylsion le % Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) /vim s A'e5of25 .. t r May 26, 2009 Chairman Fiala, there was an email from you to a Jeanne Findlater, a resident of Pelican Bay, whereby she had asked for the Clam Bay issues to be moved from consent agenda to the regular agenda. You responded to her and indicated that all of the stuff would be discussed in the afternoon after one p.m. That is why none of us were here for that first issue of I OA. And I'd like to beg your consideration that you have not heard from a lot of people on that particular item because of the email that was widely circulated, and we'd like to ask for reconsideration of it at a later date, either later this after- -- you know, later now as the email had indicated. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. I was wrong in that, and we can hear the next item, the IOC, after -- after one. I don't know when it will be, but it will be after -- after -- THE AUDIENCE: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No? No. Everybody wants to hear it now. They're all here, so -- MS. CRAVENS: Well, I don't know that we might be needing to ask for a reconsideration of this because, as I said, this was a widely- circulated email. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I don't remember saying one o'clock, but I'm sure I must have. MS. CRAVENS: You did indicate there was a one o'clock time - certain in your email, but you did not indicate that there was potential for this to be moved into a morning item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Chairman's discretion. I don't know what to say. Chairman's discretion. It's on the agenda. It's not notified as a time - certain. The agenda's widely circulated. As far as reconsideration goes, the five of you can make that motion. It's up to you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would it hurt any -- if I've made an error to -- you know, in stating that to one person -- and I'm sorry that I did. Page 63 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re H lar Se&sior� Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page 6 of 25 1 6 y May 26, 2009 I didn't even realize that I did that. Because there were so many emails coming in at the time that I was answering, and there were time- certains, and so -- but on different items, and I didn't realize I had done that. Will that hurt this item at all or no? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't think so, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Okay. And -- MR. OCHS: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: Ms. Ramsey has some -- I believe some additional information that might help clarify this email question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. MS. RAMSEY: I believe that the situation was actually for the last board meeting. The email that you sent out was for the last board meeting. We didn't bring it on the last board meeting. We moved it to this board meeting. There was a confusion that we thought it was going to be on the last one, and your email was referencing to the board meeting prior, not this one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thanks. Okay, phew. All right. Thank you very much. Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich. He'll be followed by Jim Hoppensteadt. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Phew. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation. As the Pelican Bay Foundation has said in the past, the concern with the dredging application itself is verifying that, in fact, the application is exactly like the existing permit. The foundation also, as you all know, is the declar- -- has become the declarant under the quitclaim deed and declaration of covenants and restrictions applicable to this area of Collier County. And as the Page 64 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Divis' B rd Jgul rl r ess� ' Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) G 44 Page 7 of 25 May 26, 2009 declarant, they're responsible for making sure that the health of the estuary and the conservation area is maintained. We had been requesting the ability to review the permit application under the quitclaim deed requirements that it come first to the foundation before any formal action is taken. That didn't happen; however, we did receive a letter recently requesting our, quote, endorsement of the permit. We sent a letter to Mr. McAlpin explaining why we couldn't endorse a permit with such little time to actually review the materials; however, we did say that -- to go ahead and submit it to the agencies and that the foundation would review the permit itself, the application for itself, to make sure that it is exactly the same as what was previously approved, that the health of the estuary will, in fact, be benefited by the application, that the dredging is for tidal flushing and not for navigation issues, that the foundation's property near where the dredging will occur will, in fact, be -- won't be negatively impacted by this dredging. And the foundation will be engaging experts to review all the materials and providing the comments to the staff if necessary, if it's -- if there are issues that need to be raised. We would -- we would like the board to make it very clear that although there is a budget item that shows that dredging could occur every three years, we understand that to be for budgeting purposes but not an indication that dredging will happen on a routine basis. We understand that this is a dredging application, that the dredging will, in fact, occur when the science says dredging needs to occur for tidal flushing and for the health of the mangroves. That's a big concern for the residents of Pelican Bay and the foundation in particular, so we would -- we would like that clarified because there's -- there's information out there that honestly could be interpreted to mean this would be happening every three years as a routine because that's what it's being budgeted for. We just want to Page 65 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Se ior� Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) / SPAM Page 8 of 25 16A , IL' 4 ay 26, 2009 make sure that it is really a tidal flushing issue and that's just a budget mechanism and not an actually mandate to dredge every three years. And again, we appreciate the effort or receiving the letter from Gary, and we've -- we are trying to express our concerns up front as we have all along, and we hope the commission will hear those concerns and ask staff to clarify the navigation dredging issue and that it is not a navigation dredge, it is a tidal flushing dredge. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Jim Hoppensteadt. He'll be followed by Brad Cornell. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, Commissioners. Jim Hoppensteadt. The only thing I would add to Mr. Yovanovich's statements are -- and this is consistent with a comment that I'll make on l OK, again, is the indication that TDC funds are indicated to be used for this, which is for beach renourishment. The schedule of dredging does show up on the TDC schedule on a reoccurring basis. That's a concern to us that is, in fact, not being done for tidal flushing but for beach renourishment. And we are concerned, as Mr. Yovanovich indicated, that recurring scheduled dredging could have a detrimental effect. MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Kathy Worley. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, again. I'm Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this dredge portion of the Clam Bay set of issues. I want to emphasize that we consider dredging must be limited to maintenance for ecologically necessary tidal flushing for the estuarine mangrove system only. Dredging is not appropriate for navigational purposes, as this is the only natural shallow estuarine back bay system in the county. That's one of the reasons it's a natural resource Page 66 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board ReguSession Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 77 Page 9 of 25 16 I v4 ay 26, 2009 protection area. So that's an important point to keep in mind when considering how we're going to maintain this system. Dredging for navigation is counter to that and a conflict. I'd like to offer what might be a useful suggestion relative to this dredge permit, and that is to suggest what I believe the technical experts on the committee had recommended, which was, rather than a new ten -year permit be pursued now, rather consider extending the permit that exists and finish the ecological studies necessary to support a new ten -year permit so that we have all the data and substantiation for a new permit rather than jump into that without all of that completed. I would strongly recommend your consideration of that option. It would just be an extension as you've already had one year for the present permit. Do that for another period of time until we can complete these ecological studies necessary for a new permit. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Kathy Worley. She'll be followed by Jeanne Findlater. MS. WORLEY: Hi. I did send you all an email, but you probably didn't get it because it was sent Memorial Day, but I do have copies of the letter for your perusal. There's one for staff. I'm just going to briefly talk about a few things that are within the letter. And as far as the dredging permit application, the following that I'm going to say is a minority opinion as written by one of the two technical experts that served on the Clam Bay Committee, both who voted no on this -- on approving this permit application. And while I appreciate the fact that many of the suggestions made by the Clam Bay Subcommittee were incorporated into this version of the permit, I still have some major concerns. And first is dealing with the dredge cut specifications. According to the reports which were done by Clam Pass restoration, plan monitoring report number eight and Clam Bay Page 67 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Bpard egu r Se ion Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 1 A 7 Page 10 of 25 May 26, 2009 restoration and management eighth annual report that were prepared by county consultants, Humiston, Moore -- Humiston and Moore and Turrell and Associates respectively -- according to these reports, the dredge and depth width in 2007 caused the pass to fill in faster than the smaller cut specifications, which were done in 2002. And I really would like to see comparisons between these two dredging events and the subsequent inlet response to -- and beach erosion and how the beach profiles have developed over time in order to make an informed decision regarding the optimum dredge cut specifications, particularly at the pass. And one option that Brad mentioned briefly before me was that it hasn't been presented to you as an option, is that -- but it would allow for dredging in case of a storm closure or while allowing time -- while allowing the time necessary to gather the data to design a whole management plan, and that's to apply for an extension. Now, Gary did indicate he was applying for an extension to cover the lapse in time between this and when a permit could possibly be approved, but you could also get an ext- -- a couple -- be more than one year, but you could get a couple extensions so that you would have the time to perform biological, ecological, and physical studies so that you can have a more - informed approach to design to keep the pass open for ecological concerns. I'm concerned we're putting the cart before the horse, okay? We'll be able to make more informed decisions about long -term pass maintenance if we study the whole system first rather than jumping into a ten -year permit. And I guess I'll finish up. But I respectfully ask you to take this option until a management plan has been adopted, and it's premature to be making decisions such as initiating a ten -year plan -- I believe it's more viable and sensible to be -- a sensible plan at this stage to get another extension and to do all the studies. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. r February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division 16 Board eg Zessi I' ; ."z Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page 11 of 25 May 26, 2009 MS. WORLEY: So that you have time to investigate. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeanne Findlater. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jeanne, I am so sorry about that email. MS. FINDLATEN: No, please, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I never expected us to be this far ahead. MS. FINDLATEN: It all worked out fine. It's fine. And I thank you all for this opportunity. I love the ten -year plan, the proposed ten -year plan, at least the part that I was interested in, and I'm here to speak about dredging. First I'll introduce myself. The name is Jeanne Findlater, and I'm a 30 -year resident of Collier County, the last seven years in Pelican Bay, where I have the privilege, along with about 7,800 other owners, of enjoying that magnificent natural resource. I'm extremely concerned about the provisions for dredging, and I really applaud the compromises that were just introduced by the last two speakers. We -- it's so frightening to see that 450,000, nearly a half - million dollars, is proposed being set aside to dredge every three years when we don't know any of the effects on that fragile ecosystem that now supports millions of marine creatures and thousands of birds. Dredging at that level of expense is far more than has ever been done before for tidal flushing. So it is ominous because it suggests that dredging would be done for marine purposes, and we have no knowledge of what that effect would be on that estuary or that nesting place. I beg you to please consider that we do serious ecological studies first. There have been no serious ones done of that nature on that level since Westinghouse first put this together, and yet we are talking about going forward with formidable, possible formidable consequences. An item missing from the ten -year plan that disturbed is no Page 69 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division �{ar egu s ' r S orb 00' 7' Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 1 ///"�jj Page 12 of 25 May 26, 2009 money has been set aside to provide for monitoring of assuredly devastating effects of dredging at the level that the plan suggests could take place. I know there's a big impetus from the neighboring community. I heard at some of the subcommittee meetings that one woman, in fact, I think in this very room, stood up and said, my community stinks. And I understand that can happen when your community is built upon a mangrove swamp. But I also say that that community has never addressed surface runoff the way Pelican Bay has so successfully. They don't have bubblers in their canals. Probably that community couldn't exist if it were started today. But to say in their hope -- and I understand how passionately they must feel -- that by dredging the outer Clam Bay and the other water systems that that could somehow solve that problem is possibly naive. Thank you. I urge a study, please. Thank you sincerely. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It's pretty clear in our executive summary in a couple of places is the existing ten -year permit that provides for tidal flushing, maintenance dredging of Clam Pass, has expired and a one -year extension has been granted. In the past have we done tidal flushing or tidal dredging for -- because of the fact of the Clam Pass has been closed up? And how many times in the past ten years have we did any dredging in case it has -- MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr -- Commissioner Halas. In the past -- with the past ten -year permit, we have performed three tidal flushing events. In April of 1999 we performed one. The first original tidal flushing event, 32,000 cubic yards of material were Page 70 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Ba y n r Services Divis d 7 Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Oa 'ge 13 of 25 May 26, 2009 removed. The dredge cut was minus 5.5, the width cut was 30, and the permit width was 80. In January, 2002, the permit width was 80, the width of the cut was 40, the dredge depth was 5.5, and we removed 12,000 cubic yards. In April of 2007, the permit width was 80, the actual cut width was 80, the dredge depth was 5.5, and we removed 21,000 cubic yards. So we have dredged this for, three times, for flushing and only tidal flushing on this past ten -year permit. The way the permitting system works is we make an application to DEP, and the application we will make will be exactly the same as the application that is in there right now for an 80- foot -wide cut at the mouth of the pass and going down to 5.5. That's not to say that when we get ready to do a dredging event because of tidal flushing needs that it will be that. We have to then go back to the Department of Environmental Protection, we have to apply for a permit, a notice to proceed. We provide them all the engineering, we provide them all the documentation, and then they issue us a notice to proceed based on the permit that was granted. So we anticipate doing exactly the same thing. We are not looking for this to be for navigational dredging. We are looking for this to continue to be tidal -- maintenance dredging, permit flushing. That's exactly what we're looking to do here. The Environmental Services Board of Collier County has -- has issued a letter of consistency with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code on this, so they are saying that this permit application is consistent with both the LDC and the Growth Management Plan. The other thing that we have told the group here is that this is only for tidal flushing. It is not for maintenance dredging whatsoever. And tidal flush will control. We are not looking to -- to -- we look -- Page 71 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular es ' Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 1 Page 14 of 25 6 12 7 May 26, 2009 we take the sand out of here that is beach - quality sand and we place it on the down -drift beaches. But we will only initiate a dredging event when the science tells us that tidal flushing is required. We use TDC funds to do this because, again, this is beach - quality sand and we re- nourished Clam Pass Beach Park, so it's a win -win situation. We dredge the estuary for tidal flushing to make it healthy, and we use that sand to re- nourish the beaches. The reference to doing this every three years, well, we have in the last ten years, we've done it every -- we've done it three times. What we try to do is pull together a ten -year plan for the use and allocation of TDC funds only for budgeting, and we look to do this only for a budgeting cycle and so that we know whether we have enough money for the tidal -- for the entire fund allocation. So just because we have allocated it on a three -year cycle doesn't necessarily mean that that's when that dredging event will happen. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. A follow -up question. It was stated by one of the speakers that we're allocating $450,000 for this possible dredging. Has that been the same amount that we've -- it's cost us in the past? MR. McALPIN: Yes, it has. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. McALPIN: In the last -- in the last dredging event, it was 450,000, and so I just reallocated that on a three -year cycle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Why is there such opposition to this? Has there -- was there opposition to this when we first pulled the permit ten years ago? MR. McALPIN: I can't comment on that. I know that there hasn't been opposition in the past dredging event when we went and made our application for tidal flushing dredging. I believe that the opposition has come up since the Clam -- the Pelican Bay community has been awarded the -- on the quitclaim deed, the restrictions, the covenant's restrictions, and I believe that they want to look into this Page 72 Februpry 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services ivi n B and ulaAss7 ion Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page, 15 of 25 May 26, 2009 and make sure that we are doing the right thing in terms of tidal flushing dredging. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So from what I read on our executive summary, unless you -- unless staff hasn't been upfront with us, there is really no Trojan horse on this. MR. McALPIN: None whatsoever. The permitting agencies want to see a long permit life that -- because they don't have to go back and -- permitting process is very expensive and very time - consuming. That's why they look for a ten -year permit. The question was, why don't you get a one -year -- another one -year extension and get this resolved, but we don't know if the DEP will give us a one -year extension. What they want to see happening is they want to see their permanent -- the application for a permanent permit to be put in there, which will help us move forward with the one -year extension. Their counsel to us is, go for another ten -year extension, and that's what we're looking to do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the final question is, is this also part of the Corps of Engineers' permit that we have, that we have MR. McALPIN: We have to get an extension from FDEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we've gotten the one -year extension? MR. McALPIN: We have gotten a one -year extension. If the board directs us to do that, we'll get another permit, one -year -- we'll apply for another one -year permit extension. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's that cost run us? MR. McALPIN: That is usually nominal. And they usually do not ask for information; however, we've been told that they're going to scrutinize it at this point in time after the initial first step, Commissioner. Page 73 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services ivi n Bpard itegul essi n ,Page -16 o by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 6 ; Page 16 of 25 May 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do we have any -- any studies in the past on what we've done in the past as far as dredging and the water quality back there? MR. McALPIN: No. We don't have any studies relative to dredging and water quality, how they've been interrelated. We have -- we have dredged typically when the tidal flushing has not reached the same levels that it has in the past, and that's typically what has been done, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- how much is being allocated from TDC funds for this permit? MR. McALPIN: For the permit -- we've applied $25,000 for this permit application using TDC funds, and that has been approved previously. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The executive summary says, the item will be presented to the TDC for funding approval prior to proceeding. MR. McALPIN: This has been approved by the TDC. I believe I say here that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You've answered that question. Are you anticipating a lot of public input for this permit? Would that $25,000 cover extra scrutiny? MR. McALPIN: If it -- I don't expect that we will apply experts on our end. If it doesn't cover our out -of- pocket costs, then we will come back to the board and ask for additional money through an addendum to the work order. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about if it's challenged? MR. McALPIN: If it's challenged, we'll go through the challenge process. We believe that -- you know, we have -- we have -- we'll go through the challenge process. And if we need additional funds, we'll Page 74 x , February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Di i6 Re ar S sio� J a. Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Pdq$ 17 of 25 May 26, 2009 ask for additional funding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess my concern is, if it is challenged, isn't it better to try to work with all the parties so you don't have a challenge? And from what I hear is, don't trust government. It's not anything new, not in this particular issue, is -- so how can we work together so you're successful in this permit? MR. McALPIN: We believe we have worked with all the parties. Again, this has been approved by the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, we went through a complete vetting process by the subcommittee of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, by the main committee of the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, by the Coastal Advisory Committee. So we've worked and vetted this. There's some people out there who are -- have some concerns. They are the minority opinion at this point in time, but we have clearly vetted this process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a suggestion to extend the existing permit, whether it be expired or not. Is that an option that you can ask DEP is to work under that permit and then apply for a ten -year management -- or a ten -year permit once the management plan has been or -- let me try to clarify. Apply for the existing permit or the expired permit, and if that cannot be done, apply for what you're asking us here to do today. Would you -- could you accept that and -- if the Board of County Commissioners makes a motion to that effect? MR. McALPIN: I'm not sure I quite understand. What we are asking you to do today is to approve the application for a new ten -year and also grant us a one -year extension to the existing permit. DEP has come back to us, and they do not like one -year extensions. They want to see you working towards the main permit, the main -- for the next period of time. That's their preferred approach moving forward. So we're trying to work with the agencies, the permitting agencies, which will allow us to do that. Page 75 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Servic Diyyy��. ion ion Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) L Page 18 of 25 v 6,W May 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But the suggestion was, apply for the one -year extension. Get the management plan for the whole estuarine system, and then apply for the ten -year permit. And all I'm suggesting is, if the DEP says no, we're not going to give you a one -year extension, we want you to -- we want you to do a longer one like you're suggesting -- and my question is, if the board makes that a part of the motion, try to do the two step but also so you don't have to come back, if they don't want the two step, is just do the ten -year permit. Can you accept that? MR. McALPIN: Yes. I will accept any direction the board gives US. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I would -- I mean, boy, to have this challenged, this permit to be challenged, only to work for the common good, from what I'm understanding, is the flushing for this estuarine system, that would be devastating if it closed up, and then everybody loses. MR. McALPIN: That's why we have diligently been working this permit application for an extended period of time, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't doubt that, but I just hear that I don't trust government. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's a way to solve that. And what can you put into this approval process that will give people comfort that you're only going to do it when it has been determined it is absolutely necessary under the terms of the permit and, furthermore, that there will be -- it would be vetted in the public whenever you get ready to do the dredging; is that not correct? MR. McALPIN: We have stated that in the permit application. We have said that the permit -- the applic- -- the primary function of this permit is for tidal flushing, the primary goal is for tidal flushing, and a side benefit of this is for beach renourishment. That's clearly been stated in the draft permit application that is out there ready to be Page 76 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Divisioffi Re�ulassio� r '4 Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page 19 of 25 May 26, 2009 submitted, Commissioner. I don't know how we could be clearer than that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have that with you? MR. McALPIN: I do not have the permit with me, the permit application with me. We can get it very quickly though. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be very interested in seeing the language, and I think a lot of the people in the audience would be interested in seeing the language. So it is the primary point of contention. Let's remove the point of contention by demonstrating that the permit specifically provides that language. And the best way to do that is to show people a copy of the permit. MR. McALPIN: Be happy to do that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to wait to vote on this until we see that permit? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can do it two ways. We can approve it contingent upon that language actually being in the permit, or we can table it and wait until Gary can show it to the public and demonstrate that it is in there. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, it is in the public. It's on our website, so -- it's on the coastal zone management website. If you want to, we could pull that up and we could -- or I could get copies of it, hard copies of it and bring it here. However you want to do it. It is -- it is available to the entire public because it's on our website. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it's on our web, you could just pull it up on the computer and put it on the visualizer. MR. McALPIN: It's going to take a little bit of time to do that, if you want to move on to the next item, we -- however you want to do, Commissioners. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if you want to move on to the next item and I can ask Mr. Sheffield to work to pull that up and identify it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I think we'll do that. But I have a Page 77 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division B rdJJJtttegul 1247 r S Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) /� Page 20 of 25 v May 26, 2009 question on this item, if I may. MR. McALPIN: Okay. And Mr. Carroll would like to make a statement, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. My question was, I was just wondering, you said that you've done three tidal flushing events; is that what you told us? MR. McALPIN: Dredging events, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Dredging events? MR. McALPIN: We have dredged the tidal flushing three times. CHAIRMAN FIALA: In the last ten years? MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: In those three times that you did any of this tidal flushing dredging, did -- has there been any harm or has there been any damage or any repercussions from it at all? MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am. It's all been positive. We've kept the estuary open. It has been -- we've used it in -- for -- it's maintained the health of that, it's improved the reach estuary, so there's been absolutely no harm whatsoever over the past three events over the past ten years. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, that's a good record, if you ask me. Okay. We're going to wait until you can pull this up. Do you think you can do that right away, or do you need a few minutes? MR. McALPIN: If you'll let me, I'll come over there and pull it up while Jim Carroll is speaking. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. CARROLL: I was on the services division when we got the ten -year permit, which was about 12 years ago. That was a great day when we got that permit because we had been experiencing storms closing the pass and having a great deal of difficulty getting short -term permits. When we got the 10 -year permit, we then had the opportunity to face up to a very difficult problem we were having. I'm sure you've Page 78 ' 'February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Divisio Bo d Re ular essionk 7 { Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) Page 21 of 25 May 26, 2009 heard of the die -off we had in the northwest corner. It took us about four years of work to really solve that problem and really develop the whole flushing principal that we now use. Kathy Worley was part of that team as we worked at developing that flushing. The whole flushing idea evolved then, and the whole situation then became very positive. A statement was just made and very true; we've had ten, 12 years of excellent results in the mangrove forest. I believe we ought to go right ahead and approve this. I understand the concerns. We're not going to dredge this thing every three years. We're going to dredge it when it needs to be dredged, and that can be determined by observing up through the flushing channels whether the whole situation is deteriorating. And if it deteriorates, then we can anticipate that we need to dredge and then we dredge. There's been some controversy about whether it should be 80 feet wide or 40 feet wide, that kind of thing. What happens is, when you get ready to do this, when you feel like you have to dredge, whether it's a gradual thing because of the flushing or if it's a storm which was very sudden, when you have to do that, you have to get another permit, and then you face up to details about the size of it. I don't really think we need to do any more. We know how to do this. We need that permit, I believe, to take care of things, maybe following Commissioner Coyle's comment that we -- you know, we confirm that this will be the case by putting it into the writeup, and we can do that. But I just feel like we need the permit. We've had good experience with it. We're ready to go. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Carroll. You know, as you have spoken and according to my, you know, the answers to my questions before, if everything has remained healthy because of this dredging, and if we've been able to keep that area flushed so that these mangroves have come back to life, I have a problem understanding what the opposition is for it. I mean -- Page 79 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Divis' 16d gul essiA R i Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) ar 7 Page 22 of 25 May 26, 2009 MR. CARROLL: I totally agree. I think there's been some concern expressed about the fact that we're doing this in order to provide sand for the park there. That's just not so. That's not the reason you dredge. When you dredge you've got some sand, and if it's beach quality, sure, we ought to put it on the beach, but that's not the reason we want to do this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the after - effect of the dredging though. MR. CARROLL: That's right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, the point is, you're dredging in order to keep this system healthy, to keep it alive, to keep everything flushed, and I just don't understand the opposition to it. MR. CARROLL: I don't either. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You get some sand from it, you can use it on the beach. That isn't the reason you do it. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, what happens is in the permit application, they ask you a series of questions. MR.00HS: Gary? MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, again, Gary McAlpin. They ask you a series of questions in the permit application, and the first one dealt -- the first four or so dealt with locations. Item number five, the first item that comes up, describe in general terms the proposed activities including any phasing. The proposed project consists of dredging a portion of Clam Pass to aid in flushing and improving environmental resources. Dredging activity will be consistent with the previous authorization to station 1,800. The total linear feet is approximately 1,800. Beach - compatible sand will be used along Collier County Clam Pass Beach Park located within the Clam Pass. Describe the purpose, Item 7. The dredging of Clam Pass has been showed to aid in flushing of Clam Bay in the interior channel t February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Djyisio� Bo'd Radar Ses�on a Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 1 6L) H Page 23 of 25 7 May 26, 2009 channels (sic) to improve environmental resources. Beach compatible material dredged from the maintenance of Clam Pass will be placed on the beach. Have you obtained approval -- okay. I mean, and throughout this whole thing when they talk about the purpose, we continue to go through it and identify it's for tidal flushing and improvement of the tidal resources and that the sand will be placed on previous downstream beaches. So I think we're consistent with what we have done in the past, Commissioners. I think we are consistent with the direction that we've been given through these advisory committees. And I don't know how we can be clearer than this. The other thing you have to remember is that just because we make a permit application, the DEP and the Corps of Engineers are going to scrutinize this, and they may come back, and this permitting process will take nine months, maybe a year, and they're going to ask for additional information. So what we're trying to do is start the process, you know. Make the permitting application and start the process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe we can cut to the chase. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Plain language is very, very important to all of us, okay? So under Item 5, why don't we say that the proposed dredging is to be performed only when the science indicates that it is necessary for the purpose of providing flushing and improving environmental resources. Okay? That removes the uncertainty that exists between this statement, this fairly general statement, and your budget, which says you've got it budgeted every year. So if you're clearly stating that it's only going to be accomplished when the science indicates that it needs to be done, then that should Page 81 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division ar eg ar Spmion A 7 Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) /// Page 24 of 25 jjj,,, v May 26, 2009 remove any objections from anybody who has a suspicion that you're really trying to sneak in a dredging project every year. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we have no problem with that whatsoever. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I think -- does that -- okay. I see Mr. Hoppensteadt nodding his head affirmatively. That seems to satisfy his objections and concerns. So we've got it solved, right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll make a motion we approve it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second it with those -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: With the changes? COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- changes just explained. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas, did you want to say something, or was that it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Okay. Everyone understand the motion on the floor? Yes, Mr. Ochs. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're asking for two authorizations. One is to proceed with the tidal flushing permit, and also Mr. McAlpin asked for authorization to apply for an additional one -year extension while we go through this application process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is the motion, yep. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clarifying that. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion, Commissioners? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 82 February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Divisipn BgArd Rjgul2esspn 7 Submitted by Marcia Cravens (Part II of II) 1 /vim C A Page 25 of 25 May 26, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That is a 5 -0. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next one's going to take a while. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You're right about that. Maybe -- shall we -- oh, and the one after that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got a lot of people who've been waiting here all morning. I'd be willing to take a late lunch in order to proceed with it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it's okay with the other commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I do -- okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have a suggestion that might shorten it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Okay, very good. Item #I OC RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO INSTALL NAVIGATIONAL MARKERS IN OUTER CLAM BAY FOR USACE PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION - MOTION TO TABLE ITEM UNTIL AFTER LUNCH BREAK — CONSENSUS; Page 83 W 0 Y L_ N C: ca @ c m0 y c >, o � N c >_ o D @ N N N U N (1)a- T @ c° m a n c @ _U N O d N O N L N O O Q 7 � CL QS E co O O U a � N O V% O T m m E L @ O C) 'C N O C O — N @ N ~ @ @ m D E N � LL U 161ZQ7 1612 A 7 r4 ME a� @ C m Y c > o � N c >_ o ❑ m N C N QJ U N > N O d T m D] @ a d C @ _U : N O d N N Qj N O O O' 7 N d E �2S E O O j U-0 7 O V% O T d @ 0] 01 E O @ O U O N 2 O - N @ N ~ N @ 07 i E (u @ L.L C) Y a � @ C m Y c > O_ -0 N C >_ O N � N N U_ N > N N a. U N T m c° a m a c � N O O E- N d E N O j U -a � N U O a. m 07 E 'C ca O U c N O C O — N m N ~ (6 (6 m E N U- U N w ui Y L a W c 0 C m y C 0 O_ .O N C >_ O 0 m � c U O _ N m CCU a c � N 0 o EL Z3 a�i d E� E N O j U a � O U) O tea` m CD E .c � o U c N O CD O — N . N a N ~ co mm i E N � LL U 0 Y a (D i c 0 O o � mY c ) O -0 � c o @ N c U N N d � N T � � a m Q C � C N N O O Q N d E O j U a 9 N _ U) o tea` m 0) E .C- � o U c N O 0 O — N (O N ~ co (0 m E E N — LL U L_ a � C 0 C m Y C >� O 9 N C >_ O N C U N U N �a m c° a m a c D co U_ 7 N O d N N Qj .L. N O O O 7 N d EO O j U-0 L N 7 U) O tea` m a� E � o U 'c N O C O — N Co N ~ c @ m 7 E N — LL U 16I,G A 7 L_ a o c0 c 000 y C > o_ -0 N c >_ O D � N C U N 'Z N a� m mn c � m U � N O a_ N N Qj .L 0 O O fl 7 _oa E E m U a 0 m 7 N U) o tea` m rn E � o c 'c 0 N 2 O — N c0 N ~ c c0 m E 10 ii U 4 CD I w 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 I 1 I p 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 °tf -------- - - - - - - - - a - - - - - - -' sir- --- 1--------- --------- �-------- O I I I CD E 1 1 /fir 1 1 1 �E I 1 �Y I 1 I 7 I 1 C 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 W 1 1 1 I 1 I - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - J - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - a CL I 1 1 1 1 1 Q% C 1 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 I N I 1 1 1 I 1 E i ; ; suoi43a,8 ssoao, uaniagilinb3 7 1 1 I 1 I iIp w 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 1 1 I 1 1 CD y I 1 1 1 1 I o T 1 1 1 I 1 I on 1 I 1 I 1 I c---_" --1- --- ---- --- ---- o------ -- -i------- - L -------- l ---- - --- a rq (u 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD U y I 1 1 1 I 1 N d 1 1 1 1 1 1 ma 1 1 1 1 1 I 0 •� CD • 1 1 1 1 I 1 d N 1 1 1 1 1 I -W U L--- ---- -I - -- --- I - -- --- -----I - - - -- I 1 o N o Nd 1 I 1 1 1 1 � I 1 I 1 1 1 E I 1 1 1 I 1 C N 1 I I 1 I 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 I 1 7 V 1 1 1 1 1 I � w o 1 1 I 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 m rn 1 1 1 1 I 1 O p 1 1 1 1 1 1 T- - - - --- l - --- l --------- -- - - - - - - - r -------- T -------- 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 N Ip 1 1 1 I I 1 N N H I 1 1 1 1 1 Z m o • 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I m m rn I I 1 I 1 1 N- _� - - - - -- - - --- -- y------ ---1--------- r--------�---- - - -- a @ 1 1 I I 1 1 N li U d 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cc I I 1 I i 1 ,�^ 1 I I 1 1 I v+ I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I F----- --- ---- •-- ------ ---1------------------- -------- O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 � O -°r i CD C) Q ° ° ° ° o t- _ a O a O a DasIw `A41001an wnwixew -2 C� 0 m y c _O 9 N � >_ O N C N N U N Z � as U) o T m m a m Q c � o � w N 0 o fl- E � o � U � � O 7 � O T � O m m E � O U 'c N O 23 O — N (9 N ~ co (6 m LL U 10 I G Al N U N C C C W L11 C O N E 7 2 Y L a c � C O N D] Y c >, O 1] ti c >_ O N C N O U N U d C/) N T N (6 m Q C � O O d N O � w N O O 2- 7 N d os E O O j U a � N C/) O T � m n cm E C O O U c N O O — N N "O N ~ O N D7 7 L N N — L U 0 Y L a N c @ c O 07 Y C O_ -0 N C >_ O 0 @ N � O N U N N d U) O (U @ CO Q c @ U N O d N O Q7 N O O E- 3 N d o6 E N O O j U a 9 O 7 CO O T d @ m O) E @ O U 'c N O r O — N @ N ~ @ 0] :3 E 4 @ LL U 16 12 ai 0. 0 cr, 0 —1 trr U- d '4 cli z 0 L h F'4 0 co cli 4-� 10 E L L (DL -A�' 16I 2 q) 04 v4 LI; (MIIW 01 aniletai laaj) ^t is. ,ll ti �7 rf 1 O La 41 N O O C C w N O O -O w 6 m Y c >, O_ n N C >_ O 0 m N C N N U N Ua m m n c m N O d N N Qj O O Q 7 N d ozs E N O j U a 7 N Cn O T d 0] O1 E U 'c N O C O — N N N ~ (E m 7 � m L U 16 T2 A-/ N w 0 `o 0 c 0 E D w n. c 0 Y s c @ c CO (D c >, O 9 .N C > O ❑ m N � N N U N U d � N CO @ m cmn c U � N O d N N Qj O 0 O 7 Nd o6 E N O j U -O � N 7 U) O T d 0] tm E i U c N O 2 N @ "O N N ~ O �@� @ 0] O O Co CY � U d I� i Y l v LSD 8 q R V T O 6 O d O (1DJJ) AJN`d l -ItHall LL W c w 0 0 20 o6 1= 0 N E 7 w d c O N E 7 L_ "O O c C) Y c 0 0-0 N c > o D m N 0 N U N N n U T � @ m a n c U � a° cn w 0 cn o n 5 EaS E o o U O L N Cn O T (6 l7] CY) E � O U c N O C O N N (6 m 7 (E N D O ii<)a 1612 A7 O 00 O Ln 00 O Ln 00 N N li 1� O O (13) 3JNVIJ Sall Or- w OW 2 LL. O Z TTO 1Q �V Do O—i NW V Q V w w J N N ClA q�p 'a N N N N 4J UO w Oo UD O I c� (B cB fB (n Q� Q� Q� Q� ��<<<< oorn0orn0-1 Ql 0 0 0 0 0 rl ci N N N N ® 3 1612 A7 O 00 O Ln 00 O Ln 00 N N li 1� O O (13) 3JNVIJ Sall Or- w OW 2 LL. O Z TTO 1Q �V Do O—i NW V Q V w w J C LU w 0 0 0 20 c6 c 0 w n C_- 0 E 2 Y L_ a U � C � C m Y o � N c :>_ o D � N C N N U N O d N 0 V m n co J0 J .a o p. N O N Ww N o '^ c la- c,5 E N N O � U -O D N W� O T a Q cu E .- CO m U c o T o— N m � 'n N ~ � O (O m � 7 9 � 0 — m � U n p p 4 D a SOH o ON ON )OOZ OOZ .V co 4 O O N 1 N' O N _ r I O O N O O O N r IR IR o a G G O Q `i " sjnOH � a N N N C_ O cm w O O O c a N x w 0 N E \14 L a m c o U CO y o � N C > O 0 N N C N N U N N a- U O <0 O m m (6 U � N O d N t N 0 o� 05 E� O j U -a L) U) o m � E � o U c N O C O N N N � CU 00 (6 m r N 9mCY (hU� �.11.! ^0^' Q 0 O 0 N N N O a) d t1A t]A Cl) Cn a) (1) Q Q m c 0 y(�,//�� liiJ 4) J v p 0° 0 0 0 N N { y M W M Waa \ a Z ,w W 12 W IL To r O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N 1:4 O sanOH O Z O Z Os a� F- 3: O V) tic Cif 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N 1:4 O O i 4- N V° o J W N N DC a) 0 rn rn , N W O 0 0 a E w L_ D O c O m c O N 7] Y C 0 O_ 1] N O >_ O N � N N U N N p. � Q7 m m m Q C � m N O p N O � O O Q 7 Pa oa E o o � L O 7 Cn O m m O) E m o U .� N O C O — N m N ~ co mm O E -O m ii U 11 f- c W 0 0 c6 0 W d c 0 E .. L_ i C 0 C m Y o o � N c o o N C al � U N U d 0 N n3 m Q U a) o d N o � L N 0 0 0- a(D i d o6 EN o J -Q 9 � 7 U) o m � E 'c � o U 'c N O O — N N N T O ZMo (6 M N 7 9 @ � o u.Ua 2 A7 V 1N3W93S O10 8 A31NO3S o 0 1N3YV935 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 d M N O O c0 0 � M N – O c0 1n 't M N r O (,IJ) VMV N01103S SSO80 (,i3) V38V N0UO3S SS0NO (J3) V38V N01103S SSOa0 0 V N O O ai OD O 'a V O � N D O D O N f\ — — O D O D N N N O 3 O 0 O N O N D N O L� O O L N QU 0 C O O Q O VJ O Z O_m — N H Q M O M O � O M O Lr) Z N O N W N �U o(D N N O X W V N m— N W 4 — o U� O � N f6 � U Q N O Z_ O N W O O � p O Z) U O N (� M N Q1 � Q Q1 co co O O iT O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 d M N O O c0 0 � M N – O c0 1n 't M N r O (,IJ) VMV N01103S SSO80 (,i3) V38V N0UO3S SS0NO (J3) V38V N01103S SSOa0 Q V N O O O V N � N D O D O N N L D O D O N N 3 0 O LO O O D N O N L� O QU 0 C O O O Q O O N N Z O_m H Q M O M O w V) O O Lr) Z N N N W M :2 o(D N N O X W V N O O N N W 4 U� � 1- W 7 aV N N Z_ W O O � p O Z) O O (� N N Q1 � QI co O Q1 QI � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 d M N O O c0 0 � M N – O c0 1n 't M N r O (,IJ) VMV N01103S SSO80 (,i3) V38V N0UO3S SS0NO (J3) V38V N01103S SSOa0 1 a) w p `o 0 o6 c 0 E 2 w Y a 0 m o Yl Y O O o � N C >_ O N C N N U N O d u) U T c° a co m O. C N O d N N Q .- 0 O O a O O N � E to E N O j U -0 9 N 7 O N d Co 0) E C � O U '0N O C O — N � N ~ 0 co m i E N N LL U c W 0 a 06 C 0 E w a c 0 An E _ Y ms a aD C M o] Y C O_ 9 N C E c0 N C N O U N �2 N N d U) N t0 N m Q C � U � d N N Qj L N 0 0 0- 2a •- 06 E U = = N U) O T a p] 01 E �o U o N � O — N N N 6 cu m N = N E O Q r� O 'U U cil C WJ ct N CMMS �I ct U ZWZI LL 9% T z O V r1 n 4-1 r� C G O c O ct ^^c3 Cqj F"{ LL C� C� Mz -, Cld U _M U .b �e o 0 z 0 oz z 9% T N O N C C W N O O Y a N c Co c o 07 Y T O_ � N � >_ O ❑ c6 N co cu N N U N �> O O d � O T CO Q c N O a_ N N Qj w N O O Q 7 O d E E N O j U -O 9 N 7 U) O T d` (6 0] 01 E 'c u c O N 2 O N N -O N ~ Z m to 07 =5 E LL U N C C L11 91 O O c O En E 7 LL d C O tq E 7 Y a c ca c O m Y C > O_ 9 N c >_ O o 6 N � U N tea` m 'a m a c � m O O a N O � w N O O a 7 Na_ E E N O j U-0 7 O U O N m L71 E @ O U c N O r O — N (a N ~ a5 ca m 7 E m LL U 161f A 7 -1 C6 -2 Cul) co 0 06 }k cu \ ƒ \� ? E 0 C) .2 C,4 � In as 4 - 'U"Llb -4 1612 A 7 U C N N 03 U 6 N (0 Q m Cs C O = .0 M j U ~ N OS U) = E m 'V O a- C o N N a. 0 E U OS 1] 7 7 C U) Q OS .-- m E O L6 C U.4 C,4 (Q O O N fA O I� i � O M m N =3 E N .0 lT LL L) 0- • W 1612 q7 . � • ^�� i.y i�l � MCI N v/ low AW' /1•�o ZS cam, ° "�✓ 1••1 _ ' � �L�y Ai•M try ^I P. o ��y � u � c� e�i .0 •� AteA,, �, o -4.0 �y coi ;I W � � v � � O • ^y VL • � •y �••I � �I � '.V � . ^I i�aWt� WJ .� � CIS y � �"� 1.• n . J � � �^^ C) o c '� " � � o � ^ 'mss •�'' � ^ too •C �►, E"� a� � Q CC O N � � � r" 0 N C� cv .a; v U i m �s v � o O a N V v Cd 0 m M w Q� O CC5 rz V v H 1612 q7 M O Le u tn U C N N .Co U O U) f0 Q m 06 C O = D � CD U ~ NN TE Cfl F- 0 N C •� u) O Q a O E 0 (6 U_ T Q C r m EN cu c U .o N M O O N tlI N ` � O cVm V LL U a- L` r M E F r F lE , r r E h O O O O 0 WE •ry �I •^may'' O v i.y CGi . n1 O .O o ^y o W 0 .�i V V 9 L W T O W •1�1 C� i•y I Wn W I if L_ A� W • ^I W .�i O •Poo .P.4 O O .Py O ib 12 47 U c N m �U O a N za 0 Q m° �s C o= y ca j N � U) _ T E m F- L) c U) O � w O a E X O � c {n c m EN @ c U .o N_ (`6 O O N in N N N N O f6 m Lo E N f0 LL U d 1612 a4w, U. 1. OD �, CC t 6T I e s✓. n ' t t" ,✓' ,�7,'mry �i IEM} iF. ;s i. a, '� r 7 � y VA ! s yA A t A 7 Sr Q� o O � y r� � C � ^� ice+ eei • V 4.0 y � � 0 6� r4 Q% ,mayy O VV I U C N .Cu O (0 N CD 06 '400 C (6 .4akw O = .N (n j U ~ N (6 U) _ CD ~ C >' f6 � U C C L N O N w o +� O N E O — U (6 7 C U) Q Co O E C14 Co r_ U .o N (0 O O N U) N N N ` (p O (a CO cD E N (6 O) LL 0a O N u� Poll O H H W .I—I u O ii a� I�1 apa,q, ep" c� W �I .�i �11 I� • nl O O u O C C a> s, 0 C 0 0 c� N I v 0 -- R u /LI �yy 4V 7) W 0 K� W�yy J 1� W �1 4-m L/] O � O u P" V c� u y � 0 O 0 � o � o c� 1612 r • a� a d cs F � O 4-� 4c�-., V C a O �" O u O O � O O a CA M O O 2 y w N O Q m a25 C O = N fA j cu z > = r T E f6 m T C. u ca U p �9 CL O C �Ay O Is- E N ►� � uu � O ) C (n C T Q Cc m� E N m C U .o N_ (6 O Q N O n N N T 0 f6 O m C 2 = E m ) .0 co rn LL U a M� 161 2 A+7 a c co I U O 0 Q m � N O N = U ~ TE N ~ m T - O O C O � ISM l .- O O U ^y Iiy 75 � C ♦, U r- < O E° E � C U .o N_ ° O N U> CLi N N ^A1 T O WI `, gym° 0) _1 LL CL O rA CA A Y W O O G L a P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S S S S S S S S Cl 06 I-� lD to 4 rli N � O (i /uasAxo ow) oa �b lr� 1r Jq tR b � ll� s lr9a � r � O�J ao Olt o� co I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S S S S S S S S Cl 06 I-� lD to 4 rli N � O (i /uasAxo ow) oa �b lr� 1r Jq tR b � ll� s lr9a � r � O�J ao Olt o� U C N (E U 0 C)Q C) xs C� O = a L� U U) = TE m m U CO d c F a o � o Q O � �y U (6 Vy � c T Q ^, CD E N N_ N O � N O ti N ) N W t6 0] � E (D ,LM LL 6 A 1 4 3 v m c m rb °i a v > b Jtt% ate+ rro e0 °� y " fry M tr. O Z i rr C O It 9 y f G rj`P� d0 i ap L °l; Q 01 �O °ra aJ, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 /uaSOJVN aW) EON i N 4) L Z M Z s C O 2 d d > Q n I y' � Ire 'a !lG j rr. as rr � G i rl i 9y i i °r�o2 01 i °la as 8 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 o O o o o o O o 0 0 (I /uaaonlN 8W) EON 1612 A'7 U O N 0 Q m 06 C O = N o� in _ T E M F- cu V O a. c C +L+ N O a � o E O C (n C T Q m� EN N C U .o N is O 0O N t05 ti O N N cu T O N COQ NN d) U- 41 J a 0 t L CC! O d' a O T �CC C d0)A iwM i Q SO f� I � J O ;,a O 1 O �1 0 O a 0 T t C 0 dA v la> �m �W a W 6 l7 rl� �b rl` rr� P� °b `n w rr• } �L c rr9 y f tl` P�. O1� 0 ors °y °rJ °O 04, 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i,ft -4d-4d 8w iOdO A N ti m Iz �b rr�o r rr° 7� rr� rr O� w rr, P� o rr9a � .r rl° P�. ors a0 01 'o Xl - - a gg s 8 8 g 8 g 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7/snjo4ds04d 8w tOdO d d r 0 0. 0 C C Q d tl0 to Q 16 12 A 7 -.4 � � b 2 u r 6� �t r�r �r sit �r r�r �t l� r 6� r r r s6r b�l r J �r r ss sr AA ffr All 9� r s� �sr r� r r� r r 1�1/0A U C cn N U O _0 � 0 Q CO �2S C O_ _ j (D N � U Z O = T E CD ~ C T U O d is c O � d o a � o -0 7 0 c (� ) QT (6 H/ O O C O O W O N N � T O i (� co N N 0) ii U� .� M z i+ C cO G dA m L a' N t C O to Q '? 3 ,4 M ti r4 G fG a LL a l7 w 11,E �b rr, G4 rr4 P� db `m € ) rr Y P� s G t rlq � ar rl4 a0 Old I Or"J O Ol° g g g g g g g g g g ef, o in °r i oN L'i o u o (add) /grytles A j3 3 j3 D z rr� �b rl rl` 7� j rr7 P� rr I db, i 0 P f„ �Y c � rlq i rro P�. 0 a0 O r10 ti i °rn JO Ol° aJ. S S S S S S S 8 8 8 (idd) AMunes 162 4 pi U c N a) (Q U O U) f6 U O Q m xs C O = N N O U ~ N N U) _ T E m ~ (6 � U c O N as a) c a) a) a m � o E aa) E o — U a3 � 3 7 C U) c T Q Co c- m � EN O C U .o N_ M O O N U) (D N 0 O CU N m � O E a) (6 m LL 1612 X17 O C O > C) 06 (Q y � fl) @ O T E m� v o 5D o °? c .0 •t aa) E CA C ins O Q T G, EN C � C � N — O NON > o U' y � `tl ca L m� W O � W 1� a � cu LL fL W C: .� 1612p� �,c1XQ ►ik � " '� w u t F n a a 'o a ix rc ,t•sra` E a �z1 x i a w LU 71 LL, n r� LLJ W ! N D VN �u R r d? E Q N y 3 r•� � r 't:.ai W iQi � � nu%�c c., us.. a�+ k' rraaw+ oaenemirt� +•„rKUmam+rtyran+�sa�arr� raw �s�niax�arn,cew!t cu LL U V • �I 1 1612 V G' O V Q L O :Q O LLo A7 :C V C i, tL O O h y ri. V :C O .0 C/� c U O N (a O Q m 06 c o = U v ~ Z m N = U E m � C f0 � U O O Z, CL a � pip ai -C Eo E � U (6 •1� �C C Q f6 m E o • pow U .o N_ (` p O N N ' O N N ` � M f6 m Vl r � E m rn V cu LL U V • �I 1 1612 V G' O V Q L O :Q O LLo A7 :C V C i, tL O O h y ri. V :C O .0 C/� U C O (E U O U) <0 m Q � c = O M _� U ~ O O = T E (6 m C T U CO 0. nS N C v-. N O � N .0 E CN 7 C (n C m Q O (6 C U .o N t6 O � ' N N N � T O � � O (6 m 7 N tL U d 0 O r� l O (A� 1� 4 00 O O • 1612 A7 , U c U) N U O -0 O I6 U) O Q m �$ C O N T .O U1 j U ~ (U U) _ T E CO ~ O T (6 � U c O d N � c s N o � �o .. o 0 76 E � E � � c U c CU Q Eo m c U .o N (6 0 0 N N N N 0 y, O ` N <a CO 3 N ii U • s O y O C NC •4% WJ Ln C � O CAS O � CC v eei C O y 1 � b� � o C � o C � � o � C o � o 16I c A 7 U C N N t6 U O � O O @ Q CO �t5 C O = N 0 Z N O ~ �y U (6 (n = >. E cm 0 ~ f C > f6 U C O d � C s N .J U) o � N 'C O E r , W 0 m o 3 7 C (n C Q F�1 Qj M E E N cu C N .2 O O N N ti ' O N � W O N � L � W (6 m ) N 01 Lea. 0 °vim F"oF • r.y �y V V f Qj U °vim F"oF 161 A 7 � A 7 i immbtm �M C N N 00 06 Ci L" �� Y o � � � 6 "• r� n A 7 i immbtm U C N N (6 U O � O � 0 U Q O m a'f C O M = U U j N � U_ Z U) 7- TE m~ � T m U CO U +� O c L N a E aa) E o -0 D O C U O T Q (9 � m � EO U .o N (6 0 0 N U O N N T O @ O 6 m N O O tiUa- VN �Tronq �1 O 1 W MCI A W o �1 F--1 O 1612 U C O M U O 0 Q m o6 C O = O n U j N � U U_ m� C T 'V O d (SS C O � �a E � E O U (4 � C 7 C U) C Q m r E °N U .O N (O O 0 N to ti N � T O � N ca CO N O N W W W Vy1 TIC' 11 1� � r•l V? rnl wZ F. iZ o O V � V O Tr O � N � O Ci � v O Q� O � � O � v rte+ •� � CSC C. � a U C O (a U O � U O 0 Q O m 06 C O M = U r O j _U ~ (Q N = T E m ~ C T (6 � U C = O � (6 O C S N w N O �- U � N o-0 7 C (n C T Q m � E O � C U .o N_ m O O N ti ' O N N T O i N N (0 m N C (D 0) LL Ud i r 1612 A7 U C N U O @ Q m c5 C E O = N � U ~ O (6 T E (0 m T Q 'V O c O � a .. o E c TQ rte' E O E° f6 C N_ (` N ) r- O N N O T M (0 m N E m t6 LLUa III 1612 A7 x rR c U) U O a o Q m xs c o= D � U ~ f6 N m TE m� f0 U C O d �6 C O � N a N C E � E W O — O (6 � O C C (n C T Q M r m� EO N C U .o N_ f6 O O N in r N N 0 T O T N -q f0 m N O m N -0 a) li U CL 1612A7 4 U C N N (E U O 72 N m 06 V a� ct 0 _ O +-' '. w 4- cn m 1� g : G� Ri ct N o _ -4-0 c5'' •'fir "CS �"" ;� N ct E � A •~ �. ct En 0 (M c ci Q 4 � � V ,= u m° s, N N E N "Y^ ly N �h o e� O p cc3 O ct Ct CAO Ct b V . U 161 Z A7 U c U) m i6 �U 0 -6 v 6s i C) Q � c o� U ~ N U) = T E a3 m c U 0 a) �a c N o m d aa) t: o E aa) E of 0 CE 0 c cA c T Q aS m E O 6s c U o N [6 O �0 N N ti N N � >, O Co ti N m N m (c6 a cu LL CL 16Ic A7 �� C dam+ •� � � � V it ; O � Ci •-� � � V � iw" � r^ i '^ w e F r p 1612 A7 1 2/21/2012 PBSD CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MOTION: Submitted by Tom Cravens The Clam Bay Subcommittee recommends to the full Board that: The PBSD /MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier Audubon Society lo review and propose remedies of deficiencies in permit pplication materials. 1612 A7 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD JANUARY 17, 2012 MINUTES LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman John Chandler (late) Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Kyle Lukasz (absent) Also Present Tom Cravens Gerald Moffatt Dave Trecker Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Susan O'Brien Mary McCaughtry Lisa Resnick D �(M�II�i' r, I FER 2 8 ZU12 BY........................ AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation / 3. Summary Update of FY 2011 Actual vs. Estimated Actuals contained in FY 20lA @qet; I/ and Impact on Capital Funds Hiller �____ 4. Status of FY 2013 County guidelines regarding salaries, benefits, and tax rates Henning _ 5. Initial Discussion of Capital Funds for FY 2013 Budget and beyond Coyle a) CIP; and Coletta �G b) Other 6. Review format for Budget Preparation 7. Schedule for preparation of FY 2013 Budget 8. Discussion of current format for the Monthly Financial Report ;c COffes: 9. Audience Comments 10. Adjourn Date: LA I I V It -2— ROLL CALL Item * %U=— 2NO:V—1 All Budget Subcommittee members were present. Copies t0: AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Gerald Moffatt questioned whether having a large subcommittee of six members was inefficient. However the Subcommittee agreed that a large membership encouraged participation and open discussion. SUMMARY UPDATE OF FY 2011 ACTUAL VS. ESTIMATED ACTUALS CONTAINED IN FY 2012 BUDGET; AND IMPACT ON CAPITAL FUNDS Mr. Dorrill explained the estimated actuals used to prepare the FY 2012 proposed budget showed a positive variance across the primary operating funds. In other words, estimated expenses were less than actual expenses. Chairman Levy added that based on staff s tabulation, the actual FY 2011 expenses were approximately $154,000 less than estimated expenses resulting in $126,000 additional carry forward in Water Management and Beautification, and $28,000 additional carry forward in Street Lighting. Mr. Dorrill reported the actual FY 2011 Capital Fund expenditures were approximately $80,000 less than estimated expenses due to the Foundation paying a larger portion of the crosswalk project expenditures. Mr. Cravens asked why the south berm restoration project budget comes from the Clam Bay Fund and not the Water Management Fund. 1124 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting MinutIs 6 ` I ZA 7 January 17, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said there is no rationale other than historically the south berm projects have been allocated to the Clam Bay Fund and the Services Division's FY 2012 Board of County Commissioners approved budget has the funds for this project in the Clam Bay Capital account. The Subcommittee agreed that going forward in future budgets they would consider budgeting and charging additional projects to the Water Management operating fund. STATUS OF FY 2013 COUNTY GUIDELINES REGARDING SALARIES BENEFITS, AND TAX RATES Mr. Dorrill said the County has not yet adopted the FY 2013 fiscal policy and estimated having the information in early March that includes indirect costs, information technology support, and annual rental amount in lieu of a formal agreement for the maintenance facility. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR FY 2013 BUDGET AND BEYOND CIP The Subcommittee discussed Mr. Dallas' preliminary FY 2013 CIP ad valorem and non -ad valorem cash flow sheets that describe that if the assessment and millage rates in FY 2013 remain the same rates as FY 2012 then the Services Division could fund certain identified CIP projects; and whether to perform a survey to prioritize future CIP projects; and directed staff to include in the preliminary FY 2013 budget three crosswalks on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of Myra Janco Daniels, North Pointe, and Crayton; redoing the balance of the pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard; and additional landscaping. Mr. Moffatt suggested the Services Division consider the CIP recommended project to install pavers at the three entrances to the community in the FY 2013 budget. OTHER The Subcommittee discussed other projects including staff developing a pathways repair program, landscaping projects plan; lake bank enhancements; continued refurbishment of street signs; and directed staff to include $5,000 for exotic removal and/or maintenance in the FY 2013 budget and all future budgets. REVIEW FORMAT FOR BUDGET PREPARATION The Subcommittee was pleased with the current budget preparation format. SCHEDULE FOR PREPARATION OF FY 2013 BUDGET Mr. Dorrill said staff would have a preliminary FY 2013 budget prepared for the Subcommittee to review in March, so the Subcommittee can make a recommendation to the full Board in May. DISCUSSION OF CURRENT FORMAT FOR THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT The Subcommittee was generally pleased with Mr. Dorrill's monthly financial report format. Mr. Iaizzo suggested including a line item to explain the cost of outsourcing labor. Mr. Dorrill explained staff is required to use the state's chart of accounts, but he would look into it. Chairman Levy expressed satisfaction with the current format. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m. Michael Levy, Chairman 1125 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 2/6/2012 4:18:30 PM 16 1 e Ai8 February 28, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, February 28, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Fiala +/` Jerry Gibson Hiller Clark Hill Henning Rick Medwedeff Coyle Robert Miller C;oletta Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County Commissioners ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Kelly Green, Tourist Development Tax Coordinator Date: `1 t l ib[ l 2 Item #:t V= 2--AM Copies to: 1 1612 A8 February 28, 2011 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call A quorum was established. 4. Changes and Approval of Agenda Jack Wert noted: • The Executive Summary for Item #6.a has been revised. • There are two additional attachments for Item #7.a • He submitted a copy of the most recent "Smith Travel Research Report." Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following change: • Item #7.a to be heard as Item #6.c and deletion of the term "Informational Only." Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 9 — 0 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting January 24, 2011 Ms. Becker moved to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Hill. Commissioner Hiller reviewed the minutes and requested: • The County Attorney check on the status on the Doctors Pass North Jetty Rehabilitation Contract ( #11 -5634) and report back to her. • Under item VI.5, "Immediate Use of Emergency Advertising Funds from Ordinance Amendment" - The County Attorney's office verify the TDC ordinance was amended as necessary to allow the immediate use of funds that may have been made available by reducing the Emergency Advertising Funds ceiling (Fund 196). Carried unanimously 9 -0. 6. New Business a. Easement Agreement Form Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation for the Tourist Development Council (TDC) to approve a form easement agreement for use between Collier County and the beachfront property owners requiring the property owners to provide public beach access in exchange for major beach renourishment, vegetation planting and dune restoration to the subject property" dated February 28, 2011 and document "Easement and Agreement for Beach Renourishment, Planting, Dune Restoration, and Public Beach Access" for consideration. He noted: • On May 11, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to propose a "public access easement" to allow the public to access private beach property in instances where public funds are expended for private beach renourishment. • Currently, private property owners may restrict public access to these areas. b 12 February 28, 2011 • Previous projects for renourishing beach areas on private lands have been subject to easements for construction equipment access and placement of sand, not public access. • The Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) has agreed to the concept. • The proposed easement is for the County Beaches, City of Naples Beaches and Marco Island Beaches, in areas where public funds are expended for renourishment. • The proposed easement would be "perpetual." • Under the proposal, if the private property owner does not agree to the easement, the County will not expend the funds for renourishment on their property. • One concern is if the easement is not executed, and the private beach area is not renourished, it may compromise other renourished beach areas. • Another concern is obtaining the necessary environmental permits for renourishment may be difficult should the private areas not be proposed for renourishment. • Staff is seeking direction from the TDC. Mr. Sorey, Chairman of the CAC, expressed concern on the viability of obtaining the easement, especially with it being in perpetuity, as even construction easements are difficult and time consuming to obtain. He recommended the County consider providing a term limit (i.e. 20 years) for the easement. In addition, the CAC recommended the easement be voided should the funding for renourishment be terminated. Commissioner Hiller expressed concern that the easement is "overreaching," and the City of Marco Island and the City of Naples have not approved the document. Commissioner Hiller moved (to recommend the Board of County Commissioners) to not approve the agreement. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Gary McAlpin clarified the easement will be brought forward to the Board of County Commissioners, staff will inform them of the TDC recommendation and request direction from the Board of County Commissioners. b. TDC Board Member Nomination Recommendations Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Tourist Development Council ('TDC) Appointment Recommendations for Pending Vacancies" dated February 28, 2011. He noted there are two Tourist Development Council terms scheduled to expire (Robert Miller and Clark Hill). Mr. Miller and Joel Kessler have applied to fill the pending vacancy for the "Non Owner /Operator, non -tax collecting" seat and Mr. Hill has applied for the "Owner- Operator collector" seat. Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Robert Miller and Clark Hill to the Tourist Development Council. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 -0. c. FY 11 Q1 Financial Review It was noted that the item was revised on the agenda to an "action item." 16FelruaZry 28, 2011 Colleen Green, Assistant County Attorney stated, in her opinion, even though the item was listed on the agenda as "information only," ample public notice has been provided to allow "action" on the item. It was noted Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance and Derek Johnssen, Chief Accountant, Clerk of Courts were present. Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Ql Fiscal Year 11 Financial Review" dated February 28, 2011. He provided an overview of the fund balances. Under Council member discussion, the following was noted: • Consideration be given to providing the financial data presented to the CAC regarding the current status of Fund 195 and 183 (current fund balances and proposed and existing expenditures for the current fiscal year on each capital project.) • Staff to provide an update on Fund 195 - "Personal Services" expenditures. • Under Fund 194 - Group Advertising, expenditures be separately accounted for, including a report on the "Return on Investment." Discussion occurred on the circumstances of the approval of the Collier County Freedom Memorial Grant. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney reviewed an April 5, 2008 County Attorney memo which outlined the circumstances under which the grant could be approved. Jack Wert noted, at the time, the TDC and BCC recognized the Freedom Memorial as a "Non -County Museum, " eligible for grant funding. Commissioner Hiller: • Requested the County Attorney and Finance Department to research the history of the Freedom Memorial Fund Grant, including the group's organizational structure. She expressed concern that the original application submitted to the TDC may not have contained accurate information. If the grant was awarded inappropriately, the funds should be returned to the county. • Requested Coastal Zone Management staff, provide an update on the status of the FEMA reimbursement funds for county beach repairs as a result of hurricane damage. This item to be placed on the next agenda. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the "QI Fiscal Year 11 Financial Review" presented by Staff subject to the following: 1. Under Fund 184,- Marketing and Promotion, the data reflect the Marketing Expenses dedicated to "Group Sales Marketing" and, the $500,000 of Emergency Funds allocated to Group Marketing be separately identified and Staff provides quarterly subsidiaries on how the funds were expended and a Return on Investment report on the expenditures. 2. The County Attorney and Finance Department provide an explanation on how the (TDC) funds were disbursed with respect to the Freedom Memorial Fund and the 16 1 L • 8 February 28, 2011 Marco Museum, to ensure the disbursements were legally compliant and if not, to recommend how the funds would be reimbursed and reallocated to Non - County Owned Museums. 3. Fund 195 and 183 — the data be revised to reflect the current balance /budgets and a subsidiary be provided with respect to the budgets for the projects approved and the amounts to be expended. The TDC to receive the same information provided to the CACfor these budgets. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion failed 3 "yes " — 6 "no." Mr. Miller, Mr. Sorey, Mr. Hendel, Mr. Gibson, Ms. Becker and Mr. Olesky voted "no." Mr. Sorey moved to approve the "QI Fiscal Year 11 Financial Review "presented by Staff subject to the following: 1. Under Fund 184,- Marketing and Promotion, the data reflect the Marketing Expenses dedicated to "Group Sales Marketing" and, the $500,000 of Emergency Funds allocated to Group Marketing be separately identified and Staff provides quarterly subsidiaries on how the funds were expended and a Return on Investment Report on the funds expended. 3. Fund 195 and 183 — the data be revised to reflect the current balance/budgets and a subsidiary be provided with respect to the budgets for the projects approved and the amounts to be expended. The TDC receive the same information provided to the CACfor these budgets. Second by Mr. Hendeb Motion carried 8 `des" —1 "no. " Commissioner Hiller voted "no. " Break: 10:24 am Reconvened: 10:35 am 7. Old Business None 8. Marketing Partner Reports 1. Section I — Marketing Partners a. Tax Collections — Jack Wert Jack Wert provided an overview of the Tourist Tax Collection Report. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Report ( "Tourist Tax Collections — Collier County Tax Collector" dated February 28, 2011) as presented. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. b. Paradise Advertising Cedar Hames, Lee Goddard and Kara Schawk of Paradise Advertising provided an overview of the "Advertising Report" dated February 28, 2011 on the existing and proposed marketing campaigns, including online, print and television media. 5 A18 [,Fe4rnuary 28, 2011 Commissioner Hiller expressed concern on the coverage dedicated to Collier County/Naples by "Conde Nast Traveler" magazine. It did not mention Collier County or Naples. She provided copies of the following online articles published February 11, 2011 on www.concierge.com: • "Florida Now: "The Comfort of Strangers " • "Florida Now: "See and Be Seen " • "Florida Now: " Bal Boutique Bliss • "Florida Now: "Best of the West" • "Florida Now: "Orlando Blooms " • "Florida Now: "Miami's Water Music" • "Florida Now: "Battle of the Beaches " • "Florida Now: "The Shell Game " • "Florida Now: "Your Own Private(ish) Islands" • "Florida Now: "South Beach, Islands for Everyone, the Forgotten Coast" Paradise Advertising staff reported, due to other issues, the magazine is providing free publicity in an upcoming issue. Discussion occurred on whether the allocation of funds within the marketing and promotion budget should be reviewed to ensure they are providing the best return on investment. Commissioner Hiller moved for the Tourist Development Council to form a Subcommittee to review the allocations by category (Group Sales, Winter Campaign, Summer Campaign, etc.) of the Marketing and Promotion Fund. The following members to be appointed to the Subcommittee: Commissioner Hiller, Robert Miller, Jerry Gibson, Rick Medwedeff, and Clark Hill. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. It was noted the subcommittee will report back to the full committee at the April meeting with a preliminary assessment. c. Research Data Services — Dr. Walter Klages Dr. Klages presented the "Collier County Tourism Research — January 2011 " Report, including the "Smith Travel Research Report" January 2011. He noted he will supply interview data on what influences travelers to choose the area as their destination at the next meeting. In addition, a copy of the year -end Smith Travel Research Report will be provided for information purposes. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Report ( "Collier County Tourism Research — January 2011 "prepared by Research Data Services, Inc. dated February 28, 2011) as presented. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. d. Miles Media - Website Activity — Jack Wert *} A 161 8 1 ) ruary J8,2011 e. Sales and Marketing Technology- Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert f. Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Reports submitted for items 8.d.ef. ( "Web Site — Miles Media Group; Search Engine Services, " - "Sales & Marketing Technologies, Inc., " - "Fuffilllment Services dated February 28, 2011') with the condition thatfuture reports include an analytical summary representing material deviations. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 9. Tourism Staff Reports Mr. Hendel left the meeting at 11:56 am Staff provided and /or submitted the following reports by department: a. Director — Jack Wert b. Sales and Marketing — Debi DeBendetto c. Public Relations and Communications — JoNell Modys d. Film Office — Maggie McCarty e. Sports Marketing — Nicole Curran Mr. Sorey left the meeting at 12:01 pm E International Representatives — Jack Wert g. Visitor Centers — Nancy Kearns Commissioner Hiller moved to approve Items #9a — #9g as presented with exhibits. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 7— 0. 10. Audience Discussion None. 11. Council Member Discussion None 12. Detailed Staff Reports Mr. Hill moved to approve the "Detailed Staff Reports" as submitted and publicly available (online). Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 7 -0. 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — March 28, 2011— 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration BLDG. F, 3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 Commissioner Hiller moved for the next meeting of the Tourist Development Council to be held on March 28, 2011 at 9:00am. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 7— 0. 7 161F cruary 28, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:10 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST Georgia Hiller, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 8 16 12 A8 March 28, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, March 28, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: Chairman: Vice Chairman: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle v� °•'� °� Coletta �G Commissioner Hiller Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff Robert Miller Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County Commissioners ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator �� 6" 2 Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance Date: Derek Johnnsen, Chief Accountant, Clerk of Courts item Copies to: 1 161 g A8 arch 28 2011 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM 2. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call A quorum was established. 4. Changes and Approval of Agenda Commissioner Hiller moved to amend the Agenda to add item 6.d. — Group Meeting Event Budget. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Commissioner Hiller moved to amend the Agenda to hear items 8 - Marketing Partner Reports and 9 - Tourism Staff Report before item 5. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion failed 4 "yes" — 5 "no. " Mr. Sorey, Mr. Hendel, Mr. Olesky, Ms. Becker and Mr. Gibson voted "no." Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting February 28, 2011 Mr. Sorey moved to continue the item until the next meeting. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 6. New Business a. Online Travel Agencies (OTA's) Class Action Settlement Jack Wert Tourism Director presented the Executive Summary "Report on Class Action Lawsuit Settlement with On Line Travel Agencies (OTS's)" dated March 28, 2011. Commissioner Hiller moved to continue the item for the Finance Department, Mr. Wert and the County Attorney's Office will collaborate on a review of the issue. To determine if there are any alternatives for distribution of the funds, or if the Council is legally bound as presented today. Any options determined to be legally feasible to be presented to the Tourist Development Council. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. b. Tourism Week Proclamation Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommend Approval of Proclamation for National Tourism Week" dated March 28, 2011. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Proclamation declaring National Tourism Week. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 2 16 I � arch 11 2 0 Commissioner Hiller noted she will sponsor the recommendation on behalf of the Tourism Industry. c. New Proposed Meeting Schedule Mr. Hendel moved to hold the May regular meeting and any meetings thereafter on the 4rh Thursday of each month. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 8 `yes" — I "no. " Ms. Becker voted "no." d. Group Meeting Event Budget Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Review and Recommend Support of the Out of Market Sales Mission Event Portion of the Special Group Meetings Market Promotion Plan for FYI I at $150, 000 "dated March 28, 2011. Mr. Medwedeff moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the budget as outlined in the Executive Summary. Second by Mr. Miller. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 7. Old Business a. Category A (Fund 183 & 195) Additional Financial Reports Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Review Additional Tourist Tax Category A Fund 183 and Fund 195 Financial Reports " dated March 28, 2011. Included were the documents "FY 201012011 TDC Category "A " Beach Maintenance Projects — Updated 2128111 from Financial Program SAP "; spreadsheet "TDC Category "A " 195 Fund Projections " and "TDC Category "A " — Fund 183 Fund Projections " all dated March 28, 2011. Gary McAlpin provided an update on the Restroom and Concession facilities proposed for Vanderbilt Beach. The Council requested Staff.• • Review the layout of the spreadsheet "TDC Category "A" 195 Fund Projections" and makes revisions as necessary to ensure the document is understandable for all necessary parties who may review the document. • A FY2010 12011 Report for Fund 183 be prepared and presented on a monthly basis. • Provide an update on the status of the AQUA Condominium foreclosure. • Provide confirmation on whether or not TDCfunds may be utilized for acquisition of lands. b. FEMA Reimbursement Status Report Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Review FEMA Reimbursement Status Report" dated March 28, 2011 for information purposes. 16 12 March 28, 2011 Commissioner Hiller moved to request the County Manager direct Staff to present both reports (for Fund 183 and Fund 195) in the format as reported today for Fund 195. The budget projections for this year are presented so as to reconcile as to the budgetary number that are in the financial reports for Fund 183 and Fund 195. The total project costs are to reflect each project item so that the Tourist Development Council understands how much is being expended on a project and where the County is in terms of percentage completion. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. c. TDC Meeting Policy on Presentations Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Review for Adoption a Policy on Speakers Appearing Before the Tourist Development Council" dated March 28, 2011. The Executive Summary recommended the policy be included in the minutes. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Policy as proposed in the Executive Summary subject to the following revisions: • Bullet point #5 — "Presentations will be limited to 10 minutes unless additional time is granted by the TDC Chairman." • Bullet point #8 — "Members of the public that wish to address the TDC during the Public Comment portion of the agenda must complete the registration form prior to the Agenda item being heard. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes of time for each item. The TDC Chairman may extend this time, if warranted." • The document clearly indicates - Public Speakers for "Non— Agenda" items are limited to 3 minutes of time each. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. d. County Attorney Finding on TDC Ordinance Amendment Status Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney provided a copy of an email from herself to Georgia Hiller —Subject: "TDC Meeting (2128111) Follow up" dated March 24, 2011 for information purposes. e. Conde Nast Report Heard under Item 8.c Break: 10: 28am Reconvened: 10: 38am 8. Marketing Partner Reports a. Tax Collections Jack Wert provided the report "Tourist Tax Collection." b. Research Data Services Dr. Walter Klages, Research Data Services, Inc. provided the report "Collier County Tourism Research, February 2011. " The Council requested the following information be provided to the Subcommittee studying marketing funding: I! V' A k» x,612 A 8 4 March 28, 2011 • The Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Origin Cluster Mapping (2010) • A breakdown by percentages of the graphic "What Attracts You Most to Collier?" • Data on visitation numbers for the European, Canadian Market — Lee County vs. Collier County. The Council recommended Staff develop proposed time constraints for future individual reports - Consensus c. Paradise Advertising Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Review of Conde Nast Advertising Insertion" dated March 28, 2011. Lee Goddard, Paradise Advertising presented the report "Tourist Development Council Report on February Conde Nast Traveler, March 28, 2011. " Lee Goddard presented the Paradise Advertising and Marketing "Tourist Development Council Report, March 28, 2011. " * *Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the BCC reported holding regular TDC meetings on the 4th Thursday of each month will not be feasible as the room is not available. Staff will review alternate dates. d. Miles Media - Website Activity Steve Berlin, Miles Media Group, LLP presented the report "Web Site — Miles Media Group. " e. Sales & Marketing Technologies - Search Engine Optimization Jack Wert provided the report "Search Engine Services — Sales and Marketing Technologies, Inc. " f. Phase V - Fulfillment Services Jack Wert provided the report "Fulfillment Services — Phase V. " Commissioner Hiller moved to accept all Reports for Items 8a — 8f. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 9. Tourism Staff Reports a. Director b. Sales & Marketing c. Public Relations & Communications Jonell Modys, CVB Public Relations & Communications Manager provided the report "PR & Communications Tourist Development Council (March 28, 2011.) d. Film Office 5 r e. Sports Marketing L International Representatives g. Visitor Centers 10. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted by Staff. 11. Public Comment None 16 1 gr'A 8 h 28, 2011 12. Council Member Discussion Ms. Becker recommended all Council member schedules be considered when making decisions on changing the scheduled meeting dates. Commissioner Hiller noted the decision to change meeting dates will be an action item. 13. Announcements — Tourism Awards Luncheon - May 11, 2011 - Marco Island Marriott —11:30 am to 1:30 pm 14. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — April 25, 2011— 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:15 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DE_VELOPMEI T COUNCIL Commissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended C1 1612 A8 April 25, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, April 25, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Cones: Date: q ( (d ( ( I. item #:l John Sorey, III (via telephone) RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County COm UianWS Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance, Clerk of Courts Conies to: 1 Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker V Jerry Gibson Fiala Clark Hill Hiller Henning 7` Rick Medwedeff Coyle _- -� Robert Miller Coletta Ed (Ski) Olesky ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Cones: Date: q ( (d ( ( I. item #:l John Sorey, III (via telephone) RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County COm UianWS Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance, Clerk of Courts Conies to: 1 p ril 25 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. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call A quorum was established. 4. Changes and Approval of Agenda Commissioner Hiller moved to allow Mr. Sorey to participate in the meeting via telephone. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition: • Item #8.f — May Meeting schedule Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting February 28,2011 — continued from 3/28/11 b. Regular Meeting March 28, 2011 Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2011 and the March 28, 2011 meeting. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 6. Presentations /Public Comment None 7. New Business a. Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Alternate Studies Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve $29,729 in design alternative studies for the Vanderbilt Beach park/restroom facility as directed at the March 8, 2011 BCC meeting and request authorization for associated budget amendments" dated April 25, 201 1 for consideration. Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to develop the following alternatives for the Vanderbilt Beach park/restroom facility as identified in the Executive Summary: 1. Design a new flood proofed facility at grade in proposed AE zone — Develop conceptual design and overall facility cost for an at -grade facility, flood proofed 2 12 A8 April 25, 2011 for the new proposed AE zone. This would require this facility to be built farther off the beach and not in the footprint of the existing facility. This is a preserve area. 2. Refurbish the existing bathroom and expand bathrooms in garage as needed for capacity - Evaluate if this is possible due to code restrictions and if possible, determine how much the existing facility can be refurbished (task]) and develop conceptual layout for bathrooms in the parking garage. Included would be a walkway through the preserve. The section in the Executive Summary "Cost to develop these options are as follows" be revised accordingly. Second by Mr. Gibson. Motion carried 6 "yes" — 3 "no." Mr. Sorey, Mr. Olesky and Mr. Hendel voted "no. " b. Collier Creek Dredging Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Endorse a recommendation to approve an emergency dredging request for the Marco Island Collier Bay entrance channel" dated April 25, 2011 and related backup material for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the emergency dredging request. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Commissioner Hiller submitted a memo from Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress to herself dated April 22, 2011 —Re: TDC Application for Emergency Dredging of Marco Island, Collier Bay Entrance Channel. 8. Old Business Gary McAlpin provided an update on the meeting he and Mr. Sorey had with Herschel Vinyard, Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Governor Rick Scott regarding environmental permitting issues. a. Fund 195 Project Report Gary McAlpin presented the report "FY 2010/2011 TDC Category "A " Beach Maintenance Projects" updated 4/5/11 for information purposes. The Council requested the County Attorney's Office research: • The status on any decision regarding the "Trolley purchase." • The status on any decision regarding the "Gulf Shore Property Purchase." b. Fund 183 Project Report Gary McAlpin presented the report "CZM 183 Fund Report" dated 4/25/11 for information purposes. Commissioner Hiller moved to accept the reports provided for Item #8.a and #8.b. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. N 16 12 A8 April 25, 2011 c. OTA Settlement Distribution Jack Wert, Tourism Director noted the funds made available from the settlement of the Online Travel Agents (OTA's) lawsuit have been allocated to Tourist Development Council (TDC) funds based on the Ordinance governing the TDC. Commissioner Hiller moved to accept the allocations as reported by Staff. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 7 `des " — 2 "no." Mr. Sorey and Mr. Hendel voted "no." d. Aqua Condominium Foreclosure Status Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney provided an update on the status of the Aqua Condominium Foreclosure. She is continuing to review the issue and will report back. e. Utilization of TDC Funds for Land Acquisition Colleen Greene provided an opinion on the utilization of TDC funds for land acquisitions. Commissioner Hiller submitted an email string between herself and Colleen Greene and a copy of Advisory Legal Opinion - AGO 88 -49 dated November 8, 1988, Subject: "Use of tourist development tax" from the Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi. f. May Meeting Schedule Commissioner Hiller moved to hold the regular TDC meeting for May on May 27, 2011. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Break: 10:15 a.m. Reconvened: 10:22 a.m. 9. Marketing Partner Reports The Council viewed a slideshow on the following reports. a. Tax Collections "Tourist Tax Collections - Collier County Tax Collector " — Jack Wert b. Paradise Advertising "Advertising Report — Paradise Advertising and Marketing — Tourist Development Council Report —April 25, 2011" - Lee Goddard and Andrea Mitchell, Paradise Advertising. A memo — Subject: Print vs. Online Advertising from Paradise Advertising to Collier County TDC was submitted for information purposes. The Council requested staff to provide a presentation at a future meeting on the efforts to promote Ecotourism in the area. Mr. Medwedeff left at 10: 42 a.m. 4 p _ a 1612 April 25, 2011 c. Research Data Services "Collier County Tourism Research, March 2011" — Dr. Walter Klages, Research Data Services, Inc. The Council requested staff provide an update at a future meeting on the efforts to attract Canadian visitors to the area. d. BCF — PR Agency "BCF Boom Your Brand" — Jonell Modys, Public Relations and Communications Manager, CVB and Mary Douglas, BCF e. Miles Media - Website Activity "Web Site — Miles Media Group " — Jack Wert L Sales & Marketing Technologies - Search Engine Optimization "Search Engine Services — Sales and Marketing Technologies, Inc. " — Jack Wert g. Phase V - Fulfillment Services "Fulfillment Services — Phase V" — Jack Wert Commissioner Hiller moved to accept the Reports as presented by Staff. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 10. Tourism Staff Reports Jack Wert presented the following reports: a. Director b. Sales & Marketing c. Public Relations & Communications d. Film Office e. Sports Marketing L International Representatives g. Visitor Centers 11. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted 12. Council Member Discussion Commissioner Hiller provided an update on the status of the Subcommittee meeting to review TDC funding. 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — May 27,2011 — 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 G x A 8 161 2 April 25, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:42 A.M. CY TOURIST COUNCIL an, Commissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 0 �fi 16I� A 8 May 27, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, May 27, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County Commissioners ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Misc. Corres: Date: ``f < t % < <-7, Item #: t Le = 2 A % Copies to: 1 Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Fiala ��V/ _ Jerry Gibson Hiller Henning Clark Hill ��r_ Rick Medwedeff (Excused) Coletta C Robert Miller Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County Commissioners ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Misc. Corres: Date: ``f < t % < <-7, Item #: t Le = 2 A % Copies to: 1 5- { 1 21, '2 A 8 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. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call A quorum was established. 4. Changes and Approval of Agenda Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the agenda subject to eliminating items 9a, b, d, e, f, g and item 10 from the agenda (due to possible time constraints). Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Commissioner Hiller moved to continue item 6.a until the next meeting. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting April 25, 2011 Mr. Sorey move to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 3, paragraph 1, line 1 from "for the new proposed AE zone." to "for the new proposed AE zone, east of the Coastal Construction Setback Line." • Page 2- 3, paragraph 1, - elimination of line 3 - ( "This is a preserve area. ") Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 6. Presentations / Public Comment - (10 min) a. Rick Medwedeff Service Award Continued. 7. New Business The Council determined they would hear items d, e, and f before items a, b and c. d. FY 12 Proposed Tourism Department Budget Jack Wert, Tourism Director presented the Executive Summary "Recommend approval of Tourism Department & Museum Department Budgets for FY 12 " dated May 27, 2011 for consideration. Discussion occurred on the source of funding for operation of County Owned Museums. 2 May 27, 2011 Mr. Sorey moved to place on the record. the Tourist Development Council opposes utilizing Tourist Tax Revenue to fund the operation of County Owned Museums. Second by Mr. Hill. Mr. Sorey amended the motion to place on the record: the Tourist Development Council opposes utilizing Tourist Tax Revenue to fund the operation of County Owned Museums. The Council recommends that the operation of County Owned Museums be funded by the General Fund. (The Ordinance governing the Tourist Development Council be modified as necessary to eliminate funding provisions and with said funding phased out over a 3 year period). Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Speaker Ron Jamro, Director, Collier County Museums The Council recommended Mr. Jamro provide a detailed analysis of County Owned Museum funding (including operations and capital expenditures) for other Florida Counties (as applicable) for their review. Mr. Hendel moved to accept the (recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve) FY12 Tourism Department and Museum Department Budgets. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Discussion occurred on whether the action included the budget be approved subject to the removal of the County Museum Fund (Fund 198). The motion was clarified. Mr. Hill moved to (recommend the Board of County Commissioners) approve the FY12 Tourism Department Budget in the amount of $13,050,000 for all funds with the exception of Fund 198 (Category C -1- County Owned Museums). If BCC approves the Council's recommendation of eliminating Fund 198 from the budget, said funds be made available to the TDCfor expenditure. Second by Commissioner Hiller. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. e. FY 12 TDC Category "C -2" Non - County Owned Museum Grant Requests Jack Wert, Tourism Director provided the Executive Summary "Tourist Tax Category C -2 Grant Application Review and Recommendation for FY 12 totaling $280, 000" dated May 27, 2011 for consideration. The Council requested staff place an item on a future agenda for review of non -county owned museum grant guidelines. Mr. Hendel reported he is a past president of the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida, Board of Directors and asked if he represents a conflict of interest on their application. 161zA8 May 27, 2011 Mr. Sorey moved to place on the record. the Tourist Development Council opposes utilizing Tourist Tax Revenue to fund the operation of County Owned Museums. Second by Mr. Hill. Mr. Sorey amended the motion to place on the record: the Tourist Development Council opposes utilizing Tourist Tax Revenue to fund the operation of County Owned Museums. The Council recommends that the operation of County Owned Museums be funded by the General Fund. (The Ordinance governing the Tourist Development Council be modified as necessary to eliminate funding provisions and with said funding phased out over a 3 year period). Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Speaker Ron Jamro, Director, Collier County Museums The Council recommended Mr. Jamro provide a detailed analysis of County Owned Museum funding (including operations and capital expenditures) for other Florida Counties (as applicable) for their review. Mr. Hendel moved to accept the (recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve) FY12 Tourism Department and Museum Department Budgets. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Discussion occurred on whether the action included the budget be approved subject to the removal of the County Museum Fund (Fund 198). The motion was clarified. Mr. Hill moved to (recommend the Board of County Commissioners) approve the FY12 Tourism Department Budget in the amount of $13,050,000 for all funds with the exception of Fund 198 (Category C -1- County Owned Museums). If BCC approves the Council's recommendation of eliminating Fund 198 from the budget, said funds be made available to the TDCfor expenditure. Second by Commissioner Hiller. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. e. FY 12 TDC Category "C -2" Non - County Owned Museum Grant Requests Jack Wert, Tourism Director provided the Executive Summary "Tourist Tax Category C -2 Grant Application Review and Recommendation for FY 12 totaling $280, 000" dated May 27, 2011 for consideration. The Council requested staff place an item on a future agenda for review of non -county owned museum grant guidelines. Mr. Hendel reported he is a past president of the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida, Board of Directors and asked if he represents a conflict of interest on their application. 161 L A8 May 27, 2011 Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney stated as past president, it is not necessary for Mr. Hendel to recuse himself, however if he feels there is "an appearance of a conflict" he may recuse himself. Speakers Joel Kessler, Executive Director, Naples Art Association. Joe Cox, Executive Director, Golisano Children's Museum of Naples. Amy Snyder, Executive Director, Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida. Mr. Sorey left at 10:30 A.M. Robin DeMattia, Friends of Rookery Bay. Brian Holley, Executive Director, Naples Botanical Garden. Golisano Children's Museum of Naples Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for the Golisano Children's Museum of Naples in the amount of $100,000. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7— 0. Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida Mr. Hill moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request for the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida in the amount of $30,000. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. Naples Art Association, d.b.a. von Liebig Art Center Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for the Naples Art Association, d.b.a. von Liebig Art Center in the amount of $35,000. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 7— 0. Friends of Rookery Bay Discussion occurred on the legal structure /ownership of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Friends of Rookery Bay. Specifically, whether the facility is a "Non- County Owned Museum" and if the Friends of Rookery Bay qualify as grant recipient under the Ordinance. Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the grant request for the Friends of Rookery Bay. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for the Friends of Rookery Bay in the amount of $40,000. Second by Ms. Becker. Motion carried 5 `des" — 2 "no. " Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Miller voted "no. " 4 161 2 A8 May 27, 2011 Naples Botanical Garden Mr. Hill moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for the Naples Botanical Garden in the amount of $75,000. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. Break: 10:45 A.M. Reconvened: 10:55 A.M. L FY 12 TDC Category "B" Marketing Grant Requests Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Tourist Tax Category B Grant Application Review and Recommendation for FY 12 totaling $60, 000 " dated May 27, 2011 for consideration. Speakers Elaine Hamilton, United Arts Council Merlin Lickhalter, ArtsNaples World Festival Shannon Franklin, Executive Director, Naples International Film Festival United Arts Council Discussion occurred noting previous actions by the Council recommended the United Arts Council expenditure be included in the annual budget (not a grant award). Mr. Wert noted the funds were not available within the budget so it has been presented as a grant request. Mr. Hendel moved for the $15,000 proposed grant for the United Arts Council be placed in a grants fund reserve (contingency) or re- distributed to other applicants requesting funds within the grant category. Second by Ms. Becker. Motion carried 4 "yes" — 3 "no." Commissioner Hiller, Mr. Olesky and Mr. Gibson voted "no." Mr. Wert noted the process would be to reduce the fund allocation in the Category B Grant Requests by $15,000 and these funds be made available for distribution to the United Arts Council through the budget. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted she would need to review the issue to see if transferring the funds is permitted. Mr. Miller rescinded his affirmative vote on the motion. The motion failed 3 "yes" — 4 "no. " Commissioner Hiller, Mr. Miller, Mr. Olesky and Mr. Gibson voted "no." Commissioner Hiller moved to continue the item to the next meeting until an opinion is rendered by the County Attorney on the options available for the request. Second by Mr. Miller. Carried unanimously 7— 0. s 1612A8 May 27, 2011 ArtsNaples World Festival Ms. Becker moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant requestfor the ArtsNaples World Festival in the amount of $25,000. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7— 0. Corrigan Sports Enterprises Mr. Gibson moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve both of the Corrigan Sports Enterprises grant requests (Presidents Cup Women's Lacrosse Tournament and High Schools Boy's Lacrosse event) in the amount of $10,000 each, ($5, 000 for FYI] and $5, 000 for FY12). Second by Mr. Olesky. Motion carried 6 "yes" —1 "no." Commissioner Hiller voted "no." Naples International Film Festival Ms. Becker moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for the Naples International Film Festival in the amount of $10,000. Second by Mr. Hill. Mr. Hendel recommended funding in the amount of $20,000. Ms. Becker and Mr. Hill agreed. Motion carried 4 "yes" — 3 "no. " Mr. Gibson, Mr. Olesky and Mr. Miller voted "no' Mr. Wert noted only $10,000 was required for approval in FYI 2. Mr. Olesky moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for the Naples International Film Festival in the amount of $10,000. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 7— 0. a. FY 11/12 TDC Category "A" Fund Budget Analysis and 10 Year Plan Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the Executive Summary "TDC review and recommend approval of the Fund 183 and 195 10 -Year Plan and Fund 195 FY11112 Fund Budget and Analysis Report" dated May 27, 2011. The Council heard a preliminary overview of the item. The Tourist Development Council will review the item in detail at the next meeting. Mr. Olesky moved to request that staff prepare an analysis for Council review on the feasibility of the Coastal Zone Management Department employing their own coastal engineers as opposed to outsourcing the work. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 7— 0. b. FY 12 Fund 195 Grant Applications Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation for the TDC to recommend approval of the TDC Category `A" Grant Applications from the City of Naples, The City of Marco Island and Collier 2 161 2 A8 w May 27, 2011 County for FY -11/12 in the amount of $23,728,550" dated May 27, 2011 for consideration. The Council heard a preliminary overview of the item. The Tourist Development Council will review the item in detail at the next meeting. c. FY 12 Fund 183 Grant Applications Gary McAlpin, presented the Executive Summary "For the TDC to recommend approval of the Category "A " Tourist Development Fund 183 Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities for FY 2011112 in the amount of $1,025, 000" for consideration. The Council heard a preliminary overview of the item. The Tourist Development Council will review the item in detail at the next meeting. Commissioner Hiller moved to continue items 7 a, b and c. until the next meeting. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. g. TDC Summer Meeting Schedule Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Summer Meeting Schedule for Tourist Development Council (TDC) " dated May 27, 2011 for consideration. The item was continued to the June TDC meeting. 8. Old Business a. Fund 195 Project Report b. Fund 183 Project Report Submitted by Staff. 9. Marketing Partners Reports c. Research Data Services Continued 11. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted by Staff. 12. Council Member Discussion Jack Wert noted the EVP Volleyball Tournament will be held May 28, 2011 on Vanderbilt Beach. 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — June 29, 2011— 9:00 A.M. Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 Commissioner Hiller moved to hold the next regular Tourist Development Council Meeting on June 29, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. 7 161 2 A 8 May 27, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:07 P.M. 0 These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended COUNTY TOURIST ME NT COUNCIL Georgia Hiller 1612 A8 June 27, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, June 27, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Tourist Development Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala Chairman: Hiller �- Vice Chairman: Henning Coyle Coletta 1C Georgia Hiller Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff (excused) Robert Miller (excused) Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance Misc. Comes: RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County Commissioners Date: t- \ Item X: \ LS T Z yq g 1 Copies to: 16 12 A8 June 27, 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. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM 2. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call A quorum was established. 4. Changes and Approval of Agenda Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: Items 8a, 8b and 8c to be heard before Item 7. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting May 27, 2011 Mr. Sorey moved to approve the minutes of the May 27, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. The Council requested Ron Jamro, Executive Director of Collier County Museums to provide an updated report on the funding sources (Capital projects and Operations) for Museums owned and operated by Counties within Florida. 6. Presentations/Public Comment None S. Old Business a. Fund 195 Project Report Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the document titled "FY 201012011 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through June 1, 2011 for information purposes. The Council requested Staff to prepare a report analyzing the Tourist Development Council expenditures for the individual jurisdictions within the County under the auspices of Coastal Zone Management. b. Fund 183 Project Report Gary McAlpin provided the document titled "CZM 183 Fund Report' dated June 27, 2011 for information purposes. The Council requested Staff to research the circumstances surrounding the approval of the "Gulfshore Property Purchase" - line item 88027 (minutes of TDC approval, etc.) and provide a report to the Council on the item. 2 1612 Ab June 27, 2011 The Council requested Staff to provide copies of all approved permits and permit applications in process and related back up material (TDC approvals, BCC approvals, etc.) for the "Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Expansion Rework" — line item 90046 for their review. c. FEMA Reimbursement Status Report Gary McAlpin provided an update on the FEMA Reimbursements for beach repairs due to the damage from recent hurricanes and tropical storms. The Council requested Staff provide quarterly reports on the status (including collections /receivables) of the FEMA reimbursements. 7. New Business a. FY 11/12 TDC Category "A" Fund Budget Analysis and 10 Year Plans - continued from 5/27/11 Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "For the TDC to review and recommend approval of Fund 183 and 19510 -Year Plan and Fund 195 FYl l /12 Fund Budget and Analysis Report" dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. The Council requested County Staff to provide an overview on the collections and expenditure of beach parking funds. It was noted the Council requires additional information before approving the Capital Expenditures outlined in the document titled "TDC Category "A" -183 Fund. " Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the document titled "TDC Category "A" 195 Fund Projections" dated June 27, 2011 subject to the following: 1. The $3.4Mfor FDEP reimbursement assigned to a "Reserve" category to be reassigned to an Expenditure Category. 2 As necessary footnote the anticipated Revenues from FEMA funds and their probability for receipt, including the damage from Hurricane Gabrielle. 3. Also contained footnotes regarding possible matching funds from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Federal Government for beach renourishment and their probability of collection. (Schedule provided by State of Florida to be incorporated). 4. The Reserve Category to indicate the net additions and deletions for each year and the source of the addition or deletion. 5. Indicates the beginning fund balances by source for FY11 112 (for Reserves). 6. Provides a column for carry forward balances. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7— 0. Break: 10 :32am Reconvened: 10: 44am b. FY 12 Fund 195 Grant Applications — continued from 5/27/11 Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommendations for the TDC Category "A Grant Applications from the City of Naples, The City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY- 11112 " dated June 27, 2011 and related backup material for consideration. 1612 A-8 June 27, 2011 Mr. Hendel moved to (recommend the BCC) approve the followingGrant Requests (for FY11112): 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance $163,000 - Sea Turtle Protection Program — Collier County $17,500 - Beach Tilling — Collier County 80171. $260,000 - Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring Collier County Beaches - 90536. $30,000 — Biological Monitoring - 90033 2. Planned Protects $50,000 - Wiggins Pass Maintenance Program — Engineering - 90522. $350,000 - Emergency Truck Haul — Vistas at Park Shore - 88030 $600,000 - FY12 113 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions — 80096 $300,000 - "MI Renourish, Design & Permit with BWSolutions — 80166 $20,000 - Laser Grading North Marco Beach (R133 -141) - 80198 $25,000 - Tigertail Beach Refurbishment - 80199 3. Beach Maintenance $135,100 - Beach Maintenance — Collier County/Marco Island — 90533 $76,850 - Beach Maintenance — City of Naples — 90527 $75,000 - Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal — County Wide — 90044 $55,000 - Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance — City of Naples — 90096 4. Administration Fee's $510,500 - Fund 195 and 183 Administration — Collier County - 90020 $107,700 - Indirect Administration Costs $109,300 - Tax Collector Fee's (2.5%) 5. Other Expenses $17,000,000 - Refourishment and Emergency Reserves $218,600 - Revenue Reserve (5 916) $79,000 - Category D Pier Reserve $146,000 - Reserve for Contingency Totals $3,400,000 - Reserve for FDEP Reimbursement Second by Ms. Becker. Mr. Hendel amended the motion to include the original motion and for Staff to amend any documents as necessary where Grants amounts are reduced due to work completed "in house." Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 7— 0. c. FY 12 Fund 183 Grant Applications — continued from 5/27/11 Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "For the TDC to recommend approval of the Category "A " Tourist Development Fund 183 Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities for 4 1612 A8 June 27, 2011 FY 2011112 in the amount of $1,975, 000" and related backup material dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Sorey moved to (recommend the BCC) approve the following Grant Requests (for FYII 112): $20,000 - Barefoot Entrance Sign — 80193 $150,000 - Barefoot Toll Booth Replacement — 80190 $40,000 - Barefoot Toll Booth Chemical Toilet — 80191 $25,000 - Barefoot Engineering and Permit — 80186 $20,000 - Barefoot Tiki Roof Repair — 80192 $20,000 - Barefoot ADA Ramp Rework — 80195 $150,000 - Barefoot Beach Parking Improvement — 80194 $50,000 - Conner Park Shelter and Bathroom — 80189 $500,000 New Clam Bay Facility Turnaround and Parking Lot Rework — 80187 $50,000 - Seagate Access Bathroom — 80188 $950,000 - Gulfshore Property Acquisition Mr. Sorey amended the motion to include the above motion with the deletion of the $950,000 for Gulfshore Property Acquisition from the Grant Requests. Second by Mr. Hendel. Motion carried 5 `yes" — 2 "no. " Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Hill voted "no. " The intent would be to place any funds for Gulfshore Property Acquisitions in a Reserve Account. Mr. Sorey moved to direct Staff to prepare an analysis on the time spent by Coastal Management Staff for the Administration of Fund 183 for the purposes of allocating said costs into the Fund 183 budget (as opposed to those costs being absorbed within the Administration of Fund 195). Second by Mr. Gibson. Motion carried 6 `yes " — I "no." Mr. Olesky voted "no." Mr. Sorey left at 11 :20am d. Category "B" Grant Agreements - Corrigan Sports, Inc. - Naples International Film Festival Jack Wert, presented the Executive Summary "Recommend approval of Tourist Development Tax Category B grant agreements with Corrigan Sports Enterprises, Inc. ($20, 000) and Naples International Film Festival, Inc. ($20, 000) " dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to (recommend the BCC) approve the contract for Corrigan Sports Enterprises, Inc. Second by Ms. Becker. Motion carried 5 "yes" — I "no. " Commissioner Hiller voted "no. " Commissioner Hiller noted her "no" vote was predicated on requiring a clarification on accounting procedures. Ms. Becker moved to (recommend the BCC) approve the contract for the Naples International Film Festival.. Second by Mr. Hendel. Motion carried 5 "yes" — I "no. " Commissioner Hiller voted "no." Commissioner Hiller noted her "no" vote was predicated on requiring a clarification on accounting procedures. X612 A18 June 27, 2011 e. FY 12 TDC Grant Funding Eligibility Review - Friends of Rookery Bay - United Arts Council of Collier County Jack Wert, Tourism Director presented the Executive Summary "Review two TDC grant applications for FY 12 previously considered at the May 27, 2011 TDC meeting" dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to (recommend the BCC) approve Staffs recommendations to fund the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. with a $40,000 Category B Grant and the United Arts Council for $24,000 as a tourism Marketing project funded by the Tourism Promotion Fund 184. Said approval subject to the legality (to be determined by Stafi) of the funding. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. Sneaker Clay Brooker, Friends of Rookery Bay. It was noted there is an existing Grant awarded to the Friends of Rookery Bay from FY10 111 which Staff is in the process of determining the legal mechanism for its disbursement. E Paradise Advertising Gross Billing Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommend approval of Change Order # 1 to Contract # 10 -5541 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. for up to $1 million in additional media and production billing at gross in accordance with their agreement with Collier County" dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. Commissioner Hiller moved to deny Change Order #1 to Contract #10 -5541 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Hendel moved to (recommend the BCC) approve Change Order #1 to Contract #10 -5541 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. for up to $I million in additional billing at gross in accordance with their agreement with Collier County. Second by Mr. Olesky. Motion carried 5 "yes" — I "no. " Commissioner Hiller voted "no. " g. TDC Meeting Schedule Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Discuss future TDC Monthly Meeting dates, time and location" dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. Discussion occurred on revising the regular meeting schedule. Council members were requested to submit their schedule of unavailable days and times to Staff so they may investigate the feasibility of altering the regular meeting schedule. Mr. Olesky moved to limit future Agendas to action items and Staff Reports. Marketing Partner Reports (item 9 Reports) to be submitted to Council Members and members may contact Staff independently to answer questions or request clarifications on the Report(s). Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. 0 16 12 A8 June 27, 2011 9. Marketing Partner Reports a. Tax Collections b. Paradise Advertising c. Research Data Services d. BCF — PR Agency e. Miles Media - Website Activity E Sales & Marketing Technologies - Search Engine Optimization g. Phase V - Fulfillment Services 10. Tourism Staff Reports a. Director b. Sales & Marketing c. Public Relations & Communications d. Film Office e. Sports Marketing f. International Representatives g. Visitor Centers 11. Detailed Staff Reports It was noted detailed reports were submitted on Agenda Items 9, 10 and 11 for member review. 12. Council Member Discussion None 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location —July 25,2011-9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:20 P.M. COLLIER COU}NTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ., Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 7 .'L 16 12 n Ju yl' •2 a'01 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, July 21, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Tourist Development Council 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, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala _ I Hiller 4- Henning `: Coyle Coletta Chairman: Commissioner Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff (Excused) Robert Miller Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director (via telephone) Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance Gail Hambright, Accountant Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Kelsey Ward, Purchasing Department 1 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2012 Board of County Commissioners Misc. Corres: Date:' 16112, Item #: I Lo Z 2-n , Copies to: A 8 161 JZ 21, 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. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. Roll Call A quorum was established. 4. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Gibson moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting June 27, 2011 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2011 Meeting. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 7— 0. 6. Presentations/Public Comment — (10 min) None 7. New Business a. Bluebill Ave Beach Access Turn Around Project Gary McAlpin, Director Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to award Bid No. 11 -5706 to DeAngelis Diamond, Inc. in the amount of $422,890. 00 (omitting Bid Alternate No. 3) for the construction contract of the Bluebill Ave. Beach Access Turnaround Project No. 80058.1 and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval " and related backup material. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No.11 -5706 to DeAngelis Diamond, Inc. in the amount of $422,890.00 (omitting Bid Alternate No. 3) for the construction contract of the Bluebill Ave. Beach Access Turnaround Project No. 80058.1. Said recommendation subject to the following stipulation: The Finance Department will review the proposed contract to ensure funds may be expended from Tourist Development Tax Fund 183. Second by Ms. Becker. Motion carried 6 `yes " — I "no." Mr. Hill voted "no." Jeff Klatzkow, Collier County Attorney recommended the motion include a finding that the Tourist Development Council's recommendation to approve the contract is supported by a finding the proposed project promotes tourism in the region. Mr. Hendel amended the motion to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No.11 -5706 to DeAngelis Diamond, Inc. in the amount of $422,890.00 (omitting Bid Alternate No. 3) for the construction contract of the Bluebill Ave. Beach Access Turnaround 2 16 12 A8 July 21, 2011 • Project No. 80058.1. The recommendation is based on the Council's approval of the projects proposed design and that finding the proposed project promotes tourism in the region. Said recommendation subject to the following stipulation: The Finance Department will review the proposed contract to ensure funds may be expended from Tourist Development Tax Fund 183. Second by Ms. Becker. Motion carried 6 "yes" —1 "no." Mr. Hill voted "no." Mr. Hill expressed concern on expending Tourist Development Tax revenue on roadway improvements. 8. Old Business None 9. Council Member Discussion None 10. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — TBD — Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:55 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVJKLOPMENT OUNCIL Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 3 161�,A9 ;q VaNdaBieE 8"eA M.3.7A1. Advisory ftftftiffee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 2, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: January 5, 2012 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 XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment By........................ Fiala Hiller Henning f Coyle Coletta 7� The next meeting is March 1, 2012 at 2:00 P.Nbc. Corres: ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 65 111TH Cate: H Q 'Z Ave. Naples, FL Item #:j- Copies to: 16 12 A19 o Ranym FEB 24 201- V"degiet 8"eA McS.TiL Advisoey Ooomomitiaa BY :....................... 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Fiala % January 5, 2012 Hiller Henning _ MINUTES Coyle colefka� I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 1:57 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Robert Kindelan —CLM, Michael Price- Advisory Board Applicant, Darlene Lafferty— .luristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda Add: Xl. A. New Board Members Xl. B. Bud Martin Memorial Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — December 1, 2011 Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of December 1, 2011 as submitted. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Budget Report Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: o The process to track expenditures independently for Phase I and Phase II is in progress. Noted FPL Project Expense 2008 to 2011 Report was generated (See attached) Charles Arthur clarified the elements needed for the Phase Tracking Reports: • Expenditures will be tracked on an Annual basis per Phase • All previous expenditures (FY11) will be reflected in the Phase I tracking Report Misc. Corres: o Currently Phase II should reflect (1) entry for RWA Darryl Richard stated RWA received payment for Phase II and Phase III. Date: Lf 1(v (2, Item #:1 C.Q S Cc,oies to: 16 1,2 A�9 Gloria Herrera continued: o Available Capital Outlay $3,662,500.00 - Line Item does not include the $2, 000, 000.00 reporting error Discussion ensued on the increase (to $40,000.00) in Line Item 37 - Transfers to Fund 111 (Allocation for Staff Services provided to the MSTU.) The Committee deemed that the cost increase for Staff Services should be charged to the County Clerk's Office as additional work was required on the FPL prepayment issue. Staff noted the cost increase (Fund 111) is applicable to all MSTU's. Dick Lydon noted exception is taken to the transfer of Tax Payer monies to the County expenses as stated yearly for the past 10 years. Charles Arthur requested Staff include a Balance Sheet with the Budget Report. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Robert Kindelan reported: • Failed Irrigation Controller was replaced - Replacement Cost $700.00 • Turf weed control is underway 2:11 p.m. Charles Arthur left. Bruce Forman questioned the availability of Mulch (Mulching was reported as incomplete at the December meeting due to a Vendor equipment malfunction.) Robert Kindelan replied that Mulch is available. 2:12 p.m. Charles Arthur returned. VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur Staff reviewed the following timeline on the Escrow Agreement. (See attached) • The Agreement was approved by the BCC • Currently the Agreement is with Fifth Third Bank (Escrow Agent) • Subsequently the Escrow Agreement will be forwarded to the Collier Clerk Office (by Fifth Third Bank) The Escrow Account Fee Schedule was discussed. (See attached) The Committee deemed the Escrow Fees should be paid by the County (as stated in the Agreement) or by Collier County Clerk Office. Staff stated the Fee Schedule will be paid by the MSTU. Charles Arthur proposed to submit a letter to the BCC requesting reimbursement of the $8,000.00 Escrow Fees (at a later time.) Discussion ensued on the FPL payment schedule. Staff stated FPL payments will be made based on the Vanderbilt Beach Conversion - Phase I Disbursement Schedule (See attached) 2 161 pg It was clarified that the actual invoiced amount will reflect the figures on the Disbursement Schedule in lieu of the Underground Cost Sheet. (See attached) Dick Lydon noted the Escrow Account pertains to Phase I Construction and questioned if similar issues (by the Clerk) will reoccur on payments for the subsequent Phases. Michelle Arnold replied: • Historical documentation on the MSTU (past seven years) will be provided to the Clerk • The data will be reviewed with Clerk and (Clerk's) Staff to establish a clear understanding on the MSTU's plans and various Phases of the Project It was questioned if a MSTU Committee Member is permitted to attend the meeting (with Staff and the Clerk's Office) to review the historical data. Staff perceived it was unlikely that the MSTU is permitted to attend the meeting. Charles Arthur noted that the MSTU was denied admission to the negotiation meeting that was held for the Escrow Agreement. He conveyed the County Clerk's statement that a meeting would not take place if the Public attended. Discussion took place on previous FPL prepayments. Michelle Arnold reported (per Scott Teach) the Sarasota County Clerk approved an advanced payment to FPL on a similar Project (Siesta Key Project.) Charles Arthur stated the FPL prepayment was issued by Sarasota County as they perceived that the State Tariff superseded any prepayment issue and eliminated the following: • Audit (of the cost) • Prepayment • Bidding It was noted that the Siesta Key Project spanned approximately one Mile and the Project cost was estimated at $1,000,000.00. Charles Arthur perceived that the MSTU should pursue obtaining an opinion by the Attorney General based on the following concerns: o There is no guarantee that the Collier County Clerk will issue prepayment on the subsequent Phases o Over time (2 -3 years) it is uncertain who will hold the Clerk's position o Posed when FPL submits invoices will the Clerk's office continue to scrutinize the amount of the payment Discussion ensued on securing the Attorney General opinion. Based on the Collier County Clerks level of authority in the language of the Escrow Agreement the Committee deemed that an opinion by the Attorney General is needed. Dick Lydon moved to direct Staff (Michelle Arnold) to return to the County Attorney and County Manager to express the Committees desire to obtain the Attorney General's opinion. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. 3 1612 N9 Discussion developed on OH /UG Conversion — Construction Phase Illustrative Timeline — Phase I (See attached) Darryl Richard stated that the Illustrative Timeline is the anticipated schedule by FPL required to complete the Project. The Committee perceived that the Timeline was incorrect as the previously submitted Timeline by FPL was significantly less. Staff tendered that the overhead portion of the Project can take place at any given time and may have extended the completion time. Discussion took place on payment to Comcast for Phase I. Michelle Arnold stated that the Comcast payment (approximately $300,000.00) will be discussed with the Clerk during the Historical Data review meeting. Phase II and Phase III was discussed. Staff reported coordination is underway to ensure minimal disruption during County Projects (sidewalks and utilities) and Phase II that are scheduled simultaneously. The area for each Phase was defined as: • Phase II — South section of the Commercial area and North Section of Blue Bill Ave. (Vanderbilt Beach Road and Bluebill Ave.) • Phase III - consists of the finger Streets and Vanderbilt Dr. Charles Arthur suggested completing the work on Vanderbilt Beach Road (around the corner) prior to starting on Vanderbilt Dr. Staff reported that Mark Sunyak recently went out to Bid for the Waterline Design. The location for the Utilities and the Sidewalk installations were described as: • East side — Utilities • West Side — Sidewalk Staff recommended delaying restoration of the area until the Project is completed. Additionally the Residents will be advised of the delayed restoration. Phase IV. RWA Survey was discussed. (See attached) It was stated that Public Utilities may pay for the Phase IV. RWA Survey. Vlll. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard — Discussed under Vll. B. Public Utilities Department — Mark Sunyak — Discussed under Vll. IX. Old Business - None 16 12 A19 ., X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman — None XI. New Business A. New Board Members Dick Lydon introduced Michael Price. (See attached) Michael Price gave a brief statement. Dick Lydon moved to recommend to the BCC for approval the appointment of Michael Price to serve on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. Bud Martin Memorial Charles Arthur stated Bud Martin was active on the MSTU committee for a number of years. He posed that the MSTU should install a bench to honor Bud Martin. The Committee agreed to install a memorial bench in honor of Bud Martin. Dick Lydon moved for Charles Arthur to coordinate the Bud Martin Memorial with an expenditure amount up to $3,000.00. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. XII. Public Comment —None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:20 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee 6, O-L Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting is February 2, 2012 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL Collier County, Florida Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited) As of respective date Unaudited As of 161 2 A`9 41 9130/2011 1113/2011 12/2/2011 1/6/2012 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 $ 5,750,147.81 $ 5,727,935.91 $ - $ - Goods Receipt/Invoice Receipt $ - $ 10,025.00 $ - $ - Accounts Payable 17,216.22 - - - Ending Fund Balance, 10/01/10 -audited 5,093,220.84 Beginning Fund Balance, 10/01/2011 - unaudited 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 Revenues: Ad Valorem Collections 968,706.32 4,757.44 - - Interest Revenue 43,274.19 - - Miscellaneous - - Expenditures: Other Contractural Services (63,779.65) - - Legal Fees ' Engineering (83,983.50) (9,830.00) - - Surveying Fees (4,024.70) - - Abstract Fees - Indirect Cost Reimbursement (8,000.00) (5,600.00) - - Waterandsewer (26,638.70) (1,580.55) - Sprinkler maintenance (1,093.53) (76.36) - - Landscaping (5,818.94) (390.00) - - Mulch (3,364.90) - - Other miscellaneous (fertilizer, electricity, etc.) (11,907.02) (30.27) - - Improvements - General (Capital) (113,456.22) - - Transfer to PA (6,673.42) (2,128.22) - - Transfer to TC (11,529.18) (142.72) - - Transfer to Fund 111 (Unic. MSTD) (32,000.00) - - Total Liabilities and Equity $ 5,750,147.81 $ 5,727,935.91 $ 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 Collier County, Florida Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Source of monies from inception - CUMULATIVE Ad valorem taxes $ 7,655,898.07 $ 7,660,655.51 $ - $ - Miscellaneous income (refund) 503.65 503.65 - - Interest earnings 626,245.55 626,245.55 - - Insurance recoveries 13,085.17 13,085.17 - - Good and services (2,245,240.32) (2,262,951.50) - - Transfers out to other County funds (318,200.00) (318,200.00) - - Cash balance as of respective date $ 5,732,292.12 $ 5,719,338.38 $ - $ - 1617„ A 9 Fiscal 2012 - Unaudited 21312012 3/3/2012 4/7/2012 5/5/2012 6/212012 7/7/2012 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 $ 5,732,931.59 16 !22 A9 r . � - . @ � � . � � c .Q . . . _@ \ k O Q _N $ / G 4 k ° Cl ' ' . 7 . & ƒ �. k ®q 22 /22 /k22 � o J \c yyG w_0 mom 2® 7/f � A % 2 G . � c � . � � & m ± \jam /f\ 890 . �( \ /� ��0 0�� »\ n ®a�� In e27J %mm �. ®6 V. a ®� •r @2© 0 /kk /jz u 3j _j 7k F >u2 U/ � � � � � . � 16 ! e k # \ 00 S 00 \- � Q _ . _ _ S . a A19 x4 S . a a . o _ a a • § $ � co ie a 2 \ 09 ® .. _ _ _ ® ® 0 7 § i ~ \ C j R _ \ ■ � ( � O m ). . V c . e a �CL 2 @\ °§f -f =k L \ CL �� °§ ' O /8 . di I ®ak J�$ •�k . � � � 7 • 0 �7 % . £§ s ® - I ) 2 .9 z . o s . A19 x4 d O O j r�i �f rN- i�OdOO xi �tN�D\00 � N v � � v OD s� col o a� ° u 00 •x.°; o �� Cd v W tj rA b d N CA i, w A4p,rii rA�tx 0 a Q,arnrr��r� ds 161 2 A9 Z z WWO�'N v -W O N O O O O N Irnrl 00 r- pp to p to 0 0\ in a� 5 O H m r �6s Ge 6s 6e �� o H `"' � N V}69Ge 6969 b9 W a C7,.'I�.M O N �I C, 'tc C, 't c)o�o� O (]� -�o�o� 69 69 69 6R 6R F-+ ri 69 69 69 69 69 d O O j r�i �f rN- i�OdOO xi �tN�D\00 � N v � � v OD s� col o a� ° u 00 •x.°; o �� Cd v W tj rA b d N CA i, w A4p,rii rA�tx 0 a Q,arnrr��r� ds 0 y� kn O " t� n I 01 d M_ � 00 0 �I � -4 0 00 O " rA vs 69 69 69 E'•'I b9 69 69 H GS 6F? 69 V) I O O v� U x �00�N� b 64 � N U U y bA b-0 cod O U m p ) u 'Ly ° t rn O U N O O s .4 O C, w aav�v��rw a� wa�H¢� ri P -1 16 1 1 e A 9 ooO0 0.� 0NN0M N 000Od N0 O H 0 �n o O O 69 69 69 6e 69 c c c C, d �' O U � 0) d I O O v� U x �00�N� b 64 � N U U y bA b-0 cod O U m p ) u 'Ly ° t rn O U N O O s .4 O C, w aav�v��rw a� wa�H¢� ri P -1 1612 A9 CEI AND LANDSCAPE INSPECTION VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU FPL UNDERGROUND ONVERSION HM FILE NO.: 2011.059 REVISED 1/27/2012 HOLE MONTES, INC. PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE Principal Engineer $195.00 per hour ProjectManager .......................................................... Senior Landscape Architect ........................................ Surveying Technician ................................................. SeniorInspector .......................... ................................ Principal Surveyor ...................................................... Administrative Assistant ............................................. ............................... $148.00 per hour ............................... $135.00 per hour ............................... $ 85.00 per hour ............................... $ 75.00 per hour ............................... $145.00 per hour ............................... $ 65.00 per hour Subconsultants AsbestosEngineer ................................................ ............................... $130.00 per hour Technician............................................................ ............................... $ 80.00 per hour H,\8200\.k- Marketing \l l \GHH \Vanderbilt Beach MTSU\VANDERBILT BEACH MTSU HM FEE SCHEDULE 01 -27 -2012 .doe 1612 Ag wr- �--i --I N --i N ��--Iw$Qa N N H x X, m m = N X• N X• x x X• X- X- X - p m � W W m y A W N N N N N N N m 0 N N p Q N J Cl V7 A W N N G 3 n 3 V) Li to r) O G7 p p n to W < n z m a' 7 Q N m 3 v v o 3= n is n O m m < < a r f =� p °' c a s 0 c 3a o Z Q„ °-' .^, C n 0 0 ao n .» O N 'a O o Di 3 n 0 3 Oo O p 3 0_ 0 3 2 C o v < v „ D Oo m ° v 0 v ° c c1 o O a- CD N m z O Nm CD 7C 7C .+ m N 3 ", x O ^'! H v 3 00 (D v rM 0 n O N ° ,�•� 3 N 3 3 y o iw. O m x �, .. 7 0o 3 m N q = N m N H Q K N 7 N O m > V a N a o c H _M O Q IV W W p p W W W W W WM W W W W� W W N N N N N N N ~ m m A W N N F+ �--� N Q N N J in (!1 A W N N m (D O C O O 3 m T D 1 a s m m m w r' m o - m -" m m D N r' o 0 0 D m � < 02 °- 0 v °< d m m o m v v 3 m a• o o a V 3 o ° o O 0 j n Q• j O 3 N 0 3 "" o o ? < Oia O N << D CL n a m< y3, m O°q 3 o; a m Q o m; ., 3 0 = m °' ao 0 0 Qj N ^ O � m 3 00 � m -^ r. v = c ° 0 3 - ° m 0 LA O Dl v CL m rD X f1 3 = 7 rD m m < O 3 '! O m -a 3 00 N A S v N �' 3 N m vNi m .nr - n O '? N 3 (D F N O O O m �' m 'a A O 3 w N w • rNr 7 �. N M A H M N m a, p• F 3 v M 3 K m 'O O O 2 (A ° 3 rt c Q o 0° � o a z o ° N 3 m m 3 ° 3 m 3 o < o CL o m a O CL a M m n\ m a r) v C ° m c CL S ° m 3 vmi O- v O O 3 O d (p 00 * m 00 3 m N O m C1 3 O- (, C Ci '6 .t O N 'a m (o N N = 3 m Oo T y C CD O_ 3 H v 3 O 3 - 00 O- V "'• a ° 3 ° 3 OO 3 .3. m .a (ND m m H ff m D 3 v 3 `� N f1 O - m '* C 3 O W :3 < w S ^ n rnt• m Q C 3 C rv+• 3 Om7 .N•t {/� O n N v 3 w 3 O O '6 ° ` N O CL m N .vi On - - V' N ° 7 oSi m 3 oo 3 Q < w rn+ < v O Oo cu 'Y £ 0 < N O_ n w 3 Q °* m v CL n O v rl a H < r. N M 3 w S LL y ° v d m C 3 Dpi 3 .3-r Oo a' m vi '� O S n D N _ (<D M C Q n M v 0 Z v N 3 C Dri 0 O C m ((D S rD 3 C (D O ('D, v ° 0 z 3 s 3 o m a m :D. 0 v o ao 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m 0 � a � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 -a m a- a- o- a• a• a• < < a• m a- m m a• v a• a• a- a- a• o A m m m m m m m m m 3 m 3 3 m m m m m m m 3 C 'a -9 V m 'O m 'O C a y= y= 6 a V V fp A O < O < O < O < O < m o N �+ N .. 3 < 3 r 0 < 3 m 3 0 < O < O < O < O < O < O < �? FD* m O CL a aaa 0 0 a a a as a aa0.'a O M CL m o- m nQa.m m m 3 a• m a• m m a o m Q s CU m Q m mQ m m a m Qao.o m m- m r F o o f a � X 3 0 3 3 v F o 0 0 < r•i S _. S 3 7 '•i 5 ° 3 O 3 O 3 '•i S m .m•.• 3 m m ,m.• m 3• '+ S 3- 3 3 3 m m mrMD rMD w O3NO ? O3NO w ai .N+ N A N x A F <� m X_ 0 % <% �_ a f F f << x rD CaC cac �. o, m 3 m m 0 OC �^ �^ N S S -a 0 00 0, N N N C m CL N- W W v M CD C N �^ 7 CD m n v v m m m m 0 m m O Q .•t .' 0 :r .•r .•r - .•r m 7 3 n 3 N m y Y DS/ - w - w - m d - m < 0 3 3 3 C 3 3 m m m > m s o .-: > o0 oQ w > c m cm O r S v m 3 0 r) m n c 00 m 3 m O_ •� m m m m m z z = z z J w w w w x 0 0 O O w J A J 0 a p D p m m p D m p D p D Z (n1 n Z n n o D 0 D a D o D m m m^ m (^ y X� < N< 7 (^ (^ w C C C C N N LI) N � x� C A N p D D D D < << D Z N m m< m m m N M N J O m Z � Z � o U L > LL N LL LL N O IL offiffimom O � (9 Co 00 c L a � O co 000 Vi A « w 9 O OO ' v y3 Q Q GI co > > > ��QQOfff N M O O � O O O O O 00 O a` N II gi f N A Cl) Vo O 0 m M 61 0 0 N V O N (D v o v v LO W N(MON LO O �N�MCOO O Cl) M n O 'O 00 oi to Cl) ... 0 v r-w - N (6 ILI n N CO M U) �-- N O 68-1 69 613 1 61311 61311 613 &91169J&3 vi I 613 E» F» v3 t» m VoONO O co O O O O) W W r O IM M O C (D m O co V' O C CO n It IQ CO Cl) N co W R (D G N d 61111613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 60613613613 M co Lo co co Vn O O N O Cl) O N CO N LO I- n O) co v M n v v M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 O M N O U jL Z0 00 M M 00 M Cl) M M M (M y 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 -- O O O O Q n Von VOn ° VV) Von Von Von LOO VOn v v v v v v v v v v ) rn O` CL LL w CC 0) tm C U m m O U Vn N y Cc n 7 N :p °iS .O N U N U C LL L On L O� j C V N V d j V CL � O O 2 N O a _ Mn a >(n W LL 0 U JLL 02 c a�i E2 O Y U N U C m N Cc CO a C 'C J• fO f0 O O O 0 U V C c l0 O U ] O '- U B W U O C N C N O O N E ftf 'O N Y y U 0 E` .�+ LO N _ E J N 'O 7 N U (0 N d 0 0 0 x 0 0 N (Lf A UUUI�LL IiLL 55� zaln> offiffimom Q 1603,60 613 613 6131613 y (9 � (9 Co m c L a � O co 000 Vi A « w 9 000 � Ori ' v y3 Q Q 1603,60 613 613 6131613 y M U M N a U d O_ w f � co CO N N N A « w 9 '0 CD W Vn cc LO O t y3 Q Q GI co > > > ��QQOfff m �° 'O 9 C VV E Q d E E E O U 613 613 613 O O i i M i O co M M 4613 613 fA 613 9 V3 613 e9 609 16 12 A'9 r1 w yaM a V() LO M 0 Z' C' LO COOO CO W O VO fig 613 vim N M a pC222 O mMCLCL N 0 g 0 Y r n r" G N r-- N 't V00 O2 0 00 0 0 co 7 N O) l7 0 0 0 O a U d O_ w f O) b y c E O H 0 le r } O O LL 0 y3 Q a E co > > > ��QQOfff m �° c) Y E O o J H H FM DD wx in co S LL LL LL LL C; 9 CL W). a` 00 II gi f N A N(:0000 00LO LO o t p p n OOO c�Y m T(D J W w yaM a V() LO M 0 Z' C' LO COOO CO W O VO fig 613 vim N M a pC222 O mMCLCL N 0 g 0 Y r n r" G N r-- N 't V00 O2 0 00 0 0 co 7 N O) l7 M 0 0 0 0 0 x � O 0 0 0 O_ M X F y c E C N °° > H U C« ac Y m y OOO n O ry O 03 E Z E c m �° > = y E d d Un V CL c 7 00000 V}i> aU ¢ �OC4 rn M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 O 0 0 0 O_ M 0 0 0 0 (0 o w VOOOOOO OOO n O W q 00 OO Un V CL coo0000 00000 o coo0 r- . 000 00 cl) v N(:0000 00LO LO o rOO n OOO a a00N O (O 0 0 N (D v o v v LO W 0) LO O O O Cl) M n O 00 oi to Cl) ... 0 v � - N M (00 CO 613 613 61). 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613(A v3 &3 W. 613613 613 6f OO OOO OO O O O 00 000 000 � MON 01 N O O O ' O O o ' ' 0) Vn o r- ' ' ' M ' N M ' P, c0 0 M O N (D O to 04 O co N r VLO N O) VO - o n Cl) 613 613 613 613 69 613 613 613 613 613 613 b9 613 613 613 613 69 69 613 613 Cl) o 0 W (OO 0 O . W ' ' O O O V Cl) ' (n O' n O ' N n 0 r CO co M M M Iq V N 613161316131 61316131613 6131611 N 1 0 co A N (D O a V vi ci ci 61316131t`9I 691 631613 613140 O N M a O r DD EA d9 613 613 619 613 v3 613 613 613 613 613 M 613 64 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 w 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 64 613 v: 613 v► 613 613 v3 613 v3 613 60 M O O O o 0 o O O o 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O OOi�, OO 0000 0000 00000 O O 00 00 000 00`� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O O 00 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 0 o O o O O O O M M rCO VnOONOO NVnMVn OMVO V C O Nt OM o0 CDOCO 0S 00 Cn M 00 N N C7 0 � 0 co CO - N LO VO VO co N N 00 O V' N r- n I In � co M MVOr �0 co "000 tIt NM - - hN di M M 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 619 613 M 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 69 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 6131613 613 613 IA 613 613 4A Z a) W W W �OUZU 00. co J J�U LL CL O �U J W LL Q On O W Q ~�zw -�QI -CEO z. wwH wLuwz zzz N zw ? CCLL (x° a WwZz�U00�W�DUt ww�U¢ �z )g wwP� w z av1,� D E�zU F o�O? ��rs �LWL0z�z (D U) a0�W U u�z _ °OOH w QO°az ~UaawQ2h— ':wOOUWWZ0 �ZwXz aWjw m � �w� �N�C: c 0Q H �w= LL LL oLL LL W>- IaL0 ZY W WCnQ� w O H wO OLL FHLL ii m LU QQ 2 �� W ZZ��V'nZ QLL��Ow FQUjw2z 00wQw H W O~ ZZ Z W W Q Uin 1LL-- HH(ai Caz FJ.- J Wt�n?�o dd W >zcan�200 -j0 LWL O 0 �F mm� ��° N M to CO n O W O N M a W W n W W O N M e)• Vn CO n O Of O r N M S VO (O n Vp M O N M N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M-4 of a s