Loading...
Backup Documents 09/11-12/2012 Item #16I1611 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE September 11, 2012 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Memorandum: Debbie Wight Re: Special Districts in Collier County 5.24.12 2) Mediterra North and Mediterra South Community Development Districts: Interlocal Agreement 5.3.12 3) Quarry Community Development District: Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 5.31.12 4) Verona Walk Community Development District: Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2012/2013 5.31.12 e) 16l�,A. MEMORANDUM P, ECEIVED VN 12 2012 Date: May 24, 2012 a of County Commissioners To: Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager, County Manager's Office Interim Director, Communication & Customer Relation`s Fiala ;) Hiller From: Debbie Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator M\; �' Henning Coyle Subject: Special Districts Coletta Per your request to address the correspondence sent to Board of County Commissioners Chairman Fred W. Coyle from Representative Debbie Mayfield, Chair of the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee in Tallahassee, I have concluded upon researching the provided list of special districts in Collier County that at least 39 of the 45 special districts reported for Collier County are indeed correct. The remaining six (6) special districts listed of the 45 are in the City of Naples and City of Marco Island. I recommend that Commissioner Coyle check COMPLETE on the ATTESTATION FORM on Page 3, DATE and SIGN in the box halfway down, and HARD MAIL or EMAIL to the JLAC at address provided at bottom of same page. I worked with Marcia Kendall of Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management Division, who has been monitoring special districts and compiling information for more than 15 years on behalf of Collier County. She has appropriately reported them to the state. She has provided expanded spreadsheets with additional information (attached). Regarding the six (6) special districts of the 45 in the City of Naples and City of Marco Island, although I sent emails to both City Manager Moss and City Manager Riviere, along with the JLAC letters, respectively, I have been informed this week that correspondences also would be sent to the municipalities once the counties were complete. I thought it was my responsibility to get the information based on the fourth paragraph of Rep. Mayfield's letter. Regardless, the cities may have already received their letters from Tallahassee as I have not received responses from them yet. On the list of 235 non - special districts statewide, 17 are in Collier County, predominantly MSTU's and including the municipalities. But none of these are special districts. I consulted with analysts Ed Finn and Randy Greenwald in the Office of Management and Budget for the non - special districts portion of the task. Mist. Correa: County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow approved. Attachments: Dab. 'It 1 i 112 Item �i c= JLAC Letter (original) o " 1 Special Districts & CDD Spreadsheet Copies to: CDD & Special Districts Database Spreadsheet "111;:h; HARII)CM10LOS Pre"itleut Senator Art henia L. Joyner Senator Evelyn J. Lynn Senator Nbria Lorts Sachs Senator Stephen R. Wise 1611A1 q THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE JOINT LFGiSt,ATIVE AUDITING COMMITTEE Reprrserttative Debbie Mayfield, Chair Senator Jim Norman, Vice Chair April 27, 2012 Honorable Fred W. Coyle, Chair Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112-5746 Dear Chair Coyle: 1) IAN CANNt)N Speaker �LOAtDt` Representative Larry Ahern Representative Daphne D. Campbell Representative .Jeff Clemens Representative Bryan Nelson Representative Kenneth Roberson RECEIVED Office of th-. Vouia, ,v,rA,,. --er _MAY 3 2012 Action �Vll t l �Y When a new special district is created, Section 189.418(1), Florida Statutes, requires the special district to 1 file specified information with the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) within 30 days after the adoption of its creation document. [Note: Prior to October f, 2011, this notification was provided to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).] The DEO uses this information to maintain the Official List of Special Districts Online which helps to ensure the transparency of information about Florida's special districts. In addition, numerous organizations, including state and local agencies, use this information to coordinate activities, compile financial and other information, and monitor special districts for compliance purposes. Timely and accurate reporting of this information by local governmental entities is very important. Recently, state officials became aware of a special district that was created by a county more than two decades ago, yet it vas not reported to the DCA Ufltil 2011 when a citizen called the DCA to innuire about the lack of financial reports for the special district. DCA staff then contacted the county regarding the inquiry and discovered that this particular special district had never filed any of the required financial reports with the state. Since its existence was not known by the state offices that track financial reporting, this special district had never been subject to state action by the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee (Committee) pursuant to Section 11.40, Florida Statutes, for failure to rile these reports. To help ensure that the state is aware of all special districts created by counties and municipalities, 1 3111 asking each county and each municipality to review the list of special districts that already appear on the Official List of'Special Districts Online and verify whether it is complete and accurate or needs updating. Enclosed is the list of special districts located, in whole or in part, in Collier County. To verify, please complete the enclosed attestation form to indicate whether all special districts that have been created by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners are included on the list. Please add, in the space provided on the form, any special districts, or potential special districts, that have not been included. Kathryn 11. DuBose, Coordinator 111 West Madison Street, Room 876, Claude Pepper Jiuilding, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1400 'reicphone (850) 487 -4110 Fax (850)'122 -' 667 jlar�r,leg.�tate.tl.u, I lonorable Fred W. Coyle, Chair Collier County Board of County Commissioners A April 27, 2012 Page Two What is /is not a special district? Section 189.403, Florida Statutes, defines a special district as a unit of local special- purpose government operating in a limited geographical area (i.e., one or more counties, one or more municipalities, a neighborhood, etc.) and created by general law, special act, local ordinance, or by rule of the Governor and Cabinet. A special district has limited, explicit authority that is specified in its charter and /or the laws under which it operates. In addition, its governing board has policy- making powers as opposed to an advisory function. Special districts provide approximately 70 specialized governmental functions in Florida, including community development, community redevelopment, neighborhood improvement, industrial development, housing finance, health facilities, educational facilities fire control, and library services. Special districts do not includr. school districts; community college districts; Municipal Service Taxing or Benefit Units (MS "fU /MSBU); Seminole and Miccosukee "tribe Special Improvement Districts; or, boards providing electrical services that are political subdivisions of a municipality or part of a municipality. Enclosed is an alphabetical list of select entities from across the State that the DEO and the DCA have determined are not special districts. If you have an entity in your county that is not included on the enclosed list of special districts, and you are unsure whether it meets the definition of a special district, please call Jack Gaskins with DSO's Special District Information Program Office at (850) 717 -8430. Also, if you believe that any entity in your county that is included on the enclosed list of non special district entities meets the definition of a special district in Section 189.403, Florida Statutes, please call Mr. Gaskins. Oversight and accountability for all levels of government are very important issues for me. Unless state officials are informed of all local governmental entities that are created, those charged with enforcement cannot effectively perform their jobs. Again, I respectfully request that you review the enclosed list of special districts, complete the attestation form, and return the form to the Committee's office at your earliest convenience. I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Kathy DuBose or Debbie White, Committee staff, at (850) 487- 41 10. Best Regards, Representative Debbie Mayfield Chair cc: Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Enclosures: List of Special Districts in Collier County Attestation Form DF0 Non - District Report 1611 Al AT'FES'FAIJON I erification of the Official List of.SI)ecial Districts Online (9pri12012) The enclosed list of special districts for Collier County (please select one): V1is complete. 1111 special districts that have been created by our county are included. is NOT complete. One or more special districts created by our county are not included. If the list is NOT complete, please provide the name and contact information for each omitted special district. Attach additional pages as needed. Name of Special District Registered Agent's Na►ne Registered Agent's Phone # NOTE: Please see Section 159.415, F.S., for statutory requirements liar registering these special districts with the DEO. This form does not satisfy the statutory requirements. CN44 Ru", RpA" a F I FR D q. COYUF (NAME),cdynr i ocmmj ssi 4�i> itS (POSITION TITLE) attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above information is complete and accurate as pf the L:UL (DATE) of j--'J N tr (MONTH), 2012. (SIGN HFRF "'o, pl1 lilt tii% nan7e Of any Gt11C1' SpG::ial dl: strict located, !:l ;McL'c oe In pait, in your county that you are aware of and is not included on the enclosure. Name of Special District Who do you believe created the Special District? (i.e., name ofnurnicip(Ility) PLEASE RETURN TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDITING COtINIMITTEE F -Mail: f 1_lc (11lC�statc.tl.us Fax: 85,0.92i56ta7 Address: 11 WOW Il4tdisen St., Rm. 876; Tallahassee, FL 32399 -1 30rI ATTEST' ' , Ap m and legal suffi ciency: DWI T E. BROCK C�Eleffr w Count AttBDefu 1 to rM trnr.sri c v of ao to 1611 Al mrnnnnnAAnnnnn In0. °° ca. a d cm cm 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?? � a i ' d a ` 0 0 v INIXI(A IQ, 3 I'm o, a s �� m 91 n n n n A n n n z z _'o o or A A to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o, a or too' R o, c n W R n N to S— 0 C C C C C C C C n K ?1 a c a Q of .0 0 7 >> 7 7 7 O 0 3 to ul a M (A 3 a 01 0 n 3 X 3 a a 0a , ? ??? ? ? ?? C� 3 o i a a n n 3 o 3 n n R 0 2 x x n D n D 3 i .. 3 n° o Ar n c o g n 3 c o o n to 0 n n a° O a R o o>1 c to 0 a o 3 a° 3 m o v, 0 3 0' 3 3 0 -0 ' 0 0 c y c 0 c 3 b 3' o n d 3 3 3 3 3< o R 3 c> > ma o 0 or o o -+ o to a 3 3( 3 0 ?c —� 3 0 �pc c f a aul,M�'ctc' lac �c 4?3 az _ o_ O C a >_ >_ c a =' rn D of 0 >_ D _� ap o ao vpax q� < o ?3 �+po 700 0 A3 a p R o < r6 a 70 u. 2 G re n o n a s O? o o A 70 << a �c R a �i n a n 0 3 -1 0 0 0 0 ' a a 0 0 0 o z C c a a o 3 3 v3'�v14 v°: a p3 3 � p `� c o >'° v° c ? p a a _ 3 R p a a p 4 R= 1 C g v la v gin to N � � s w w y D A < a < a D < a D < a D < a D < a D < m D < a D < a D < a D < a D < a D < a D < a D < co D < rD D < a D < a D < a D < a D < D < D < D < D < D < D < D < D D < < D < D < D < � o ' s A A p C � A n 0 n 0 n 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 A 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 A 0 n 0 A 0 n 0 n o n Q n o n A 0 0 A 0 n 0 A 0 on d .N (D C a A A a � ri v h n n o n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n n o n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n x c n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n n n n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 p � , Z M fp 0 a o a Q a o a° 0 n ° n ° ° n ° - ° ° n p � , z a a tD a a a C z 0 z a — a — n a — a — _ 0 C C C C c 0 no 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c C o C 0 c c° ° cn c0 tL � ' CL n S O 2 / 7 $ / } \ � . � / / \ 0 \ / f $ cu 2 1611 I Al I I c ® � o 2 « , o 2 a 2 # § / § J & i 2 _� ƒ /2� J � � # f c § I cy �E�Qeto ag 3 a■ f o 7 ƒ n c ] E i o g OD & o § 3 :3 o $ § 'A ] W § ] n f § ] S § c 2 J 2 0\ k 0 $ 3 Z k W a '/ // 0 o 2 0 0 ' 0 § 2 $ § & 2 $ 10 } o 3 o 3° R 2 U K M ■ # � M ] 2 v » � 0 K » » » » $ » f » » O » ƒ » < » & � a < ■ m � � � ■ � � � _____ n 0 � n 0 ■ ■ � @ � e n ■ 0 � � ■ X#IkM ƒ- J °E00E o « , o m f a! �#E2 2 2 2 2 2 , § /2� J # c § I cy �E�Qeto ag ] M T J ° o g OD & o CL =@ f� / k k k J 0 k k 0 k a '/ // 0 o 0 0 0 ' 0 § § § § § � » � 0 � n 0 � n 0 ■ ■ � @ � e n ■ 0 � � ■ T 6 O 0 3 d n. O n. m 0 7 0 d ti 3 A tJ J r� 0 N _7 d o. 3 n: d 3 3 n a a. C ° v" o. o' d n 71 0 ^ 7 rJ J 7 J U A W N O <D OD n n n n 0 n n A 2 2 v m m o o O # 2 O O m 0 o p m m n m m 7 7 O N V x T N r o 7 C o e d c 3 0 1p m 7 .. S w v v 0 2 S KD 2 � x (�1 lb N X ° m i y m 0 z N m i F m ` X j j N ry N m top K m n O ; m C m cb z CO j [ lb p Q ?i c � C c O n O 7 s r n a Y Y � a 7 � 7 'e' r � S r �c t a `a r k O q T 1611 Al i 1 a n n a n n a a a O io a ^r n m m v w 0 0 o D y< m m b O 1Om '� m0 A 0 c a 3 z n o p 7 d o � 7 ' f = 3 N 7 C n 3 3 o v? g 7 • i r n m � O 3 a a Q g D a ? G O o u7 o b Q p ° a m o a a v o i3 j o C (: @ m N o 0 o N v �. v, d r 0, N r V en O o 3 3 3 O c 0 0 3 » Z v � o' v CD N < N O tp O v 3 - U U U N U U U A A A A A A A A A A W W W W W W W W W N N N N J U A W N O (O °J V T U A W N � O p m :1 p U A W N O p m J M m m m m m m m m m m v v v v v v n 0 n 0 n n 0 n 0 n n n n m p < a 7 m m m m m m m m rr y n n y a a o o o o 0 0 3 3 m rd a < r x n n v m s o o m m m M w w w 3 W 3 3 w n o ° 0 0 T r r ^ m o• r n^ a 0 W m w m n »? D 3 a n c e o o, & o 0 o m 0 m 7 pj T .Z d m q C '� 7 7 6 1 m m f m Ci c c r Y v"° S•i d n A A v o r e 7 y d A A o Z N i Q 0 a' 3 o s' 7 o 0 ow go So 1 m n 3 1° a m? d o c a r m D m ° a 0 3 ° o n `m o ° `m a �° °° 3 d o d v; �° 7 7 w m O 7 to m 3 ^ C o - o o S n 3 3 "— f < m e m v 3 v o 0 0 'o 0 o m n C a a c O to O v 7 ° 7 0 m '< 0 F CL o n c .^» o m 'n' o O. �. ° v o 0 o �• v a c n a 'o 7 s `^ w `! r m o T ^ a r - m 2 2 n a 2 le a - A a d c o c n c o o r o o a 0 3 n oan' n a Q m > > Q v `= i i n m o 0 0 0 0 m 2 c� ,o n al^ m 0 ^ 2 o m° z n m d h o m> j 2. m 3 ti H R, x o ? ? v m H a o° o� °~ o Q m 7 m m m' m m Q 0 3 x m o 3 '0 C, `D w 3 x p rmj .o m m o'' n n y' o f 4. rn c m ; oa ti 3 m m t® a O 'A c N a o j Q T N N O' m Do CD m ' °= z oo T n a a o m o m° 3 2 1 C ID O y m 7 O 0 Q e ° v r a 0 n m ,o •< C 3 o y O z d m (D CD 03i k Q 3 m Q = o ° o o c3 m Q 3 ; ; IQ I m a c 3 Q o = b m g a a a o z o N m m n V c 0 0 ac T, d m C 2 n O n Oc ^ O a z 7 G ^ a :n G o' 0 m F 3 r u 3 A IJ O 'f. m n g t7 07 W m W m "o N -" m A am a m m o m m 1 j O 0 s' i 7 o' D t n :• � 0 m b o p'O ?d m o °_ D rl O n a y o o n m n 7 m c d - o co O m Q 2 � n o � O i o .0 0- a � o m 3 m 7 ° � n rn m � O ° 0 3 cn o v m O 7 � a O 3 m 0 o 3 3 a o o y Q < a O F ID m g ° y �c 3 m n 0' 'Ti N v 0 i0 n o: i0 j C QL n 4 m p Q O x a O n O 7 s r n a Y Y � a 7 � 7 'e' r � S r �c t a `a r k O q T 1611 Al i 1 a n n a n n a a a O io a ^r n m m v w 0 0 o D y< m m b O 1Om '� m0 A 0 c a 3 z n o p 7 d o � 7 ' f = 3 N 7 C n 3 3 o v? g 7 • i r n m � O 3 a a Q g D a ? G O o u7 o b Q p ° a m o a a v o i3 j o C (: @ m N o 0 o N v �. v, d r 0, N r V en O o 3 3 3 O c 0 0 3 » Z v � o' v CD N < N O tp O v 3 - U U U N U U U A A A A A A A A A A W W W W W W W W W N N N N J U A W N O (O °J V T U A W N � O p m :1 p U A W N O p m J M m m m m m m m m m m v v v v v v n 0 n 0 n n 0 n 0 n n n n m p < a 7 m m m m m m m m rr y n n y a a o o o o 0 0 3 3 m rd a < r x n n v m s o o m m m M w w w 3 W 3 3 w n o ° 0 0 T r r ^ m o• r n^ a 0 W m w m n »? D 3 a n c e o o, & o 0 o m 0 m 7 pj T .Z d m q C '� 7 7 6 1 m m f m Ci c c r Y v"° S•i d n A A v o r e 7 y d A A o Z N i Q 0 a' 3 o s' 7 o 0 ow go So 1 m n 3 1° a m? d o c a r m D m ° a 0 3 ° o n `m o ° `m a �° °° 3 d o d v; �° 7 7 w m O 7 to m 3 ^ C o - o o S n 3 3 "— f < m e m v 3 v o 0 0 'o 0 o m n C a a c O to O v 7 ° 7 0 m '< 0 F CL o n c .^» o m 'n' o O. �. ° v o 0 o �• v a c n a 'o 7 s `^ w `! r m o T ^ a r - m 2 2 n a 2 le a - A a d c o c n c o o r o o a 0 3 n oan' n a Q m > > Q v `= i i n m o 0 0 0 0 m 2 c� ,o n al^ m 0 ^ 2 o m° z n m d h o m> j 2. m 3 ti H R, x o ? ? v m H a o° o� °~ o Q m 7 m m m' m m Q 0 3 x m o 3 '0 C, `D w 3 x p rmj .o m m o'' n n y' o f 4. rn c m ; oa ti 3 m m t® a O 'A c N a o j Q T N N O' m Do CD m ' °= z oo T n a a o m o m° 3 2 1 C ID O y m 7 O 0 Q e ° v r a 0 n m ,o •< C 3 o y O z d m (D CD 03i k Q 3 m Q = o ° o o c3 m Q 3 ; ; IQ I m a c 3 Q o = b m g a a a o z o N m m n V c 0 0 ac T, d m C 2 n O n Oc ^ O a z 7 G ^ a :n G o' 0 m F 3 r u 3 A IJ O 'f. _ 1611 Al 4 L tb V N N A W N Oa � V V V J J _! V V J V O1 N O7 OI N Q1 U Z :.._ 1p OJ V Q• U A W N O tO tb V U N A W N m O tND m s r r r ° r • p s ' a • • a a e 3 7. �. o. 3 z r r a n a v a o. a n ° a a a` a a a n a 7 p C a m e - m a m r ° r r Y 6 ° 7 f' v v a r m r 0 r a c _ > > • ° o o o °A v v r L7 v 0 O z O m r r m n o o o O T ° 7 r j c p it a Z • a it ran • ° m S m A O ° 3 g n > x ao ^. -a N= n o c D m 0 m o (n O c 00 < y 00 a r 1 m > a o G N m m G) 3 v o • '0 3 a c a v a 0 a 'm a 0 c ? a p n 7 v rn N r v v 3 m r c 9 C _O c T y v 3 0 m 0 3 a a n m w c o ? w c c » 'm' T n o fn r 3 -0 n c n Gr., ' w a �• T w v --. w , m InO c ° 2 S w 3 S r = ' S _ D m n i Z n ° ° 3 ^a ' .<• m °' r ° a 3 c o < a c m c n 3 am 'r a 0 p • o m 3 c n a ± C N p D o g . 2 • 0 b c m a o e m a m o p 0 0 n S ° m o d 00 3 °. r- n a 2 0 o 0 3 S. 7 m t O g a' 0 2 ^ a o o ° w - o ° 0 3 ° n n i d ° ° In 3' m • 8 w D o to o Y m c a o a to _a m m a = 2 r. c i e c c c > > j c Q o 2 0• v n � � C � � 1� H 4 ° Z o n k� m ° a d m^ $ (b 3 0 3 c CD CD � $ • 3 n � n m a m 3 g o a m 'a m k g m CD " o F d a " '^ • ? c o o m o m m o, z 4 0 -4 FS t w m C7': CD O^ � j 2 \ d cD •' O 7 ° + 8 a C lb c m 3 N ° oc t7 °' a o 3 ° a W p a n _ a ° a ri 1 rS 0 °r < ° cO n z 0 m a 3 m CZ `� ,., FO a_ W Z p ° _ V m •r c ° ° c7 n �. D r 3 m o G a e1 c P C r^ S •3 0 °_3 a ' 4 q • r < 3 2 k m N m m v ^m E a w m • n a D v rn Z x 0 Ci j n' Ip A wr m N rn v • ^ T m a O I O , W 3 r 3 •� a °F m 7 a O Q "' o 3 N m ti ID � O N r m �^ 3 • lo' K n "r, D a @ r r o o v o f 7 o O • v me c o m It m o m ' O O r •� m O rn c o Z N a 0 5 v 2 o • C 100 r m m A CO) v • n °' T Z R: Co m b m ° r w m a�2 • • d o 0 o n w f m OV r n U3 •^. 3 c loo 0 c °o ti 10 O m (jp C 001 g r a m 'c � S c qb m a Y a m c n a m 0 -• v c °0i r m ! S < • m a ° a • i Cl ' d O l 00 r m '° a v m __ _ v o m o g ID W r m x n c •c D Q . 2 • N r m n 1° o m D c o 2 °' to 2 ZL O n c m c n m : 3 ti Z y : ` a m r_ n a > < o 3 N C 0 3 o p v c m .�. m a •� > 10 r_ n a > < a m A 4 [ 0 Q < ,. . Iap m ^ n < > a m n O 0 o v n 3 Ian 7 Q O ` V p m 0 CD C ^» fi ° .2 o a m a r m x m n i j 00i 0 o m '? c r o o p N. n C N m 'o 10 VWi a v° a. 3 C T m : m .7 k o 0. A a g N m m N O 0 m ° ° a O (0J 3 O a r .. o ° m o N 3 o $ r 0 .. c ° o o q ,^. n m W �' IQ O o (O rD 2 2 c = v = o O c 3 m Sr 7 7 C) n O O S ? v n = m e o '0 a n a 0 o C Z m 4r 3 Q rqc� O Oa 2 m 7 m Q F m N p i a- m b o m W 10D j O G vr' o , a o c G. C C .�. 0 ,. Z v, N a 1611 Al ._ � � J J t0 . W N O tp QD J O N d W N N O t0 G' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z f f O O O O O O O O O p m m b d d G Z a ^ f a a a a u y o o m m d m F u a 0m m m o 0 0' 7 7 S 7 S S S 7 S o F F ° O Z r T m y a w w uoi E 3 c e ^ '� ^ m d a m Q n d p °p w n rL a s n o o < o o s c ' a n G p c 0) a m .. e c n c D o '� K a �< r b o w o d O o m d p O m > > c a Ge c o y _m m m P < S On O a '0 p d m 7 O m 0 D v S a O m m° 7 ° ` 3 3 m 0 3 .c 3 m D m n m o a T m o y 3 C C& m Q it A » v Pe ox o 2 s T m a 4 O N d b p O d C m C C O `� ; W D p Q n o m O m p y 7. .^. m c n " Q F 3 m a O y 7 a Q p m 3 ° 3 O D 7 C w 3 O : n n 3 m 3 T a n » s 3 n 0 Q p o m m 3 a' r ° mQ n Q ie• O m P o G ,nom G O. J O n p v m O n m p - p n O a v ° m m c << 0 o H m 0 m o o? ^ m ( 3 2 m m n r m 2 v w ,a y c =' cn m ti `ag °°' d -� `'° n v y m ' ? °' g m n m m Q � o' 2 a ' ° a a 2 10 m 3 `° w' -, 2 m o 0 D v y 0 p 0 QD n > o m B > m lb g � � p w p' lb .ma. n SO CD z lb lb ° y " � n •�+ o m � � o co � "� � 0e > Z, N a Z CD CD 7 Q N \ X H S p CL c O 3 W c o a O n. - O n A J O J {0 0 O `DpC i f a Z Q a D 0 n z d m OO to lb m F w obA i m °' m n m � ° D w 0 r eri v 0 w p a o d :r a » 7• i Z. 7° n m o m p ?� - o a Z o y p 2 °c V 0 0 ° a a O 1 >• m j A 0 ti o 3 o 3 3 n� 3 ' W N V da �o r r m O 0 4 2. °»° - 0 ° o O T w T » 5=y . a m 0 _ 'o' 7» w w s O n' 0 3 m S ` N �- a o o .Q U Q n a O m O J V O n _ v v oD 0 m O g O o & O = v d 0 m w O y ° w 3 r = w O , U V 'n' b O G °y (n _2 `� x CD � Q U m m O o y N Q r y, ip p U U m .m c Q ° o o U . m x b s n > H N y n m' n U m W - m O m x m J. m m a o > �p o° a n D� a tr U . - O 0 n 0 C n 7 O o y O o T7 Q .. m O O C . C o n 0 3 Q N m l0 OD 09 O Z. 0 io ° m w p » 3 c CA m w 0 a d v 7 » v F :: d o d 0 n O' 2j Q tp b -, X y 0 co m V O m 0 O a C w y o w » N t�' m 0 2 @ 10 m j m j Of m0 ' 30 c 00 3 _ a t°i °- 4 ^• 6 (; K \ O U O 30 = m O m a n' � m _2 y o CD CD A O x o n 3'� � c A a m o t 3 0 U U R O n O Y S m O o a Z 0 3 o 0 d t c g 2 CD O m co `� O n � m I;; IZI, U Z o N } E n o w c s = a d 3 � m U Z rf 0 � . ° p o d m w y 3 a_ 8 0 U 'fl w ^. c 'O o w r3 3 V G S'�a eD m !7•�j T O -y 00 _ 16 1 1_ Al r N N N N N N N N N N N .+ z 3 O 1°O � N O O 100 G J Obi (Gjl A (1OJ N O O IO W m O - - [ C C C r N y 'o t O 3 H H H N y N N N N N 01 N y N to N N N y N W C F m 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o s a c 3 m• m m m m r 2$ g c c o >> n� c c c c c c c c c< m c c Q c c m 5 m }^ m m m F o a 7 S s S S $ E m • ❑ .^ a �w o c ! m ' a _ an m ` aa a y y r a m O m n > > > K ° n C C c . _ o w r uc r o -V o ° a v a d -.3 m W � o r' to 3 a o > - o c m c n m n L O s O m 9 N 3 x ° o ° o. 3 3 3 ro 3 x on £ ✓: y 0 'm r m W m 4 O r D n 3 O = a N 3 °—' s' ^ m o °' • = j O r W a r m a F S 3 0 o c O ° m n m = °^ 10 9 O < p C e . j i d w O fO = q » p » m a ^ 9n e ^ w _O a » m o • m c O „ c " r r F ^ 3 • 7 C p x - 1 2 ° a :� b �' o • ^ :O !O t c O o Z a r n m c O O a � �. n C C w w ; A j m ^ a Z C. U a O 3 p p r v m v ° _ _ CL ? Cr m p ol N. rz 2 0 2 c n o » a ° o ° o m o e o c e ° ° o 2 o m o S �c ^ Q c a 3 p_ m a W m d 3 2 n c o d a a k 3 2 3 0 0° ID c m N Vl m m ID ° d 0 m ? T o ^ D ^ a a �° ° H cq '& d x T^. 7 O 7O a d m d t0 1 m c o` Q o m m ' ?� ° m H ° b it V D lb o J w 0 m p ol fn `c J ID m fD d ID `�° m ° o o 0 CC 2:11 lb CD Cb co 10 CL t� ca ti M Cl n ^ a �Ql. j J S y d m W V b g a: U W A W W W N W W O N t0 N N N N N N N N N - _N j N j _N j j j z aF � W J O+ U A W N � O t0 W J O U A W N -- C ,m,i3 � 0 W 3» 7 O Y d d Y 7 O O O d d 4 _? w ti .•a. N » w G C C C 7. ^ a ^ m Ol 7 7 • O' m o m S G) a 3 m m r v 3 m d ul p m p a a O < Y N n D c o< o o = d NI> > m ^ C^ m r c S O m ° m N ^ 'O O n m m w C p b - m O O c v ° 1 E p o O a mW W r C ✓. < x < x $ 0 3 m 3 ° m to o m m • a ^ o F » a< W Z! ? o ^ p' o c. I=r A v 3 $ m O n 10 v O E _p oa IC v O _ ° - D T O d G w CL 0 . a x v a o c m$ co C; k ' CD w m I'o ° m ? k �` a �' n: O J. to m � O. N J CD 1p n cc z --ll 0 �- 0 , Q y of m m j a J " y m ._� C '� (D 10 j co d O 1C N C t: m m m C n ° p w on, C 1Q c J ° V � r m z � z c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c IQ) z a) N a) a) a) N a) 0 0 0 0 a> a) a) a) a) 0_0 v -0 -o v a 70 a 70 a a 70 v -o a v-D v p W c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c W W W c c c c c c c c c c c °c c — - - — — — — — — — — 0 rn a~ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x a a x U W o U o �n o° o 0 0 o QN, M o o o 0 o o o m o M co Q M O O o O O M O r O O Q� O O N O N W Ih M M O Oi N M h aD N N Q7 (o m M co V N M Cl) M N ^ N N 0 W N � CD a n m Q Go F- J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N LL LL. LL LL LL LL LL LL. LL LL LL LL u � c i I i i i I i I i i L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L N N O N N O N N O N N N N N O N N N N O -d-0-0-0-000000C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 10000000010101cl C N F U !U G U ,. N v Z W CC F »- p p M ot .` L — U - (n +` in `• •U U 0 Mn W x x x U x IL Vi LLLLLJLLJLLJL W LJLLJLLJL a Z z N F- O N T W zO E ccn D a) E a) E '� a) V N E a) E E U c c a) O U E° d W a) > c CL O cl O C m E O Z —C: N 3 0 0 0 O E E C a) E O 6 O E> w m CL E ca E a) E co o a> a) a, W > o o OC cl > � o p M Cl o a>i 0 a>i p —aci CD O m . a>i 0 0 > >� c> O N c z p m w>Z E 'C '_c >— 'c C) o ` - a>i p C7 z E p .E 7 .E 7 0 ._ ? p CL 0 0 o f C ._ C E E Q � E} CD 7 E E (A �'= EECEOC z W p U +L. O cr E C a) o >EEE0EEU�ODU w E o .. W R c U U' o E U E o U U U U E o O E U E a) W Y� p E Y Y E (� C E t .s a) a) •a) U U a7 O� O U cu E E/ O 1 N L a) L O `% Ca O L O C O O a) t0 O U L L U Y U V a> O m Y O W y z H ns a,UU a7 E U mc� fn U E �2aC���t��C�r 3:U w22 °' � a`> 2 � a) cn co m can � CU U m ai aa) co ccu Q o c ccc c � Q (i a UUi�- -0 -o Lim- LL�z2: 3 c c J- 5ZzzCLCL _0 c r L ctS OF7- D o >� m F°- 1611 Al H Z W CC F p LL z N W x x x U x IL Vi LLLLLJLLJLLJL W LJLLJLLJL a Z z N F- O N T N N z U U W U U U U a z 3 x x x I- a ca U W C7 OC p � CC F LL N U Vi LLLLLJLLJLLJL LJLLJLLJL z N N O N T N N U U U U U U U U a 3 I- ca U C7 OC � ui t J m 0 a ` W c CL 0 CD CD 7 01 Q z W p U +L. O cr C a) O w E o .. W p c O Q a o a ... CU CD U a L W c o c v ca '- Q Z z E �' a� as t oti E Cj D c a) a) LL O — C Q z LL •C C 0 Y O W cn -0 O E E +_ «s c z H v co a7 E U ., — fn a z `o `n 3:U w22 Wp0 0)3v>>.< p U U) �' cn c� c c c COQ La (i CD 0 0 0 0 0 z W ca `U (1)UUU UU.T cn c.T � X O _ o" o o 0 W U Q> Fl.M0 UUU — N (-) d• CO M c 0 1611 Al A 1611 Al Z Z K r- x 3 3 m moo a Q o_o_o_o_o_0_0_0 3 a n� W WD Wa CL 3 3 « c- :E a a cn cn cn N o N 0 0 la Cll CD CCD CD ^` Z ( 1 m - m - m 1 m( 1 1 m' 1 m' 1 0 m' 0 � 0 0� �=A) 3 m m ��, cnKc)oc)C)C)0 �� C) a: O - Ct1J CD cn 3 O m m W f� n � o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o o n� m p) O T 1 CD ICO ill fD 0 1 CD 1 CD to — go Cn C 0 c 7 c 7 C 7 C 0 C 7 m e O 3 N 0� A CD (� CD CD •� 3 m 7 CD 0 3] 3 CD 77 ;- � � �' 0 7p `Z 3 0 � CD � cD 0 () C) p 3 m n 3 m c o o m w o w a D o m a D o c� 0 0 0 m c 0_ Q, O C) o 3 C) c 3 C) m " 0 c c c N c 3 0_ c) W c 3 3 3 < m "' cn 3 O . 3 3 3 O 3 n� CD 0 0 0 .. 0 3 •0 y as C C C 'o p O C _� O p 7 = m �,0'0'� ? 7 p 3 0 _j Sp 0� c m w `� m- CD p < p S?� `� m o 0 0 CD CD .O. 0 .n. p c<D m 0 p CD p CD pj �, p A 0 CD- m O O o n a o 003 0'.0. 0m m3po -�` mmm 3 m• < m m m D D<? < m o 0 0 0 = �_ 0 3 m? 00 °v 0 c -• m CD m _ 333 p _0 3 =°0 " 3 3 0 0�' D o03 n, mmm �, y m m � cn 000 0. 0 0 ^' s s 0 �m� 3. 0 c 0 n u, 0 Z D co p m .y rM K .'� CD Ch f N 0 0• 1 0 N 1 O -{ < CD 0 Qo 2. m CL a. a. a a. a a a 0 0 0 j 0 p p 7 7 7 7 Z v m m m m m m m m a.a_a. m m m a m a a aaCD m m Cl CD m m '0 aaaav -o m v m 0 m m m m m m m m m 10 m 70 m 70 m m M O m 7 m D m D m > m > m 7 m > m 0 m 0 m 7 m m m m m >> m>> > m m m m m CL CD a m s m a m a. m a m a m a e_ a. a_ 7 a O o. a i. < m m m 0 a CD a CD m 0. >> aaaa_a ca C3> p > > > > > > m m m m m m ? > >. 0. CD 0 m m m m m > > > = 3 0 3 0 3 TI T1 TI ?1 T1 T1 TI T1 TI '1I "il Tt TI '11 Tt Tj T7 Ti 71 TI TI -t 'T7 i1 TI Tl T TI C) O C) O n O C) O C7 C) o o 000 0 C) C) 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ O O_ O O_ O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C=D m m m m m m O O O O co CD ciD CO 00-0 CD CD CD CD co CO Ln W W M i W i M i M A N i 0 N A i O i CO i CD N CD CO OD O O iNODCOCDCO -•A W W G 0 O •cD 7 T q N OcDCD OCO(OD co -� ?1 ]7 c -+N CD00000 co ' N N i co N 000 N N A N NO A N NO N N 00�0cDCDC0�c0co M N i -+ i V i i �� N -+ N N N OD 1 O) 1 cD 1 m \/ COO N cT G (fl 0 -+ O c0000 W c n O N AO 1 N �O 1 W OON0 A O -+ V co -4W co O N 140 CO CO 0 4000000 CD W& V V 6' V C) � 1 A Cn 1 N o CD 1 1 W W W cD 1 W CO 1 N A 1 W CO 1 O W 1 1 O O i 1 1 i O 1 1 p A ,_y 1 N I .A 1 cD 1 i i CO c D 1 O �' c N 6) -� cD A �&� O A .--. O O Qo N al Oi : W A CO A A CD ao OD co i� W O Ul V- v O OD i W 0 (AD CC n CD o c c CD 1 c CD 0. J i co J N N O O N c O OD W O O 0v :3 Q v W D -n O W 0 0) O CD a A pD •A N N CL m Dm T 5> m �� a (7 C) a w a 16 11 I Al f f 0 o / ƒ ƒ ƒ 0 Q \ § k \ / » its $ �I / / W @ gƒ ƒ2 /ƒ \ / 0 n W n n�® c 2 k/ 0 / ®] 2 ■ n C] ®] ] n n ? § § < m 0 ] 2 3 \ 2 ] ] q _.] �_ � ] 2 c \ » O § \ 2 3 $ \ $ §_ O O ® ■ p f / J 0 / ) } / / $ - ] e -a % 2 $ < CD ] cD ® 0° ] o] ] f m a< 0 a $ a' q m M a 2 0 \ rm ] CD 0 a E 9 \CD O 9 a\ / 0? 0/0 E 0 ? g 0 E # R R 0 e / e� f/ e�e� /��m � CD � � 2■ �2 / M CD /C CD C /C /C / /CD a = � a \ E § mM 3 -n m1 ii 11 -A m2 -4 � n nn -0 ODl�nln00 n nn 0 0 \_ b g CD g p 7 2 C2 %- (D m]2: F f& CD CD \ CD « 0 0 m S 2 0 M $ @u CL / (D/3 n ] 0 CD E a q = 0 � � � ■ m = \ \/ a 2 000 k\ d\ /\ ■ � / \ k -n «r a m 6 ® �A> $ 8JA$� \ % R 0 C / / \ \t w�d2/ 7?//° » \ 4 o f w n % C@ ff CL / cn CD t \ w 7 / \ 2 1611 Hopping Green ('=Sams May 3, 2012 Via First A. M. Overnight Delivery ATTN: Martha Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court Board Minutes & Records Department 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite. 401 Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 A MAY 0 4 2012 FINANCE 2 Re: Interlocal Agreement between Mediterra North Community Development District & Mediterra South Community Development District Dear Martha, Please find enclosed an original certified Interlocal Agreement between Mediterra North Community Development District and Mediterra South Community Development District Regarding Mutual Cooperation for the Financing of Improvements, which I am submitting to be filed with your office in accordance with Section 163.01 (11), Florida Statutes (2011). Please file -stamp the enclosed copy of the Interlocal Agreement and return it to me in the enclosed self - addressed UPS envelope. Thank you for your assistance with this request. Please contact me at (850) 425 -3430 if you have any questions or need any further information. Enclosures Fiala Hiller Henning J Coyle ✓ Coletta JL Sincerel, tarkenF. Paralegal Misc. Corres: D*. `' It It It 11 1 2 Item # ( to= I t4 2 Copies to: Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee Honda 52311 113 S MMrW_ Street ',0013j301i 85n S50 224 R55i `ax tiHNhssiaovcom 1611 AZ ' INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEDITERRA NORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGARDING MUTUAL COOPERATION FOR THE FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the MEDITERRA NORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a special purpose unit of local government located in the City of Bonita Springs, Florida ( "Mediterra North "), and the MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a special purpose unit of local government located in Collier County, Florida ( "Mediterra South ") (collectively referred to herein as the "Districts ") (this Agreement hereinafter referred to as the "Interlocal Agreement "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Mediterra North and Mediterra South are special purpose units of local government located entirely within the City of Bonita Springs and Collier County, Florida, respectively, that have been established for the purpose of planning, financing, constructing, installing, and/or acquiring certain improvements, facilities and services in conjunction with the development of lands located within the Districts, all of which are located within a Planned Use Development; and WHEREAS, the Districts were created by and established pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., (the "Charter "); and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District has entered into a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1999 (the "Master Indenture ") with the Trustee to secure the issuance of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra South Bonds "), issuable in one or more series from time to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 99 -16, adopted by the Governing Body on September 22, 1999 (as amended and supplemented by the Award Resolution hereinafter defined, the " Mediterra South Bond Resolution "), the Mediterra South District authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of not to exceed $80,000,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra South Bonds "), to be issued in one or more Series of Bonds as authorized under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, which Bonds were validated by final judgment of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida on November 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District duly adopted Resolution No. 99 -14, on September 22, 1999, providing for the acquisition and construction of a portion of the Mediterra South District's capital improvement program (as described in Exhibit A to the First Supplemental Indenture, the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Project ", providing estimated Costs of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project, defining assessable property to be benetitted by the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project, defining the portion of the cost of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project with respect to which Assessments will be imposed and the manner in which such assessments shall be levied against such benetitted property within the 1611 A2 Mediterra South District (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Assessments "), directing the preparation of an assessment roll, and, stating the intent of the Mediterra South District to issue bonds of the Mediterra South District secured by such Assessments to finance the costs of the acquisition and construction of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Project (the "Mediterra South Preliminary Assessment Resolution ") and the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District duly adopted Resolution No. 2000 -2, following a public hearing conducted in accordance with the Act, to fix and establish the assessments and the benefitted property (collectively, the "Mediterra South Assessment Resolution "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No 2000 -5, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District on December 20, 1999, the Mediterra South District issued, sold and delivered $30,495,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1999 (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds "), in two Series, $11,415,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1999A ( the "Series 1999A Mediterra South Bonds ") and $19,080,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1999B (the "Series 1999B Mediterra South Bonds "), which Series 1999B Mediterra South Bonds are no longer Outstanding under the Indenture (the Outstanding Series 1999A Mediterra South Bonds are hereinafter referred to as the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds "), as an issue of Mediterra South Bonds under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, and authorized the execution and delivery of the Mediterra South Master Indenture and a First Supplemental Indenture to secure the issuance of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District applied the proceeds of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds to: (i) finance the Cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping assessable improvements (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Project "); (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; (iii) making a deposit into the related Series Reserve Accounts for the benefit of all of the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; and (iv) pay a portion of the interest to become due on the Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District duly adopted Resolution No. 99 -14, 99 -15 and 2000 -2 (the "Mediterra South Assessment Proceedings "), providing for the acquisition and construction of the certain assessable improvements within the Mediterra South District (the "Mediterra South Assessable Improvements "), defining assessable property to be benetitted by such improvements, defining the portion of the cost of such improvements with respect to which special assessments are imposed and the manner in which such special assessments are levied against such benefitted property within the Mediterra South District (the "Series 1999 Mediterra South Assessments "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No 2001 -8, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District on June 27, 2001, the Mediterra South District issued, sold and delivered its $5,585,000 of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (the "Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds Mediterra South Bonds ") as an issue of Mediterra South Bonds under the Mediterra South Master Indenture 2 1611 A 2 and a Second Supplemental Indenture to secure the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District applied the proceeds of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds to: (i) finance the Cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping the second phase of the Mediterra South Capital Improvement Program which comprised the Series 2001 Mediterra South Project; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; (iii) making a deposit into the 2001 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and (iv) pay a portion of the interest to become due on the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South Assessment Resolution was supplemented by a Supplemental Assessment Methodology Report describing the allocation of the Assessments relating to the Series 2001 Mediterra South Project (the "Series 2001 Mediterra South Assessments ") based upon the issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds; and WHEREAS, Mediterra North Community Development District (the " Mediterra North District "), a community development district and a local unit of special purpose government under the Act having boundaries adjacent to the Mediterra North District and sharing a common development plan with the Mediterra North District, entered into a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of July 1, 2001 (the " Mediterra North Master Indenture ") with the Trustee (in its capacity as trustee under the Mediterra North Master Indenture, the " Mediterra North Trustee ") to secure the issuance of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra North Bonds "), issuable in one or more series from time to time; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2001 -15, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District on April 5, 2001 (as amended and supplemented by the Award Resolution hereinafter defined, the " Mediterra North Bond Resolution "), the Mediterra North District authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of not to exceed $27,000,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds (the " Mediterra North Bonds "), to be issued in one or more Series of Bonds as authorized under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, which Mediterra North Bonds were validated by final judgment of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida on June 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District duly adopted Resolution No. 2001 -13, on April 5, 2001, providing for the acquisition and construction of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project (hereinafter defined), providing estimated Costs of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project, defining assessable property to be benefitted by the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project, defining the portion of the cost of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project with respect to which Assessments will be imposed and the manner in which such assessments shall be levied against such benefitted property within the Mediterra North District (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Assessments "), directing the preparation of an assessment roll, and, stating the intent of the Mediterra North District to issue bonds of the Mediterra North District secured by such Assessments to finance the costs of the acquisition and construction of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Project (the " Mediterra North Preliminary Assessment Resolution ") and the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District duly adopted Resolution 3 1611 A2 No. 2001 -18, on May 15, 2001, following a public hearing conducted in accordance with the Act, to fix and establish the assessments and the benefitted property (collectively, the " Mediterra North Assessment Resolution "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No 2001 -23, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District on July 25, 2001, the Mediterra North District has authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of $20,030,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds "), in two Series, $18,200,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A (the "Series 2001A Mediterra North Bonds ") and $1,830,000 of its Mediterra North Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B (the "Series 2001B Mediterra North Bonds ") as an issue of Bonds under the Mediterra North Master Indenture, and has authorized the execution and delivery of the Mediterra North Master Indenture and a First Supplemental Indenture (the Mediterra North Master Indenture, as supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture is hereinafter referred to as the " Mediterra North Indenture ") to secure the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra North District applied the proceeds of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds to: (i) finance the Cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping assessable improvements (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Project "); (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; (iii) make a deposit into the related Series Reserve Accounts for the benefit of all of the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; and (iv) pay a portion of the interest to become due on the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District duly adopted Resolution No. 2001 -13, 2001 -14 and 2001 -18 ( the " Mediterra North Assessment Proceedings "), providing for the acquisition and construction of the certain assessable improvements within the Mediterra North District (the " Mediterra North Assessable Improvements "), defining assessable property to be benefitted by such improvements, defining the portion of the cost of such improvements with respect to which special assessments will be imposed and the manner in which such special assessments shall be levied against such benefitted property within the Mediterra North District (the "Series 2001 Mediterra North Assessments "); and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District and the Mediterra North District have each determined that under existing market conditions, it would be in the best financial interest of the respective District to currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding Series 1999 Mediterra South Bonds, the Series 2001 Mediterra South Bonds (the "Prior Mediterra South Bonds ") and the Series 2001 Mediterra North Bonds (the "Prior Mediterra North Bonds," and collectively, the "Prior Bonds ") in order to achieve debt service savings and reduce the corresponding Assessments paid by the residents and taxpayers of each District; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, as amended (the "Interlocal Cooperation Act "), the MMediterra South Districts may enter into an interlocal agreement pursuant to which, inter aiia, in order to facilitate marketing of bonds to refinance the ibilgz outstanding bonds of each District, the Mediterra South Districts agree that the Mediterra South District shall issue bonds on behalf of itself and loan a portion of the proceeds of the bonds to the Mediterra North District to refund and redeem its Bonds, and may also provide for certain covenants and agreements with respect to the collection, deposit, enforcement and disposition of the Assessments of each District in order to pay debt service on the refunding bonds; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to enter into an agreement to jointly exercise their uniform charter powers in a cost effective and rational manner and to issue Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Districts are each empowered by the Charter to construct improvements to benefit the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts find it mutually beneficial and in the best interests of their landowners, future residents and the public at large that the Districts cooperate to avoid conflicting, disjointed, duplicative, or multiple financing efforts as the Districts implement the Charter for the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective issuance of the New Bonds; and WHEREAS, section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969," permits local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, section 190.011, Florida Statutes, permits districts to borrow money and issue bonds; levy special assessments; borrow money from a unit of local government for any district purposes and to enter into agreements required in connection therewith; and cooperate with, or contract with, other governmental agencies as may be necessary or convenient in connection with any of the powers, duties, or purposes authorized in the Charter; and WHEREAS, section 190.016(7), Florida Statutes, permits districts to issue bonds to provide for the refunding of bonds of the district; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra North and Mediterra South Districts find this Interlocal Agreement to be necessary, proper and convenient to the exercise of their powers, duties and purposes authorized by law, and WHEREAS, the Districts desire to exercise jointly their common powers and authority concerning the cost effective refunding of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, to facilitate the refunding of the Prior Bonds, the parties find it in their respective best interests that one district to take the lead in the financing activities. 1611 A2 WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District and the Mediterra North District enter into this Interlocal Agreement, which shall be tiled as required by law with the Circuit Clerk of Collier County, Florida and Lee County, Florida), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Mediterra North District has agreed that the Mediterra South District shall issue, sell and deliver its revenue and refunding bonds in order to refund and redeem all of the Outstanding Mediterra South Bonds and loan a portion of the Series 2012 Bond proceeds to the Mediterra North District to refund and redeem all of the outstanding Mediterra North Bonds and has provided herein for the collection, deposit enforcement and disposition of the Assessments of each District, as hereinabove described, and set forth the terms under which said refunding bonds are to be issued and the terms of such refunding bonds and for the application of the proceeds thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement, Resolution No 2012 -[ 1 J, adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra South District on [Aet,l t ;&iq (the "Series 2012 Mediterra South Award Resolution ") and Resolution No 2012 -[ 3], adopted by the Governing Body of the Mediterra North District on [Mm►1 111 &,Ll (the "Series 2012 Mediterra North Award Resolution "), the Mediterra South District has authorized the issuance, sale and delivery by the Mediterra South District of its Mediterra South Community Development District Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012 (the "Series 2012 Bonds ") as an issue of Bonds under the Mediterra South Master Indenture, and has authorized the execution and delivery of a Third Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2012 (the "Mediterra South Third Supplemental Indenture "), from the District to the Trustee to secure the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds and to set forth the terms of the Series 2012 Bonds, and WHEREAS, the Mediterra South District will apply the proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds to: (i) currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding principal amount of the Prior Bonds; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (iii) make a deposit into the Series 2012 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2012 Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Series 2012 Bonds will be payable from and secured by the Series 1999 Mediterra South Assessments, the Series 2001 Mediterra South Assessments (collectively, the Mediterra South Assessments ") and the Series 2001 Mediterra North Assessments paid to the Mediterra South District pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement (collectively, the "Series 2012 Assessments "), which, together with the Series 2012 Pledged Funds and Accounts (hereinafter defined) will comprise the Series 2012 Trust Estate (hereinafter defined), which shall constitute a "Series Trust Estate" as defined in the Mediterra South Master Indenture; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to enter into an agreement to jointly exercise their uniform charter powers in a cost effective and rational manner and to issue Capital Improvement Refunding Bonds to refund the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Districts are each empowered by the Charter to construct improvements to benefit the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts find it mutually beneficial and in the best interests of their landowners, future residents and the public at large that the Districts cooperate to avoid D 16 11 pz conflicting, disjointed, duplicative, or multiple financing efforts as the Districts implement the Charter for the lands within and beyond their respective boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Districts wish to ensure the timely, efficient and cost effective issuance of the New Bonds; and WHEREAS, section 163.01, Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969," permits local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best with geographic, economic, population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities; and WHEREAS, section 190.011, Florida Statutes, permits districts to borrow money and issue bonds; levy special assessments; borrow money from a unit of local government for any district purposes and to enter into agreements required in connection therewith; and cooperate with, or contract with, other governmental agencies as may be necessary or convenient in connection with any of the powers, duties, or purposes authorized in the Charter; and WHEREAS, section 190.016(7), Florida Statutes, permits districts to issue bonds to provide for the refunding of bonds of the district; and WHEREAS, the Mediterra North and Mediterra South Districts find this Interlocal Agreement to be necessary, proper and convenient to the exercise of their powers, duties and purposes authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the Districts desire to exercise jointly their common powers and authority concerning the cost effective refunding of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, to facilitate the refunding of the Prior Bonds, the parties Find it in their respective best interests that one district to take the lead in the financing activities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, agreements and mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the Districts, the Districts agree as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals and Authority. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and by this reference are incorporated as a material part of this Interlocal Agreement. This Interlocal Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provision of Florida law, including but not limited to Chapters 163, 189, and 190, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Constitution. SECTION 2. Cooperation on Refunding of Bonds Under the Charter, the Districts are empowered to issue and refund bonds, as defined in the Charter. The Districts agree and covenant to cooperate on the issuance and refunding of bonds. To that end, the Districts have adopted iViediterra North Resolution 2012- and Mediterra South Resolution 2012 - (collectively the "Resolutions "), and a Supplemental Special Assessment Methodology Report ib 1! A2 for the allocation of benefits and debt over all of the lands within the Districts (the -Methodology "). A. Issuance of Bonds by Mediterra South. Mediterra South and Mediterra North agree that Mediterra South shall issue its Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 (the "Series 2012 Bonds ") under and pursuant to a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1, 1999 (the "Master Indenture "), from Mediterra South to U.S. Bank, National Association, as successor in trust, as trustee (the "Trustee "), as supplemented by a Fourth Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as of May 1, 2012 (the "Fourth Supplemental Indenture" and the Master Indenture, as amended and supplemented by the Fourth Supplemental Indenture is hereinafter referred to as the "Indenture "), from the District to the Trustee. A portion of the proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds applied by the Mediterra South District will: (i) currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding principal amount of the Prior Mediterra South Bonds; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (iii) make a deposit into the Series 2012 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2012 Bonds. An additional portion of the proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds will be loaned to Mediterra North in order to provide Mediterra North with funds to: (i) currently refund and redeem all of the Outstanding principal amount of the Prior Mediterra North Bonds; (ii) pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (iii) make a deposit into the Series 2012 Reserve Account for the benefit of all of the Series 2012 Bonds. B. Collection of Special Assessments; Repayment of Loan by Mediterra North. In each and every instance in which Mediterra South issues debt and lends a portion of the proceeds to Mediterra North in accordance with Section 2.A. above,'Mediterra North agrees and covenants to repay the loan at times and in amounts and on the terms set forth for Mediterra North in Exhibit A to the Fourth Supplemental Indenture from Special Assessments which shall be imposed, levied and collected in accordance with the terms of the Act (which may be by direct collection, use of the Lee County tax roll, or any other method allowed under the Indenture and state law). All Special Assessments collected by Mediterra North pursuant to this paragraph shall be remitted upon direction by Mediterra South within thirty days of receipt, by check or electronic transfer and shall be credited against the principal and interest due on the loan in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture. C. Remittance of Special Assessments. In each and every instance in which Mediterra South issues debt in accordance with Sections 2.A. and 2.8. above, Mediterra South hereby directs the payment directly to the Trustee in accordance with the Fourth Supplemental indenture as the absolute assignee, for the benefit of the Owners of the Series 2012 Bonds. Any prepayments of Series 2012 Assessments received by either district shall be immediately deposited with the Trustee and designated as such. D. Covenants. Mediterra North hereby covenants and agrees to comply with each and every provision contained in Article VIII of the Nediterra South Master Indenture, Section 702 through and including Section 705 of the Mediterra Third Supplemental indenture, and Article VI of the Fourth Supplemental Indenture as if each and every such provision were expressly set forth herein and referenced Mediterra North in lieu of Mediterra South. Mediterra North may redeem the Mediterra North Portion (as defined in the Supplemental Indenture), in whole, but not 1611 A2 in part, at such times and in the manner specified in the Indenture. Supplemental SECTION 3. Indemnification Nothing in this Interlocal Agreement shall be deemed as a waiver of immunity or limits of liability of either District, including their supervisors, officers, agents and employees and independent contractors, beyond any statutory limited waiver of immunity or limits of liability which may have been adopted by the Florida Legislature in section 768.28, Florida Statutes or other statute, and nothing in this Interlocal Agreement shall inure to the benefit of any third party for the purpose of allowing any claim which would otherwise be barred under the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity or by operation of law. SECTION 4. Default, A default by either District under this Interlocal Agreement shall entitle the other District to all remedies available at law or in equity, which may include, but not be limited to, damages, injunctive relief and specific performance. Each of the parties hereto shall give the other party written notice of any defaults hereunder and shall allow the defaulting party not less than five (5) days from the date of receipt of such notice to cure monetary defaults and fifteen (15) days to cure other defaults. SECTION 5. Enforcement. In the event that either District seeks to enforce this Interlocal Agreement by court proceedings or otherwise, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for trial, alternative dispute resolution or appellate proceedings. SECTION 6. Controlling Law This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. SECTION 7. Severabilitv In the event any term or provision of this Agreement is determined by appropriate judicial authority to be illegal or otherwise invalid, such provision shall be construed or deleted as such authority determines, and the remainder of this Agreement shall be construed to be in full force and effect. SECTION S. Amendment. This Interlocal Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by written agreement duly executed by the parties hereto. SECTION 9. Time of the Essence. The Districts each agree that time is of the essence of this Interlocal Agreement SECTION 10. Notice Each District shall furnish to the other such notice, as may be required from time to time, pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement, in writing, posted in the U.S. mail or by hand delivery, or by overnight delivery service and addressed as follows: To Mediterra North: Mediterra North Community Development District 6131 Lyons Road, Suite 100 Coconut Creek, Florida 33073 Attn: District Manager 9 16 11 pz To Mediterra South: Mediterra South Community Development District 6131 Lyons Road, Suite 100 Coconut Creek, Florida 33073 Attn: District Manager With a copy to: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Attn: District Counsel Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any Notice shall be deemed received only upon actual delivery at the address set forth above. Notices delivered after 5:00 p.m. (at the place of delivery) or on a non - business day, shall be deemed received on the next business day. If any time for giving Notice contained in this Agreement would otherwise expire on a non - business day, the Notice period shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays recognized by the United States government shall not be regarded as business days. Any party or other person to whom Notices are to be sent or copied may notify the other parties and addressees of any change in name or address to which Notices shall be sent by providing the same on five (5) days written notice to the parties and addressees set forth herein. SECTION 11. Execution in Counterparts This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. SECTION 12. Effective Date This Interlocal Agreement and the rights conferred herein shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.01(11), F.S. This Interlocal agreement shall expire one year from the effective date if on that date bonds have not been issued by Mediterra South as provided herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned set their hands as of the i(a day of hZIA .2012. gMED TH NIMUNITY DE ELOPMENT D A v >,.1 10 1611 AZ Il Chairman Witness: ' Attest: Print Name Se etary Witness: Print Name 11 Witness: Print Name Witness: Print Name 1611 A2 ' MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BY: 146'JeJ6Ttt AJ A �,I 'S Chairman 12 Attest � ' r ecretary 1611 A2 CERTIFICATE AS TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MEDITERRA NORTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGARDING MUTUAL COOPERATION FOR THE FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS I, CHESLEY E. ADAMS, JR., Secretary of the Mediterra SouthCommunity Development District (the "District "), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Interlocal Agreement Between Mediterra North Community Development District and Mediterra South Community Development District Regarding Mutual Cooperation for the Financing of Improvements, which was passed and adopted by the District's Board of Supervisors at a meeting held on April 11, 2012, at which a quorum was present and acting throughout. Said resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended, and is in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the District this day of M a , 2012. MEDITERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT By: �E 4Secretary dams, r. (OFFICIAL DISTRICT SEAL) Patricia L. Morgan 1611 A3 From: Sue M. Barbiretti Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:49 PM To: Crystal K. Kinzel; Patricia L. Morgan Cc: Dwight E. Brock Subject: 12/13 Budgets for Verona Walk & Quarry Community Attachments: QuarryComm12- 13.pdf, VeronaWalk12- 13.pdf Fiala Hiller Henning Doyle Coietta, Mist. ;urres: Date: It.m t io. 1 JUN 2 5 NIL, U BY: ....................... F' A3 QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630 -4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 May 31, 2012 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6`h Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Quarry Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 2012/2013 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1, 2012 — Sept. 30, 2013) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Laura J. A. er Enclosure 0 C7 N -ol : J� O Co C'> o c C� 10 ..4 v C) Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 2012/2013 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1, 2012 — Sept. 30, 2013) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Laura J. A. er Enclosure 1611 A3 Quarry Community Development District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 201.3 I I I III IV V 1611 A3 i CONTENTS PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET ASSESSMENT CALCULATION DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET 5/25/2012 2:19 PM 1611 A3 ' PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET ON ROLL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 49,440 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 45,818 ON ROLL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 1,057,070 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 407,570 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,559,898 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 10,000 MANAGEMENT 36,000 LEGAL 5,0001 ASSESSMENT ROLL 5,0001 AUDIT FEES 4,000 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 1,000 INSURANCE 8,200 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1,200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,075 POSTAGE 1,000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,000 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES 5,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 4,000 CONTINGENCY 8,900 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 91,550 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1,468,348 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE A -1 BOND 1,385 360 BALANCE $ 82,988 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE 38,728 DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 44,260 EXCESSISHORTFALL $ - CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 NET EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ - WM012 2:19 PM 1611 A3 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 0 NAV Assessment Collection 977,790 Developer Direct Bill Assessment 407,570 Total Revenues $ 1,385,360 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments - Al 375,000 Interest Payments - Al 974,188 A -1 Bond Redemption $ 36,172 Total Expenditures $ 1,385,360 Excess /Shortfall $ - 5/2512012 2'19 PM Quarry Community Development District Assessment Breakdown 2012 -2013 Pre Special Bond Redemptions Total Assessment Grossed uo ter Fees i Pre Soselal Redemptions Assessments Number ot Units Discount (Net Assessment X10.926) Operotlen 8 Maintenance 401 $36.851 Debt 401 $895.135 Total 401 $931,985 Post Special Bond Redemptions Operation & Maintenance Platted Coach Homes Single Family Homes 755) Single Family Homes ('67) Single Family Homes ('75) Single Family Homes ('90) 5 Story Condos Total Platted Un-Platted Coach Homes Single Family Homes f55) Single Family Homes f67) Single Family Homes ('75) Single Famltv Homes ('90) 5 Story Condos Total UwPlatted Number of Units for Racal Year 2012 -2013 12 20 29 52 24 136 61 112 Total O &M Grossed up for Fees i Discount f Net Q&tt X/0.9261 $1.103 $1.838 $2.665 S4, 778 52,205 $o $12.589 $11,561 $6.185 S9,521 $2.550 $0 $17,001 $45,818 Total Debt Grossed up for Fees i Discount fNet Debt. M-920) $8,303 517.081 $27,276 $57,903 $51.373 $0 $161,935 $87,040 $48,190 $97,440 $30,900 $0 5144,000 5407,570 $%9.505 1611A3 Total Gross Operating d Maintenance Assessment Number of Total Units Total Gross Pre Special Redemption Total Gross Post Special Redemption Total Gross O&M Assessments Gross O a M Assessments Total 1,077 $36,851.00 $58,407.00 $95,258.00 Total Gross Debt Assessment Number of Total Units Total Gross Pro Special Redemption Total Gross Post Special Redemption Total Gross Debt Assessments Gross Debt Assessment Total 1 0T7 $895,135.00 $589,505.14 $1.4-1,640.14 Operating & Maintenance Assessment Comparison Number of Total Units Final FY 2011/2012 Proposed FY 2012/2013 1 Year Change Gross O a M Assessment Comparison Per Unit 1.077 $91.90 $91.90 ($0.00) Gross O &M Amounts per unit (Total O&M Expenditures / 1,077 Lots 10.925 D&F)l $91.90 *Note: No Fess or Discounts have to be Collected for Uri -Platted Dired Billed Assessments. MW., I—. Number of UrNb for Debt Fiscal YAer 2011 -2012 Platted Coach Homes 12 Single Family Homes ('55) 20 Single Family Homes ('67) 29 Single Family Homes ('75) 52 Single Family Homes f90) 24 5 Story Condos 0 Total Platted Un- Platted Coach Homes 136 Single Family Homes ('55) 61 Single Family Homes ('67) 112 Single Family Homes ('75) 30 Single Family Homes ('90) 0 5 Story Condos 200 Total Un -Pla@ed Total 676 Total O &M Grossed up for Fees i Discount f Net Q&tt X/0.9261 $1.103 $1.838 $2.665 S4, 778 52,205 $o $12.589 $11,561 $6.185 S9,521 $2.550 $0 $17,001 $45,818 Total Debt Grossed up for Fees i Discount fNet Debt. M-920) $8,303 517.081 $27,276 $57,903 $51.373 $0 $161,935 $87,040 $48,190 $97,440 $30,900 $0 5144,000 5407,570 $%9.505 1611A3 Total Gross Operating d Maintenance Assessment Number of Total Units Total Gross Pre Special Redemption Total Gross Post Special Redemption Total Gross O&M Assessments Gross O a M Assessments Total 1,077 $36,851.00 $58,407.00 $95,258.00 Total Gross Debt Assessment Number of Total Units Total Gross Pro Special Redemption Total Gross Post Special Redemption Total Gross Debt Assessments Gross Debt Assessment Total 1 0T7 $895,135.00 $589,505.14 $1.4-1,640.14 Operating & Maintenance Assessment Comparison Number of Total Units Final FY 2011/2012 Proposed FY 2012/2013 1 Year Change Gross O a M Assessment Comparison Per Unit 1.077 $91.90 $91.90 ($0.00) Gross O &M Amounts per unit (Total O&M Expenditures / 1,077 Lots 10.925 D&F)l $91.90 *Note: No Fess or Discounts have to be Collected for Uri -Platted Dired Billed Assessments. MW., I—. REVENUES 1611 FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET A3 PROPOSED BUDGET 46,464 42,089 49,440 # of Platted Lots X $85.01 /.925 QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 87,043 52,618 45,818 # of Un latted Lots X $85.01 OPERATING FUND 1,532,845 982,238 1,057,070 Pa ent To Trustee /.925 FISCAL YEAR 201212013 100 961 476,790 407,570 Based On Estimated Payment To Trustee October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 0 0 0 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 201012011 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS ON ROLL ADMIMSTRATNE ASSESSMENTS 46,464 42,089 49,440 # of Platted Lots X $85.01 /.925 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 87,043 52,618 45,818 # of Un latted Lots X $85.01 ON ROLL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 1,532,845 982,238 1,057,070 Pa ent To Trustee /.925 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 100 961 476,790 407,570 Based On Estimated Payment To Trustee OTHER REVENUES 0 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 11 0 0 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,767,324 $ 1,563,735 $ 1.569,898 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 0 0 Supervisor Fees ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 5,469 10 000 10,000 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget MANAGEMENT 36,000 36,000 36,000 $3,ODO Per Month As Per Contract LEGAL 0 5,000 5,000 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget ASSESSMENT ROLL 5,000 5,000 5,000 As Per Contract AUDIT FEES 5200 5,700 4,000 $1,700 Decrease From 2011/2012 Budget ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 1,000 5,500 1,000 500 Decrease From 2011/2012 et INSURANCE 7,530 7,800 8,200 _Bud FY 2011/2012 Expenditure Was $7,728 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1,074 1,000 1,200 200 Increase From 2011/2012 Budget MISCELLANEOUS 977 875 1,075 $200 Increase From 2011/2012 Budget POSTAGE 490 1,000 1,000 No Change From 2011/2012 @A get OFFICE SUPPLIES 790 1,000 1,000 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget DUES 8. SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 175 175 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget TRUSTEE FEES 22,867 8,5W 5,000 FY 2011/2012 Expenditure Was $4,917 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 6,000 4,000 4,000 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget CONTINGENCY 55,136 0 8900 Conti envy TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 147,708 $ 91,550 $ 91,560 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1,619,616 $ 1,46 186 $ 1,468,348 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE A -1 BOND ) (1,561,923) (1 385 360 1 385,360) 2013 Payment to Trustee BALANCE $ 57,693 $ 76,826 $ 82,988 COUNTY APPRAISER 8 TAX COLLECTOR FEE (42,113) (35,852) (38,728) 3.5 Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (43,459) (40,973) (44,260) 4 Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll EXCESS/SHORTFALL ; 27,879 $ $ CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 0 0 Carryover From Prior Year NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 27,879 $ $ V %252012 2:19 PM .. PROPOSED BUDGET 1611 A3 QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 201212013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 0 0 Projected Interest For FY 2012/2013 NAV Assessment Collection 908,570 977,790 Net Debt Service Collection Developer Direct Bill Assessment 476,790 407,570 Net Developer Direct Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 1,385,360 $ 1,385,360 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments - Al 360,000 375,000 Principal Payment Due In 2013 Interest Payments - Al 1,007,875 974,188 Interest Payments Due In 2013 A -1 Bond Redemption 17,485 $ 36,172 Estimated Excess Debt Collections Total Expenditures $ 1,385,360 $ 1,385,360 Excess /Shortfall $ - $ Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2012 -2013 QY Proposed Budget 2012 -2013 QY Debt Servke (A) Fund Budget 2012 -2013 U 5/2512012 2:19 PM Patricia L. Mo 1611 From: Sue M. Barbiretti Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:49 PM To: Crystal K. Kinzel; Patricia L. Morgan Cc: Dwight E. Brock Subject: 12/13 Budgets for Verona Walk & Quarry Community Attachments: QuarryComml2- 13.pdf; VeronaWalk12- 13.pdf Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta -- JUN 2 i 2012 BY: ....................... Misc. Cones: Date: —9 / I ( I I2 Item iNJ U ' I W V Copies to: 1 1611 A4 VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630 -4922 Fax: (561) 630 -4923 May 31, 2012 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6`h Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Verona Walk Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: � N � O C'1 N r L » Z C Q� n -p C 3 c �o w - .. v, r a o Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 2012/2013 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1, 2012 — Sept. 30, 2013) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. ('tt Laura J. Arc e Enclosure a3 7; r� -V 1611A4 Verona Walk Community Development District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 16 11 A4 CONTENTS I PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET 11 PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2004) III PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2006) IV ASSESSMENT COMPARISON V DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET VI DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2004) VII DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2006) 5/25/2012 2:19 PM (- PROPOSED BUDGET 161 4 VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 93,995 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2004 600,579 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2006 693,890 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 540 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,389,004 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 2,400 PAYROLL TAXES EMPLOYER 192 ENGINEERINGIMAINTENANCE 20,000 MANAGEMENT 36.468 SECRETARIAL 4,200 LEGAL 7,500 ASSESSMENT ROLL 10,000 AUDIT FEES 4,500 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2004 650 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2006 650 INSURANCE 5,500 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1,250 MISCELLANEOUS 800 POSTAGE 500 OFFICE SUPPLIES 700 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2004 3,500 TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2006 3,500 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2004 1,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2006 _.__ 1,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 104,485 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1,284,519 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE SERIES 2004 (555,536) PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE SERIES 2006 _ ___ 641 848 BALANCE $ 87,135 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (47,902) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 56 233 EXCESS /SHORTFALL $ (17,000 CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 17.000 NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL 5 ' Note: Projected Available Funds Balance As OF 9 -30 -12 is $130,000 5!2512012 2:19 PM 1611 A4 + PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2004) FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 500 NAV Assessment Collection 555,536 Total Revenues $ 556,036 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 145,000 Interest Payments 400,287 Deferred Cost Expense 10,749 Total Expenditures $ 556,036 Excess /Shortfall $ - 5/25/2012 2:19 PM 16 11 A4 'I PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2006) FISCAL YEAR 201212013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 500 NAV Assessment Collection 641,848 Total Revenues $ 642,348 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 170,000 Interest Payments 466,550 Deferred Cost Expense 5,798 Total Expenditures $ 642,348 Excess /Shortfall $ - 5125/2012 2.19 PM 16 A4 Verona Walk Community Development District Assessment Comparison Lot Size Phase ne Type Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Assessment Name Fiscal Year 201012011 Assessment Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Assessment Fiscal Year 201212013 Projected Assessment Townhome 26' Cayman Administrative Debt Total $ 48.21 $ 600.00 $ $ 47.99 600.00 $ 47.79 $ 600.00 $ 47.50 $ 600.00 $ 648.21 $ 647.99 $ 647.79 $ 647.50 242 Single Family 50' Oakmont $ 706 97 Duplex 36' Capri/Carrington Administrative pmt Total $ 48.21 $ 600.00 $ $ 47.99 600.00 $ 47.79 $ 600.00 $ 47.50 $ 600.00 $ 648.21 $ 647.99 $ 647.79 $ 647.50 Phase II No. of Units Single Family 50' Oakmont Administrative Debt Total $ 48.21 $ 706.00 $ $ 47.99 706.00 $ 47.79 $ 706.00 $ 47.50 $ 706.00 $ 754.21 $ 753.99 $ 753.79 $ 753.50 224 SF 40' Garden $ 600 345 Single Family 60' Carlyle Administrative DOt Total $ 48.21 $ 812.00 $ $ 47.99 812.00 $ 47.79 $ 812.00 $ 47.50 $ B12.00 $ 860.21 $ 859.99 $ 859.79 $ 859.50 Phase Two SF 65' Estate $ 812 1044 Duplex 36' CaprilCarrington Administrative P t Total $ 48.21 $ 600.00 $ $ 47.99 600.00 $ 47.79 $ 600.00 $ 47.50 $ 600.00 $ 648.21 $ 647.99 $ 647.79 $ 647.50 Single Family 40' Garden Administrative 125 Total $ $ $ $ 47.99 600.00 $ 47.79 $ 600.00 $ 47.50 $ 600.00 $ $ 647.99 $ 647.79 $ 647.50 Single Family 50' Oakmont Administrative Debt Total $ 48.21 $ 706.00 $ $ 47.99 706.00 $ 47.79 $ 706.00 $ 47.50 $ 706.00 $ 754.21 $ 753.99 $ 753.79 $ 753.50 Single Family 60' Carlyle Administrative Debt Total $ 48.21 S _ 812.00 $ 860.21 $ $ 47.99 812.00 $ 47.79 $ 812.00 $ 859.79 $ 47.50 $ 812.00 $ 859.99 $ 859.50 Single Family 65' Estate Administrative J�bt Total $ $ $ $ 47.99 812.00 $ 47.79 $ 812.00 $ 47.50 $ 812.00 $ $ 859.99 $ 859.79 $ 859.50 Includes 2% County Tax Collector Fee, a 1.5% County Property Appraiser Fee and a 4% discount for early payment of taxes There are 1,979 units in the Verona Walk Community Development District. Phase I No. of Units Type Front Footage Name Maximum Annual Debt Assessment 246 Townhome 26' Cayman $ 600 350 Duplex 36' Ca ri/Camn ton $ 600 242 Single Family 50' Oakmont $ 706 97 Sin le F_a_mil 60' Carlyle $ 812 935 Phase II No. of Units Type Front Footage Name Maximum Annual Debt Assessment 328 Duplex 36' Ca ri/Carri ton $ 600 224 SF 40' Garden $ 600 345 SF 50' Oakmont $ 706 81 SF 60' Carlyle $ 812 66 SF 65' Estate $ 812 1044 V 5/25/2012 2:19 PM 0 1611 A4 PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 06 ,319 94,583 93,895 Expenditures Less Interest & Ca ver /.925 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2004 800 680 600,579 600,579, Payment To Trustee/.925 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2006 687.507 693,890 693 890 Payment To Trusleel.925 OTHER REVENUES 0 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 548 540 540 Interest Projected At 5 Per Month TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,386,064 1,389,592 1 389 004 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 2,400 2,400 Supervisor Fees PAYROLL TAXES EMPLOYER 0 192 192 Projected At 8% Of Supervisor Fees ENGINEERING /MAINTENANCE 4,932 20,000 20.000 Coo Ow Watw Aftnagemrd &Dn aswclums MANAGEMENT 34,896 35,412 36,466 Incloda Inflation Inaeaa Baed On Com- Rice Inds SECRETARIAL 4,200 4,200 4,200 No Chance From 2011/2012 Budget LEGAL 4 965 7,500 7,500 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget ASSESSMENT ROLL 10,000 10,000 10,000 As Per Contract AUDIT FEES 4,250 4,500 4,500 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2004 1,575 1,575 650 Amount Decreased to $650 in FY 2011/2012 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2006 1,575 1,575 650 Amount Decreased to $6501n FY 2011/2012 INSURANCE 4,000 4,000 5,500 FY 2011/2012 Expenditure Was $5,250 LEGAL ADVERTISING 802 1,500 1,250 $250 Decrease From 2011/2012 Budget MISCELLANEOUS 485 800 800 No Change From 2 01 112 01 2 Budget POSTAGE 334 500 500 No Change From 2 01 112 01 2 Bud et OFFICE SUPPLIES 681 700 700 No Charwe From 2011/2012 Budget DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 175 175 No Change From 2011/2012 Budget TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2004 3,233 3,5W 3,500 No CharVe From 2011/2012 Budget TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2006 3,231 3,500 3,500 No Change From 201 112 01 2 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 204 1,000 1,000 1,000 No Change From 201112012 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2100 1.000 1,000 1,000 No Chanae From 201112012 Budget TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 81,335 $ 104,029 $ 104,485 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES 1,303,719 1,285,663 1,294,519 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE SERIES 2004 (555,53e) (555.536) (555.536) 2013 Principal & Interest Payments PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE SERIES 2008 842,848 641,848 641,848 2013 Principal & Interest Payments BALANCE $ 104,335 $ 88,179 87,135 (31,079) (47,922) 47,902 Three And One Half Percent Of Total Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 46.304 58,257 56.233 Four Percent Of Total Tax Roll EXCESS/SHORTFALL 26,952 (16,000) (17,000) CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 01 16 000 17,000 Carryover From Prior Year NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL 28 952 Note: Projected Available Funds Balance As Of 9 -30-12 is $130,000 V 5252012 2.19 PM 1611 A4 ' PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2004) FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 500 500 Projected Interest For FY 2012/2013 NAV Assessment Collection 555,536 555,536 Maximum Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 556,036 $ 556,036 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 140,000 145,000 Principal Payment Due In 2013 Interest Payments 413,010 400,287 Interest Payments Due In 2013 Deferred Cost Expense 3,026 10,749 Deferred Cost Expense Total Expenditures $ 556,036 $ 556,036 Excess /Shortfall $ - $ Vi 5/2512012 2:19 PM 1641 A4 PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2006) FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 October 1, 2012 - September 30, 2013 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 500 500 Projected Interest For FY 2012/2013 NAV Assessment Collection 641,848 641,848 Maximum Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 642,348 $ 642,348 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 160,000 170,000 Principal Payment Due In 2013 Interest Payments 476,763 466,550 Interest Payments Due In 2013 Deferred Cost Expense 5,585 5,798 Deferred Cost Expense Total Expenditures $ 642,348 $ 642,348 Excess /Shortfall $ d $ - V i l 5/25/2012 2.19 PM N BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES September 11, 2012 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 5.18.12 (Special Magistrate); 6.1.12 (Special Magistrate) 2) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 4.25.12; 5.3.12; 5.17.12 Minutes of 4.25.12; 5.3.12; 5.17.12 3) Contractors Licensing: Minutes of 5.16.12 4) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5.2.12 5) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 6.6.12 6) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 5.15.12 Minutes of 4.17.12 7) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5.7.12 8) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of 1.23.12 9) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of 5.24.12 10) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of 6.20.12 Minutes of 5.16.12 11) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of 6.20.12 Minutes of 5.16.12 i 1612 12) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5.14.12 13) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 4.10.12; 5.14.12 14) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 6.4.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee); 6.6.12; 7.5.12 (Ad- Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach to Studying Pathways and Trees) Minutes of 5.2.12 15) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Agenda of 4.13.12 Minutes of 3.7.12; 4.13.12 16) Tourist Development Council: Minutes of 2.28.11; 3.28.11; 4. 1.11 (Subcommittee); 4.22.11 (Subcommittee); 4.25.11; 5.6.11 (Subcommittee); 5.27.11; 6.3.11 (Subcommittee); 6.27.11; 6.30.11 (Subcommittee); 7.21.11; 7.28.11 (Subcommittee); 9.6.11; 9.26.11; 10.24.11; 11.21.11 (Subcommittee); 11.28.11; 1. 12.12 (Subcommittee); 1.23.12 1 6 , May 18, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATERECEIVED JUL 12 2012 Naples, Florida, May 18, 2012 €3aerd of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, 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 persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala Hiller Henning r Coyle ✓ Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Corres: Date: _g I I I 1 12 Item #: I WM —L � 1 Copies to: 1 16 12 A 1 *ay 18, 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore 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. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:05 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. Prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. Recessed.• 9:17am Reconvened: 9: 30am II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda Item Numbers): Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was moved to Item IV.B — Motion for Continuance: • #3 - CASE NO: CESD20110006092 - WILLIAM NORALES AND MARIA NORALES Under Item IV.0 — Motion for Extemsion of Time, the following case was added: • #1 — CASE NO: CESD20110004309 — OMAR TAVERAS Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn: • #1 - CASE NO: 50155005- CEEX20120005028 - EILEEN T. MCDONALD • #2 - CASE NO: SO174787- CEEX20120005311 - LISABETH BETTEN • #3 - CASE NO: PR046338- CEEX20120005656 - PAUL EIDSNESS • #5 - CASE NO: PR047943- CEEX20120005077 - ALVARO MARTINEZ AND ELSA MARTINEZ • #14 - CASE NO: CESD20110012150 - ELIAS R. RAMIREZ AND SARITA M. RAMIREZ The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 6, 2012 The minutes of the April 6, 2012 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 3. CASE NO: CESD20110006092 OWNER: WILLIAM NORALES AND MARIA NORALES 2 16 12 Al M OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATTI PETRULLI VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a). PERMIT 2004030870 FOR PLANK SIDING AND 2001050959 FOR A RE- ROOF HAS EXPIRED BEFORE OBTAINING ALL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 47871680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3750 GUILFORD ROAD, NAPLES Investigator Snow represented the County stating he had no objection to the request and recommended it be granted for a term of 60 days. Maria Norales was present. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the motion and CONTINUED the case until July 18, 2012. C. Motion for Extension of Time #1— CASE NO: CESD20110004309 — OMAR TAVERAS Investigator Short represented the County stating he had no objection to the request. Mr. Tavares was not present. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the motion for an Extension of Time in until July 18, 2012. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations None B. Hearings 6. CASE NO: PR048085- CEEX20120005932 OWNER: ROBERT DUCHARME OFFICER: PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 FAILURE TO DISPLAY PAID PARKING RECEIPT VIOLATION ADDRESS: CONNER PARK, NAPLES Park Ranger Araquistain represented the County. Robert Ducharme was present. Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 5/17/12 — west entrance Conner Park Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 5/17/12 — east entrance of Conner Park Exhibit C: 1 Aerial photograph of the area. (Exhibit B and C labeled "Composite Exhibit D') Mr. Ducharme testified: • On the day of the incident he dropped off a family member at the beach and returned to park at Conner Park. • He pulled into the west entrance of the Park, as you enter, there is no notification the lot is a "paid parking lot ". • When he returned from the beach, he noticed he was cited for failure to display paid parking receipt. • Upon investigation, he determined there is signage directing patrons to an automated pay for parking facility further easterly toward the middle of the parking lot. • He did not see the signage when he parked. 3 Al16 12 May 18, 2012 • Even the signage at the east end is confusing with no notification of a "paid parking lot." The signage simply has an arrow inside the east entrance and states "pay here" directing patrons to the automated pay facility. • In his opinion, there is not proper public notification the area is restricted for paid parking patrons and the citation should be dismissed. Ranger Araquistain testified: • There are several signs within the parking lot which notify parties the lot requires a paid fee for parking. • It is up to the patrons to review all signage within the parking lot when parking to determine the necessary rules for parking. The Special Magistrate, after reviewing the evidence determined the public is not given sufficient notice for the terms of parking due to inadequate signage at the entrances to the facility. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent NOT GUILTY of the citation for failure to display a paid parking receipt. CASE NO: DAS12150- CEEX20120005862 OWNER: CLAYTON FRESHOUR OFFICER: OFFICER A. DOHERTY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2008 -51, SEC. 14- 33(A)(10) DOG CONFINED TO VEHICLE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT AIR EXCHANGE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7101 RADIO ROAD, NAPLES Officer Doherty represented the County. Clayton Freshour was present. Mr. Freshour tesfified: • On April 3, 2012, he parked his van at the Berkshire Commons to patronize a retail establishment and left his dog in the car. • He intended to be away from the vehicle approximately 10 minutes. • He left the cab of the van in a "cool" condition and to assist in proper ventilation, he lowered a window in the vehicle approximatley'/4 of the way. • The temperature was in the "80's" and he did not leave water for the animal to drink. • The service took longer than intended and he returned to his car after being gone less than 20 minutes. • When he arrived at the vehicle, an Officer from the Collier County Sheriff's Department was present with a Domestic Animal Services Officer. • In his opinion, the citation should be dismissed as he left the window down with proper ventillation, and he was not away from the vehicle more than 20 minutes. Officer Doherty testified: • On the day of the incident, at 4:06 pm, the Collier County Sheriff's Office received a call from a concerned citizen notifying them a dog had been left in a vehicle for an extended period of time. • A Collier County Sheriff was dispatched and arrived at the scene at 4:12 pm. • At 4:13 pm, Domestic Animal Services was notified of the situation with Officer Doherty arriving at 4:26 pm. x.6121 --4 May 18, 2012 • Mr. Freshour arrived at the scene at 4:31 pm with the dog being left unattended in the vehicle for at least 26 minutes. • She could not ascertain the exact temperature inside the cab, the temperature outside was 85 degrees, based on accepted physics, the temperature inside the vehicle would have been between 105 degrees and 120 degrees within 30 minutes of leaving the vehicle in the parked position. • She observed the dogs respiratory rate at over 60 breaths per minute with an average dogs rate being 15 — 25 breaths per minute. • Based on the facts garnered the day of the incident, a citation was issued for a violation of the Ordinance - CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2008 -51, SEC. 14- 33(A)(10) It shall be unlawful for the owner of an animal to allow or permit his or her animal: - To be confined in an unattended motor vehicle without sufficient ventilation or under other conditions for such periods of time as may endanger the health and/or physical well- being of the animal due to heat, lack of potable water, or such other circumstances as may reasonably cause suffering, disability, or death to the animal. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent "GUILTY "of the violation and ordered him to pay a $100.00 fine, Operational Costs in the amount of $50.00 and an Adiministrative Fee of $7.00 for a total amount of $157.00 by July 18, 2012. Total Amount Due: $157.00 17. CASE NO: CEEX20120006958 OWNER: MARIA ELVIA TAMAYO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANIER MARRERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2008 -51, AS AMENDED, SECTION 767.13 DANGEROUS DOG FOLIO NO: 62646040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 553 98`x' AVE. N. NAPLES, FL Investigator Marrero represented the County. Maria Tamayo was present noting she was appealing the County's decision to deem her dog a "Dangerous Dog. " Investigator Marrero testified: • On April 7, 2012 he was notified the dog in question has severely injured a domestic animal while off the owner's property. • Upon investigation it was determined, as a result of the attack the victim was a dog who received serious injuries which required surgery. • He provided photos of the injuries, affidavits from neighbors and a reports from the veterinarian. Ms. Tamayo testified: • She has not seen the photographs or affidavits to be entered as evidence. The case was recessed at 10:25 am so the parties could review evidence presented in the case. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CESD20100020107 OWNER: O'NEILL PARTNERS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE 1612A1 May 18, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) . GARAGES IN DUPLEX HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO EFFICIENCIES, ADDING PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36110200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5000 24TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Investigator Musse presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Mr. O `Neill was present. Abatement Date: 4/25/12 Special Magistrate Order: (Original) 8/5/11 - No: 4712. —Page 409 (Continuance) 2/3/12 —No. 4765 —Page 438 (Continuance) 4/6/12 — No. 4789 — Page 1358 Fine Amount: $200 /day Duration: 12/6/11 — 4/25/12 (142 days) Total Fine Amount: $28,400.00 Total to Date: $28,400.00 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. Break: 10:30 am Reconvened: 10:55 am V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) B. Hearings 17. CASE NO: CEEX20120006958 OWNER: MARIA ELVIA TAMAYO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANIER MARRERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2008 -51, AS AMENDED, SECTION 767.13 DANGEROUS DOG FOLIO NO: 62646040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 553 98' AVE. N. NAPLES, FL The case was resumed. Investigator Marrero testified: • In addition to the incident he received several affidavits of the perpertrator running at large before and after the incident, including a report to the County the dog was running at large on April 25, 2012. • It is the owner's responsibility to ensure an animal is confined on their property, or on a leash if it is off the property. • Based on the results of his investigation, the dog was declared a "Dangerous Dog." The photos and affidavits provided were accepted as evidence by the Special Magistrate. Ms. Tamayo testified: • Her dog is normally well behaved, however the dog has an issue with the victim as it torments the dog by constantly barking at it. • Her dog was tethered in the yard, however the lawn maintenance service personel had removed the anchoring device and replaced it loosely unbeknownest to her. • During a dog walk, while the victim was in front of her house, her dog pulled the tether loose and attacked the victim. 16 12 A 1 May 18, 2012 • The victim is also an aggressive dog and provoked her dog in front of her house and her dog reacted to protect her terrirory. • She provided a photo of her dog playing with another small dog and a favorable affidavit from a neighbor. Lisa Gonsalez, Ms. Tamayo's daughter testified she resides nearby and when the dog runs loose, it is for the purposes of going directly to her residence. She owns a small dog which Ms. Tamayo's dog plays with, without incident. Investigator Marerro testfied: • Following the incident, at a later date, in the course of completing his investigation he was able to approach and make contact with the victim. • He could not approach or make contact with the perpetrator. • The decision to deem the dog a "Dangerous Dog" was primarily based on the dog inflicting serious injuries on another dog while off of the owner's property. The Special Magistrate DENIED Ms. Tamayo's appeal of the County's decision to deem her dog a "Dangerous Dog." 4. CASE NO: PR047977- CEEX20120005138 OWNER: DILLON MALONEY OFFICER: PARK RANGER CYNTHIA GAYNOR VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 FAILURE TO DISPLAY PAID PARKING RECEIPT WITH PROPER DATE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 951 BOAT RAMP, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/23/12 Ranger Maunz presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Ranger Maunz testified photos were unavailable, however their was a violation observed with a citation issued. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the violation and ordered him to pay a $30.00 fine, $50.00 Operational Costs and a $5.00 Administrative Fee for a total amount of $85.00 by June 18, 2012. 8. CASE NO: CEPM20110016621 OWNER: SABAL PALM DEVELOPMENT LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: DANGEROUS BUILDING NOTICE OF VIOLATION, COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 234(3), METHOD FOR DESIGNATION AND ELIMINATION OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS 22 -236. ROOF ON THE BUILDING IS DILAPIDATED AND COLLAPSING. FOLIO NO: 142680003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 15450 TAMIAMI TRAIL N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/24/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 Investigator Connetta presented the case. The Respondent was not present. 7 16 12 Al 18, 2012 Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 4/29/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 3/15/12 The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of the case by June 18, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion by May 25, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.64 9. CASE NO: CEPM20120001143 OWNER: SARAH JANE HORNER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING STANDARDS, COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)(d), (12)(m), (12)(n), (12)(p), (12) (q), (19) (1),(12)( c) . NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS AT THIS VACANT MOBILE HOME. FOLIO NO: 1206680003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 20 EGRET LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/12 Investigator Seabasty presented the case. He reported the Respondent is not contesting the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 9 photos dated 1/24/12. The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.82 incurred in the prosecution of the case by June 18, 2012. 2 Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Permits, Inspections, and Certificate of Completion for repairs or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and 16 � 2A1 May 18, 2012 demo the mobile home, pass all required inspections and Certificate of Completion by May 25, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.82 10. CASE NO: CEPM20120001144 OWNER: SARAH JANE HORNER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING STANDARDS, COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)(d), (I 2)(m), (I 2)(n), (I 2)(p), (12) (q), (19) (1), (12)( c). NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS AT THIS VACANT MOBILE HOME FOLIO NO: 1205760005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 21 EGRET LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/12 Investigator Seabasty presented the case. He reported the Respondent is not contesting the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 9 photos dated 1/24/12. The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case by June 18, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), Inspections, and Certificate of Completion for repairs, or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and demo the mobile home, pass all required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by May 25, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 1612A1 May 18, 2012 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.73 11. CASE NO: CEPM20110003436 OWNER: KEVIN W. CARTER AND JENNIFER F. CARTER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL WATER IS BLACK IN COLOR, STAGNANT, AND NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 51393480001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1910 IMPERIAL GOLF COURSE BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/24/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 Investigator Connetta presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 515111 Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 3/12/12 The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 18, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before May 25, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before May 25, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 12. CASE NO: CESD20120001635 OWNER: JOSE LANDIN - GARCIA AND MARIA LANDIN - GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID 10 16112A1 May 18, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) . TWO UNPERMITTED SHEDS IN REAR YARD OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62153160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5229 HOLLAND STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/24/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 2/2/12 Composite Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 5/17/12 The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $11229 incurred in the prosecution of the case by June 18, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by June 18, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 13. CASE NO: CEPM20120001961 OWNER: JOSE LANDIN - GARCIA AND MARIA LANDIN - GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)( c) AND (r). BLUE TARP COVERING ROOF AND GUTTERS, AND DOWNSPOUTS IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 62153160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5229 HOLLAND STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/24/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 2/2/12 11 Al 1612 May 18, 2012 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 5/17/12 The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of the case by June 18, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all applicable Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to repair or replace the roof, any damaged components of the roof system, and repair or replace the gutters and downspouts by June 18, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 15. CASE NO: CEPM20110012778 OWNER: JOHN M. FERNER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -228 AND SECTION 22- 231(12)(1) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)( c). WINDOWS BROKEN IN GARAGE DOOR AND THE SOFFIT IS FALLING DOWN. FOLIO NO: 62423160002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 789 107TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/25/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 Investigator Pulse presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos dated 9/16/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 2/1/12 The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of the case by June 18, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by repairing the damaged windowpanes on the garage door and repair the damaged soffit areas by May 25, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until 12 1612 Al May 18, 2012 the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 16. CASE NO: CEAU20120002734 OWNER: ANNE PARKER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02 (F)(3). A FENCE IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 36435400003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5236 31ST PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/25/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/26/12 Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 3/22/12 The violation remains as of May 18, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by June 18, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), and/or Collier County Demolition Permits and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to permit the fence or remove the fence by June 18, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 C. Emergency Cases: None 13 1612A1 VI. NEW BUSINESS (continued) A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. CASE NO: CEPM20110010983 OWNER: LIZETTE B. ABORLLEILE ESTATE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17 FENCE OR SAFETY BARRIER. FOLIO NO: 37010480007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 441 15`h STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/25/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/2/12 The Respondents were not present. May 18, 2012 POOL WITHOUT A Investigator Ambach presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 111 days Total Fine Amount: $27,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,431.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $29,293.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $29,293.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20110014961 OWNER: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF HARBORVIEW 2005 -16 TRUST FUND OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -228, SECTION 22- 231(12) (c). CEILING IN LANAI /POOL AREA IS COLLAPSING DUE TO LACK OF MAINTENANCE. APPARENT ROOF DAMAGE AND LACK OF MAINTENANCE. FOLIO NO: 27632440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 378 EGRET AVENUE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/25/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Pulse presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 4/3/12 — 5/18/12 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $ 11,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $11,612.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $11,612.47 Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 14 16 1 LAI May 18, 2012 CASE NO: CEROW20110014889 OWNER: RONALD TALERICO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110 ROAD AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY, DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110- 31(a). DRAINAGE SWALE IN REAR OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN FILLED IN WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 53125000550 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 262 KIRTLAND DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/25/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Connetta presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 4/21/12 — 5/18/12 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $5,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $200.00 Total to Date: $5,800.00 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $5,800.00. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. CASE NO: CEPM20120000872 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 228(1). ELECTRIC LIGHT POLE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY IN STATE OF DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/25/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/27/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Snow presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 4/21/12 — 5/18/12 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $7,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $7,112.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $7,11247. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. C. Rules and Regulations Review The Special Magistrate reported she has reviewed the Rules and Regulations and recommends no changes be made at this time. 15 16 A 12 May y Ma 18 2012 VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 1, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by order of the Special Magistrate at 12:09 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING _Bda Garretson, , Special Magistrate The Minutes w-er approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented 7, or as amended In 16 12'• l June 1, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, June 1, 2012 RECEIVED JUL 12 2012 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, 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 persons present: I Fiala Hiller Henning _--- Coyle Coletta �= — SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Misc. Corres: Date: °t 111 11'7— Item #:1 CQz 2 tq Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary 16 1 2AI 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore 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. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:03 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. Prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. Recessed: 9:1 Sam Reconvened: 9: 39am II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda item numbers): Under item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V.A — Stipulations: • #16 - CASE NO: CESD20110014694 -RUBEN M. VALDEZ AND ELIZABETH V. VALDEZ Under item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn: • #1 - CASE NO: S0142623- CEEX20120006624 - RICHARD E. FLEISHER • #3 - CASE NO: SO I 78774-CEEX20120007520 - ANDREW SEIBOLD • #5 - CASE NO: PR048320- CEEX20120006358 - PV HOLDING CORP • #6 - CASE NO: DAS12598- CEEX20120005864 - STEVEN FOX • #7 - CASE NO: CEPM20120006379 - DENNIS WOLFE AND ROBERTA WOLFE o #10 - CASE NO: CEV20120000317 - DAVID BURNS AND ELLEN A. BURNS • #13 - CASE NO: CEAU20110015846 - KEVIN R. RUARK Under item V.0 — Emergency Cases, the following cases was added: • #1 — CASE NO: CEPM20120007772 — LINDA H AND WILLIAM D. HAINES Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was withdrawn: • #1 - CASE NO: CEPM20080016475 - SAN JANIE TREVINO AND GUADALUPE MARTINEZ Under item VILA — Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order, the following case was added: • #1 - CASE NO: CEPM201 1001 1725 - NORMAN C. PARTINGTON The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FA 16 ' 2AI June 1, 2012 None IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Extension of Time None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 16. CASE NO: CESD20110014694 OWNER: RUBEN M. VALDEZ AND ELIZABETH V. VALDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A SHED IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND A CARPORT ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 77162200001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1203 N 18TH STREET, IMMOKALEE Investigator Rodriguez requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by Elizabeth Valdez on May 25, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by October 1, 2012 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s) or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 1, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 B. Hearings 1612A1 June 1, 2012 2. CASE NO: S0174831- CEEX20120006327 OWNER: DOUGLAS LAVINE OFFICER: DEPUTY SIEGEL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE, PARKED ON STRIPED LINES VIOLATION ADDRESS: WALMART, JULIET DRIVE, NAPLES Deputy Keller represented the County. Douglas Lavine was present. County Evidence: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 4/11/12 Mr. Lavine testified: • On April 11, 2012 he parked his motorcycle in the striped area of a handicapped parking space. • He possesses a "handicap parking tag" displayed on the license plate of the motorcycle. • As a courtesy, he parked in the area in an attempt to "not totally occupy" the handicap space so another handicapped vehicle could have access to the space. • He was unaware it was unlawful to park in the striped area of a handicap space. Deputy Keller testified: • Deputy Siegal issued the citation and was not available to present evidence at the hearing. • He is not aware of the exact circumstances of the events as he was not on scene the day of the incident. The Special Magistrate found Mr. Lavine NOT GUILTY of the violation due to Deputy Keller being unavailable for cross examination by the Respondent. 9. CASE NO: CEPM20120001710 OWNER: JENNIFER BONACKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(p) AND 19. MOLD GROWING ON THE INTERIOR WALLS AND BASEBOARDS OF A VACANT CONDO. FOLIO NO: 51080001984 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2456 MILLCREEK LANE, UNIT 103, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/17/12 Investigator Mcgonagle presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 4 photos dated 2/8/12 4 Al ' June 1, 2012 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.56 incurred in the prosecution of the case by July 1, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by making the premise habitable by treating and removing all mold to maintain the vacant or unoccupied unit in a sanitary condition and obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by June 8, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.56 4. CASE NO: PR048094- CEEX20120006062 OWNER: CHRISTINE O'NEIL AND TOM CHMELIK OFFICER: PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: VANDERBILT GARAGE, NAPLES Ranger Araquistain represented the County. Mr. Chmelik was present. Respondent evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 5 photos Mr. Chmelik testified: • He entered theVanderbilt Beach parking garage on a busy day, the entrance sign and parking attendant indicated their were vacancies in the garage. • While attempting to locate a vacant parking space, he proceeded to the top level and determined that no spaces were available. • He observed an area where there was no signage restricting parking, the area wasn't "striped" notifying the public of any restrictions. • He parked in the area in question and when he returned he had been issued a citation for parking in an unlawful area. • He provided photographs of other County facilities that are clearly marked by signage or "striping" where parking is not permitted. A 1 1612 June 1, 2012 • He stated that the County didn't provide adequate notice that the area is restricted from parking and requested the citation be dismissed. Ranger Araquistain testified: • All parking spaces in the facility are clearly deliniated for use. • The area is not deliniated and the concern is parties park in the area impeding traffic flow. • Parking is allowed in the "designated and established areas only." This area isn't designated for parking. The Special Magistrate found the County does not provide adequate public notice the area in question is a "no parking area" and found the Mr. Chmelik NOT GUILTY of parking in an unlawful area. CASE NO: CEPM20120002331 OWNER: JOHN MACDONALD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 SUBSECTIONS 12b, 12p, 12q, AND 19. SEVERAL INTERIOR WALLS THAT HAVE BEEN DAMAGED, AND TERMITE INFESTATION THAT HAS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME, WOOD SIDING ON THE EXTERIOR, AND TO A SUPPORT BEAM FOR THE CARPORT. FOLIO NO: 35773840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2248 45TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 511 6/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/18/12 Investigator Mucha presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 2/16/12 Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 2/21/12 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of the case by July 1, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by October 1, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 161 L - . Y-3 June 1, 2012 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.64 VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20110011725 OWNER: NORMAN C. PARTINGTON FOLIO NO: 38168160003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5761 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES, FL 34112 The Special Magistrate reviewed the request and GRANTED the County's Motion to Rescind a Previously Issued Order. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — (Continued) A. Hearings 11. CASE NO: CEPM20120003671 OWNER: NORMAN C. PARTINGTON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(1). UNSECURED PROPERTY WITH BROKEN WINDOWS AND DAMAGED EXTERIOR DOORS. FOLIO NO: 38168160003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5761 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/21/12 Investigator Musse presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 2/22/12 Exhbiti B: 1 photo dated 3/12/12 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before July 1, 2012. 2. Obtain all required Collier County Building Permits, inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the windows /doors to a permitted condition on or before July 1, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate or; Al 1612 June 1, 2012 obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and board the structure to the required specifications on or before June 8, 2012 and obtain all required Collier County Building Permits inspections and Certificates of Completion/Occupancy by December 1, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner Total Amount Due: $112.29 12. CASE NO: CEPM20110017378 OWNER: ERNESTO FLORES AND MARIA FLORES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 243(1)(2)(a)(b)(c). PROPERTY THAT WAS VACANT, ABANDONED, AND UNSECURED. FOLIO NO: 73180680209 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 618 CLIFTON STREET, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/18/12 Investigator Walker presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 5 photos dated 12/15/12 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $11212 incurred in the prosecution of the case by July 1, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permits) inspections and Certificate of Occupancy by June 8, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate, or obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and board the structure to the required specifications on or before June 8, 2012 and obtain all required Collier County Building Permits inspections and Certificates of Completion /Occupancy by December 1, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains 16 12 Al Jule 1, 2012 thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.12 14. CASE NO: CEROW20120000549 OWNER: ROGER DALE MOONEYHAM AND ROME MOONEYHAM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY, DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110- 31(a). VEGETATION IN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: 36110760000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4998 23RD COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/18/12 Investigator Musse presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 1/12/12 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of the case by July 1, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by removing any and all offending material/vegetation from the right of way by July 1, 2012 or pay a fine of $100.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the r 1612 June 1, 2012 provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 Break: 10: 50am Reconvened: 11: 07am 15. CASE NO: CEPM20120002100 OWNER: THOMAS G. BROWN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(c), (15), AND (19). THE LANAI DOOR IS MISSING THE LOWER SCREEN PANEL ALLOWING ACCESS INTO THE POOL AREA, FRAMING OF HUD APPROVED POOL COVERING IS DAMAGED AND RAISING AT THE CORNER OF THE POOL ALLOWING WATER TO ENTER, ROOF HAS MISSINGBROKEN TILE, AND GREEN MOLD /ALGAE GROWING ON LANAI SCREEN. FOLIO NO: 68980000243 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6524 HIGHCROFT DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/17/12 Investigator Mcgonagle presented the case. The Respondent were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 6 photos dated 2/10/12 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.82 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before July 1, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide biweekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before June 8, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter Ors 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before June 8, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Remove all algae growth from the screen enclosure, repair all torn and loose screens and secure all doors to the pool screen enclosure and maintain said in good repair on or before June 8, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for 10 1612 Al �rl June 1, 2012 each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 5. Replace missing and broken roof tiles to prevent the intrustion of rain or moisture by June 8, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 6. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 7 If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.82 C. Emergency Cases: #1. CASE NO: CEPM20120007772 OWNER: LINDA H AND WILLIAM D. HAINES FOLIO NO: 53352680002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3087 LUNAR STREET NAPLES, FL 34112 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/30/12 Investigator Scavone presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 14 photos dated 5/16/12 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 5/1/22 The violation remains as of June 1, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $113.08 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before July 1, 2012. 2. Provide water to the building via an active valid account with City of Naples Utilities or vacate the premise until such time water is provided by the City of Naples Utilities on or before June 4, 2012 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Provide electricity to the building via an active valid account with Florida Power and Light or vacate the premise until such time the electrical service is provided via an active valid account with Florida Power and Light on or before June 4, 2012 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 1612 Al I June 1, 2012 4. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion as ordered in the property maintenance report by June 8, 2012 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 5. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 6. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $113.08 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. CASE NO: CELU20110015511 OWNER: CONEXAR GROUP LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A). DUMPED FILL /DIRT ON VACANT LOT. FOLIO NO: 36315680008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5148 24TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/18/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Musse presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 26 days Total Fine Amount: $2,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $2,712.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of 52,712.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 3. CASE NO: CESD20110000214 OWNER: ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES 12 1612 * June 1, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F). FAILURE TO SUBMIT ANNUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MONITORING REPORT. FOLIO NO: 732800002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/17/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Bosa presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 26 days Total Fine Amount: $5,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $5,312.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $5,312.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 4. CASE NO: CESD20100009239 OWNER: CASERINVERSIONES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. UNPERMITTED FENCE ON SITE. FOLIO NO: 36112200005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4901 23RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/16/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/18/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Musse presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 383 days Total Fine Amount: $38,300.00 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served and the violation has been abated, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - (Continued) A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 13 16 I2 Al June 1 2012 A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 6, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11:30 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING a Garretson, Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved�ythe Special Magistrate on V (Q , an J,. as presented � , or as amended 14 AGENDA 16 12 AZ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:01 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON AN y-a �y� ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF Al J� `rJ 0 ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMA PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM BY. ....................... OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Fiala Hiller 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Henning Coyle ✓ 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Coletta 4. NEW BUSINESS A. LDC Amendment Review # Subsection(s) Description Date Author/Division 1 2.01.03 Essential Services - Aviation 03/21/12 Ray Bellows 2 3.06.06 A Regulated Wellfields - City of Naples East Golden Gate Wellfields 11/28/11 Ray Smith 3 3.06.06 B Regulated Wellfields - City of Naples Coastal Ridge Wellfields I ION11 Ray Smith 4 3.06.06 C Regulated Wellfields - Collier Co Utilities Golden Gate Wellfields 11/28/11 Ray Smith 5 3.06.06 D Regulated Wellfields - Everglades City Wellfields 11/28/11 Ray Smith 6 3.06.06 E Regulated Wellfields - FGUA Golden Gate City Wellfields 11/28/11 Ray Smith 7 3.06.06 F Regulated Wellfields - Orange Tree Wellfields 1128/11 Ray Smith 8 3.06.06 G Regulated Wellfields - Immokalee Wellfields 11/28/11 Ray Smith 9 3.06.06 H Regulated Wellfields - Ave Maria Utility Comp Wellfields 1128/11 Ray Smith 10 3.06.06 I Regulated Wellfields - Add Port of the Islands 11/28/11 Ray Smith 11 3.06.061. Regulated Wellfields - Port of the Islands Wellfields 1128/11 Ray Smith 12 3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields - Remove 1128/11 Ray Smith 13 3.06.12 Regulated Develop - Scrivener error 0322/12 Ray Smith 14 1.08.02 Definitions - Hazardous Product 03/21/12 Ray Smith 15 2.03.07 G Overlay District - Bayshore CRA 01/05/12 Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN mrK:• %AAIM. Date: c=f It 2, Item k I tom 2e9'2_ 1 Copies to: 16 1 e Ae April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 25, 2012 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 5:01 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Page 1 of 27 Mark Strain, Chairman (Absent) Melissa Ahern (Acting Chairwoman) Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney (Absent) Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier (Absent) 1612 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendment 4al Mee m " P g ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Evening, everyone, and welcome to the April 25th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone would rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: Secretary, if you will do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Eastman, Mr. Vonier and Mr. Midney and Mr. Strain are absent. COMMISSIONER AHERN: ** *And addenda to the agenda. Caroline passed out new agendas to everyone. We moved essential services to tonight's meeting from our last meeting, so we will start with that. MS. CILEK: Correct. Feel free to ask any questions. There are no changes to the intent of this amendment. There is one item I would like to note, and I do believe we discussed it at the last meeting, but it is to remove the word environmental. And that is on Page 3 of the amendment, line 27. And it's just to clarify that not all of the signatories were environmental agencies or organizations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait, you said Page 3? MS. CILEK: Of the amendment. Line 27. And we're just removing the word environmental. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Before intervener? MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If that's the way you pronounce that. How about the environmental defense fund? No? MS. CILEK: No, that's an agency that signed, so its full name is listed. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just at least for my benefit, if you could give a bit of a background on this. I know it was somewhat controversial before the BCC and so forth, and I'm trying to catch up with okay, where are we with this? I mean, there were some differing opinions from staff and that type of thing. If you could provide that as background for me, and if not for the public, I think it would be appropriate. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The issue was brought forward by the Clerk of Courts based on an -- what was that? It was an evaluation or -- Heidi, what was that report that they generated? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They did an internal audit of the airport authority. MR. BELLOWS: Audit. The internal audit raised some questions about the zoning of a strip of land adjacent to the airport, or part of the Airport Master Plan, which was zoned conservation ST. And the roadway was constructed on that portion pursuant to the SDP. And the SDP was approved pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding that's referenced in this staff clarification, which is now being made into an LDC amendment that just -- kind of housekeeping action to verify the Memorandum of Understanding that aviation related uses are permitted in the conservation areas subject to the Memorandum of Understanding. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What was the resolution of the conflict? It seemed to be there between the LDC -- there were two successive LDC paragraphs and one seemed to contradict the other as to what took precedence, whether it was the LDC or the GMP. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Land Development Code has provisions in it that say when there is deemed to be Page 2 of 27 A� April 25 ,2012 "CCPAb e nments Special Meeting" a conflict between a policy in the Growth Management Plan and/or any kind of language in the Land Development Code, the intent of the Growth Management Plan prevails. And that's what staff also was relying on in the staff clarification presented to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, this thing's referencing uses that were approved in a memorandum, right? And then -- MR. BELLOWS: That amends the Deltona settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. My other concern is in a section of code that is for in any zoning anywhere in the county. So what's the keep those uses, whatever they are, that's -- nobody knows, being applied in any other part of the county? In other words, why can't you limit this to the Marco Island Airport? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it basically does that. The Memorandum of Understanding is pursuant to the Deltona settlement agreement with the Airport Authority pertaining to the Marco Island Executive Airport solely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it says here, aviation uses as approved. So in other words, somewhere in these amendments, and this is brought in everybody, there's some approved uses that I'm sure are intended to be approved down there. But since it's in a section of code where it's uses in any zoning district, could that ever be misconstrued that those uses -- in other words, when they describe the uses, they're describing the location of those uses? MR. BELLOWS: The Memorandum of Understanding is so specific that it only applies to the Marco Island Airport. And basically it allows for that taxiway to be built. It says taxiway. It's that specific. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Ray, is this not coming in front of us, in front of the Planning Commission? MR. BELLOWS: Say the question again, I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this airport not coming to us in front of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not the amendment, the ST. MR. BELLOWS: The ST will be coming to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I thought. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There's -- thank you for reminding me. The Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Collier County Airport Authority also directed the director of the Airport Authority to submit an ST application, because part of that zoning is CON ST. And they wanted to be sure that that was adequately addressed. So there is a process to bring an ST permit, which will first go to the Environmental Advisory Council and then will come to the Collier County Planning Commission. And my understanding is that's on the very next CCPC agenda. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that will come to us this next week? MS. CILEK: It's in your packets. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's in the packet. I'll just reserve my questions for that time, thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone else have any questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Motion passes, 6 -0. Page 3 of 27 6 12 A 2 :;­4 April 25, 2012 "CCPC DC Amendments Special Meeting" Okay, moving on to item number two. Ray, looks like you have the next few, and we'll start with 3.06.06.A. MR. SMITH: Good evening. My name is Ray Smith, Director of the Pollution Control Department. For the record, I have a prepared presentation if the commission needs that or requests that. If not, I'm just available to answer any questions. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could ask a question. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, one thing, could you just review the different --the W -1, 2, 3, 4 and what the capture rate means? For example, W -1 -- MR. SMITH: Sir, I'm having difficulty hearing you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you review the W -1, the W -2, W -3, W -44, what they mean. There's a capture rate and then there's a time frame. MR. SMITH: Sure. I have a display here that I can show or I can just review it verbally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Display. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead and put up the display. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Brad, where are you looking at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you look at the maps, they all -- they're outlining these different districts and -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a refresher course on what they mean. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: It's on the next page in your packet. It's not -- there you go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look out. That was close. MR. SMITH: Maybe I'll do it verbally. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I think that would be -- MR. SMITH: You know what? I don't want that to happen again. Let me answer it this way: W -1, W -2, W -3 and W -4 are well -field protection zones. A W -1 zone is a one -year travel time protection zone. And I'll explain. But the model models a particle of water. And if a particle of water were to be within a W -1 zone, the model would indicate it would take one year for that particle of water to move to the well head. A W -2 has a two -year travel time, a W -3 has a five -year, and a W -4 has a 20 -year. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And then the capture, what do the percentages mean on that? Just -- like for example, W -1 has a five percent capture. What does that mean? MR. SMITH: What that means is exactly what I explained in detail. You're talking about a one -year, a two -year, a five -year and a 20 -year. The percentages pertain to the entire well -field, and what percentages are going to reach that well head, depending on your one -year, two -year, five -year and 20 -year capture zones. That's why the percentage is increased as you move out and decreased as you move in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the reasons, which is essentially why we're here today on all of these, the map changes is -- what kind of data causes you to change them? MR. SMITH: Well, there's three points of data that we use to remodel. A well -field may change based on pump rate changes and/or new wells being installed and/or abandoned wells being abandoned that existed in a previous model. So that's the information. We also gather information based on the specific location of the well head so we can model it correctly and the pump rates. So if we take a look at a pump rate change, we'll be taking a look at the pump rates that were modeled in your previous model, the ones adopted in the rule, to the pump rates provided as an updated pump rate from the utility. And we'll compare. And if we see a change in that, we'll remodel that appropriately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, I'm done. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. Page 4 of 27 i 1.6 1 A2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" . r. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait one second. Ray, I noticed in here that these are -- some of these changes are what the BCC asked. There were some little things in here that they want to change. MR. SMITH: Well, there were -- there was a request from a commissioner on the BCC that I take a look at the language and make appropriate modifications. One of the items that came up was the definition of hazardous waste and hazardous product. There was some discussion associated, well, couldn't there be a list that a person that were applying the rule could use a list and apply that to either a hazardous product or a hazardous waste. And to meet that expectation, or that direction, the -- I went in and I tapped into the -- and I referenced the federal and state rules and regulations where those lists do exist. In addition to that, it provides consistency with the federal and state rules and regulations. And there's a term in here, as superseded. So if they change the rule in the future, as amended or superseded, then I don't need to come back and go through this entire process again, the rule automatically is amended or superseded appropriately. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So then it's been made easier for you, the county. MR. SMITH: It's made easier for the user primarily. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Very good. Thank you. MR. SMITH: You're welcome. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone else? Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To approve. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion is approved 6 -0. MR. SMITH: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Moving on to 3.06.06.B. We have to do these individually, correct, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion passes 6 -0. 3.06.06.C? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before I move to approve, there's a little flange added; this is the Golden Gate utilities. What would cause that to happen, just out of --it's in section -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: C. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 39 or -- MR. SMITH: I really need to show the illustration so I can talk to it. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Don't kill anybody. MR. SMITH: I'm not going to have that happen again. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: You can put it behind Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I have no covering. Page 5 of 27 16 s April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MR. SMITH: Okay. What was your question again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See the little piece, the additional piece that's been added? It's a long narrow -- MR. SMITH: What well -field is that again, I'm sorry, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in the golden Gate. MR. SMITH: The Collier County utilities, Golden Gate well field? This one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. SMITH: Okay. The Collier County Golden Gate well field consists of this area. This is the Orange Tree area well field, and this is part of the Collier County utilities Golden Gate well field. There were two new wells added right in this area. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not exactly. But see, we can play hot and cold there. Do you see there's like a little long little arm coming out of it? Your thumb just went over it. What causes that? MR. SMITH: You know, I asked our geologist about that. And the model plotted out -- we checked the model. Because my question was why doesn't it just come across here instead of that area. But we took a look at the model and the model has that in it. So we go by the model. We check the data, we make sure that the data is correct, we confirm the data with the utilities, but we don't change models because it looks different, we stick with what the model says. And this is exactly the way it plotted out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think is happening, the different soil types, something in there or -- MR. SMITH: Possibly. Possibly different soil types, different draws from the well. Maybe you have an area here where you have a number of wells and it has a greater draw in this area, and up here you have fewer wells, thus the draw comes in. And up here you have interaction between Orange Tree well field and these two new wells and it brings it back again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. Motion approved 6 -0. Moving on to 3.06.06.1), Everglades City well field. Anyone have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a reason it's smaller, so it's a pump situation or what? MR. SMITH: Yes, with the Everglades City well field it was a pumping change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. Motion approved 6 -0. Item 3.06.06.E, FTUA Golden Gate City well fields. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. A concern here is that now we're extending this -- the zone four underneath the interstate, I mean, doesn't that present problems for everybody? I mean, that's not exactly Page 6 of 27 _ w AZ April 25, 2012 "1642wendments Special Meeting" what you would want in your well field. MR. SMITH: Well, not necessarily. The restrictions within the Land Development Code don't encompass overpasses, nor does it encompass roadways where you may have a spill. It is specific to specific types of land uses such as things of the nature of those businesses that generate large volumes of hazardous waste, those businesses that generate large volumes of hazardous product, for example. And this particular remodel has no -- the overpass has no impact on that, based on the rule and regulation, the way it's written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it has nothing to do with what is actually coming and going over the well field zones. side. MR. SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. Item 3.06.06.17, Orange Tree well fields. Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any idea why the little image grew a hat? MR. SMITH: No, sir, I do not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Looks like Casper the friendly ghost. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Item 3.06.06.G, Immokalee well fields. Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. And this is the one you want painted on your car on the ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Note that for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. Item 3.06.06.1-1, Ave Maria utility well field. Any questions? Page 7 of 27 16 12 A2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve, but point out this is sad because that was a bird -like structure and now it's just your typical splat well field. So the esthetics of that are gone. Move to -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Do I have a second -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since we've run the maps, where -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Not yet. Oh, wait, my bad. Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To access these, are they on the Internet where people can access them over the zoning maps or are they -- MR. SMITH: Once they're approved and they're placed on the zoning maps, there in fact does -- if you look at the bottom of the illustration, there's a website in which if somebody were to review the Land Development Code for the illustration associated with the well field, they can look on the bottom of the map and find the website where they can access it within the zoning maps online. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do they overlay with the street grids -- or streets and such -- MR. SMITH: Yes, yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, Item 3.06.06.I, add Port of the Islands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion passes 6 -0. Item 3.06.06.I, Port of the Islands well field. MR. SMITH: Excuse me, ma'am, if I can correct that. I believe -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Trying to figure that out. MR. SMITH: -- that particular one, if we're referencing the language change, that should be 3.06.06. The I is for the illustration associated with the Port of the Islands well field. The 3.06.06 identifies a list of regulated well fields in which I'm adding the Port of the Islands well field to. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on that clarification? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We approved that already, the adding -- MR. SMITH: I just want to make sure that was on record so there's no question about approving the same item twice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'll move to approve the map also. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. Page 8 of 27 16 12A 2 o4 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. Item 3.06.07, unregulated well fields. We're removing. Anyone have any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. 3.06.12. And that is correcting a scrivener's error. Does anyone have any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Second by Brad. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. And last but not least for Ray is 1.08.02, hazardous product definition. Give everybody a second to get to that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is the one we continued, Ray? MR. SMITH: No, ma'am, this was not continued at all. I had just developed these definitions. They have been approved by DSAC, they have been approved by the EAC, Environmental Advisory Council, and at this particular point I'm bringing them before the Planning Commission for your authorization to proceed to the Board of County Commissioners. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone have any other questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one. In my binder there are two tabs for 1.08.02. MS. CILEK: They're probably actually more than that, but it's the very first one. There should be four that have that label. But it's the very first one that the hazardous product should be under. MR. SMITH: Right. On the bottom it says -- you'll see the struck through definition, hazardous product or waste. And on the second page you'll see two separate definitions, one hazardous product, the other hazardous waste. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: We're just approving the hazardous waste. MR. SMITH: You're approving, my understanding, both definitions. You had a definition in the existing Land Development Code that encompassed both into one definition. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I'm sorry, I meant tab. Because we have kenneling also under -- so I just meant the hazardous waste portion of 1.08.02. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. Page 9 of 27 A 16 2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm going to ask a question because I wrote a note on this, and it said -- when we were going through the other definitions it said on this one to continue to the May 3rd meeting. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, that was the agenda that we had before right here. Not continue. It's on the agenda for tonight, the old one that we had too. It wasn't continued. It's on there. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Do I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion approved 6 -0. Thank you, Ray. MR. SMITH: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: And the last item on the agenda tonight is 2.03.07.G, the overlay district for the Bayshore CRA. MS. CILEK: And I'm going to leave you in good hands with my colleague Chris Scott who knows and has worked on this amendment for quite a long time. So thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Great. MR. SCOTT: For the record, my name's Chris Scott with the Growth Management Department. I'm going to -- I'd like to give you a little bit of background about the Bayshore /Gateway, but first I also want to recognize Patrick Vanasse is in the audience, he's with RWA, who assisted in the development or was the main developer of the amendments. And Jean Jourdan with the Gateway Triangle, Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA. And if -- I would like her to come up and maybe say some introductory remarks regarding the CRA and where these amendments came from. MS. JOURDAN: Good evening. For the record, Jean Jourdan. I'm project manager with the Bayshore /Gateway Community Redevelopment Agency. Forgot the Triangle. That's a long name. We're just used to saying CRA. So if I refer to CRA it is the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency. The CRA was established in 2000 and the redevelopment plan was adopted the same year. The LDC amendments before you are consistent with the vision, goals and objectives of the community redevelopment plan and the resolution 2008 -60, which created a cultural arts district within the Bayshore /Gateway area. This process has -- we've been going through the community vetting process for about four years, getting input on these LDC regulations to see what was working and what wasn't working. We found a lot of things needed to be tweaked, and that's why the amendments are before you now. And the amendments basically is a result of the community and what they were telling us, the problems that they were having as far as trying to get things through the process. Redevelopment. It's really difficult to redevelop in Collier County right now, so we're proposing these amendments to make that a little bit easier. And with that said, I'll turn it back over to Chris. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. Also, I did not realize David Jackson is also in the audience. He's with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA. As background, let me give you a little bit personal background. I used to be in the private sector, so I did assist in the development of these, and since then happen to now find myself as a Collier County employee. So I am very familiar with the amendments and what the CRA has been attempting to do. So I am in somewhat of a unique position to answer your questions as you come forward. And of course Patrick Vanasse, who helped develop these is here as well. But in 2009 the CRA retained RWA to do a comprehensive rewrite of the amendments and they were specifically looking to further investment and redevelopment, as Jean mentioned. Some of the things they were targeting was making it a little more user friendly or easy to utilize, and Page 10 of 27 161&2 1 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" incorporate some best zoning practices and increase some flexibility from some of the rigid standards that were in there. RWA prepared a zoning code and map analysis. I don't believe that was included as part of your packet. But basically what that did, there was, you know, stakeholder interviews, public meetings, a review of the existing LDC, both the greater LDC and the specific overlays. There was a review of the built environment in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle areas. And based off of all the background information, the analysis identified some alternative provisions to be considered as the amendments went forward. And there were five of those and they were broken down to improve user friendliness. Some of the things that were identified were to eliminate inconsistencies between the overlay regulations and things that were found in the greater Collier County LDC, incorporate more tables and pictures, or modernize the table of uses, consolidate design standards. There was a lot of repetition in the existing LDC. The other -- the major theme was encourage redevelopment, revitalization and infill. And that was to -- being proposed through increased mixed use development opportunities, creating some non- confonning provisions specific to the gateway -- Bayshore /Gateway Triangle areas, creating some incentives, developing infill standards, and revising some of the parking provisions. Facilitating cultural arts district was another major theme. Looking at permitted uses that are allowed that support cultural arts. Live /work units was one use that was specifically identified to be included. Creating incentives and helping develop a walkable public realm, pedestrian friendly public realm. Ensuring development quality. Some of the themes discussed were, you know, incorporating some more fonn -based provisions. Again, the public realm was discussed. Updating development standards and incorporating some sustainable development practices. And finally, improving and simplifying the review and approval process. And I think that's where a lot of the issues that were experienced there. And some of the items to accomplish that were to move the MUP out of where it currently is and put it with the other procedural requirements in the LDC. Create an administrative approval process. And again, looking at some nonconforming provisions specific to the CRA. So that's a little bit of background. The packets before you, what was included, I want to just give an overview. It's a very large section of your packet, and the majority of the rewrite, and I know it's caused some consternation for several people that I talked to is, there was so much reorganization because things were in weird sections, and that's not unique just to the Bayshore /Gateway overlay LDRs, but I found it throughout the Collier County LDC. But we were trying to lay it out a little more intuitively and make it more consistent with how the greater LDC is laid out. So there is a definition section. There is a section chapter two which identifies the zoning districts, both the greater overlay and all the subdistricts within that overlay. And that section describes the purpose of intent and identifies the uses that are allowed. Chapter four contains all of the design standards, your setbacks, your landscaping requirements, architectural requirements, those types of things. And then chapter 10 are the procedures in the LDC and we move the MUP process to chapter 10, so it's with the other procedures in the LDC. And because of all of that reorganization, it made a traditional strike- through/underline format for LDC amendments very difficult to do, impractical. It would be hard for you. So the way the packet is set up is you have clean text. If it's related to existing text we put those in a text box and you can see it in strike- through/underlined, and that's to help assist you all to identify what is new language and what was old language that may have been amended. With that said, there are some changes other than just reorganization. There are some revised development standards. There's some flexible setback requirements for infill lots. Some of the minimum floor area and maximum floor area requirements have been slightly adjusted. Some of the architectural standards have been changed, and I'll get into that in more detail. Buffer requirements had some minor adjustments. And parking requirements were minimized a little bit. Some of the substantive changes. Now, these are more than just minor changes in numbers. There are some new uses that were introduced. Live /work, which I had mentioned previously, an artist village and community gardens. It incorporates some fonn -based code provisions within the architectural design section. There's some provisions for murals within the CRA; again, nonconforming provisions that are specific to the redevelopment area. And then it allows for administrative MUP approval process. So those would be the major issues. Page 11 of 27 2A 2 4 April 25 2012 "CCPC L§Al m endment P s Special Meeting And that pretty much gives you a little summary and background. I know typically with the board protocol is to go page -by -page. I will note that we have had a meeting with the County Attorney's Office. We met with Brad to discuss these amendments since the packets have been sent to you. So there are some sections that we would like to amend, and I'll note them as we get to those pages, if that's okay with you all. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Perfect. Okay, do you guys wants to just go through about 10 pages at a time and ask any questions you have? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Let's take the first 10 pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. It's not really the numbered page but the fiscal impact, what does that statement mean that the CRA amendments will be subject to the fee of $3,000? Is that referring to this or is that referring to people in the future? MR. SCOTT: No, the $3,000 fee is the fee required for someone to submit a text amendment. So the CRA had paid the $3,000 fee to submit the text amendment to the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, isn't the intent of that to see if the changes here have a fiscal impact, not the actual application procedure or -- MR. SCOTT: That is the intent. I didn't write that section so I wasn't familiar with it. I will say that the amendments don't take away any rights or -- that are currently conveyed on property owners. So in that regard I wouldn't imagine any impacts to the county or any property owners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, more questions. On Page 4, the live /work units, which I think is an excellent idea; I was on the national codes and we put it into the building code. The question I had, and the rest of the Planning Commission, they only have it for single- family, where I think it could be in multi - family. And where we could start getting in trouble in Florida is that a three -unit townhouse project is a multi - family project. I'm not sure why it has to be restricted to that. Also, I think the definition of it would be, you know, it would be nice if it was exactly the same as the building commission or the code has. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, after our meeting you had mentioned that with us, and when this was developed it was prior to the recent Florida Building Code amendments that were just enacted. So we are comfortable in amending this definition. And if you'd like, I can read how this definition would change. Live /work units. So everything after that would be stricken and the new definition would be -- and this again is to make it consistent with Florida Building Code Section 438 -- a dwelling unit in which a significant portion of the space includes a nonresidential use that is operated by the tenant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And that would make it consistent with Florida Building Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jean, I guess the question is do you want it in multi- family or -- I mean, obviously an artist like the artist village, they can live in a multi- family building and they're obviously going to be in their living room painting. So it's not like they can't do that in their house. MS. JOURDAN: The reason we put it in the places that we did was through public input. The places where we are allowing it are actually single- family but they're transitional places. They're mobile homes that are transitioning into single- family. The one part is actually across from commercial. So the other people within the area had indicated that they did not want to have live /work on their established streets. So we identified these areas that were transitional and the ones that were next to or adjacent to commercial for the live /work. That was the reasoning. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: Any other questions, Page 1 through 10? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you decide to go with the current definition, you just need to put an or in between line 16, a single owner or tenant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the intent is for a tenant, though. I mean, in other words, you don't want some guy that owns it and is not the tenant. MR. SCOTT: Right. Yeah, we're comfortable adjusting it to match Florida Building Code. So it would be a dwelling unit in which a significant portion of the space includes a nonresidential use that is operated by the tenant. So the tenant or which could also be the owner would operate both the commercial -- or the nonresidential and the residential space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it doesn't have to be the owner. Page 12 of 27 MR. SCOTT: No -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you don't want -- MR. SCOTT: Right, just the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you want some guy can own it and lease it to an artist. MR. SCOTT: Correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Heidi, did you have anything else on those pages up to Page 10? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. MR. SCOTT: I have a minor change on Page 6, 2.03.07.I.1, in the purpose and intent. The second line, which is line nine, notes the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle community redevelopment area, (CRA), to make it -- the CRA is actually the Collier County CRA with two redevelopment areas. So to make it consistent with the -- to make it proper, we will strike the word community at the end of line nine, and strike the (CRA) on line 10. And that happens a couple of other places throughout the document. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, Page 11 through 20. MR. SCOTT: I have one -- I have a couple of changes in the use table that were an error of omission. On Page 12, the -- which is the Bayshore mixed use district's table of uses, the dwelling number A.5, dwelling multi - family three or more, is currently allowed in the R -2 and R -3 subdistrict as well as the R -1. We want to make that consistent. And it was -- so we'll add the P to R -2 and R -3. And right below that, dwelling mobile home is currently only allowed in the R -3, so we will strike it from R -1. And then for the dwelling mobile home, the P under R -3, just for clarification, we want to add an asterisk after the P and then put an asterisk before if allowed by underlying zoning, under additional standards. And that just clarifies that mobile homes are pennitted in the R -3 subdistrict if allowed by the underlying zoning. And let me just as a little background, the table, you'll see a header above each page of the table. The way it's set up, and this is with the existing LDC and it's carried over to this, the uses that are listed for the residential districts are allowed in those districts. The uses that are identified for the NC and W or the nonresidential subdistricts, those are uses that are allowed as part of a mixed use project or an MUP. If you are building something traditionally on a single lot, you would follow the uses that are allowed for the underlying zoning district. So just because a use is not specifically listed here for a nonresidential subdistrict does not mean that it is not allowed on a piece of property in Bayshore /Gateway Triangle. That would be regulated through the underlying zoning district, C -1 through C -4 or whatever it may be. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, any questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Is that all of your changes? MR. SCOTT: Let me see. We're going 10 at a time or are you doing -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Yes, we're going 11, Page 11 through 20. MR. SCOTT: Then Page 14, F -1, boatyards are currently identified as an accessory use in the NC and W subdistricts. We are going to strike that completely. And then on Page 15, marinas, we are going to say marinas and boatyards because the supplementary standards apply to both marinas and boatyards. And then I would also clarify that the major heading on that same page, it says infrastructure. It has an F. It should be an H. So that is a scrivener error. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. I would just like to clarify something also along the lines of what Chris was talking about with the tables. What's important to note is that the overlays provide uses above and beyond what's already approved and what's already allowed in the underlining zoning district. So if you turn to Page 11 and you look at line eight, it kind of describes how these overlays work. And what it states is all other projects may elect established uses, densities and intensities in accordance with their underlying zoning. However, all projects must comply with site development standards as provided in Section 4.02.16, which is the overlays. So basically what we're saying is that if your underlying zoning district allows certain uses, you keep those uses. And the densities and intensities associated with those underlying districts exist. So we're not changing that, we're just supplementing that with the overlays. Page 13 of 27 12 A6 Z April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MR. SCOTT: No -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you don't want -- MR. SCOTT: Right, just the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you want some guy can own it and lease it to an artist. MR. SCOTT: Correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Heidi, did you have anything else on those pages up to Page 10? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. MR. SCOTT: I have a minor change on Page 6, 2.03.07.I.1, in the purpose and intent. The second line, which is line nine, notes the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle community redevelopment area, (CRA), to make it -- the CRA is actually the Collier County CRA with two redevelopment areas. So to make it consistent with the -- to make it proper, we will strike the word community at the end of line nine, and strike the (CRA) on line 10. And that happens a couple of other places throughout the document. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, Page 11 through 20. MR. SCOTT: I have one -- I have a couple of changes in the use table that were an error of omission. On Page 12, the -- which is the Bayshore mixed use district's table of uses, the dwelling number A.5, dwelling multi - family three or more, is currently allowed in the R -2 and R -3 subdistrict as well as the R -1. We want to make that consistent. And it was -- so we'll add the P to R -2 and R -3. And right below that, dwelling mobile home is currently only allowed in the R -3, so we will strike it from R -1. And then for the dwelling mobile home, the P under R -3, just for clarification, we want to add an asterisk after the P and then put an asterisk before if allowed by underlying zoning, under additional standards. And that just clarifies that mobile homes are pennitted in the R -3 subdistrict if allowed by the underlying zoning. And let me just as a little background, the table, you'll see a header above each page of the table. The way it's set up, and this is with the existing LDC and it's carried over to this, the uses that are listed for the residential districts are allowed in those districts. The uses that are identified for the NC and W or the nonresidential subdistricts, those are uses that are allowed as part of a mixed use project or an MUP. If you are building something traditionally on a single lot, you would follow the uses that are allowed for the underlying zoning district. So just because a use is not specifically listed here for a nonresidential subdistrict does not mean that it is not allowed on a piece of property in Bayshore /Gateway Triangle. That would be regulated through the underlying zoning district, C -1 through C -4 or whatever it may be. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, any questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Is that all of your changes? MR. SCOTT: Let me see. We're going 10 at a time or are you doing -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Yes, we're going 11, Page 11 through 20. MR. SCOTT: Then Page 14, F -1, boatyards are currently identified as an accessory use in the NC and W subdistricts. We are going to strike that completely. And then on Page 15, marinas, we are going to say marinas and boatyards because the supplementary standards apply to both marinas and boatyards. And then I would also clarify that the major heading on that same page, it says infrastructure. It has an F. It should be an H. So that is a scrivener error. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. I would just like to clarify something also along the lines of what Chris was talking about with the tables. What's important to note is that the overlays provide uses above and beyond what's already approved and what's already allowed in the underlining zoning district. So if you turn to Page 11 and you look at line eight, it kind of describes how these overlays work. And what it states is all other projects may elect established uses, densities and intensities in accordance with their underlying zoning. However, all projects must comply with site development standards as provided in Section 4.02.16, which is the overlays. So basically what we're saying is that if your underlying zoning district allows certain uses, you keep those uses. And the densities and intensities associated with those underlying districts exist. So we're not changing that, we're just supplementing that with the overlays. Page 13 of 27 � A April 25, 2012 "CCPC/L 11 6Amen ments pecial Meeting" However, when it comes to development standards, no matter what your underlying zoning district is, you have to abide by the development standards within the overlays. So if you're just looking at uses, intensities and densities, you have the option of going with existing zoning or opting for this. When it comes to development standards, you must abide by this. So I just wanted to clarify that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can I also make a further clarification? As proposed inhere, if somebody wants to go forward and they want to develop or redevelop, they really will have three options. And one of the options we haven't gotten to yet. But they could rezone the property to whatever they can get approved by the Board. They can use the underlying zoning designation, what he's saying, what he told you just now as far as the uses. So if it's C -3, they could do any of the C -3 uses. Or when we get to it a little bit later they can do a mixed use project, MUP, which is proposed to be done administratively. So those uses that they just went through, the chart that you looked at that showed the overlay, it will operate kind of like straight zoning. Anything that's in the overlay they'll be able to get approved. All they have to do is submit the request, staff checks to make sure it's a use in the overlay, and they get it. So that's a little bit different, and we'll get to that a little bit later. But I just wanted you to understand that there were multiple options on how to develop. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I'm sorry, do you have more changes? MR. SCOTT: I do have one more between Pages 10 and 20. That is a simple one. Page 16, similar to what I discussed earlier. And one, purpose and intent, line nine, strike the word community. So that it just reads Bayshore /Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. And I'm good until we get to the next 10. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Any questions up to Page 20? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, let's go Page 21 to 30. Chris, we can start with you. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Similar with the dwelling, mobile home, A -6, we will add an asterisk after the P under R and put an asterisk under the additional standards prior to if permitted by underlying zoning. The B -1, bed and breakfast facilities. I need to confer with Jean, but I believe the decision was to also add that as a permitted use in the mixed use subdistrict. Yeah. So B -1, bed and breakfast facilities, add a P under MXD -- or a CU, excuse me. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: So both are conditional uses? MR. SCOTT: Yes. Page 24. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe why don't we go page -by -page and you can join in. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: You have questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Twenty -one, the maintenance repair in the mixed use area, we still wanted to remove that? MR. SCOTT: Maintenance repair. I apologize, that was one I missed. Add a CU under MXD. Thank you. Any other questions on that page or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. SCOTT: Page 23 and 24, there's just a small portion that got carried over. The very last item, lawn and garden services in conjunction with a nursery. Strike everything under the additional standards. And the rationale for that is those pertain to demonstrating compatibility. Those are already criteria that have to be demonstrated for any conditional use, so it was redundant. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any questions on those two pages? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Chris, do you have anything else? MR. SCOTT: Not on this. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a Page 26 question. Page 14 of 27 Jf4c a2 A ril 25 ,2012 "CCmen dments Special Meeting" ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess, Heidi, these density bonuses, I guess it's 388 units; is that right? How many do we have now? MS. JOURDAN: That's correct. Initially we started out with 388 and then there was 232 units approved for the arboretum project, which no longer exists. As a matter of fact, it reverted back to its original zoning. So those 232 units are going to come back to us. The only thing according to comprehensive planning, they're keeping track of this, are five units that were used in a project. So that would take us down to 383. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would be the coffee shop. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. I mean, what that is is there's only a limited amount of units other than what you're entitled to on your property, correct? MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The rest of the board. So everybody is going to be drawn out of that pool. And it looked like that one project was a pretty big hit. So it really is purely first come, first serve? And how long can they hold it? Like how -- I mean, how many -- I know there's a frame in here where it elapses. So till they elapse, they have the rights of those units? MS. JOURDAN: Correct. And then if they don't utilize them -- and I believe Heidi can answer the question, because she's working on how they would come back to the density bonus pool. I don't know, Heidi, is that going to be per resolution, ordinance? How would we get back those units? I know that they're not being used, so -- but officially? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, in answer to your question, my recommendation was to do a resolution. The current regulations provide that the stuff automatically tenninates. But I still think that it's better to memorialize it in a resolution, frankly. That's my recommendation. But on this section that you're looking at, A -1, when I first looked at it, I found it confusing. You know, some of the things in the overlay they can have by right. And I initially read this to mean they could have the 12 units an acre by right. And in talking with Chris, he indicated that you get the underlying zoning unless you can get up to 12 units an acre with the density bonus. So I read it a little bit differently, which -- MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. Also, if you read the Growth Management Plan, then it makes it more clear how you qualify for those density bonus units. There's only certain projects that will qualify that it has to be a mixed use project. Right now the way the thing is written, no one else can tap into those bonus density units. And it's outlined in the future land use element, the Bayshore /Gateway overlay in the Growth Management Plan. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's addressed on your last page where Page 101 is the density pool allocation. And as I understand it, it's first come, first serve. So whoever applies essentially you get it. If you apply, you get it. MS. JOURDAN: But you have to be within a mixed use project. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it's a limited resource. MS. JOURDAN: Yes, it is. Yeah, it's an incentive, similar to early entry TDR's. That was from Patrick. He's whispering in my ear back there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the problem's going to be is that once they're gone and you have commercial zoning which doesn't have residential attached to it, your mixed use projects aren't going to be that mixed. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. I mean, we're looking into other ways of getting additional density, but because of that being the coastal high hazard area, they didn't really want to increase the density. So we're actually pulling from the density that was allowed on Botanical Gardens. That's where those 388 units came from, because they said they didn't want to increase the density in the coastal high hazard area. So that wasn't really increasing the density, it was just a reallocation. And that's where those 388 came from, that number. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. One of the recommendations we made when we did our analysis was that the pool is finite right now, and as Jean mentioned, that density was obtained through the Botanical Gardens because they weren't going to be using their residential density. There are other civic type of uses in the area, and one of the recommendations was to look at the possibility of maybe being able to use that density if those lands are going to remain in civic type of uses or parks or Page 15 of 27 2 A2 April 25, 2012 CC bAmendments Special Meeting" recreational type of uses. Again, that would require a Comp. Plan amendment and close investigation, but there's an opportunity there for that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Thank you. Any other questions on this section? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Chris, did you have anything else up to Page 30? MR. SCOTT: Page 28 and Page 30 I have the same comment. Actually, I have two comments. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can I also make a clarification too? Because as you get to these pages the rules are changing so that the -- yeah, as you get to this page. The development standards now are based on your product type, and that's where they come up with the forin based as opposed to in C -3 it's so many feet for your setback. Now it's based on your product type our your form. I just want to make sure that was clear. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, that's a good clarification. The form -based provisions encompass both the building location on the lot based off of what the building looks like, so a house would have certain setback requirements, a commercial building would have another set of requirements. And then there's architectural standards that are in a later chapter. So yeah, the setbacks don't really change, they're consistent with the current code, but it is broken down by building type. Which leads me to on Page 28 I want to add a -- under -- on the table, the top line, minimum lot width feet, under commercial, it currently says 100 feet. I want to add a footnote. I'm going to make that one five because I have a four that got inadvertently left off. So make that a footnote five. And then underneath the footnote section I will note that properties with C -3 zoning shall have a minimum 75 -foot lot width. And the rationale is that is the existing lot width requirement for C -3. And the intent was not to increase the development standards from what currently exist. And then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Chris. Where are your footnotes currently existing? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Bottom of Page 28. MR. SCOTT: The bottom of Page 28. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it, okay. MR. SCOTT: And then I also want to add a footnote four, at max building height feet add a footnote four. And just a note that that is zoning height. Because the county has both zoning height and actual height. That was a -- to change that would have been more than was intended with these amendments. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Chris, I have a question for you. MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Heidi can maybe -- are you rewriting these LDC's as you're going along with this? I mean, watching something -- because this has already been brought up in front of us, right, and then it came to the BCC. This was -- okay. But it just seems like you're kind of changing -- it seems like you're rewriting a lot before we get this. This is -- is this questions from Brad, is that why? MR. SCOTT: This was based off of -- not exclusively, no. The packets had gone out and they're still being reviewed on some level by staff, the County Attorney, and then we had a meeting with Brad. So some of these changes are based off of those made. And I apologize that they're not included in your packet, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, that's what I was guessing, I was really trying to say. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're really not changing any of these setbacks anyway. Essentially the chart on the right is the old, the chart on the next is the new. Some people have a different orientation, but -- you know, it always scares me when I see different commissioners have different orientation in their packets, because they hand them to you with your name and you just wonder if these are customized packets or -- they should be identical. But anyway. But -- and by the way, I found this to be very confusing going through this. Because it is these little boxes of code and boxes of that. hi other words, there's no real straight through way to check what the existing code is. This is -- it's a little strange. But we discussed that also, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: See, so it was with Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can't fix strange. Because I'm around doesn't mean it's strange. Page 16 of 27 16 is AE April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MR. SCOTT: If I could back up one second, I just realized the footnote five for the 75 -foot lot, minimum lot width for C -3 property, I inadvertently forgot to mention that on Page 26 it also needs to be added under commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question looking at this. On 30, did you get rid of duplex as a category or -- there's no minimum width or -- MR. SCOTT: Hold on one second. Page 30? No, there is a footnote that says see section 4.02.16.A.7 regarding duplexes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I see that. But in other words, why wouldn't -- what does it says -- and here's the problem, it's difficult to go back in this as it was presented to us and find that section. You have to go to the COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 36. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, that has a typo too. Or not -- Page 28 has a typo, it should be A -7. The A's were lifted out of footnotes one and two. Duplexes, they have a larger minimum lot width requirement. But again, the house is just the building form, so it could be a duplex, one building with two units on a single - family lot designed to appear as a house. However, the current LDC requires a larger minimum lot width. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what would the duplex lot width be? MR. SCOTT: Duplex lot width is 80 feet and a minimum square footage of 1,000 square feet -- or minimum building area of 1,000 square feet per unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason you wouldn't put them in this chart is why? As they were before. Or at least as they are in 4.02.18. MR. SCOTT: It could be done that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why would you chase us around? MR. SCOTT: Well, there are a number of exceptions to the dimensional standards that follow these tables. So we did put a notation that identifies that section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. VANASSE: The reason is that a duplex really falls under the form of a house. However, we couldn't cleanly have the same standards for all houses because a duplex had existing standards that were a little different than a single - family. So we wanted to kind of keep the organizational structure of using form -based methodology and using house and townhouse and et cetera, but duplex didn't fit in cleanly. So we could either add it to the table, modify the table, or the way we dealt with it was just having a footnote and then dealing with it with a different section of code. And really, like Chris explained, it's the 80 -foot lot width rather than the 50 -foot. And that's something that was discussed at the advisory board and with CRA staff. And the intent was not to reduce it to 50 and make it consistent throughout. They wanted to keep it as -is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a two- family, what is the difference? MR. SCOTT: Well, again, two- family, the -- they could be two row house type developments where each is on an individual lot. So it could be similar to a townhome but two units as opposed to three. But each -- the difference would be duplex could be on a single lot, not have each owner -- two owners on two separate lots with an attached structure. Whereas a two- family unit could have separate owners and separate lots but a shared party wall. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, that's a townhouse, which has different requirements. MR. SCOTT: But by definition in our code townhouse is three units or more. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, Collier County has always dealt with it in -- I think it's an issue every time it comes up that's a little confusing to people, duplex versus two- family. And I go back every time and look at the definitions. But really, you're looking at the same -- a building that could look exactly the same and you're looking at one on one parcel versus the same building on two parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page is 14.02.16.A.7 on so I can pretend -- MR. VANASSE: I believe it's 36. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thirty-six. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 36? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Page 17 of 27 aApril 25 2012 "(/a/LIC ?mei&4s Special Meeting" ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Chris, did we get your change on Page 30? MR. SCOTT: I just add a footnote for zoned height was the only one. The same with Page 32, add zoned height. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone have any questions up to Page 30? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm back in on that last point. So what you're doing here -- and first of all, we discussed this yesterday, this is the only place in code where R -1 is the higher density. And then you -- you know, normally R -1 is the sacred single - family house. And then -- and the numbering makes sense, because the numbers can actually start to make sense. This works opposite. MR. SCOTT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're saying is in this high density area, the R -1, you're referring people to the development standards of R -4 for the development of the duplex and the two- family and -- MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, back in the way it was in 4.02.18, the old code, you could see all of the different single -- all of the different housing types, you know. They're not fonn -based but they're the housing types. Now you're taking some of them out of your form -based thing for R -1, which is the dense areas, and you're sending people from that into the R -4, which is the less dense area for regulation. I mean -- MR. SCOTT: I believe you're looking at the old regulations. If it's in a text box -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the problem is is I'm liking the old regulations better than what we're doing here. That's my problem. Because there it shows everything, you can see it. Now here you take me down, you do footnote me, you led me to the place. And then when I get there, it's the development standards for R -4, which is -- just seems awkward. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's the exceptions, number seven, exceptions -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's the exceptions to the development standards or R -4. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, they're to all of them. MR. SCOTT: No, if you look -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, wait a minute, this box is confusing me. MR. SCOTT: Let me -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, the box above that, seven, okay. All right. No, it's the format of this present -- I mean, you have a little box before that that's stating these are the R -4 standards, and it's -- I'm confused -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's the one after that that applies to that, on the next page. MR. VANASSE: And again we understand that the boxes are a little difficult to handle. That's what we saw as the best way to try to present this to you. Obviously once the boxes will be cleaned out I think it reads a lot better. It's a lot easier to follow once those boxes are gone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So seven is an exception to all the different ones, not just R -4. MR. SCOTT: Correct. Let me -- if you -- at the very beginning of your book there is a table that shows proposed overlay outline adjacent to the existing overlay outline. So if you just focus on the proposed overlay outline you can kind of see, it's difficult especially when you're looking at something page -by -page, small section by small section to see the greater image from, you know, a 30,000 -foot level. But if you look, we are now in a Gateway Triangle mixed use overlay district, I believe. It should say Bayshore /Gateway Triangle overlay. But one is your purpose and intent -- excuse me, we're on 40.2.16.A, dimensional and design standards for the BMUD, okay. So one through six are each of your subdistricts. Seven is your exceptions. And then B is dimensional design standards for the GT, or Gateway Triangle mixed use subdistrict. One and two are your two subdistricts, three is your exemptions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So some day soon we'll see it all in the right format and life might make more sense. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Chris, can we leave that on the overhead and leave that up just so we don't have to flip back and forth if we have any -- MR. SCOTT: I don't know how the overhead works. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I think Ray can help us with that. MR. SCOTT: I also want to note that as this goes forward we're happy -- and Heidi had asked for a -- I guess Page 18 of 27 6 A2 4 April 25 2012 "CI&I Amendments Special Meeting" P � P g r you can open it up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you open it up? MR. SCOTT: Heidi had asked for a clean copy that didn't show the text boxes with the old code sections, just because it did add some confusion, especially if you're looking at numbers and all of a sudden there's an obscure number within a text box. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't have to prove that to me, that's for sure. MR. SCOTT: But we are happy when this comes back to you, because I imagine at a minimum it's coming back on your consent agenda, if not for further discussion, that we will also provide a clean copy devoid of test boxes, for ease of -- hopefully easier use. I'm not going to say ease. I did have two things I just noticed. Twenty -eight and 30, there's an incorrect citation to 4.02.16. It should be D, building types and architectural standards. In some places for some reason it says C, which there must have been a change at some point that wasn't caught in every location. So in all circumstances that should reference 4.02.16.13, building types and architectural standards. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, so through page I think 32, so let's continue on up to 40. MR. SCOTT: Thirty-two, the correct citation to D, building height -- or building types and also zoned height footnote. Unless there's any comments, I'll move on. (No response.) MR. SCOTT: Thirty-four, the same two changes. Thirty-six the same two changes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I had a change on this one too. Under seven, line 16, after the word commercial, comma, where permitted, then another comma. MR. SCOTT: Do you want that after building types or after the word commercial? So it would be townhouse, apartment, mixed use and building types, comma, where permitted? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, you're right. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. So Chris, any other changes? MR. SCOTT: Page 38, I do have several changes. In addition to the zoned height footnote, I want to --just to maybe make it a little more clear, I'm going to strike A and B, which A is on the bottom of 38, B is on the top of 39, from text format and incorporate them as footnotes five and six. Five, the footnote would be for the minimum front yard for mixed use. And then the footnote would say mixed use projects in the mini triangle shall have a maximum setback of 20 feet. And then add footnote six to maximum building height under mixed use by the number 56. And footnote six would read: Mixed use projects in the mini triangle area have a maximum building height of 112 feet. And those dimensions are authorized by the Growth Management Plan, if you're curious where they came from. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN A14ERN: Chris, do we have this many changes throughout the whole document? I mean, if we continue at this point, I think we may want to just get a clean copy. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And continue, yeah. MR. SCOTT: That is -- it's up to you. Yeah, there are -- yeah, the -- if you would like me to skip over the ones that are correction of citations, I'm happy to do that. I was just wanting to read them into the record. Or I can just highlight any substantial changes. That's your discretion. Or we could incorporate them all and bring it back to you all if you prefer to handle it that way. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I'm just afraid with this many changes and we don't have --we're kind of writing as you speak, it's going to come back to us, we're going to have to review it again anyway. Heidi, what are your thoughts? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It seems to be many of the changes that he's making are the same to each of them, so I guess if there's big changes, he could mention it and just get feedback from you as to whether there's anything, you know, that you're not happy with the concepts and wanted changed. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does the Board have any -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would just rather have a clean copy, to be honest with you. Because you're Page 19 of 27 161 &2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" right, we all -- we keep writing all this down and it is a little confusing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, on this one also, they're going to be deleting the whole existing text and adding the new text. That was difficult -- I didn't grasp that when I was reviewing that. So everything is new. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Brad, what are your thoughts? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First thought, that's the advantages of evening meetings. We tend to want to do it this way. But I don't think we're coming up with anything on the Board. So if you could just keep it to stuff, the really meat -- MR. SCOTT: Substantial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: That's fine. And then if you all have things that you all feel are substantial, why don't we continue to go section by section. If you all have comments, and then if I have something substantial, I'll mention those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Board doesn't seem to have a lot of comments. So just go quickly on the thing. I think that's it. There are some ones, we're getting stuff I think the Board should talk about. So I wouldn't want to leave right now. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: Okay, so let's go up to Page 40. Anything other than footnotes? Any questions from the Board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Let's take the next 10 pages, 41 to Page 50. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Chris, I think one thing is on Page 47, when you refer to open space with the artist studio, that's not what you intend. MR. SCOTT: That's correct. We do have that as a change. So Page 47, 3.13, supplementary standards for an artist village, we will put a period. We'll remove everything after on the second line, residents of the artist village, period, and delete and shall be classified as common open space. The intent was not to be open space for a project as in your green area, those types of things. But common area within a building. But it isn't deemed to be needed. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, any other questions or comments? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think Chris had a change though on Page 45 under one -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah, accessory, just for clarification purposes, Page 45 C.I.A. This is regarding accessory parking zones. At the very end of C. LA I'm going to add, for an adjacent nonresidential use. These parking zones are intended for adjacent nonresidential uses, so that's for clarification. I didn't know if that was major or minor. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's major. It's large. Would you repeat that, please, Chris? MR. SCOTT: C. LA, currently ends water retention and management areas for an adjacent nonresidential use would be the words added. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We'll have to flesh out some language, because I have down here it's going to be an accessory use to an adjacent principal nonresidential use for the parking. So we'll get together and work that out. You'll see that realized next time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forty-nine, question. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Chris, could we go back and on line 22 it states in there that the live /work units are conditional uses for these districts. MR. SCOTT: Yes, we would need to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you go back and fix those, because I -- MR. SCOTT: We will be striking BMUD R -1 and BMUD R -2. And I believe Jean spoke to this previously, that based off the input that the CRA had and then their due diligence, they identified the R -3 in the BMUD and the GTMUDR as appropriate areas for live /work and residential districts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry I pointed it out. And then Heidi, remember last week at the meeting when I questioned adult- oriented businesses, you promised that we always used it, but here it looks like on line 32 they have more fun with it than -- but anyway, I just pointed that out. Remember the conversation we had at the one meeting where I didn't want to be confused by what adult business means. Page 20 of 27 1612 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendmen.A Zia1PAing" MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Which page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on 49, line 32. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's adult - oriented sales and rentals that we've been using. But this is their language, it doesn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like theirs better. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I do too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it's more clear. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Do you want to read that in the record? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, we're fine. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There are a number of things that were listed under artist village, but -- and breakfast and community garden, which were more in the nature of what you would put for a restrictive covenant than you would put in your zoning code. So I guess it's a policy decision, but, you know, not allowing the dwellings to be leased for periods of less than 30 days and limiting guests to occupancy and talking about how the property has to be maintained and the hours of operation, and there are a whole number of them on here that I don't know that in the zoning code that you want to include it, you know, if it's county property under county ownership you can apply -- you can record a restrict covenant. Or sometimes certain uses we regulate through the PUD process. So I guess I would caution you in putting these kind of things into the Land Development Code. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All right, any other questions up to Page 50? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and then H, are we going to change H? MR. SCOTT: H, we want to revise the parking requirement for live /work. It currently states two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of the nonresidential portion. That section will change to one parking space per 500 feet. The intent doesn't really change, but because the maximum size of a nonresidential area can go to 1,500 square feet, it just made more sense to make it divisible by 500 as opposed to 1,000. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, let's go Page 51 through 60. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fifty -six. And here's my concern. I'm trying to get rid of these drawings. For example, let's take the inappropriate one on the right up at the top. So that what they must be telling us is that if you build a big building, number one, the tall building was built first, you're not allowed to build the little buildings. That must be what that's telling me. So I'm kind of mocking these kind of charts on trying show what compatibility is. Take for example the lower ones, which are showing dotted lines saying, look, the roof height of this has to equal the roof height of that. But these are elevation drawings. That little guy in the center that's appropriate, he'll never sent his roof height with the head height of those windows. I mean, it's off further away. The three dimension of it, I mean, it's cute in a two dimension drawing, maybe, but it will never be anything in reality. And I think if the intent of this neighborhood is to keep growing, you would never want to totally limit its size by not being able to have the size of buildings expand. And again, saying it backwards, if you built a big one first, you would never be able to have any more buildings built unless they commit to big buildings. And that's not the intent of this. So I don't mind the concept of the words and the conversation, the drawings are just dangerous. It can be used against you in the opposite direction. MR. SCOTT: I believe we are okay striking the drawing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the CRA is -- MR. VANASSE: We had the opportunity to discuss that with Brad and we agree, I think the intent was to try to depict this through illustration, maybe to make it easier for people to understand. But the danger in that is that people get tied to those pictures and then you start arguing the picture rather than the compatibility issue. So keeping the verbiage in there and striking the pictures, we think it's a good idea. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on the other page, those are fine, these are just describing components that projects have. And that looks good. MR. SCOTT: The illustrations beginning on Page 58, it's the ones illustrating the yards. I will note that we are going to remove the word minimum from the key or the legend on the bottom, because they're not drawn to scale, they don't reflect the actual minimum yard requirements, they just illustrate where the yards are. Page 21 of 27 b12AZ I April 25, 2012 "CCP /LDC Amendments Special Meeting" MR. VANASSE: And I think also on all these drawings where you're at a street corner where you have a primary and side street, you have two front yards. And we identified primary facade on just one of those two. So every exhibit is going to be changed to show two primary facades also for those corner lots. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any questions up to Page 60? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Let's go 61 to Page 70. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we discussed the artwork change there that you guys are okay with. MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 68, the artwork for -- MR. SCOTT: Yes. MR. VANASSE: For some of you, depending on your document, we realize that I guess, depending on the printer you have, it might be Page 68 or 69. Mine is on Page 69. We have an exhibit of two buildings, and we're talking about the roof line offsets? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Uh -huh. MR. VANASSE: So the request was to -- what we're trying to address here is the roof line itself, not the rest of the building, how the windows look and that type of thing. So the idea is to make both buildings consistent except for the roof line. So we'll redraw those. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, let me -- let's go back to that, because I'm looking at this and I may have been wrong on pushing that. Because it's also discussing facade variation. So the building drawing on the right really does show a flat facade also. It definitely shows the roof So I'll tell you what, I think leave it the way it is. I don't think we're going to help it any. Changed my mind. So never mind on that one. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. If there's no questions up to Page 70 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad, may I just put down okay per Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just put down, yeah, Brad should never have picked on this drawing to begin with. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: We're going to take a break. Let's meet back at 6:45. (A recess was taken.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Welcome back. We are moving on to Page 71 and going 71 to Page 80. Chris, we'll start with any changes you have. MR. SCOTT: There are two changes that can be considered more than just clean-up. On Page 79, it may be your Page 80. Let me see. Your Page 78, excuse me. Mine was printed off differently, and some of our page got page numbers deviated. I'm writing myself a note to subtract one from whatever I say. The bottom of Page 78, there's two provisions: I and then Roman numeral three, so little iii. Exterial building color on the next one, we are proposing to change the language in those. The way it currently reads is that it allows for a deviation process to be approved by the CRA advisory board. The CRA advisory board does not have that approval authority granted unto them. So the new language for iii that we are proposing, and Heidi please jump in if you have any comments. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it's going to indicate that line 11 or 12, I guess it's going to end with the applicant making a request for a deviation under the section which is the alternate architectural review process. And that they can apply for it after getting a favorable recommendation from the CRA. But it's not going to be approved by the CRA, it's going to be something that is a staff approval, if staff can do it, which I'm still looking into. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I have proposed language for -- but it hasn't been reviewed by the County Attorney's office yet. But basically these deviation requests shall be subject to the process and procedures of section 5.05.08.17, which is an existing section of the code that pertains to architectural deviations, following the review and approval of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA advisory board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: The next change? MR. SCOTT: The next change is similar, and it's under awning, J, little i, the last sentence being revised to the similar language: Request shall be subject to the process and procedures of section 5.05.08.17, following review Page 22 of 27 1612A2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" and approval of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA advisory board. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any questions from the Board on Pages 71 through 80? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Page 81 to 90? Chris. MR. SCOTT: Most of it is clean -up language. There's -- we're removing some references, acceptable to the County Attorney, based off of the recommendation of the County Attorney to remove that language. So there's nothing overly substantive that I have within that section. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, any questions from the Board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, let's take Pages 91 through -- let's just go through the remainder of the document. MR. SCOTT: Again, I -- there are references in regards -- this begins on Page 89 through 91. In several instances it's pertaining to being allowed to place something on or near the right -of -way. And it mention an agreement with the county. We're replacing those references to clearly state requires a right -of -way agreement -- or a right -of -way permit, excuse me. And that's in several locations. But it's more clean -up language. The only substantive area would be on Page 92, H, murals. It's not necessarily substantive as -- the way it currently reads it says mural signs as defined in Section 5.06.00 that do not contain commercial content, and it goes on, may be permitted without a sign permit. That introductory statement is inconsistent with the definition of mural signs that is in the LDC. So what the intent is by the CRA is to allow murals that are more of a public art type concept and not an advertisement for the business. So this section would -- is recommended to be changed to murals that do not contain commercial content or allowed within the subdistrict, subject to the following conditions. And then those conditions, the numbering of those would also be corrected. It should be traditional one through eight as opposed to Roman. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That whole section is going to have to be reworked and, you know, working with our office, okay, because that whole section has a problem. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, we'll leave that as a rewrite that will come back to us. MR. SCOTT: I will note that the -- there is a similar provision currently in the LDC for the Immokalee area that treats murals not as signage, and it also acknowledges that they are exempt from the architectural exterial color provisions and can be reviewed and approved by their CRA redevelopment agency. So this is an attempt to be somewhat consistent with that language. So it wouldn't be classified as a signage. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. Did you have any other changes? MR. SCOTT: No, those are the only substantial once. The others are correcting citations and numbers. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. And Heidi, it's kind of for you. Look at Page 97. And what it is, they're referring to using the architectural standards deviation process -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Where are you at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for administrative review. Down on Page 19 and 20, down on the bottom. Front setback is an example of one case of what I'm talking about. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You're on 97? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, that was a section that I had issues with. The administrative approval part, the first part of it I'm going to jump -- not answer your question directly initially, because that's what I had mentioned earlier in the meeting, that it would allow them to do an administrative approval of uses. All they'd have to do is go look at the chart and see staff -- is what I'm referring to, staff would go look at the chart and see if the use fell within the overlay, and if it did they could administratively approve it. That's not the procedure now, that's how it would be after this. Then you have a whole series of administrative deviations. And the only one that I'm really comfortable with is the one that deals with architectural and site design, which is item B. The administrative delegation on the setback, which is item A, the landscaping, which is item C, and item D, I don't think has sufficient criteria for staff to look at. Page 23 of 27 161 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amend Zpecikeeting" If you were to approve something like this, A, C or D, essentially you'd be removing anything esthetic in the development, and you'd just be, you know, left with the building code that deals with the safety issues. So I'm not comfortable. That's under -- I think I'm answering your question, under MUP deviations, item B.2, A, C and D. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. It does show up. Actually, my question was is when they do reference the deviation in the architectural standards, they only reference F -1 through three, when there's actually five categories in there. The other two are essentially appeals of their administrative review. So when you look at that, would you look at why it wouldn't be a good idea to include four and five? In other words, don't stop at three? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously you have some bigger issues than that, but -- MR. VANASSE: We've got an answer for that. And Chris can give you the details as to why it's one through three, not four and five also. MR. SCOTT: As you correctly point out, it currently -- MR. VANASSE: Maybe reference the section so everybody can follow. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, these are -- beginning on Page 97, I subtracted one, B deals with MUP deviations. And I will point out these are all existing provisions within the LDC and the current -- the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle overlays. So these deviations are -- already exist. You can see how some of the wordsmithing has been changed, just to attempt to make it read a little smoother. hi regards to Brad's comment, which the same section is cited in several places, beginning on Page 97. It says procedures of Section 5.05.08F one through three, deviations and alternative compliance. Section F, the entire section that goes one through five is the deviations and alternative compliance section. One through three specified the process. Section four identifies some of the things that qualify for deviations. This section incorporates what qualifies for deviations. And section five pertains to the appeal process. And the way this section -- if you scroll to the very last page, which should be your 101 -- excuse me, I'm sorry, I went too far. On your Page 99 there is a four, effective denial, and this incorporates its own appeal process in there which follows the county's standard based in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. So that's why four and five were not included, because what qualifies for a deviation are already built into this section and the appeal process is also built in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe the one in five is better than, you know, the effective denial. Because it keeps it simpler. I mean, you could always appeal that with five. MR. VANASSE: And I think we could keep one through five and we would have some redundancy, but I think it's consistent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you say it's in the old code, it is in the old code, the full F. It didn't limit the one through five in the old code -- MR. SCOTT: Well, note the appeal process that is in this is also included and not -- although there was a conflict, this had its own appeal process, and it also referenced the deviation can be approved through F. But F also includes its own appeal process. So it was broken out to make this more consistent within itself as opposed to what currently exists. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that built in here is an appeal process similar to F? MR. VANASSE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that then? MR. VANASSE: On your Page 99, four, effective denial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's how to -- I mean, that's not the appeals process similar to the one in the architectural standards. MR. SCOTT: Well, the architectural standard has a process where staff can consult with an architectural arbitration board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They don't consult with them -- well, they can consult with them or somebody could appeal to that board if they don't like the staffs decision. MR. SCOTT: And then ultimately it could be appealed to the BCC in addition to that board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I guess. But the -- and the intent was it's a simple way to work out these matters of design and stuff like that. Page 24 of 27 2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" But anyway, Heidi, check that out and see. Maybe there's a good reason to keep four out if it has conflicting information. But not five. Because it is good to keep the citizens involved. MR. VANASSE: Just for a matter of clarification, Heidi touched upon the MUP administrative approval process. I believe that will be on Page 95 in your copy, line 10, one, administrative approval. You can just give me a nod when you're ready. You've got it? I just want to clarify that the administrative approval process has some criteria here. And what we're saying is essentially there is no discretion when it comes to staff approving uses. It's either going to be underlying zoning district uses or supplemental uses within this overlay. You can't add anything else. So you can't add a use that's not already envisioned and vetted. We're vetting this right now. So if you say those are valid uses, you're essentially creating zoning where you're addressing those uses. So it would be -- this overlay would be just like any other zoning district, it would give you uses by right. And when it comes to -- so what we've got outlined here is that they have to meet the site development standards, they can't deviate from those. That they have to only ask for uses that are within here or their underlying district. And they can't be asking for density bonus. If you meet that criteria, it can be done administratively. If you're changing any of those things, you have to go through the MUP process, which includes a public hearing process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but won't most of the mixed use stuff not be able to go that way because they're going to want residential density, and the neighborhood commercial is mostly on commercial zoning? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it is predominantly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're going to have the public hearing that thing. MR. VANASSE: And the idea was that some projects that have -- or at least discussions with some potential developers was that they wanted to do a smaller project and they were looking for a way that they didn't have to spend big dollars going through the hearing process. And they felt they were consistent with the code. So this provides an opportunity to have a less costly, more -- you know, less time - consuming process. Many projects won't be able to use that process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: So Heidi, this whole section you're referring to, you're going to be reviewing and making changes as necessary, and it will come back to us? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I move to continue. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to continue. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: So we have a motion. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, since actually, if I could, since these are the LDC cycle hearings, we need to continue it to a date certain so that we don't have to readvertise. So we'll be continuing it to the May 3rd regular meeting. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ooh, that's next Thursday? MS. CILEK: The packets are already distributed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the packets are here, Heidi, you can't -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I know, but we're continuing the LDC cycle. You have items listed on the May 3rd agenda that are part of the cycle, okay, so we'll continue it to May 3rd. And then after that we'll be continuing it to May 17th, okay, so that we don't have to readvertise -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, on this issue we're just going to not resolve it today, we're going to continue it. And then before we end the meeting, we can continue that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. So the LDC cycle is being continued to May 3rd. And then that cycle will be again continued to May 17th. And this one will be scheduled for May 17th. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: So we have a motion from Brad to continue -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Continue this item. MR. VANASSE: As a point of clarification, by having this continued, when we come back to you, are we just looking at the items where we've suggested that either the County Attorney or the Planning Commission has Page 25 of 27 16 12;2 4 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" suggested changes or is the whole thing open to discussion again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what I think. I think, and Caroline said she's going to do it, is that you give us a draft of this thing without all the boxes and stuff. Clean draft. And anything you change from this meeting, and you can include the scriveners stuff you were playing with, highlight that somehow. You know, it's not a strike through and underline, it's just if you got smarter since the time we get it, highlight it and we'll work with just that draft, I think will be the best. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, so next time you'll get a copy of only the new proposed text and any changes from the text that you saw, and the new part in your package today will be highlighted in yellow. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Correct. MR. VANASSE: I think that's good to have on the record so people understand if other parties come in, and I've got one copy, there's another copy. So it's on the record as to why that's going to happen. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And the entire LDC amendment is open to discussion until there's a vote of approval. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. Okay, motion approved 6 -0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I move we continue the LDC hearings to May 3rd. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's, I thought, what I seconded. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. Motion approved 6 -0. Chris, thank you. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public comments and any speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Can I have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We can't adjourn, I guess. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're not adjourning. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: We'll continue. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Page 26 of 27 t 1612 A2 April 25, 2012 "CCPC/LDC Amendments Special Meeting" There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MELI S G. AHER , Aetint Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 5 71 a D oL as presented /or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 27 of 27 AGENDA 1612 A2 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 5, 2012 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Fiala ✓ Hiller Henning Coyle Colette Mc_ %EcF_NE® JUN 15 2012 guard of CountY Gomm+SS'oners Misc. Corres: Date: S l l I ! 2, Item Copies to: A. PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Banks Engineering and Pizzuti Solutions LLC, is requesting a rezone from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District (MH- BMUD -NC), to the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to be known as Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. The 17.89± acre site is proposed to permit 48,575 square feet of commercial (retail, office and medical office) development, a 350 seat theatre, 84,000 square feet of parking garage and 40 residential units. The subject site is located within the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 9 i 16 1 L'A2 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 200441, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Naples View RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of sixty-six residential dwelling units on property located at 6900 Airport Road North in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] B. BDE- PL20110001573: Jaffe Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL2011 -1573 for a 19 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for a 39 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -3 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] C. VA- PL2011 -1576: Jaffe Variance - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA- PL2011 -1576, for a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 10091 Gulf Shore Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] D. SV- PL20110002805: Agave Grill, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida relating to Petition Number SV- PL20110002805 granting a variance from Section 5.06.04.17 of the Land Development Code to allow two wall signs on one building consisting of an existing wall sign of 93.33 square feet on the northern building fagade and a second wall sign of up to 96 square feet on the western fagade of its building which building is located at 2380 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 02, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] E. ST -PL -2012- 0000900: Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit: requesting an After - the -Fact Special Treatment development permit for an airport taxiway and associated structures that have been constructed within a Special Treatment overlay (ST) for a project known as the Marco Island Executive Airport, located in Sections 26 and 35, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinators: Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist & Fred Reischl, AICP, Senior Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending ordinance number 04 -41, as amended, the collier county land development code, by amending certain sections as authorized by the Board of County Commissioners. [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] IL NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 16 � Az May 3, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 3, 2012 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: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Caroline Cilek, Planning & Regulation Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 64 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham - 16 1 ` 4a A2 y3j 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for the 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: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. We do have some changes today. First of all, the Agave item for the variance for the sign, which was 9D, has been requested to be continued by the applicant to 5/17/12. Anybody have any comments? If not, is there a motion to approve that continuance? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Barry, seconded by Diane. 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 9 -0. The Jaffe boat dock extension and the Jaffe variance, which is 9B and C, Mr. Jaffe would like to be here for that hearing. He hadn't originally planned to be. He's in, I believe, surgery this morning, so he asked if he could hear that last today. I didn't have a problem with it, so I told him that would be okay. Does anybody have any concern? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we will hear it after 12 o'clock. And if we're still into LDC issues at the time, we'll interrupt them to come back to this. And, Heidi, I'm assuming we'll have to continue this meeting if we finish it before we go into LDC, and then Page 2 of 64 1612 A2 j May 3, 2012 open the LDC up as a separate meeting, or is -- it can be part of this meeting's old business? It's listed as old business under this meeting. Is that okay to continue it with this meeting? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I don't think you need to close it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the last item, Item 9E, is the ST for the Marco Island Executive Airport. That's going to be moved to new business. As an ST permit, it didn't need to be advertised under the advertised public hearings, so it will be going to I IA. Anything else, Ray, that you know of? MR. BELLOWS: I have no other changes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to add one item to new business, and that's how the CCPC is represented at the BCC meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is May 17th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of minutes. We had electronically been sent the April 5th meeting minutes. Does anybody have any changes or corrections? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'd like my name corrected, please, the spelling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And why don't you spell it for the record. COMMISSIONER VONIER: V- o- n- i -e -r. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, subject to that, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Barry. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. 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: Motion carries, 9 -0. BCC report, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. At the last Board of County Commissioners' meeting, they heard the variance for Plantation Island on the summary agenda. That was approved on this summary agenda. They also heard the variance for the Wahl boat dock extension that had the companion variance for the encroachment into the riparian setback. The Board of County Commissioners approved that by a vote of 4 -1. I believe there -- found that there was some type of land- related -- or related hardship, and the dock could not be moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? MR. BELLOWS: That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. There's none. ** *We'll move right into consent agenda items. The first item up, or the only item on the consent agenda is 8A, PUDZ- PL2010 -592. It's the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. We have that in our packet. Does anybody have any concerns, questions, changes, comments? Page 3 of 64 16 12 A2 May A, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, on the back page, Page 2 of 2, it says no monitoring report required, and yet on Page 19, the CRA is supposed to be monitoring this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's a different entity than the Collier County staff who normally receives the monitoring. Is that what you're referring to? COMMISSIONER EBERT: But they will have to send them to the county, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, how does that work? MR. BELLOWS: I need to check into that. Maybe Nancy knows. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, are you talking about the item that the CCPC had requested -- not the CC -- the EAC, the Environmental Advisory Committee? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was just reading your breakdown of, you know -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- of this, and I noticed that it said in the back on Page 2, on the executive summary it says no monitoring report is required and that you were going to put something in the executive summary about it. But on Page 19, the managing entity, which is the CRA at this point, it says will monitor it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think they've got to monitor it pursuant to Page 20, which says when the PUD closed out, then the managing entity is no longer responsible. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So up until that point they do have to monitor it, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct, they do. I want to make sure, because one says no monitoring report required, and the other ones says that they will monitor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the requirement is up until they're closed out. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is typical. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments or changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It says just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Exhibit A -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 3 of 20, No. 41, is just to change the shop -- says tattoo shop -- to parlor. So it's just one or the other. MS. GUNDLACH: Could you speak into your microphone, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I'm sorry. On Exhibit A, Page 3 of 20, No. 41, where it says "tattoo shop," it should say "tattoo parlor" so it's consistent with the other. MS. GUNDLACH: You'd like for it to say tattoo parlor instead of shop? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's how it -- that's how it says -- it's listed on another -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In another number here, too, as tattoo parlor, and that is how it's written in the SIC code, so -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We can change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent - agenda item? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa, seconded by Bill. Discussion? Page 4 of 64 16 1 aZ May 3, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Thank you. ** *Next item up is our first advertised public hearing. It's Item 9A, PUDZ- PL20110001519, the Naples View RPUD, located at 6900 Airport Road North. 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: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had been contacted a couple of times by Ms. Crespo trying to get together. Since I was out of town, it was -- didn't work out. So at least I had two emails from her. Other than that, we're good to go. Whoever the presenter is. MS. CRESPO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering representing the applicant, Naples View, LLC. Here with me today is Steve Hagenbuckle, who is the property owner and managing member of Naples View, LLC, as well as Ron Waldrop, who is the principal in charge of Waldrop Engineering and also the engineer of record for the project. We also have David Wheeler with TR transportation who prepared the Traffic Impact Statement, which was submitted as part of this application. The request before you today is for recommendation of approval to rezone the 11.3 -acre subject property from rural agricultural to a residential planned unit development to allow for a maximum of 66 dwelling unit as well as accessory uses. The subject property is located in the northwestern portion of Collier County south of Orange Blossom Drive and just east of Airport- Pulling Road, which is a six -laned arterial roadway. As you can see on that aerial location map, the site does have direct access via a right -in, right -out, which is serviced by a 175 -foot northbound turn lane. The property within the urban residential subdistrict per your Future Land Use Map and is the former Wizard Lake Nursery property. They did vacate that site in 2008. And as you can see on that aerial, it has reached a state of somewhat disrepair over the years. The existing site conditions are abandoned tree nursery as well as about a 2.5 -acre stormwater management pond. Looking at our surrounding uses, to the north we have the Naples Botanical Nursery, which is an active retail landscape operation. That property is within the Orange Blossom mixed -use subdistrict, per your Future Land Use Map, and is zoned planned unit development as part of the Long View PUD. That PUD is sunsetted, however, did approve 143,000 square feet of commercial and office uses as well as a residential component to be integrated in a mixed -use format. Also to the north, east, and south of the property is the Walden Oaks community, which is also zoned planned unit development. This has been built out, as it was approved in the late'80s, with a mix of residential product types ranging from single family detached to multifamily condominium products. When you look at those uses that directly abut the Naples View project, we have single - family detached units to the north, as well as their private internal right -of -way, Lone Oak Boulevard. Page 5 of 64 16 1.2 `. May 3, 2012 To the east we have their multifamily component, which is the Barrington condo complex, and to the south is their private on -site recreational facility. And then as you move closer to Airport Road, they have a 24,000- square -foot professional office center approved as part of that PUD. Moving west of Airport Road is the Carlisle of Naples, which is zoned agricultural and is a permitted ALF use, and to the south of that is agriculturally zoned lands within the urban residential subdistrict. Getting into the specifics of the rezoning request before you today, the applicant is seeking approval of an infill redevelopment program with a fairly limited schedule of uses to be compatible and consistent with the surrounding development pattern. The applicant is seeking single - family detached, two- family duplex, as well as townhouse dwelling units. And to be clear, the applicant has limited the multifamily use to simply a townhouse product type to prohibit a situation where you'd have units stacked upon units, and that change was done in accordance with suggestions and recommendations from the Walden Oaks community. The applicant is requesting a maximum of 66 units per the bonus density provisions in your Growth Management Plan, which I'll address in more detail later in the presentation. And in addition to the residential units, the applicant is seeking the standard recreational and accessory uses, which are typical to most residential planned unit developments. They are also seeking approval of an interconnection to the future mixed -use subdistrict to the north. This next slide depicts the proposed master -- or proposed master plan associated with the PUD. Access from Airport Road is proposed via that existing ingress /egress. There's an optional gate shown on the master concept plan, as well as the two arrows to the north depict the location of that multimodal interconnection to the mixed -use subdistrict, which would provide vehicular bicycle and pedestrian access. The residential tracts are labeled R2 or RI. The R2 tracts are located closest to Airport Road and would allow the full gamut of proposed residential uses which are, again, single - family detached, two- family, and townhouse. The intent there is to cluster the denser product types towards Airport Road which is, again, a six -lane arterial roadway and then transition to a lower - density product in the R1 tract, which would be limited to single - family detached and two- family. You'll notice that the applicant is intending to preserve the on -site lake to the extent possible, as it serves as a nice amenity for future residents, also provides stormwater management on site, and provides substantial separation between the Walden Oaks amenity center and the proposed residential uses within the Naples View project. You'll also notice several operational recreational centers noted on the PUD master plan, which were sensitively located to avoid any impacts with the Walden Oaks community and direct those uses away from their established residential areas. The applicant has requested five deviations as outlined in your staff report. The first deviation is for a reduction in buffer width, as shown on this slide. It's for a small portion of the northern property line. The applicant is requesting a 10- foot -wide Type B buffer with the Type B plantings required by your code in lieu of a 15 -foot Type B buffer; therefore, the same amount of plantings will be provided, and the opacity intended by the code will be achieved to screen those uses; however, due to the infill nature of the site as well as the relative narrowness of this property, it's certainly important to be able to create a narrow buffer in that situation and able to accommodate the rights -of -way, residential tracts, and usable open -space areas. And staff has recommended approval of the deviation as proposed. The second deviation is to allow for larger temporary signage along the Airport- Pulling frontage. The code allows for signage of 4 square feet in area and up to 3 feet in height. The applicant is seeking 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. And we did work with Diana on this deviation to get it to a point where staff was comfortable with its approval. The intent is this area is not necessarily an emerging area of the county with a lot of new residential development. That's largely occurring east of the interstate along Immokalee and down south in Lely. So in order to attract attention to the property and hopefully boost interest in the future sales, the applicant is seeking that additional signage. The staff has conditioned this deviation to be a maximum of 28 days per year, and the applicant is in agreement with that condition. The third deviation is a fairly typical deviation within most PUDs and certainly within most your infill PUDs where the applicant is seeking a 45 -foot right -of -way for those private roads internal to the development. This slide Page 6 of 64 i 16 1 2A May 3, 2012 shows the proposed 45 -foot right -of -way cross - section. As you can see, the applicant is proposing 10- foot -wide drive lanes, which is in accordance with the drive lane width within your LDC cross - section. Additionally, the 5- foot -wide sidewalks are also consistent with the LDC. The applicant, again, is requesting this deviation in light of the infill nature of the product, the narrowness of the site, and the desire to maintain that non- stormwater management pond to the furthest extent possible. And, additionally, as noted in your staff report, the narrower right -of -way widths have been proven to provide a traffic- calming effect and not negatively impact public health, safety, and welfare. And staff has recommended approval of this deviation as proposed. Deviation 4 is to allow for a dead -end street as shown on the PUD master plan denoted by this arrow. This dead -end street is 140 feet in length. The local fire code provides that dead -end streets can be up to 150 feet in length. In order to ensure that adequate public safety is served, staff has recommended approval of the deviation as proposed as well. And this stub -out would serve between two to four units at most and, therefore, will not impact public health, safety, and welfare. The last deviation is to provide additional wall height. The code allows for a maximum 6 -foot wall in residentially zoned districts. The applicant is seeking a slight increase to that to allow for an 8- foot -tall wall or combination wall/berm. The deviation is intended to help to screen the surrounding established residential areas to ensure compatibility there and also to help to screen Airport Road which is, again, an arterial roadway, and to buffer the light and noise generated from that roadway. Touching briefly on the environmental aspects of the site, the applicant did engage Passarella & Associates prior to submittal of the application. Passarella did perform a site visit and found that there are no listed species within the project or in the project's vicinity. They also noted that there are no listed plant species within the site. The FLUCCS codes here are limited to exotic ornamental trees as well as the stormwater management pond on site. So there are no environmental constraints within this property. And, again, it's an ideal infill location with its limited site constraints. Based on those various items, staff did waive the review of the Environmental Advisory Committee, which I'd like to note. In terms of infrastructure, the applicant did secure water and sewer availability letters from Collier County Utilities, which does indicate there is adequate capacity to service the proposed density at the six units per acre through the bonus density provision. The TR Transportation did provide a Traffic Impact Statement based on methodology agreed upon by county staff. That impact statement did note that there is adequate capacity and an adequate level of service along Airport- Pulling through the projected year of 2016. There are also no turn lane or site intersection improvements warranted by the proposed density, and the applicant has committed to provide their proportionate fair share to improve the Orange Blossom and Airport Road intersection. And that would -- per the commitments, that would be done 90 days within the -- within 90 days of the county's request. Getting into the bonus density, which really is one of the central items of this request, your Growth Management Plan, through Policy 6.3, does provide provisions to provide transportation demand management criteria into a project in order to allow for increased density. We certainly feel, due to this project's location within the urban core of Naples with adequate infrastructure and minimal site constraints, that it is an ideal location for implementation of the bonus density provisions. As noted, we're adjacent to the Orange Blossom mixed -use district to the north, as well as the commercial component of Walden Oaks to the south. And in order to just demonstrate your surrounding densities and intensities, we have put together the slide. Walden Oaks was originally approved for 6.32 units per acre. They did build out at less than that, at 3.2, however, did develop 24,000 square feet for commercial uses as part of that. I've noted the intensive mixed -use district to the north. Going west of Airport Road, we had the Bear Creek PUD, which is a built -out planned development approved at 14 units per acre, and then south of that is the Arbour Walk PUD, which is built out at just under 12 units per acre. And then, lastly, we have Laguna Bay, which is just over a quarter mile south of the property, which is conventionally zoned and built out 12 units per acre. Page 7 of 64 16 6 1 2wa Y 3 2 12 So, clearly, this is an area of density and intensity that warrants the proposed density being proposed through the application, and it would create a logical transition of densities from the Walden Oaks community as you get closer to the Airport Road arterial roadway. It's important to address compatibility in any case where you're proposing an infill development where there's an established residential community near by. The applicant has worked extensively with the Walden Oaks community in addition to the requisite neighborhood information meeting that was held in January. We did meet again at their clubhouse in February, and then held a third meeting with some liaisons and HOA members at that time to work through some of their concerns. And the main changes that stem from these meetings was the limitation on multifamily uses to ensure they were limited to the townhouse dwelling type, also the limitations on the R2 rear tract to ensure that would be limited to single - family detached and two - family and that the more dense product type would be clustered along the Airport Road frontage. The applicant also elected to reduce the maximum zoned height down from 50 feet to 35 feet to be more compatible with their maximum heights, and we certainly feel that the proposed residential community will be complimentary and compatible with their community and would certainly be an improvement over the site conditions, which is a very dilapidated site that's very overgrown with exotic vegetation. And just to give you a sense of the variety of product types in Walden Oaks, if you haven't been able to visit that community, just east of the Naples View project, we have there Barrington condominium use, which is done in 8 -unit buildings where units are stacked upon units in a fairly dense product type. There are single - family detached along the northern property line. This is one of those units. And we do have a gentleman here today that is one of those single- family homeowners, and I believe you'll hear from him that he's certainly supportive of the proposed rezoning and that we'll enhance his views and redevelop a site that's in desperate need of redevelopment. And then, lastly, I'd like to point out there are the two - family, twin villa type -- product types that are being proposed through this application throughout the community. So that community does have a variety of different product types and densities that are compatible with what is being proposed here today. Touching on compliance with your Growth Management Plan. We are in the urban residential subdistrict. The property's in a location with the existing infrastructure to support the proposed density with limited site constraints, which is in direct compliance with this policy. Similarly, Policy 5.3 addresses urban sprawl. This rezoning would direct new development into the county's urban core and prevent development in green -filled areas outside of your planned infrastructure. In terms of compatibility, Policy 5.4, we've addressed this thoroughly with the community in terms of limiting the product types, reducing the zoned height, and also providing buffer yards to ensure compatibility there. Policy 6.3 addresses the bonus density. The applicant is proposing two of the five criteria, as is required by your Growth Management Plan in the terms of a vehicular bicycle and pedestrian interconnection which will not only allow future residents to directly access goods and services within that mixed -use subdistrict but provide an opportunity to go directly to Orange Blossom and redirect some of the traffic that would normally exit the site on Airport- Pulling Road. In compliance with the Transportation Element, the applicant has provided evidence that level of service will not be impacted upon Airport Road or surrounding roadways and that, in terms of the Conservation and Coastal Element, we are in compliance with that section of your Growth Management Plan in terms of the lack of environmental constraints on the site. Before I conclude, I'll just touch on the staff report. Staff has indicated that this rezoning is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, that it meets the intent of the planned unit development zoning district, the proposed uses and densities are compatible with the surrounding area, and that the potential traffic impacts will be adequately mitigated by the PUD commitments as well as the interconnection and bicycle /pedestrian access. And they have recommended approval of the rezoning with the bonus density and all five deviations as conditioned. And the applicant is in agreement with all the findings of fact in the staff report as well as their conclusions. Therefore, to conclude, we feel the Naples View rezoning is an ideal location for infill redevelopment as a prime example of how to take advantage of the bonus density provisions in your Growth Management Plan. As Page 8 of 64 1612 May 3, 2012 demonstrated in the presentation, the uses and density are consistent and compatible with the surrounding development pattern and will provide a logical transition of density as you near the arterial roadway. We have demonstrated that there is adequate public infrastructure available to service the site and that there are no environmental issues. Based on compliance with your Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan, we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval of the request as presented. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's a very thorough presentation. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Much appreciated. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: A couple clarifications, please. MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I need a bit more explanation of the proposed interconnection to Orange Blossom that's shown on your site plan. And I'm reading on Page 8. 1 think this may be in the staff report. Pedestrianibicycle and vehicular interconnection has been provided on the site plan to the north. Because the PUD to the north is sunsetted, an amendment would be required to allow additional development on that site. At that time the interconnection could be made if it remains warranted. I guess -- who's got the ball in this case? I mean, yes, you're going to provide a potential access to the north, but that requires both parties to participate; does it not? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. And the previously- approved Long View Center PUD did provide the interconnection on their original master plan approved in 2001 so, certainly, the interconnection we're proposing, as well as -- we've gone a step further and we're proposing it in a non - exclusive access agreement with that property owner. So I believe this gives staff the authority and ability to really push forward when they come back for their PUD amendment or rezoning at that time to ensure that they have to utilize that interconnection and have it working. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're going to be doing your part in the future; that development to the north will be connected in? MS. CRESPO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm seeing heads shaking in the back there. Okay, thanks. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One other question on Page 17 of 20 here, in my book anyway -- and references the question at the neighborhood information meeting, a question, Comment 5, there is a concern with the ability of Walden Oaks residents to make a right turn onto Airport Road to head northbound. Response is, so noted. Could you put some background as to why that comment was made or what the issue was there? MS. CRESPO: There is a northbound turn lane to access the Carlisle of Naples, which is directly across from the project's entrance. And I believe the concern is that future residents -- and perhaps I can go back to the aerial. There is a concern that they will -- people exiting, future residents of Naples View, will cut across three lanes of traffic and get into the Carlisle turn lane, which many Walden Oaks residents use as a U -turn spot. This would certainly be an illegal weaving movement, which -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You have to go in and -- MS. CRESPO: -- could be satisfied by signage and police enforcement. So that was the concern expressed there. We did work with staff on some various options to prohibit that type of movement. And when it comes down to it, it is illegal. It will be enforced by the police. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And then the following question at the same meeting, what is the status of staffs comment to provide a hardened separator to prevent future Naples View residents from accessing the southbound turn lane in front of the property? The applicant is working on addressing the comment with staff. MS. CRESPO: Our first comment letter requested a hardened separator be provided, which the applicant was amenable to providing; however, based upon further discussions internally with staff -- and he may want to jump in here -- but it was determined that that could potentially create greater safety issues due to the length of that turn lane Page 9 of 64 1612 A 3, 2012 and having -- that could create a tunnel effect and really negatively impact Walden Oaks folks trying to get in that lane. And due to the travel speeds along Airport Road, I think the fear is that people are traveling at a quick pace, they need to get in that turn lane, and because there's a separator in place, it's going to create a lot of safety issues that could, perhaps, be better dealt with by signage. The interconnection is certainly going to help when residents of Naples View can go up to Orange Blossom, and really police enforcement to prevent illegal U -turns and erratic driving, really. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. That's all I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Was the wizard, the Tree Wizard thing, was the property to the north part of that same nursery? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. The property to the north is owned by Mr. Pulling. I believe the Tree Wizard site was owned independently of that and were never working in concert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the lake was never part of the stormwater for that site to the north? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CRESPO: I believe that -- I believe the pond was constructed prior to water management permitting in the early '80s. It was constructed to service that sits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Have you laid out the units yet on this site? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. We've worked on various site plans. There are interested builders in the property certainly; however, we are requesting a flexibility in the types of product types that are similar to what has been built in surrounding communities in order to provide the flexibility. This is still a very volatile market where product types are constantly changing. So we have not gotten into detailed site planning at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I do have a little concern that if you push too much of the density up to Airport, that's not a nice place to live. Those roads are loud. You can see Walden Oaks pulled everything back. So, I mean, I would be in favor of taking some of RI that's up on the east side of that lake and adding that to R2, because I don't think it would be a good idea to put a lot of people on the street. And I know what you're trying to do by density blending, but, you know, the Walden Oaks is nowhere in that area either so, I mean, it would be a good place to further bring that across the street there just to keep some people off the highway. But I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good morning. MS. CRESPO: Good morning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I noticed -- so it's different owners; who has the corner piece is Mr. Pulling. This is a different owner, but you are really talking about people going to the north that can -- you're talking about Orange Blossom. How -- apparently that's going to be pretty much commercial. I assume the driveway getting in there will be at least 600 feet from the corner on Orange Blossom, on Orange Blossom Road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up -- that would be more a responsibility of the PUD to the north, not hers, so I'm not sure she would be able to answer that question accurately, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, they want to exit, she said, Orange Blossom Road, so that was a question that I had. MS. CRESPO: I believe that property has access to Orange Blossom, which could foreseeably be utilized when it's redeveloped. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. CRESPO: And it would have to meet connection separation standards per the code. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then also on your plan, you say you're having sidewalks on both sides. MS. CRESPO: Yes, ma'am. Page 10 of 64 b 12 A2 May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your right -of -way, is there not going to be a wall to the north of this on the property? MS. CRESPO: There is shown as an optional wall -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Optional fence or wall buffer? MS. CRESPO: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All that's all road right up to that fence or wall; is that correct? MS. CRESPO: Yes. Well, there's a buffer yard in between the right -of -way and the northern property line. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I see that, but other than that, that's all roadway. Is it necessary to put the sidewalk on that side also? MS. CRESPO: The code allows, when there's 15 units or less on a cul -de -sac, that the sidewalk is only required on one side of the roadway. So we're proposing sidewalks in accordance with the LDC. And when there is the ability to have relief for a single - loaded road or a cul -de -sac roadway, we don't believe we will exceed the 15 units on that rear tract and would likely end up with a sidewalk on one side in accordance with the LDC. We do not need a deviation, though, to achieve that site design. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I really -- we have 55 on ours, so -- and only one sidewalk. Are you saying that the pond on the property was never used for retention? MS. CRESPO: Retention for the nursery? COMMISSIONER EBERT: For water management. MS. CRESPO: I believe it is a -- it is a retention pond for the former Wizard Lake Nursery site. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because you are saying on Deviation 3 the rationale was the proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility. The proposed project is true infill, but the site constraints, including a large stormwater management pond. Everyone has to keep their own water on their own property, so you will be using this? MS. CRESPO: Yes, ma'am. The intent was, whereas certainly a future developer of the property, Mr. Hagenbuckle could elect to fill in some of that pond. He is proprosing to maintain it to the maximum degree in order to use it as a site amenity. Certainly, stormwater management has to be provided on site, but it could be provided in a variety of forms, and he is proposing to maintain that lake, not only for its amenity, but to separate the residential from the Walden Oaks recreational facility. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I notice there is no preserve on this at all, and environmental said that it did not need -- because it's all exotics. MS. CRESPO: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they don't have to have their proportionate share. But when I -- reading through this, I noticed on Page -- let me see -- 18, some of your residents from Walden Oaks were concerned about the birds and everything else in there. And according to you on one side, everything is exotics or you're removing everything and yet you're saying in response to Question 15 that existing vegetation will be utilized to create the required buffers. If it's all exotic, meaning you have to take it down, you are going to replant some of these trees and everything then? MS. CRESPO: I believe some of the ornamentals -- these aren't necessarily -- it's not all Melaleuca or Brazilian pepper on the site. There's a lot of attractive exotic trees that may be able to be incorporated into the landscape buffers. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. Let's go to your PUD on Page 1 of 7. Under your permitted uses, you list various uses, R1 and R2. Are you intending this project or this product to be fee - simple or condominium? MS. CRESPO: Typically, the townhome product is a fee - simple product type. It differs from the others in that it would be more than three units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm familiar with the kind of product. I just want to know how you're going to sell it off. You're going to sell it off under a fee - simple basis or as a -- Page 11 of 64 2012 1612 3 , MS. CRESPO: Fee - simple, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're going to plat the tracts? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're going to have to plat your recreational facilities, right? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir, if the developer elects to move forward with those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if he wants to use -- move forward with it and he separately plats each tract for the different residential units as well as the recreational facilities if he decides to put those in, they then are principal uses on that tract. So you're only listing them under B as accessory use. So I think you'd want to be safe so that you can, in the future, put a recreational facility on a tract and have it as a principal use; otherwise, you might have a problem putting it there as an accessory use. So I would think that under your accessory uses, where you have No. 2, you may want to consider how it's to incorporate those into your principal uses under the tracts. And I'll confirm this with staff when they come up, because I would hate to see you come in and have them say you cannot have the accessory use without a principal use on the tract, and that would be dictated by your -- whether it's fee - simple or not, so -- On Page 2 of your document, you do list the recreation in with the principal uses, so I think that's appropriate. I think you just need to follow it through on Page 1. On your master plan, there are two questions. Up in the upper right -hand corner of the master plan you have a box. It says Type A buffer for single - family units or as allowed by LDC Type B buffer for multifamily units or as allowed by LDC. The deviation you requested, you had a red arrow pointing to the 10 -foot Type B buffer over to the west side of the parcel. You didn't have that arrow pointing on the ones on the right side. So are you saying that the Type A buffer and the Type B buffer that you may put there will be a deviation to the LDC by the way you've worded it in that box? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. Should residential RI tract be developed with a single - family product type, that would be the Type A buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's going to be dependent on the single- family? MS. CRESPO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the product type and not -- MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not in a deviation? MS. CRESPO: We will meet code. We certainly did not want to request a deviation to reduce the buffer adjacent to Walden Oaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just what I wanted to make sure. Under your general notes, No. 5, the locations for recreation facilities are approximate in nature. Recreational facilities are not required. And I have no problem with the fact that they're optional. That's fine. But you made a statement earlier that you located them to avoid any conflicts with the neighbors. I would just want to see that language in No. 5 amended to a point where we're assured that the locations you show are the approximate locations where they'll be and that you just can't use that approximation to move it to the end of the residential tract near to Walden Oaks, only because you made that assurance previously. Do you have any problem with that? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then under your Exhibit F, development commitments. It's on Page -- actually Page 7. And this may be a question more of staff than you, but I'm assuming you may have written it. Under 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9, all potable water infrastructures shall be conveyed to Collier County and wastewater, and they'll all be customers of Collier County. I understand they'll all be customers. But 2.7 and 2.8, in the letter that you got from county staff, if you don't provide them with CUES, all those internal lines are yours to maintain yet by this is a conflict because here it's saying you're going to be county. So I'm just wondering, has anybody understood how that letter applies in relationship to the requirements in this PUD? MS. CRESPO: To be honest, no, sir. Ms. Deselem and I were given these commitments by utility staff, and we did elect to include them to appease their concerns; however, we are not sure of their origin or intent. It was simply a step we took to be found sufficient to move forward to hearing. I don't know if Mr. Martins is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when the staff report comes up, I'll bring up staff, and we'll find that answer Page 12 of 64 16 A2 May 3, 012 out to that question. That would be -- work for that. That's all I got. Thank you very much. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report now? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner in zoning. Also here today we have someone from transportation to address any concerns you might have with transportation issues, and we also have a representative from utilities here to address your concerns about utilities, as was just mentioned. I won't go into the staff report in detail because the applicant has made a very thorough presentation, as you noted. I will suffice to say that staff has recommended approval as shown on Page 19 with approval of Deviation 2 stipulated. We have provided the findings of fact, both rezone and PUD findings in support of our recommendation. Other than that, if you have questions, I would be happy to address them or stand aside so other staff members can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I just have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Kay, what was the 28 -day limit based on? Is that generally what we've given others? MS. DESELEM: In the temporary sign requirements, there's a 45 -day and a 28 -day. And we figured that the -- we, being staff, decided that the 28 -day should accommodated their needs rather than the 45 -day. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Why? MS. DESELEM: Just because it seemed that there wasn't any underlying reason to the -- to allow more time. They didn't seek more time, and we thought that the 28 days would accommodate their wishes. They didn't come back with anything asking for more, so I have to assume then that we picked the right number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're going to talk about the utilities though, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have my question about it. If you have other questions, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's pretty much -- in here, the way it's written, Kay, because this already has -- right out in front of them has the Collier County Utilities, I think it was the way it was written that it said the product -- the project shall connect, you know, and then it says, should the Collier County Water District determine they don't have sufficiency. That is done ahead of time, I hope, you know, because, otherwise, they're telling -- in this, it's the explanation of this, I think, that I have a little problem with, because there are utilities there, correct? MS. DESELEM: If I may, I'm going to defer the question to the utilities staff person. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. CROMER: For the record, Aaron Cromer, public utilities. The generic language was created to be standard across all public planned unit developments, and there are -- there is existing capacity for water and sewer in front of this PUD as described in the letter dated September 27, 2011, I believe, from Javier Martinez. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have a -- stay right up there. Since you're utilities -- MR. CROMER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let me jump in. MR. CROMER: I'm here, I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, under -- are you familiar with Exhibit F, or do you have a copy of it in front of you, Page 6 and 7? MR. CROMER: Yep, got it right here, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In 2.5, all utility facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance Page 13 of 64 16 ' ay 3,'2012 with 2004 -41. If that wasn't written there, does that mean they wouldn't have to construct in accordance with that ordinance? MR. CROMER: No, it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we can drop it? MR. CROMER: What it does do is it allows us to make sure that we are checking for those processes and progress through the PUD project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you -- MR. CROMER: It allows us to manage and maintain the commitments as we move forward through the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if your staff doesn't know to do that, then you've got the wrong staff. So I can't see the redundancy needed in this document. We've stressed for many years to remove redundancy. And if you get along -- if you feel this is necessary, then we better start reinserting all of our Code of Laws and Ordinances into this document. I can't see the need for that, so -- MR. CROMER: Sure, at your request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think 2.5 needs to be struck. And 2.6, where does that come from? I mean, did you -- do you rewrite that at every occasion? Do you decide that -- isn't the utility facilities that have to be included spelled out in 2001 -31? MR. CROMER: Generically, sir, they are; however, some SDPs are different than others, and some of this language here is designed to ensure that all the documents that are pertinent to each PUD is received in the appropriate time, and we manage and review those through the coordination of our GMD review process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when someone's looking at this particular project, if there is a utility facility there that's unique to the project, by this language you're saying it becomes included as part of the facilities, and that wouldn't be done by a normal ordinance that we have? MR. CROMER: That is the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CROMER: Again, your recommendation -- we can do what the board recommends. There's no problem with that. This was a consistent language that we're trying to get standard across the PUDs to ensure that we don't have to change the language many, many, many, many times between the PUDs as they come through rezones and re- permitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The best way to do that is to avoid this kind of language in the PUDs and include it in ordinances that go across the board regardless of the PUD; then you're covered. And we tried to clarify that. Ray rewrote the PUD language after we normally were getting PUDs 30 and 40 pages long, which were ridiculous. And so all this was supposed to be streamlined to accommodate these flexibilities that you need. And if our ordinances don't do it, I suggest an easier way for your department to get that point across is to amend the ordinance, then you've got that point covered for every PUD regardless of the situation. MR. CROMER: And we're coordinated with growth management as well to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, 2.6, did you see a particular need for it in here? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I was just rereading it again, and it seems to be redundant to current codes and the procedures in place. It's -- I think I understand the intent of creating unified language, but it's already covered by current code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. 2.7, all potable water infrastructure shall be conveyed to the Collier County. That conflicts with the letter that I saw your department wrote to this applicant regarding whether or not they use CUES. If they don't use CUES, all the internal lines are going to be theirs. They're not going to be conveyed, then, I would assume. So is that a conflict? MR. CROMER: It's really the intent of the PUD owner /operator. If they're going to convey them to utilities, which some do, some don't, we need to be consistent with that. So we need to coordinate more closely with the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that doesn't help you here. Under Exhibit F, under 2.7 it's not choice. They have to. So that means you're requiring them to produce the CUES that you previously provided as an option in your letter. I'm just trying to get to what is going to be done so the commitment either is yea or nay and we don't have a conflict between your letter and the commitment. Page 14 of 64 1-6 -1 '2"'A 2 May 3, 2012 MR. CROMER: So my question would be, without looking like a fool, what is the intent of the developer? Do they want to convey or not convey? Because I did not ask that question up front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- and they can -- why don't you come forward to the mike and -- MR. CROMER: And that can be resolved offline, and these can be adjusted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but it can't be resolved offline if the document is written this way. That's why I'm trying to resolve it so that we don't have a conflict offline. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR. WALDROP: For the record, Ron Waldrop, engineer for the project. Because we don't know where we're going with the product type, that usually dictates to us what we do with the utilities. In a single - family situation, typically we'll have the right -of -way and convey all of the utilities over to Collier County Utilities, but if we have a -- let's say, some services that are serving a recreation area, there might be the requirement that we have private utilities that serve that parcel. So it would be something that's typically worked through during the construction plan, permitting process, whether it's an SDP or a PPL. So I think, as far as at this level, we would want it to be an option as long as it meets the codes and the ordinances for the utility group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest that 2.7 and 2.8 also be removed, and they'll be worked out as you guys build the project. I don't know why you wouldn't have objected to it when it was added to the PUD for the same reason I'm objecting to it. It protects your client. And you might want to -- these kind of things don't need to be in here. They just confuse it and they muck it up as we go down the road. So, Ray, I'm suggesting 2.7 and 2.8 come out as well. Any problem with that? MR. BELLOWS: Typically they would be addressed at subsequent development orders as they come in, so it seems to be unnecessary to put it in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it is in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That's all I have of the utilities. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, do you have any problem moving that accessory recreational facility to principal use in the various tracts to cover the concern I had? MS. DESELEM: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers? Anybody in the public wishing to speak in this matter? Sir, come on up, identify yourself for the record. And I believe you were sworn in earlier, if not -- okay, you were. MR. JONATHAN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Michael Jonathan. I'm a resident of Naples since 1987 and of Walden Oaks since 1996. Walden Oaks, of course, is that residential subdivision that borders the proposed Naples View project. I'm also the owner of Design Drafting of Naples, and we've been in the business of designing blueprints for commercial and residential products for Collier County since 2000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull that mike a little closer to you. There you go. Thank you. MR. JONATHAN: In Walden Oaks there are five homeowners' associations. I've been asked to speak on behalf of Lexington at Lone Oak, which directly borders the north side of the potential rezone project right here. Lexington at Lone Oak is a nice community. The reason a lot of us moved there is because there's not a lot of vertical -- tall vertical structures right around our properties. My specific property borders 324 feet of this rezone property. And a lot of us were very nervous when we heard about this new development going in because the preliminary petition called for multifamily, multistory structures. And I can tell you that Walden Oaks is adamant that we don't want 45 -foot buildings right adjacent to our properties looking down into our privacy. So I know that Commissioner, respectfully, Schiffer mentioned that the rear residential tract would be better Page 15 of 64 2 A2 Miy 3, 2012 for that. I can tell you that, as a whole, Walden Oaks is adamantly opposed to that. We want the lower - density single - family homes back there, and that's one reason why several meetings negotiating that with the developer and the engineer, we arrived at the building schedule the way it was. It was a pleasant surprise for us that they were completely courteous and professional from the beginning of this project and asked us what kind -- our feeling was on the buildings, the wall that's going to be surrounding the property, the landscape buffer, and have listened to all our suggestions. So that was a very pleasant surprise, especially when they went in and revised and struck the language about the multifamily, multistory buildings. That made a lot of the residents there feel a lot better. One of the main issues that they're concerned about right now is that turning lane when you're southbound on Airport Road. Right now there's a no U -turn there. And the sign is so far back and obscured by the landscape that nobody sees it. So during rush hour, traffic is coming north in three lanes of traffic, we're trying to pull out, and people are going to be making U -turns trying to do the development in that property. And, of course, there's a lot of close calls there. So one thing we wanted to ask the commission to do was ask the traffic division to look at putting a second sign, no U -turn, right by that turning lane where it can actually be seen. And that, along with some additional enforcement, will probably help a lot in easing that potential traffic accident that's just waiting to happen up there. But we're very happy with how the planners at the county and also the developer and the engineer worked with Walden Oaks, listened to all our concerns; we'd like to thank them for that. And Lexington of Lone Oak would like to recommend that the board pass this in the affirmative. We think it will be good for the community, good for our values, certainly, to clean up that property over there which, I can tell you being in my backyard, is a real mess. We have a lot of animals coming over; overgrowth; there's been criminal mischief back there; disrepair of the property, and to clean that up and put a nice community back there is probably the best thing that can happen. Does the commission have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're good. Thank you. MR. JONATHAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, can we bend your ear just for a minute? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely, yes, sir. John Podczerwinsky, transportation planning, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will come back for consent on the l 7th. With that return, could you give us a status on that U -turn sign that the gentleman just spoke about -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whether or not something should be done or not. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. I can give you an update on what we've already found out so far, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I've checked in with our design folks over in TECM, Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department within Growth Management Division, and we talked about -- this is northbound U -turn on Airport, correct? Yeah. The design is recommended to stay as it is today. We can put additional signage at the driveway of this site, but not really at that U -turn, additional signage that says we've -- you know, it is prohibited -- or we can find something for that signage. But the design of the median separation there and any kind of blockage in between those two lanes should not be extended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I think he's requesting additional signage. If you could look into that and either let us know at the consent if it's something you're going to do or not, that would be appreciated. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this stage? Is there any remarks by the applicant or rebuttal remarks or any kind? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain -- well, first we'll have Page 16 of 64 6 Z May 3, 2012 discussion. During the presentation I made notes on three stipulations, if that's the agreement with this board. I'll read them just in case they are. First one is to add to the principal uses for the tracts, the accessory use for recreational facilities; second is to amend General Note No. 5 as was discussed during the presentation to more strictly locate the optional recreational facilities; and Number 3, remove Exhibit F, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8. And then, of course, accepting staffs recommendations. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion that we forward PUDZ- PL20110001519, Naples View RPUD, to the commission for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With those stipulations? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? First I want to compliment both the applicant and the Walden -- I'm not familiar enough you with your -- Waldrop Engineering. You guys did a great job in communicating and working with the neighborhood. And, Kay, thank you too. That's critical, and these discussions go a lot farther when all that's done ahead of time. So we very much appreciate that. Call for the vote. 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 very much. Okay. The next two advertised public hearings have been continued to the last item today. That's 9B and C, the Jaffe variance and the Jaffe boat dock extension. So we're not going to hear those right now. 9D -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know if Rocky heard you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know if -- is it Tim -- heard you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if he heard me or not. I wasn't -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He just walked in the room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. Item 9D is Agave Grill. That's been continued to the 5/17 meeting. ** *Item 9E has been moved to I IA, but to expedite the process today, because that was a regularly scheduled item, we can move that up and discuss it now instead of under new business, under later new business. But I notice Chris Curry's not here, and I think he came in to be involved in this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They're in conference, I believe, in the hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you might want to ask him to step in if he's going to be involved. Okay. With that, we will move into Item I IA, which will be new business, which was formerly 9E, Page 17 of 64 1612 A2 May 3, 2012 ST -PL- 2012- 0000900, the Marco Island Executive Airport expansion special treatment 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: Disclosures by Planning Commission? I spoke to Nicole Johnson a couple times on the phone, and I think that's about it. Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also spoke with Nicole on the phone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who's making the presentation? MR. D'ARCO: Good morning, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris? MR. D'ARCO: Chris D'Arco with Collier County Stormwater Environmental Permitting Department. Being brought before you this morning is an after - the -fact ST permit application for the recent improvements done at the Marco Island Executive Airport. I'll just put this on the overhead for you. The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to bring this after - the -fact application forward to address a zoning concern that they had regarding the recent expansion, the expansion being the parallel runway that they added to the west here and the apron expansion, and that that expansion may encroach into the existing conservation special treatment overlay, which is these general lands here. In the orange here it shows where it may be encroaching. And I say may be encroaching because staff had found previous maps from various years that show conflicting lines regarding where the ST line actually lies over the project site. So this ST permit will be for impacts to the true ST boundary, but further analysis may show that it may not be the same boundary as is shown currently on the current zoning map. And right now on the current zoning map it shows it roughly to be -- I'll put this up here for you. This is not a current aerial of the airport but -- basically where that red line's going through that yellow oval right there. As far as environmental permitting for this project goes, they did obtain both DEP and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, an ERP from the DEP, and a dredging fill permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that addresses both listed species and wetland impacts to the project site -- as a result of the project site. And this airport is part of the Deltona Settlement Agreement. So in regards to land preservation, the Deltona Settlement Agreement identified lands that needed to be preserved as a result, and this map here shows the lands. Everything in red is the development areas, sorry, and everything else in blue and black is under preservation, and you can see the airport here in the center. So with that, staff does recommend approval of this ST -- after -the -fact ST pen-nit application. And also, for the record, this was heard by the Environmental Advisory Council board yesterday. They also recommended approval, but they have approve -- they recommended approval with stipulations, and I'll read those stipulations into the record. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Marco Island Executive Airport Special Treatment Permit ST -PL- 2012 -0900 subject to the following conditions: One, the conservation easement required in No. 5 of the September 11, 2001, MOU, or memorandum of understanding, and vegetation management program required in No. 2 of the MOU are to be prepared within three months and adopted, approved within six months of the issuance of the permit; Number 2, upon development of a draft vegetation management program, the necessary parties are to begin operating under the auspices of the proposed program. Three, said conservation easement is to be recorded. And, 4, all signatories or their successors, and that would include the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the National Audubon Society, the Florida Audubon Society, the Environmental Defense Fund, IZAAK Walton League, Florida division, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Deltona Corporation, and Collier County to be notified of the process for developing the vegetation management program and given an opportunity to participate in an information/agreement meeting. And I could put those stipulations up on the overhead as well. And with that, if you have any questions, we'll Page 18 of 64 1 12 A2 b May 3, 2012 be happy to take them at this time. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Number 3 said conservation easement to be recorded. What does that mean? MR. D'ARCO: In the MOU there is a section -- there is an item in the MOU that mentions that a conservation easement was to be drafted 30 days after the MOU was signed back in 2001. It was supposed to be drafted in coordination with the Conservancy and the airport authority. And as far as we know, that was never done, so that needs to be addressed because it's a requirement of the MOU. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why does it say "recorded" instead of "done "? MR. D'ARCO: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why does it say "recorded" instead of "done "? MR. D'ARCO: Well, you draft a -- draft a conservation easement, and then get it recorded. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay, thank you. MR. D'ARCO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Chris? MR. D'ARCO: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did kind of get a kick out of some of this. We have to have a sense of humor with this. I notice that we got the staff report for the EAC on the 25th, and I just want to know if you can deliver the Wall Street Journal to me ahead of time. I mean, that would be very good. I couldn't believe -- MR. D'ARCO: Yeah, we apologize. The timing and scheduling was certainly not standard. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And then the -- you said you got a permit from the DEP. When did you get that permit? MR. D'ARCO: The DEP -- the DEP permit was issued in 2003. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. MR. D'ARCO: And I believe the Army Corps of Engineers' permit was issued in 2007. I have copies of that. I can grab that and put them on the overhead, if you'd like. And that was submitted with the SDPA, the Site Development Plan Amendment approval packet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, there are some other things. Maybe this could go to Chris. Is he also here? Just looking at the plans of the airport -- Chris, maybe you can help me out here. With these plans that we got along with this, which were done in 2010 which were approved, in there it does show the airport boundaries. And this is -- I mean, it's definitely over the boundaries from what this is showing. Does the FAA require -- between the taxi and the runway, what does the FAA require for distance between the two; do you know? MR. CURRY: Chris Curry, executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority, and I also have with me Bob Tweedy, who's the manager of the Marco Island Executive Airport, who may have a little more history with this project than I have, because when I arrived it was basically the same time that the SDP permit was granted. So between Bob and I, we will try to address any questions that the board may that. MR. TWEEDY: For the record, Robert Tweedy, airport manager, Collier County Airport Authority. To address your question specifically, for this category of runway, the required separation between runway and taxiway, per FAA standard, is 240 feet from center line to center line. So from the center line of the runway to the center line of the taxiway, there has to be a separation distance of 240 feet minimum, which is the way it was built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So that is -- that's why I was wondering. MR. TWEEDY: That's an FAA requirement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: FAA, I understand that. But just looking at the drawings from this, I would have thought that somebody would have looked at this to see where the airport boundary lines were. I was surprised on here just to see how much it went over. I mean, I would have thought -- does the Deltona agreement mean anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have an amendment to Deltona agreement that allows them to go over the airport boundary, and the only part of it that was in question is the ST permit, which is what they're trying to get fixed Page 19 of 64 16 I� May 3, 2012 by coming here today. The Deltona agreement does cover the area in question, but they did amend it, and all the interveners of that agreement did sign the memorandum of understanding. So it doesn't matter where the boundary is in regards to that agreement, because the agreement was amended by that MOU. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But they didn't follow parts of that MOU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the parts they didn't follow are the stipulations that we now have an opportunity to correct that are part of the EAC recommendations. So if we include these EAC recommendations and the stipulations will go forward, those pieces that were missed get taken care of. MR. CURRY: That is correct. And I'm not here to make any excuse, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, you're not here -- MR. CURRY: -- over the past 10 years, you've had three executive directors and four interim directors at the airport, and so some of these steps were obviously missed over the past 10 years that we plan to certainly correct, and I'll take responsibility for that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It really was not, you know, for you, because you were not here at the time. It was just that, in reading through this, I noticed a lot of things were missed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CURRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other reports or -- because normally we have staff, and now we're going to have staff and staff. So is there a counter staff to oversee the staff? Chris, no one's going to fight you on this, huh? I mean Chris DeMarco (sic). Okay. Then is there any public speakers? Nicole, did you -- I thought so. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker, Nicole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought she was here for a reason. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy. And I think just to provide a little bit of context, I was not working specifically on the MOU at the time that it was being crafted and signed, but I was with the Conservancy, and so I do have a little bit of that historical knowledge, and I think it might provide good context for you. So if you would allow me to give just a very brief background on that. As has been mentioned, the airport actually predates the Deltona settlement. It was Deltona's airport. And 1982, when everybody signed off on the Deltona settlement, it was essentially outside the boundaries of the settlement. It was there, and it was going to remain there. It had a footprint that would allow for the runway which was in place, and then it anticipated some sort of taxiway being a part of the airport at some point in the future. In the late 1990s, it came to the Conservancy's attention that the location of where that parallel taxiway could have been -- and I'll just put this visual up. The location of the parallel taxiway per what was agreed to in the Deltona settlement -- you have the runway here, this is north, this is south -- and it was going to go in this location. And as you can maybe see, there are a lot of wetlands there. You have some deeper pockets of water. And this area was also crocodile nesting habitat. So there was a lot of concern about that parallel taxiway going in this area. And it could have gone there. There were interlocal agreements, so we all knew this could happen. And so the Conservancy and others worked with the airport authority to say, you know what, if we could maybe move that taxiway over to the other side, you'd avoid the really highly sensitive wetlands and you'd avoid the crocodile nesting habitat. So we understand this would require impacting some of the Deltona settlement wetlands, but we think it's a better alternative. Another concern that the Conservancy was having at that time was the proposed vegetation trimming plan at the ends of the runways, and we were concerned that too many mangroves were going to be cut too low to the ground. So there was a lot of discussion about FAA rules, safety issues, and how much really needed to be trimmed, and so that was another issue that we were working with the airport authority on at that time. And this is a 2011 aerial that shows -- and I don't know if this picks it up or not, but you can see that there's Page 20 of 64 1612 A2 May 3, 2012 an area of what looks like a lot of vegetation trimming, and this was what we wanted to talk to the airport authority about. So these were a couple items that really began the discussions on that MOU. And by the time that the MOU was signed by Collier County -- the Conservancy had turned our information in in 1990 /2000. And by the time that the Collier County Commission signed the MOU in 2001, everyone had agreed, yes, the taxiway could and should be moved, and as part of that, we would take a look at the vegetation management program for those areas at the ends of the runway so that we could find something that would meet FAA requirements, safety requirements, but that would also protect to the maximum extent possible those mangroves. So that was one of the conditions in the MOU is that the airport authority would work with Audubon Society to find a mutually agreeable vegetation management program. Another of the conditions was that the mitigation portions of the permits, when they were being submitted to the agencies, would be submitted to the other signatories, and we could comment on those. And the third thing was to have the conservation easement in place, and that conservation easement was intended to cover this area here, where the taxiway was originally proposed, and we wanted that mainly to provide assurance that there wouldn't be another runway or another parallel taxiway. So we had those requirements in place and part of the MOU. And what happens so often is that an MOU is signed and then filed away, and by the time that things start rolling, you have turnover in staffs, and so it just didn't happen. And, you know, I don't think there's any blame to be assigned on this. We just want to get this done. So it has been unearthed, and these issues have been brought up. And I've talked with Bob and Chris, and we're going to be moving forward, hopefully -- well, absolutely with a meeting before this goes to the BCC, and we hope in the very near future to have these issues resolved. But we're comfortable with the commitments made by the airport authority that this will be resolved, and I thought it would be good for -- to give you that history of how we got to where we are. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got one Nicole, one of the EAC rentals, No. 2 upon development of a draft vegetation management program, the necessary parties are to begin operating under the auspices of the proposed program. Why is that being insisted upon on a draft? Only because drafts are risky. If they have to go through further approvals, we wouldn't require that, or wouldn't expect that of the private sector. So why are we demanding it of the public sector? MS. JOHNSON: I'm not sure. That wasn't a suggestion that the Conservancy made. I'm not sure that legally the airport authority could do that because it has to be approved by FAA and FDOT. So I'm not sure they could implement a draft program that was not approved by those other agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. I didn't know who -- so that will be a correction we make in whatever stipulations go forward. Okay, thank you. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the public wishing to speak on this item? Brad. MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of National Audubon Society and Florida Audubon Society, the two of the other Deltona settlement signatories, and I do appreciate Nicole sharing the background and history of this. It's hard to keep track as the years go by. And I was not participating in the MOU. Although I was here, and I was a volunteer with Audubon then, that escaped my -- the detail of my scrutiny. So Nicole's history is really important. It's also really important to facilitate communication, permitting, and discussion of any land -use changes or impacts that are going to affect Deltona settlement preserves. Audubon did not receive any notice about this other than the public notices, which I didn't realize had so much significance relative to undone commitments from the MOU. So in the future -- this is not my idea -- I think it's a good one, though -- it would make a great deal of sense if Collier County adopted a Deltona settlement overlay to alert staff and the public that these sorts of issues are going to be relevant to whatever your discussion is, because this happens with City of Marco Island, it happens with Collier County and, you know, we shouldn't be relying on Nicole or folks from the past, like Charles Lee, who's, you know, Page 21 of 64 16 12 A2 May 3, 2012 probably going to retire sometime, and then we'll have lost the institutional memory of what all this stuff meant and who's going to be tracking it. So that would be an important suggestion. And I'll just note that I'm looking forward to sitting down and meeting with staff and other signatories, the Conservancy to resolve the stipulations that the EAC has proposed. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, as a follow -up to the comment that Brad just made concerning the Deltona settlement and as an overlay, could you look into, between now and the next meeting, and find out if the settlement agreement is referenced in the zoning atlas as one of the sub - numbers. Do you know what I mean? When you have a ConST and then up at the top there's a little red number that tells you to look for something down below. Because if it isn't, that would all -- that's all that would probably need to be done to snake sure everybody's aware of the additional documents that are really pertinent to this area, if that's possible to do. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have actually discussed this with staff maybe six months ago, and we have other settlement agreements. And we worked this out with the County Attorney's Office, because there are other settlement agreements that could apply. So we've updated our applications to note when you're dealing with a project in a certain location and there's a settlement agreement involved; however, it's not shown on the zoning map, and I think that is a great idea that we should maybe reference that, and I believe we had some preliminary discussions with our graphics folks to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, at some point, confer with the County Attorney's Office to make sure, first of all, it's legal to do that, and that if it's possible to do it and how it could get expedited if staff agrees it's something that should be done. I think any clarity like that helps avoid mistakes. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public that further wish to speak? I think everybody's done. Is there any other presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're covered. The only question I have -- and I've been through the documentation -- on Page 3 of the staff report, I'd like to request that the second and third sentence be dropped from A, Future Land Use Element, and that you begin the fourth sentence, drop the word "also" and use a capital A. The reason for that is -- and both of them pertain to zoning matters that are not part, really, of this ST application. So I'd rather not muck waters up with that if staff doesn't have any objection. It would be from the word "allowable uses" down to the word "also." MR. BELLOWS: Staff does not object to that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just think that cleans it up. Any other comments, suggestions by anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion, or discussion and then a motion, if need be. Either way. Does anybody have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward ST -PL- 2012 -900, the Marco Island Executive Airport Special Treatment, with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Including the EAC's stipulation, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Including the EAC stipulations with the exception of No. 2? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Page 22 of 64 1612 A 2 ., May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Diane, do you accept that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's made and seconded. Discussion? Just from my comment, I am certainly going to support the ST application. I'm glad it's finally come through and it's cleaned up. I do not support the references to the zoning that I've asked to have eliminated from the executive summary. Staffs going to do that. So with that I have no further problem. 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. Before I move on to the next item, which will be the old business, our Land Development Code amendments, we'll take a break until, oh, 10:40 -- no, 10:35 -- 10:35. I was adding wrong, 10:35. Let's get back at 10:35, okay. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back from break. We're going to switch gears here, and we're going to go from advertised public hearings into the continuation of the LDC amendments that we started several meetings ago, and basically they're going to be heard at the end of every regular meeting until they're done. To accommodate the applicant of the Jaffe boat dock variance and extension, that still has not been heard yet today. We're going to hear that after 12 o'clock, if this takes that long. If not, we'll hear it directly after the remaining business that we have. Okay. Caroline, it's all yours. MS. CILEK: Great. Caroline Cilek, for the record, and we are here to first review a tabled amendment that was first looked at on February -- or excuse me -- April 13th, and that is 3.05.02(G) 1 through 7, and a new draft was provided to you with corrections and comments from our first review. And Steve Lenberger will be presenting that amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Land Development Services Department. This amendment here, which I'll call the clearing and filling amendment, we brought to you last time, and you had asked that I take a look at stockpiles, which are addressed on Page 7 of the amendment. If you'll turn to Page 7. And you asked to take a look at stockpiles as far as different types of ways of stabilizing it and also to look at stockpiles in more rural areas and really thinking about whether we need to require stabilization for these more remote -type stockpiles. So what I did is I spoke with Jack McKenna, the county engineer. And after I spoke to Jack, I drafted some language. I believe it's highlighted in your text. And I sent it to stakeholders, and I copied you -all on that, so you can see I coordinated with them. And, basically, what I have here is what's proposed. If you have any questions, I'll be more than glad to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions? And we're on 3.05.02(G) 1 through 7 basically. Anybody have any questions with the new language or any language at all? Steve, you may have a winner here. This is too easy. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It mainly comes to light when we're working with a development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like the addition of C. I think C was a very practical entry into the program. Page 23 of 64 16 f May 3, 2012 So -- okay. Then if there's no other -- if there's no questions or concerns, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad, seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Absent.) 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 let the record note Melissa Ahern's not here at the moment, so it will be 8 -0. Next item. MS. CILEK: Excellent. The next LDC amendment to review was also tabled and brought back with changes, and that is 4.05.02, design standards, and 4.05.04, parking space regs. And you'll see that I have done two things. Highlighted in yellow are the changes that were made following the review on the 13th, and then there's also some questions regarding where 4.05.04(D) was being relocated within the proposed Section B, and I just highlighted that in red for you to see. And I know Brad had some comments on reorganization, so if that looks okay to you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not quite. I think when you look at it, number one is, obviously, our standard, and I would take the driveways thing out. But let me do one other thing. First is "a" should probably be what you have as "i," because all of a sudden you start talking about grass, compacted spaces, and then the "i" is actually telling you that you can use grass parking in lieu of the above. So I would make "i" be "a," and your "a" there be "i," if you want. And I do think that the driveways should be under the grass parking because, obviously, they'll be paved if they're above. Unless your thought is that if somebody had a driveway or had a crushed stone, that you would have the driveway itself always paved. MS. CILEK: Yes, we did want to keep that driveways and handicap spaces shall be paved for all parking lots in the overarching umbrella component. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then maybe put it in both places, because you're going to treat grass parking as an exception to the one above, so just make sure that your intention there is always to have the driveway and the thing paved. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it. So I'd kind of like --just kind of reshuffle it again. MS. CILEK: Yep. We'll scoot up little "a," I up to 1, and then just push everything up one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're actually just going to switch little "a" and "i." COMMISSIONER VONIER: "a" and "i." MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works. Anybody have any problem with it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know this is existing language, but I've just got to ask the question now because Page 24 of 64 ibiz Az May 3, 2012 we have an opportunity to maybe fix it if it needs to be. What is a durable grass cover? I mean -- MS. CILEK: Very good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if -- what's durable to you may not be durable to somebody else. So how do we know if they're putting down a durable grass cover? MS. CILEK: I'm going to leave that to an expert, and we have Alison here from the engineering department. And if she'd like to speak on that, she's welcome to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As she's trying to slide down in her seat so -- oh, no. MS. BRADFORD: Alison Bradford. Well, transportation planning, but I'm actually covering for Jack McKenna right now. Actually with the durable cover, it's something that can basically handle with -- I guess with the language and all was basically to be able to accept with the cars driving over top of it not, you know, with the dust covering and the grass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is durable grass cover. MS. BRADFORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's defining grass. MS. BRADFORD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So which grass is durable? MS. BRADFORD: Well, basically, like, not dead grass. I mean, because when you have a lot of traffic over top of it, the grass is, basically, going to be dead and not, basically, support, you know, for the cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Boy, are you on the spot today, huh? I'm just concerned that if someone reads this and they're saying that they've got to have a durable grass cover, why don't we just say with a grass cover that must be maintained in a living condition -- MS. CILEK: A maintained grass cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or something like that, then you know what it means. Is that -- MS. BRADFORD: Yeah, I think that's the basic intent. It's just something to say that it's holding up, it's not dead grass that it, you know, can't become dusty. Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maintained? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That must be maintained in a livable condition or some language that, Caroline, you can feel is appropriate. MS. CILEK: Sure, use "maintain." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that defines what we're trying to say "durable" is when you drop the word "durable," because I'm not sure what that means. I mean, Astro Turf is durable grass cover, so -- MS. BRADFORD: Yeah, I mean -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tart (sic) and turf MS. CILEK: All right. We will work to craft some language regarding "maintained." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point, I think the importance of the word there is that if it is ruts and mud, that that grass isn't durable. So there are some grasses that will stand up, some that won't. MS. CILEK: That's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think the purpose of it is more for enforcement than it is design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think to fix it would be a good thing. Even though it's not changed language, why don't we just fix it while we've got it up here to deal with. MS. BRADFORD: Maybe like properly maintained? I mean, it's, you know, in between. That's just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like the word "durable" so it's not a bunch of ruts like some grass. So maybe durable and maintained. MS. CILEK: I think that would work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if it's failing, you have those words to rely on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But, I mean, what if you put Floratam out there. Is that durable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know what that is, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I mean, there's all -- that's just a form of grass. It's what most of the yards are. Page 25 of 64 A2May4+,0l2 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And you'll learn that some grasses won't work and some grasses will. Some grasses need, you know, stabilizers within them; some don't. MS. BRADFORD: Yeah. And I think it's going to be all kind of dependent in the use and, you know, how often it is being used, basically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, if you work something into this to get the intent of the word "durable," that would be very helpful. MS. CILEK: You bet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to have to bring that one back at some point for further discussion. Thank you. Appreciate -- you can sit up straight in your seat now. Number 3 is definition of usable open space, and it's 1.08.02. Is that the next one, I assume? I'm going in order. MS. CILEK: Yep. And the new language is on Page 3. And following conversations with Heidi, we modified it a bit from your original version, just the three definitions, and we adjusted the numbering and language on Page 4 as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions or concerns about the revision -- MS. CILEK: I'll give a little history, if needed, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one question, and that's the elimination of some of these things. Why are we crossing out beach frontage not being allowed? MS. CILEK: That's a good question. What we did with the open space usable definition was to do a hybrid of an existing usable open space definition in the rural fringe and modified it a little bit for clarity. So we wanted to use a definition that was consistent with the GMP, and that's where we found it. And then we sort of made it a little bit more clear. We removed some language that didn't make sense regarding public streets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you're modeling the public fringe, I can see why beachfront disappeared, but why can't we keep that in there? What's wrong with people counting their beachfront property as part of their open space? MS. CILEK: We really haven't --we just worked with this definition. I haven't really thought about the removal of certain aspects of it, of certain parts of it. The floodplains is also being removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A residential development with a 60 percent requirement, you know, that would take a big -- I mean, take Moraya Bay, you would kill Moraya Bay because that's beach frontage. I mean, most of that back of that building is beach frontage. MS. CILEK: Yeah. I can't speak to individual PUDs, but I know this amendment is trying to include the required yard setbacks as -- counted as open space, which the current LDC definition does not do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what this word would do is that when I'm trying to get 60 percent open space, this is the open space I'd be trying to get. Is that right, or would I be -- MS. CILEK: Yep. The definition outlines what can be included as usable open space. If your recommendation is to include beach frontage, that's just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't it already included by the fact it's part of usable open space? You're saying it's being excluded from here forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, she's striking it out. MS. CILEK: In this definition, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't know why -- I mean, I don't know why a lagoon, a floodplain -- I mean, we don't have a lot of floodplains, but why would that be taken out? That's pretty common -- MS. CILEK: Well, I think you make a really valid point of that. You know, we did want to work with a definition that already existed within the GMP, but that was particular to the rural fringe which doesn't have some of these elements. So if you want to make the recommendation to include the beachfront and lagoons and floodplains, that's just fine, because this is the whole county we're looking at. So it's actually good insight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tennis courts. I mean, why can't that amenity -- I mean, it's -- I would not exclude anything that's in there, and I think adding a lake makes sense. MS. CILEK: Okay. That's just fine. Page 26 of 64 i 16 1 e A2 May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the only thing I like -- anyway, the exclusionary part of it, I don't like any of -- you taking anything out and feel free to add, you know. MS. CILEK: You make a valid point in the fact that this was looking at an area that doesn't have coastal area. So in most of -- and lots of the county does have a coastal area, and you would include that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and instead of changing the definition to exclude what was there before so that we include yards, why don't you just keep what was there before and add yards? MS. CILEK: And that's what I think the recommendation should be, yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that kind of gets to where Brad's trying to go. Does it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it does. MS. CILEK: Yes, I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be another rewrite? MS. CILEK: Sure. Anything else regarding the other provisions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other issues on 1.08.02? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on. Where -- why are you crossing out G1 entirely? MS. CILEK: I'm sorry. I can't hear you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: G1, why is it being crossed out? MS. CILEK: Because in the header we describe that having definitions within the LDC and other locations isn't the best way to guide people to using the correct definition. So what we want to do is just have one place for the defined usable open space as well as the other types of open space and leave just the regulation in G, which is guiding the site design standards. So G 1 is removed so that people use the definition in the definitions section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CILEK: And not to have different definitions all throughout the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's essentially covered in the prior paragraph that we talked about? MS. CILEK: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. CILEK: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to the next one. That's 3.05.07(H)(1)(E). MS. CILEK: Yes. Preservation standards, and that one will be presented by Steve Lenberger as well. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steve Lenberger, development services. There's two amendments here that were -- came about with the recommendations from the Collier Building Industry Association, CBIA. The county manager had approached CBIA and asked them if they wanted to propose LDC amendments to make the LDC more efficient, you know, streamline the development process, and allow for flexibility without sacrificing quality of development. And CBIA organized professionals from different disciplines to propose amendments. And amendments were posed, worked through staff, and some staff agreed upon and others were dropped. But the ones staff agreed upon have now been staff sponsored, so we are in agreement with the amendments that are going forward by CBIA. The first one would be the archaeologic amendment. This amendment is to allow historical and archaeological sites that count towards the minimum native vegetation and retention requirement for the county. There, I guess, have been different interpretations of whether it should be allowed in the future -- I mean, should be allowed by past management, so I know it has, in my time here with the county, been counted towards minimum preservation requirements, and I know some past management have not allowed it. But it's interesting, as we researched this we noticed the conservation and coastal management element, and Fred Reischl was very helpful in doing research on this initially. In Policy 11.1.2, Subsection E, it says, conservation of such historic archaeological sites shall qualify for any open space requirements mandated by development regulations. So that would include preservation of native vegetation or retention of native vegetation. So this amendment is to allow for that to count towards the retention of native vegetation. And in doing so we had to address whether these sites were previously cleared, partially cleared, or were excavated for one reason or Page 27 of 64 16 A2 May 3, 2012 another to take a look scientifically at the archaeological artifacts that may be contained within. So what I did is I added criteria under the creative preserve section of the Land Development Code. And on Page 3 of the amendment, I added that archaeological historical sites, where such sites are authorized by the BCC as part of a PUD rezone, are by subsequent development order approved by the Collier County Historical Archaeological Preservation Board to be planted with native vegetation in accordance with the criteria herein. And this is under criteria which creative preserves would be allowed. And if you turn to Page 5, what we did is we added similar language indicating that these areas could be revegetated with native vegetation similar to or compatible with the vegetation, the native vegetation, in the preserve or archaeological site, and the revegetation would be with one - gallon ground covers. This is trying to acknowledge the sensitivity of these archaeological sites. You don't want to really disturb the soil. So ground covers would be appropriate in those instances. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I do have an issue with this one about the Historical Advisory Board delegation. You know, it could either be archaeological site, you know, identified by the state or it could be by the county, but I'm not sure about delegating that to HAPB. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're suggesting in that fourth line down where it says, "or by subsequent development order approved by the HAPB" be struck? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve, do you have any concerns, since you wrote this? MR. LENBERGER: No concerns. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And that occurs in two places, I believe. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Both -- wherever that occurs. MR. LENBERGER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The end of that paragraph also has "or the HABP," so we'd strike that there as well. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, three places I see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That it would be, yeah. Anybody else have any questions? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would that preclude grass when yo talk about native vegetation? MR. LENBERGER: If it was counted -- if the archaeological site was used towards the minimum native vegetation retention requirement, it would exclude non - native grasses, yes, but it would allow native grasses, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And what do you mean by one - gallon containers? What kind of plants are you talking about? MR. LENBERGER: Oh, ground covers, and ground covers are typically one - gallon container or smaller. They are liners depending on the nature of the type of restoration. The idea is not to disturb the soil too deep. One - gallon plant would be, perhaps, about six inches deep, and that's normally the soil level. You start getting below that, you would start doing more disturbance of archaeological sites. You don't want to do that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was just unfamiliar about native versus non - native grasses. I- -MR. LENBERGER: There are a variety of native grasses so, yes, they would be allowed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Steve, your -- on Page 5, your first sentence, I'm trying to understand how it would occur. Where it says, where sites are counted towards the minimum native vegetation retention requirement and where such sites have no native vegetation, that part I understand, but then it says, or are authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a PUD rezone. So an applicant would come in with a PUD, he would have to show how much native vegetation he has and make up for whatever he doesn't have by replanting or any other means. Why would he ask to have it excavated then if he was going to use it for native vegetation? MR. LENBERGER: That's a good point. Excavation -- what would initiate an excavation, I'm not sure. I did receive some correspondence and I had communicated with the state preservation board, and they don't get involved in determining whether a site's excavated or not, so I was kind of surprised at that. I know some sites are, and they are often done as part of permitting with the state, particularly if the site's going to be impacted by development. Page 28 of 64 16 12 A 2 May 3 2012 But I wanted to allow, for whatever reason in the future, perhaps a site might be desired to be excavated and allow for revegetation. And maybe that wouldn't be determined at the PUD level by the BCC, but maybe modifying the language, now that I'm thinking about it a little bit more, to allow for excavations if for some reason it would be desirable to unearth some of the artifacts or take a look at them. But other than having the BCC approve that, I'm not sure quite what to do as far as your questions there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where the word -- after the bold "native vegetation," the second one, and it starts with the word or are authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a PUD. Why don't we just drop that? The whole thing would read better, and it would stop the confusion as to why they would allow you to excavate an archaeological site to begin with, especially if you now wanted to come in and replant it with native vegetation. You wouldn't do that after you got your zoning. You'd do it as part of the zoning process, and you'd have to recognize the archaeological site at that point, too. So what is the need for that last part of that sentence? MR. LENBERGER: Okay. So you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where it says, or are authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a rezone process? MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rezone, just drop that. And then continues -- then you've got your first three lines, and then it drops down to the -- whereafter the reference to the HAPB, then it says these sites shall be revegetated. Wouldn't that make it cleaner? MR. LENBERGER: Well, I think you'd have to have, where there's no native veg -- third line -- well, it's Line 25, where such sites have no native vegetation or are authorized to be cleared and excavated, at least you'd have to acknowledge that they could be cleared and excavated in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how could they be if they're archaeological or historic sites? MR. LENBERGER: Well, there could be -- I know they are -- normally when a site is developed, and if that site's going to be impacted, they are excavated and looked at. But there are, perhaps, scientific studies maybe in the future where they might want to take a look at these sites. After all, you're preserving them. So we need to at least allow some flexibility for them to be looked at in the future and possibly excavated, so -- but the excavation, I had cleared -- authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a PUD rezone. And that's a good point. You would not necessarily know that right up front, but it could happen in the future, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I guess it doesn't hurt. It just seemed -- it just makes it more confusing. But if you feel it's necessary, I'll go with your judgment. You've done a lot more of this than I have. So -- anybody else have any issues? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not on that particular one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I think this is -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can I just ask for a clarification on that one? So what Steve is saying, it would be where such sites have no native vegetation or the native vegetation is authorized to be -- so you'd probably have to insert a word, right? MR. LENBERGER: Or are authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a PUD rezone or subsequent development order, maybe something like that where -- because you may -- might not necessarily force an applicant to do a PUD rezone, but maybe another type of authorization to the board. So where such sites have no native vegetation or are authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a PUD rezone or subsequent development order, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you'd start on a couple lines down and capitalize the word "these "? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I would take out "or by subsequent development order," because I don't know what you're talking about, but I would also insert the words "the native vegetation is authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of a rezone." MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: So it would read, where such sites have no native vegetation or the native vegetation is authorized to be cleared and excavated by the BCC as part of the PUD rezone. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then either semicolon or whatever, then it would go on, these sites shall be Page 29 of 64 j;y A 2 May 3 2012 revegetated with native vegetation, and then it goes on from there, right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work, Steve? MR. LENBERGER: That looks like it would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work -- anybody on the commission got any concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically we're making that change in the paragraph, we'll be dropping the last three words, "or the HAPB," since we dropped the reference earlier. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on Page 3 we would drop the similar reference to the HAPB in the development order on that page as well. So on Page 3 it would be after the word "PUD rezone," or by subsequent development order be dropped along with all the references to the HAPB up until the word "to," is that what we're -- so we're all on the same page? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those that -- the changes needed to this document, does anybody see a need for it to come back again? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think staffs got the changes clear. They're not that -- they're not flexible. They're just pretty straightforward. With those changes, is there a motion regarding this one, 3.05.07(H)(1)(E)? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak, seconded by? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Okay. Next one is a new draft of the preservation standards, exotic removal, 3.05.07(F)(4)(D). MS. CILEK: Correct. And there was just one minor change in the labeling of this one, and it's highlighted in yellow in your new draft. And there will be several speakers on this one as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MS. CILEK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions at this point before the speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, did you want to make any presentation or comment? Did this one come up last Wednesday? MS. CILEK: No. MR. LENBERGER: This is the -- no, the exotic vegetation, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 30 of 64 16 12 A2 May 3 , 2012 MR. LENBERGER: Did you want to hear from public speakers first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Those members of the public wishing to speak, you want to just come on up one at a time, either podium. Don't be shy. Well, most of you aren't. They're old hands at this. MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Andy Woodruff here on -- just in support of staffs recommendation, on behalf of CBIA as well. I'd like to address a couple parts of the Growth Management Plan that I believe are inconsistent with this section of the Land Development Code. The first -- the first is the Future Land Use Element rural fringe mixed -use district, Page 75, Section C, sending lands, subpart F, any sending lands from which TDR credits have been severed may also be utilized for mitigation programs and associated mitigation activities and uses in conjunction with any county, state, or federal permitting. I believe the LDC language directly conflicts with this language and that the land development rights of the property owners in the rural fringe, those rights have been stripped for their ability to mitigate consistent with state and federal policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're saying that because in their rural fringe area, the exotic removal is excluded from being used as mitigation credits where it is used as mitigation credits in other parts of the county? MR. WOODRUFF: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make it clear since I thought this was heard on the 25th, but if it wasn't, I need to make sure everybody knows what we're talking about, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This was not heard on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. For some reason, I thought -- MS. CILEK: For the record, this was not heard. This is the first time this is coming to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand now. Okay. MR. WOODRUFF: The second goal that I believe is inconsistent with the Land Development Code is Goal 65 of the Coast Conservation Management Element, and this is Part 6, mitigation required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions. And there's three basic mitigation requirements that need to be met before the county can require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. The first is no net loss of wetland functions, the second is no net loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands, and the third is a placement of a conservation easement over land and a plan for initial exotic removal and exotic plant maintenance. So if you can demonstrate compliance with those three parts of the code in Subpart 4 here hyphenated in yellow, if agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. I believe this is where the Land Development Code exceeds that of the jurisdictional agencies regardless of Parts 1, 2, and 3 are being met by the property owner. Additionally, on top of the fact that the rural fringe has been divided into sending, neutral, and receiving lands, additional density restrictions have been imposed on those landowners and preservation requirements have been imposed on those landowners. There's also additional restrictions that are specific to the rural fringe that I'd like to point out. The first is a requirement to preserve wetlands occupied by listed species regardless if this exceeds the native vegetation preserve requirement. The second is a requirement to preserve wetlands acting as a corridor for wildlife regardless, again, if this exceeds the native vegetation preserve requirement. And the third is a requirement to preserve wetlands acting as flowways regardless if this exceeds the native vegetation preserve requirement. So by adding all of these restrictions to rural fringe, designating these additional preserve restrictions, the county's all but mandated that mitigation for state and federal permits is going to be done on site through preservation and enhancement of wetlands, and by disallowing the use of exotic removal to count as mitigation on those lands, I Page 31 of 64 161 2 �. May 3, 2012 think, puts rural fringe mixed -use landowners in a real bind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, do you know when -- was this rule put in place with the original rural fringe process when it was developed in around 2000 or so? MR. WOODRUFF: 2004 they're telling me. I'm not that familiar with when this language was actually put in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll wait for staff to talk about it then. Thank you. Are there any other public speakers on this matter? MR. LAYMAN: For the record, my name is Bruce Layman. I work as a senior ecologist with Stantec locally, and I'm here in support of staffs LDC amendment this morning. What I'd like to do is run you through why I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you said you're in support of staffs LDC amendment? MR. LAYMAN: Yes. I'm here to support their amendment, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LAYMAN: What I'd like to do is run through why I believe the LDC as it's written is in direct conflict with the Growth Management Plan policies. In short, Growth Management Plan Policy 6.2.5 requires that wetland impacts within the rural fringe be mitigated and that that mitigation result in no net loss of wetland function. This basically means that your mitigation function needs to be equal to or greater than the function of the wetland that's being impacted. The GMP further identifies the need for you to use one of two functional -- wetland functional assessment methodologies in quantifying what those functions are. They go by the acronym UMAM and WRAP. Both of these analyses include exotic vegetation coverage as a scoring parameter in determining and quantifying what that functional value is. In fact, three out of six of the parameters used in the WRAP analysis include exotic vegetation as part of the scoring mechanism, and two out of three of the parameters in the UMAM analysis also include exotic vegetation as part of the scoring mechanism in that methodology as well. So in following the directive of the GMP that we need to quantify the loss of function that may come from a wetland impact and balance it with a gain in function resulting from mitigation, if exotic vegetation removal results in the gain in wetland function, which is obligatory based on going through the UMAM and WRAP methodologies, then it would represent mitigation, and this is where it directly conflicts with the LDC that says -- what does it say -- oh, I lost it. Dang it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are called senior moments. I have quite a few. MR. LAYMAN: Yes, I'm getting up there, sorry. Oh, exotic removal will not constitute mitigation. It's in direct conflict with that, because if you remove exotics from a mitigation area, it increases the gain and functional value, and it is, in fact, mitigation. So that -- because of that conflict, I'm fully supportive of the current LDC amendment as it's proposed. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Thank you. MR. LAYMAN: And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Time frames -- I saw you trying to relay time frames. So you -- 2004, this was initiated with the initial rural fringe policies, or was it added and changed later on after the policies first came up to play? MR. LAYMAN: It was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in February of'04. So it had been going through the process up through the end of'03, and it was adopted in'04. I can't answer specifically whether the rural fringe amendments were adopted in '04. Maybe staff may know that directly, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I intended to query staff about it as well, because I'm -- I like to know -- consistency is always an important factor in our code, and if we have something that's inconsistent, I would assume it was done with good reason, and I'm trying to understand the reason based on, especially, the things that you have said so far. MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger, for the record. The rural fringe amendments, according to the CCME section I have in front of me, the ordinance was approved in -- it was Ordinance No. 2002 -32, which was adopted in June 19, 2002. But due to a challenge, it didn't go into effect until July 22, 2003. Page 32 of 64 16 1 y AZ May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the initial language devised for the rural fringe inclusive of this exotic removal mitigation issue or not? Was it something that was changed later on after the initial rural fringe district was established? MR. LENBERGER: I don't believe the -- for the exotic removal, not counting -- I do not believe it's in the -- no, it's not in the GMP. I know it's not. So it's in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But was it -- okay. But did it come about as a change from the initial rural fringe codes? When we established rural fringe based on the governor's order and all that, there was initial codes established. Was this one that was changed later on or no? MR. LENBERGER: You're talking initial code, what do you mean? You're talking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we established the rural fringe criteria in the LDC, the first time we did it. MR. LENBERGER: After the GMP was adopted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: Was this a restriction put in right away, is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm sorry I'm not articulating it well. That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. LENBERGER: I don't know for sure. MR. MULHERE: I think it was. I mean, I could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it was part of the process from day one, and that's why I'm trying to understand how it got there. MR. LENBERGER: I wasn't involved with the rural fringe, but Bob -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he probably was. MR. LENBERGER: -- probably, who knows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's been around way too long. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. I was going to speak anyway, but just to answer your question. And the process was pretty lengthy. We went through the GMP amendments, of course, first to adopt the rural fringe mixed -use district. After the county adopted the GMP amendments to establish the district -- and those were very, very detailed. If you've looked at those in the GMP, they're extremely specific. They're almost code language. There was no language about prohibiting exotic removal for mitigation in the permitting process and contained in those GMP amendments. The research that we've done collectively indicates that this occurred after the Planning Commission but before the board adoption of subsequent Land Development Code amendments that would then implement the GMP policies. In most cases that was the exact same language, because the GMP language was so detailed that the LDC language mirrored the GMP language. But somewhere in the process this was introduced. We've looked at the actual minutes and found that it occurred somewhere after the Planning Commission, before the final BCC hearing. I think Mr. Cornell, who probably will speak on this issue, raised the issue, and the board included this prohibition in the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the Planning Commission heard this back before any of our -- MR. MULHERE: 2004. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Planning Commission heard this, and at the time we heard it, there was no Item D? It wasn't there. MR. MULHERE: That's what our research indicates, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it leaves this board, it goes to the BCC, and during the BCC process, D gets added; that's kind of what you're saying? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I know we've got other speakers, but right away I'm concerned as to how that happened without this board being the designated LPA for Collier County. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I guess the BCC does make changes to your recommendations, so that could happen. There were actually four hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't a change to a recommendation. This is a new element -- MR. MULHERE: I know. Page 33 of 64 1 12 ay 3. , 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that would have required stakeholder involvement, because it does have a rather grave impact on any property owners out there who are having to mitigate. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and here's my concern representing property owners that have significant holdings in the rural fringe mixed -use district but also as part of the team that put that together, those property owners, particularly in sending lands, received a significant change in their allowable development rights. The density went from one per five to one per 40. Their preservation went to either 80 or 90 percent in sending lands. And we went through this whole process. And now, in addition, they're being treated differently in terms of the mitigation process than other landowners throughout the rest of the county. Having said that, the EAC had suggested when they discussed this matter most recently that perhaps there could be a limit in the amount of mitigation that you achieve through exotic removal, which really doesn't work very well; because every project is different, and exotics in every project is different, the percentage of exotics. And also the EAC had suggested maybe we ought to be involved in the permitting process as a county, and maybe that's something that should be looked at. And that issue as a policy matter has come up at least 10 times since I've been working in the county, and the county has never supported creating a separate wetland permitting process when we already have several jurisdictional agencies involved in that process, including DEP, South Florida Water Management District, and the Corps of Engineers. It would be significant. If that's something this county wants to consider, that should be done holistically through a very public process so that landowners can have an opportunity to weigh in on that as well as environmental groups and other stakeholders. My position is that this -- I support staffs position. There's really no business having a prohibition on using exotic vegetation as part of the mitigation when it's part and parcel of the UMAM process. I did speak a little bit with Tim Hall before the meeting. I don't know if he's registered, but I think he does want to speak on this. The reason I had Tim -- I asked Tim and Bruce, and -- these folks actually work in the permitting process all the time. I don't do that. I don't know the nuances of it. I'm not involved directly in that wetland permitting process. They are, and they have suggested that there are significant unintended consequences that we don't want to experience associated with this. That's why staff supports it. So I would suggest it be removed or that you at least make that recommendation. If this wants to be looked at holistically, moving down the road we look at differently how we want to treat the process of permitting and having greater restrictions -- we already have some, and it relates to wetland, you know, no net loss in wetlands. And by doing this, we make it harder to actually achieve that goal. So, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. Brad, did you want to speak? MR. CORNELL: Yeah, thank you. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida, which owns Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. This has been an issue of concern to me for many years, and not just me alone. The science staff at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, most particularly Ed Carlson and Jason Lauritsen, have done a lot of research and a lot of analysis of wetland permitting and protection programs in the State of Florida and right here in Southwest Florida because it's near and dear to our hearts. It's the lifeblood of supporting the wood stork rookery at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. That research and analysis has shown that there's significant wetland losses due to exotics clearing through the permitting process. And what the issue is before us on this policy -- and I oppose the deletion of this Subparagraph D. The issue is, let's be honest about what no net loss of wetland functions really is. We have to be honest about how this permitting process works. Exotics clearing cannot compensate for direct wetland destruction because clearing exotics is not the same -- does not provide a wetland with the same functions that the destroyed wetland now has lost. Now, for example, wet prairies; these are a seasonal shallow wetland type. We have lost over 80 percent of the wet prairies in the core foraging area around Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. These are the areas that are absolutely vital to the survival and nesting success of endangered wood storks. We've lost over 80 percent of -- 82 percent to be exact. And those wet prairies provide fish and forage for wood storks and wading birds early in the dry season. Page 34 of 64 It) 1 2 a 2 ,ay 3, 2012 That's when nesting is initiated. That triggers nesting initiation in wood storks. That's the biological life history of wood storks. You lose those wet -- those wet prairies, and you lose that early nesting in the wood storks. And, in fact, you may lose nesting entirely. We haven't had any nesting in five of the last six years at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, the biggest rookery in the entire range in the United States, and no nesting in five of the last six years. So this is a problem. We have demonstrated through our research that we are losing currently, through the permitting process, short hydroperiods, short shallow seasonal wetlands in Southwest Florida. And my example is to say that if you destroy a hundred acres of wet prairie, there is no amount of exotics clearing that's going to put fish -- those fish back in the forage pool for wood storks. Exotic clearing does help, but it does not replace those fish - growing functions that were lost. The state allows exotics clearing to count as mitigation, that's true, but not if there are net losses to the types of wetlands destroyed. In other words, if you're destroying wet prairies and your mitigation plan doesn't replace those wet prairie functions, that's not legal. That's not pennissible. Audubon research and analysis has demonstrated that state wetland permitting frequently results in net losses to specific wetland functions; therefore, Collier County is very wise to move -- to more vigorously protect its own wetlands. Why should we be deferring to state permitting when this is a very specific well - documented identified issue for our wetlands? This would not require an additional program or additional staffing and could be implemented using an Excel tracking tool that has been developed by Audubon science staff. We're using it right now in analyzing permits that the South Florida Water Management and DEP are examining. We've done a study of 17 -- we've looked at hundreds of ERP permits since the UMAM program has started in 2004, and we have done a comprehensive study of the largest ones of those in Southwest Florida, 17 of them, that demonstrates this problem, and I can share that with you -all if you're interested, and I can share it -- I have shared it with staff. I want to note also that in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 6.1.4 already requires exotics removal on all development proposed properties. So this is already a requirement of county regulations. It doesn't count as mitigation in that policy. Our conclusion is, again, that our research and analysis has demonstrated state permitting frequently results in significant losses to shallow seasonal wetlands, like wet prairies, due to the heavy reliance of most mitigation plans on exotics removal; therefore, Collier County needs this prohibition of exotics clearing as mitigation to achieve true no net loss of wetland functions. This is not in conflict with any other Collier County Growth Management Plan or LDC policy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? Brad, wait a minute. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When we're talking about clearing the exotics, are we talking about exotics within wetlands or if it's a development that the upland part is where the exotics are? If you cleared the exotics from the upland, does that allow you to take some of the wetland away? I'm not clear what's involved. MR. CORNELL: Under the basis of review for the South Florida Water Management District under their ERP, environmental resource permitting program, both enhancement or exotics clearing and upland preservation and exotics clearing from uplands count as mitigation; however, it does not authorize net losses in specific functions in the wetlands. So you still have -- the balance of the equation still has to come out at least even or favorable to the full suite of wetland functions that are being destroyed, but it does allow that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if we approve this ordinance, or whatever it is, if you remove exotics from the uplands, does that give you permission to take an equivalent amount of wetlands? MR. CORNELL: I don't read the law to allow that. The law does allow exotics clearing on uplands to count as mitigation for wetland destruction. We believe that should only be applied very sparingly. If you look at wetland permitting plans in most permits, they heavily rely on exotics clearing on both uplands and wetlands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I wouldn't be opposed to letting exotics clearing count towards mitigation on uplands, but I wouldn't want that to allow them to take an equivalent amount of wetlands away. MR. CORNELL: It's -- they don't do it in terms of acreage. So when you say "an equivalent amount," Paul, Page 35 of 64 1612 " `May 3, 2012 what we're really talking about, an equivalent amount of functional units. That's the way they calculate it. Not in acreage, but in functional units. And so it does allow them to destroy wetlands by preserving and taking off the exotics of uplands. It does. That's what they've been doing, and that's part of the problem that we've identified. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if they're removing exotics from the wetlands, that would improve the wetlands. MR. CORNELL: It improves them, but it does not replace all the functions of an "entirely destroyed." If you fill in a wetland, like a wet prairie, taking off exotics from another wetland does help. That does replace some functions, but it does not replace the fish - growing functions or the natural water storage capacity of the wetland you lost. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if you remove exotics from a wetland, it's -- that would go back to being a better wetland, wouldn't it? It would still be -- MR. CORNELL: It gives you some lift. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- a wetland. It would be replaced with native vegetation, right? MR. CORNELL: Yes, it would. So you get some value. There is some lift. But what I'm saying is that if you destroy, entirely destroy a wetland, not only the vegetation but the wetland itself, it no longer holds water and no longer recharges aquifers. It doesn't grow any fish anymore, and it doesn't have any native plants. You've lost that entirely. Okay. Now you're going to go to an impacted wetland that already exists someplace else but it has, let's say, Melaleuca on it. Okay. You're going to take the Melaleuca out. Yes, that's a help, but that wetland already had water. It was already restoring -- I mean recharging aquifers, already growing fish. You haven't added those functions. Do you understand what I'm saying? You're not replacing all the functions of the destroyed wetland. You're only replacing some of them with the exotics clearing. That's the myth. That's where we're losing functions in that no- net -loss requirement. That's how Audubon -- and it's a cumulative effect. This is happening on almost all permits. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if that's the case, how would you change the proposed LDC amendment request? MR. CORNELL: I would not delete the policy. I would keep Policy D, don't delete it. That's my recommendation to you; leave it as it is. We've had it since 2004. It's an important policy. If you really want my opinion, I think we ought to apply it across the county in every district, not just in the rural fringe mixed -use district. And that may -- maybe that should require a larger discussion amongst the EAC, the Development Services Advisory Committee, and the Planning Commission to bring forward such a plan. I think that would be in Collier County's interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. CORNELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you concur that this policy is not used anywhere else in Collier County except in the rural fringe? MR. CORNELL: Actually, if you look at the LDC the way it's written, that policy applies countywide. That's a mistake, the way it's written. It should only apply to the rural fringe mixed -use district. And if you read policies that are countywide and apply to the rural fringe mixed -use district in the Growth Management Plan, under 6.2.5 you'll see that the no net loss justifies having the -- with the understanding of the research and analysis Audubon has done, justifies that prohibition of exotics clearing mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With your experience and knowledge of Collier County as of today, do you know of any other part of the county where this is enforced? MR. CORNELL: It is not in any other part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That answers my questions. RLSA. Is it enforced in the RLSA? MR. CORNELL: It's enforced near the RLSA in a wetland strand that is on the south side of Immokalee. If you look at the aerials of Immokalee, you'll see a very significant wetland slough that goes into Lake Trafford. That's in the urban Immokalee area. That's technically not in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, but it is in that eastern part of the county, not in the rural fringe mixed -use district. That also enforces those same policies. Page 36 of 64 1012Q2 May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is this policy in use in the Rural Land Stewardship Area? MR. CORNELL: Not in the Rural Land Stewardship Area; right next to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my question. So the answer is no? MR. CORNELL: No, no, it isn't. I think it should be countywide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you support the RLSA? MR. CORNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know how this got inserted between the Planning Commission's hearing when this came up back in whatever year it was, 2003 or'4 -- MR. CORNELL: My recollection -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- until the time it got to the BCC? MR. CORNELL: My recollection is very foggy on that. I'd have to go read minutes. But I do recall this being a suggestion of mine. I've been talking about this issue for a long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you make this suggestion to the Planning Commission at that time? MR. CORNELL: I don't recall. I may not have, but it is something that is part of the no- net -loss requirement that we have countywide. And as we have learned more through Audubon research -- and I will note that our research has been, up until 2011, I personally have learned much more about the problems we have with wetland permitting through the state's permitting program. So I'm even more convinced that we need this prohibition of exotics clearing as mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, just to make sure I understand, I mean, the exotics are going to be removed from the wetland anyway, correct? MR. CORNELL: Right. The county requires that anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So isn't the problem with this -- I mean, you don't want them to count that towards mitigation. MR. CORNELL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't the problem with this thing is -- could you put some conditions where it would matter? In other words, should we keep it in, add the word "unless," and they do something after unless that would -- MR. CORNELL: I can imagine a way to refine this policy. For instance, one refinement might be to allow exotics clearing to count only as compensation for secondary impacts. In other words, not direct destruction of wetlands -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CORNELL: -- but for, you know, hydrologic impacts off site. You know, you're draining a development site, and off site you're going to be lowering the water table, and that destroys or harms wetlands off site. So that might be a reasonable refinement. But as it stands now, I think we don't have that option to refine it. That might be a further conversation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- I mean, because the sad thing is you're going to walk away from this damaged wetland. So the best thing to do is bring them back on with some reward to count that toward mitigation that would work. And maybe it is working in the uplands. Maybe it is -- I mean, something, I think, could be done to allow them to count it if they brought it back to a certain standard, or the thing you said -- and I don't know this area like you do -- that there are other things you could give them for that. MR. CORNELL: It's -- I'm not denying that exotics clearing has value. What I'm pointing out is it doesn't have as much value as is being ascribed by the permitting agencies, and that is to our disadvantage. We're losing wetlands, and we've documented it. Our research has clearly documented big losses, cumulatively. So I'm much more -- I'm cautioning you to err on the side of being conservative in this wetland arena and protect the wetlands better than the state does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CORNELL: That's -- I think that's the bottom line. Page 37 of 64 Y 1612A2 May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm trying to do is find something in between, but it looks like -- MR. CORNELL: There is some in- between area. We'd have to sit down and work that out. And one area could be on secondary impacts, as mitigation on secondary impacts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Brad. MR. CORNELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall & Associates. And I apologize, I wasn't anticipating speaking on this, but after hearing the comments and talking to Bob, I thought I would. I've had a little bit of controversy related to this particular LDC amendment with staff for about six or seven years, and the reason is, my opinion, it's contrary actually to the state statutes. And if you'll permit me to read one of them, Florida Statute 373.414, Paragraph 18. And it says, the department in each water management district responsible for implementation of the environmental resource permitting program shall develop a uniform mitigation assessment method for wetlands and other surface waters. The rules shall provide an exclusive and consistent process for determining the amount of mitigation required to offset impacts to wetlands and other surface waters and, once affected -- effective shall supersede all rules, ordinances, and variance procedures from ordinances that determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset such impacts. Once the department adopts the uniform mitigation assessment method by rule, the methods shall be binding on the department, the water management districts, local governments and any other governmental agencies and shall be the sole means to determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters and to award and deduct mitigation bank credits. It goes on a little bit after that, but the gist of it is, from my standpoint, when the state adopted UMAM, that became the sole means to assess mitigation. So by the county putting that language into their code, they basically superseded that state statute, and I don't believe they're allowed to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has that position been expanded into some kind of challenge to the local ordinances to a point where we have some case law that might refer to it? MR. HALL: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, are you familiar with those sections of statutes he's reading from as how they may apply? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, not that particular statute. 1 mean, he's just read a paragraph, so I'd have to go read the whole statute and section that it pertains to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the next time this comes back to us -- because I don't believe it's going to be resolved today -- would you be able to get familiar with it? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Anybody else? Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Hi. For the record, Jeremy Frantz on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And Brad touched on a couple of the things that I wanted to speak to you about, in particular the applicability of this -- these wetland protection measures to other parts of the county. It does apply or it is intended to apply to the Lake Trafford Camp/Keais Strand area. And if you go back to the GMP policies for that -- for that system, it is clearly stated that the wetland systems, which -- that those are wetland systems which require greater protection measures. So I think that while these provisions are different than other areas of the county, we have identified these areas as requiring more protective measures. Additionally, the -- there's been another concern throughout the process about the cost to developers. And I just wanted to, you know, bring up the issue of the cost to the public also. Page 38 of 64 161[A2 May 3, 2012 Yesterday Jerry Kurtz made presentations to -- or a presentation to the EAC about stormwater improvement projects. The top four priorities of those projects that came out of the Water Management Plan are all in or around or affecting the rural fringe mixed -use district in the North Belle Meade area. These projects are extremely expensive, millions of dollars, and they're going to be -- those costs are going to be borne by the public over many, many years. I think if there's any place in the county that deserves greater protection, these are the areas that we need to be looking at. Additionally, in Objective 6.2 of the GMP, it states that the county's wetland protection policies and strategies shall be coordinated with the Watershed Management Plan, and based on the fact that the rural fringe is one of the areas identified based on those projects and some of the research that came out of that plan, we've identified that removing these greater protection measures, I believe, would be out of line with the Watershed Management Plan. I think that about covers everything. I think that Brad touched on some of those issues. So just to be clear, we obviously do not support removing the policy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other speakers on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve, could you come up and address a few concerns that have come out about the -- from the discussion. This is limited to the rural fringe. I think we've -- and you agree with that? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it is limited to the fringe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I heard Brad indicate that he felt it was more broadly applied or could -- should be -- is written in a manner that it was more broadly applied to Collier County; do you agree with that? MR. LENBERGER: Let me back up a minute. There is an error in the LDC on the way the lettering and numbering is. The language pertains in the GMP to the rural fringe mixed -use district. It's very specific, and most of that language is carried word for word in the LDC, but there is a misnumbering, which -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Could you speak a little bit louder. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, we can't hear you. MR. LENBERGER: I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? I apologize. There is a misnumbering in the code. And I can show you, actually, because I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- what I -- MR. LENBERGER: So, anyway, the way the code reads, it would imply that it applies countywide, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intention -- MR. LENBERGER: -- there is an error in the LDC that needs to be corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that being corrected with this amendment? MR. LENBERGER: No, it's not. I did not bring it up. It was brought to my attention, but I could add that to this amendment, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be wise, however this is going to get cleaned up, it get cleaned up comprehensively. So, yes, I think it would be a good thing to add. Does this Item D that's being removed or that's being suggested to be removed, does its presence there have an impact on property owners? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In what way? MR. LENBERGER: Well, it would be the cost of developing a property. It was brought out, but UMAM's scores in assessing wetland functionality and removal of exotics counts as a significant portion of mitigation. And staff looked at this, and we would have to analyze UMAM scores with exotic removal counted as lift, as it was mentioned earlier, and also UMAM scores without lift and look at comparisons. We haven't, as staff, worked out details on how that analysis will be done, but we would have to start with two sets of UMAM scores and require additional mitigation if exotic removal is counted during project permitting with the Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, I think we've heard enough results that this has an impact on property owners which are stakeholders in regards to this particular LDC amendment. Page 39 of 64 1612 Ma Y 3, 2012 My concern is not right now about whether it should be in or out but how it got there in the first place. The Planning Commission is a required element of the process for LDC amendments and the LDC language before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, and I know the board can make changes. But is there anything that addresses the extend of the changes they can make before it should go back for rereview by the Planning Commission? Because this particular item is unique, apparently, now to Collier County to this one area of property, and was added after the Planning Commission discussion. And I've heard no testimony to say it was even brought up to the Planning Commission. And at the time it was added, obviously, the stakeholders may not have had the opportunity to weigh in on it because it may not have been understood to be to the level of understanding it is today in regards to cost to a property owner. Is there any criteria that you know of that requires those kind of changes when they're that substantial to come back to the Planning Commission for review? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm not aware of any county policies or any case law that directs the extent of the changes that can be made by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does staff have any knowledge as to how this came about to be? I mean, you heard some testimony today. Can you find -- do you have confirmation of that? Do you have any minutes of meeting that you've reviewed that show how this got introduced? MR. LENBERGER: I don't. I wasn't involved with the process, and there was a lot of meetings for the LDC amendments and for the GMP. It would be quite an undertaking. I would have to look to staff that was here, and even then, you know, their recollection may not be the best on the history on -- Bill Lorenz may want to add to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Bill. It's been tossed to you. You're crawling down in your seat now. MR. LORENZ: Unfortunately, like Bob, I was around at the time. The general recollection is kind of the way Bob phrased it, and Brad as well. I kind of remember Brad making a presentation to the board, and then that's when it got into the -- into the code as a change at the board level. But that's my -- that's just a general recollection that I had. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you get minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody have any other questions on this particular one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's coming back, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it needs to come back, but it needs to come back with some research on that Florida statute, which is 373.414(18). I'd like to -- confirmation, too, on whether or not a substantial change that impacts property owners to this level should have come back to the Planning Commission for review. And I certainly would like to find out if staff can find any -- and I don't mean -- I know you said it could be an exhaustive review, I'm not asking you to do that. But if there's some way you can pinpoint how this actually happened -- because if this was just slipped in between the boards, I'm very uncomfortable leaving it in. And I'm just telling you that straight up, because consistency is important in this county in our codes, and if there's not a good reason for this to be here, one that couldn't have been aired properly in the public, I'm very concerned then how it got here. So I want to understand how it got here to the best we can. And for that reason, I would suggest it come back to us for further discussion. Is that in concurrence with everybody on this panel? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And another thing I wouldn't mind seeing is keep in D but add the word "unless" after it, and then figure out what could happen that would cause you to still be able to constitute mitigation. MR. LENBERGER: I'm sorry. I'm having a very difficult time hearing you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it is is keep in D, don't scratch it out, add the word "unless." In other words, what it's saying is you can't count it towards mitigation, and I'm getting to "unless," and see if you can think of something to do that would allow that to still count for mitigation. MR. LENBERGER: You know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you can't do it by the 17th, I think that's fine; we can just keep it moving until you get to it. But this one has a bigger impact than I think was led to believe at the time it was just added. And I Page 40 of 64 16 2 A2 May 3, 2012 think we need to understand those impacts, especially to the property owners, before we get too far. MR. LENBERGER: Well, I could -- well, I could post Brad's question to stakeholders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you should. MR. LENBERGER: And I can report back about the comments I get. That would probably be the best way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: One thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I appreciate that. I just think with respect to that, that's kind of somewhat what the EAC suggested as well, at least certain members of the EAC. There's only five members there. That, in my view -- I mean, I don't think anyone objects if you want to propose a certain public policy thing that's going to apply countywide. Let's have the public - policy debate, let's invite the stakeholders and, as you suggested, Mr. Chainnan, let's have a process. But I don't know that you're going to get the kind of involvement that you want by just changing Paragraph D right now to say less -- unless the following exists. It really needs to be -- it's a significant issue, it really is, and it needs to be debated with all of the affected property owners and everybody else involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there was nothing indicated by this board as a whole that we're buying off on that. Brad just asked the question. And as a board member, he has an absolute right to ask that question and see what kind of information he can get from staff, and that's all we're doing. It's a research exercise at this point. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and I think it's a very -- this one's a very troubling one more from an aspect from me as to how it got here and why is it inconsistent with the rest of our codes. And I certainly will be looking to that as part of the decision process as it comes back to us. Steve, did you have anything else you wanted to add, or are we done with this one? MR. LENBERGER: I think we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Let's move on to -- we're at No. 6, 5.05.08, architectural and site design standards. MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, principal planner with the comprehensive section. I also do review for compliance with architectural standards of the Land Development Code. In your packets you have two amendments, a couple of amendments to the architectural standards. And today I will also be presenting an amendment that was recommended by the Development Services Advisory Council, DSAC, and a suggestion from them as well for your consideration. In your packets you have two amendments. One has to do with how building facades -- how building elevations look, and it's what they call the code -- the code calls primary facades requirements. Buildings that front or are along a private or a public street are required to meet certain features for facades. And the code has five options, from which two needs to be selected in order to meet those primary facade requirements. Now, the facades that do not front streets do not need to meet those requirements except if you are within a shopping center or unified development plan. Buildings that are within shopping centers or unified development plans, every facade, every elevation needs to meet primary facade requirements. Now, the primary facade requirements that are in the code -- as I said, there are a set of options, and there are five. For shopping centers they have two additional ones. But the five options that most buildings have are features that you typically encounter on the front of a facade, a percentage of window, a covered entry with a percentage of window, a covered walkway, tower. As I said, there's a series of features. A porte cochere is another option -- series of features that you typically encounter in the front of a building. Now, buildings that are within shopping centers, as I said, are also required to meet two of these five requirements in every facade. And what we've found through the years is that those buildings have -- are having a hard time meeting primary facades requirements in every elevation of the building. So the amendment is to allow buildings that are within shopping centers or unified development plans not to have to meet one of the facades, one of the elevations, not to have to meet the primary facade elevation. They still have to meet the rest of the requirements. And, you know, the architectural standards do not allow things like, you Page 41 of 64 1612 AZ #3,2012 know, blank walls or -- you know, there's other features that the facades will have to meet, but the amendment, what -- the intent of the amendment is to exempt one of the elevations within a shopping center that does not front the exterior of the development to not have to meet the primary facade requirements, so that's one of the amendments. And I can stop there and discuss it if you want, or I can go to the next one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One at a time. MS. VALERA: One at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was a group of architects that worked on the architectural standards. MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This was a topic that we discussed at length. And if you look at D, what we've done is we've added two additional primary facade requirements only available to outparcels. MS. VALERA: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what they intend to do is to block and to prevent exactly what you want to allow, which is the back -of- building concept. So there have been some -- I mean, a great example is pay way, which is used as to put a courtyard. And if you read D, it makes sense, (13)(1), to totally block the utility side of the building, which a building in a shopping center is visible on all four sides. Some cases, all four sides are visible from streets in a corner shopping center. So this is not a new topic. The thing that has to be done is you have the option of choosing additional options here for the ease of building the utility side of a building, a place to put your dumpsters, a place to put your power, all that stuff that's normally on the wall of the building. So to invent something -- which this is the only place secondary facade would exist. To invent a concept of secondary facade is really inventing a concept of having a backup building, which is what you do not want in a shopping center in a free - standing building. MS. VALERA: And I agree with you. There's two other options for those buildings that are within a shopping center, and you have them right there in your packet, is Roman Numeral I and H under D. And I tell you, the option of the courtyard, except for just that development that you've mentioned, it's never been used except for that one. And what we have is that every other building, every other option -- every other development that we have approved uses, the Number 11, Roman numeral, which is the trellis. And so what we have now in the county is a lot of buildings within shopping centers with a lot of trellises with climbing plants, which is okay. I mean, it is definitely an option that is in the code, but I guess my concern is that it is the only option for buildings that are within a shopping center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, again, we all considered that, and nobody wanted -- what you're actually giving as your reason to consider a -- and you quote it, back of building. Nobody felt a back of building is something that should be built in the town and came up with ways to design around it that would not be difficult for someone building a building. Essentially, their dumpsters are in containers anyways. In these areas -- and I've seen more than one. This does address it. And I would not want to drop the requirement and then start driving around the back of buildings and finding, you know, power systems exposed but, you know, the can wars (sic) for a restaurant, all that outside. MS. VALERA: I don't believe the code will allow to have all those elements exposed, because the code still will require that, you know, equipment, et cetera, be concealed from view. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, drive down Wiggins Pass, 41 and, you know, count the electrical disconnects in plain view. MS. VALERA: And, I'm sorry, I cannot hear you well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said, if you go down on Wiggins Pass and 41, the building there, the disconnects are facing the Main Street, I mean. MS. VALERA: Yes, yes. And I think the intent of this amendment is to allow one facade not to meet primary facade requirement, but that facade cannot be on the exterior of the building, meaning if that facade was facing Wiggins Pass or 41, it could not be a secondary facade. At least that was the intent of the amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it is visible from the parking and everything within the shopping center? Page 42 of 64 16 12 A2 4May 3, 2012 MS. VALERA: Yes, it would be; it would be, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not a fan of this because I think that there are options in the code now that can cover the intent of making the, quote, backside of a building not very expensive. MS. VALERA: As I said, I bring it for discussion because it's been very difficult for developers out there to meet the code. So, again, I'm just bringing it for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Carolina, Brad had mentioned that there was an architectural committee that worked on these. MS. VALERA: Yes, oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were they consulted with regard to these change? MS. VALERA: No, they were not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why don't you just take these to them and comeback to us after that's done? MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a smart move, since they were the original committee. MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would love to hear their input. What's fair is fair, and that would be the fair way to approach it. MS. VALERA: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is good, Mark. And it was a topic of conversation for a long time. MS. VALERA: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these were methods so that it would not be a burden on developers. MS. VALERA: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if they can't meet it, you know, you can tell us -- give us examples of why they couldn't meet it. Not now, at that meeting. MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you had a second part you wanted to discuss? MS. VALERA: Yes, a second portion of this proposal is to -- it has to do with projects that are allowed to request deviations from the architectural standards. The code presently allows certain projects, especially those that are non - retail type of businesses, you know, the churches, schools, et cetera, to request a deviation, and it's an administrative process, to present alternative designs that meet the intent of the code, except that the code does not allow projects that are within PUDs to request deviations. And so, as I said, those projects that will normally be allowed to request deviation, if they are within a PUD, they are not allowed. And as you know, because, you know, it's in front of you all the time, when someone comes for a request for planned unit development, they are requesting, you know, the zoning. They're not -- there's some details. And I know you get into a lot of the details of the project, but the level of details that are in the architectural standards are not there yet at the PUD rezone stage. And so when they come for the Site Development Plan and they do have all the details of the buildings that they want to impose, they encounter themselves at times with, you know, a hard time having to meet the requirements, and they are not able to go through the deviation process which, as I said, is allowed for any other building in the county to request. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a point of order. Is that something we have in our packets? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 3. MS. VALERA: Yes. It should -- it's Page 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 3,4A, Roman Numeral VI(A). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think I'm of the same position, just take it to the committee. Let them come back with it and see if it sounds reasonable. I'd like to hear what they've got to say on it, since they're the ones that initiated this in the first place. MS. VALERA: Okay. Then let me present to you next recommendation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay? Well, before you go too far -- that was just my opinion. Is that okay with everybody here? Page 43 of 64 b12 A Ma� 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. MS. VALERA: Caroline's going to help me pull this recommendation up. So you should have it now in your screens. The Development Services Advisory Council -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have it on our screen. MS. CILEK: Hold on one second. There we go. MS. VALERA: The Development Services Advisory Council, DSAC, is recommending that we also amend another portion of the architectural standards that has to do with the spandrel panels. And basically what the amendment will allow is to allow spandrel panels to count as percentage of glazing, and I kind of suspect what you're going to tell me now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I can -- unless somebody else has an objection, why are we the first -- we should not be looking at this until the committee that initiated these architectural standards had a chance to opine on it. That's absolutely fair. MS. VALERA: Right. Well, let me let -- tell you what the other portion of the DSAC recommendation was, and it was to take to the Board of County Commissioners, you know, with your recommendation to present the -- an idea to go back and assess the architectural standards of the Land Development Code through a committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we had -- if the committee can reconvene and start working on this, I think that's great. If the times change and we need to change the codes, we should be doing it. So I think that's a great thing, not a bad thing, but at least they get to see it and -- MS. VALERA: And the staff is in agreement with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we don't try to supersede their recommendations. I have great respect for the professionalism of the architects. And if they've got some good criteria that we need to know about, by God, they should be telling us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, by the way, this is a disaster. I mean, what this part of the code said is that you can't have fake windows but, obviously, it addresses the fact that in curtain wall design, the high -rise curtain wall, there is portions of that curtain wall that are spandrel, and those are allowed. Those are not considered fake windows. MS. VALERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is saying you can do fake windows, which means you're going to have these fake little black windows all over the place counting as the window area of a building, which is precisely what that committee did not want to have happen. You'll have these fake little windows on roofs. I mean, that's not what Collier County's based on. So we were saying you get credit for windows if it's a window, not some little decorative plaque on the side of a building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we're all in agreement, then, it should go to the committee? And, Caroline, if these need to have a more general rewrite and consideration, and the committee is willing to take that on, you may consider not moving forward with these until the committee has the time to do it adequately and come back to us with a different cycle of LDC amendments, if that's what's required. I would rather see it done right than put through in kind of an incomplete process. MS. VALERA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, because it will mean time, you know, from staff. And, you know, to put together this committee, we will need the direction from the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, whatever process you've got to go through, I think that's the more correct way to do it. I applaud the fact that the private sector and CBIA and others are starting to opine on some of these codes, because most of the time nobody even knows they're going through, so we'll get a better product. But at the same time, I think we've got to respect the process that was there to initiate it. And that's all I'm suggesting we do. I think everybody on this panel is probably in agreement with that. Thank you. MS. CILEK: Great. We will do that. Thank you for your recommendation. MS. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This -- do we still have No. 7, the certificates of public adequate facilities? Is that on for today? Page 44 of 64 1612 A 2 I May 3, 2012 MS. CILEK: Yes, it is, and I believe it can be discussed in a couple minutes. So if Amy would like to present that. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Is there a lunch break today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're going to take lunch after this. I'm trying to get through the LDC amendments so staff doesn't have to sit here. MS. CILEK: This will be the last one, and it's in your binder, No. 10.02.07(C) 1 through 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hi, Amy. How are you? We don't normally get to see you here. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. This is a Board of County Commissioners directed amendment. It is simply removing the specific payment requirements from the Land Development Code and putting in a reference to the consolidated impact fee ordinance, which is Chapter 74 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. The other provisions related to the certificate of adequate public facilities program remain, but what's happening is as the board adjusts the payment requirements for a certificate of adequate public facilities, it's been reduced from 50 percent to five payments of 20 percent, now to 33 percent. Every single time triggers a Land Development Code change. And the provisions are already contained in the consolidated impact fee ordinance, so we're going to -- this move proposes -- or this amendment proposes to just eliminate those provisions specific to payment amounts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Schiffer, second by Commissioner Ahern. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. I'm not sure what happened to Ms. Ebert, but she's not here for this one. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. We -- in our packet we also got 10.2.13. Is that for a lay hearing agenda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's for a future date. MS. CILEK: Yep. On the memo with that packet you got at the CCPC meeting last week, it said that will be reviewed on the 17th of this month. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we have two public hearings to hear and one item of new business, and we'll take a lunch break and come back at 10 after 1, and we'll resume at that time with the two public hearings on the Jaffe boat dock extension and variance. Ten after one. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back from the lunch break. When we left off, the Planning Commission had two advertised public hearings left that we postponed till as Page 45 of 64 1612 4 May 3, 2012 late today as possible, which will be now. ** *The first one is -- well, they're both going to be heard -- they're both on the same topic, so we're going to discuss them jointly and vote on them separately. When we do vote, we'll vote for the variance first and the boat dock extension second. I'll read off what they are. The variance application is VA -PL- 2011 -1576, the Jaffe variance, located at 191 Gulf Shore Drive, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates. The second one is boat dock extension BDE- PL20110001573. Again, it's the Jaffe boat dock extension at the same address. 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 affinnative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are none. Okay. It's all yours. MR. ROGERS: First off I want to -- good afternoon, Commissioners. And I want to thank you for accommodating our schedule. The applicant, the petitioner, Andrew Jaffe, is in surgery this morning. We were hoping he'd be out by lunchtime, but I guess he's not out as of yet, so he will not be here. So I apologize for that. For the record, my name is Jeff Rogers. I'm with Turrell Hall & Associates representing the petitioner, Andrew Jaffe. And as the commissioner said, we are here requesting a boat dock. extension and a variance from the required setbacks. As you can see here on the overhead, the property is located in North Naples off Gulf Shore Drive, and it has an adjacent -- well, across the street a boat dock lot that has been deeded to this property. And the history of that takes us back, way back to 1955 when this original -- this property was deeded as a boat dock lot during the process and was deeded to the property that Mr. Jaffe purchased at 191 Gulf Shore Drive. And since 1955, this property has gone through numerous exchanges of ownership. I believe it was -- I counted 10 different warranty deeds that had been issued for this particular subject property. The petitioner purchased a property basically a year ago back in June 6th of 2011 from the neighbor, Mr. Forbis, to the south of the boat dock lot. Like I said, back in 2011. And since then, Mr. Jaffe has purchased a street (sic) across the way on the beach and is currently remodeling/rebuilding the existing dock -- or the existing house, and it is going to be his full -time residence. Move forward. The petition in front of you guys today is for the dock off the subject property. As I said, it's small boat dock lot only and, therefore, is deeded to have boat dock access for two vessels. The difference of this particular property is it's located at the end of a canal, as you can see on the overhead, and has less linear footage of shoreline. Those are basically the two hardships on this one. The dock proposed -- well, the project proposed is to move the existing dock, which I'll show you is right here. I'll move it over. There you go. The subject property outlined in the red border is currently as the property sits minus the vessels. The vessels have been removed, but as you can see here on the overhead, the unique situation of this property. Luckily there is a history paper trail that we have to follow in order to determine how this came to be. We're requesting a 19 -foot boat dock extension. We're going to remove the existing dock and boat lifts and construct a finger dock that is only 116 square feet and is going to accommodate two vessels. And as you can see on this overhead here -- I'll show you the proposed design here in a minute. The existing dock, as it sit, was -- is within the riparian rights of the property. You can't really see it very well, but the riparian lines are shown. They're labeled, obviously, but there is a dashed line, red dashed line indicating the actual location of the riparian lines. And as it sits, the little white structure that's on the south end of that dock, southeast side of that dock, is over the riparian line. So as it currently was built or constructed or used, it was not in compliance with setbacks and/or within its riparian rights. Now, what we've done is we're proposing to remove it, as I said, and we're proposing a 4- foot -wide dock as shown here. So we're basically taking -- removing out the dock and proposing a 4- foot -wide finger dock protruding straight out into the waterway. As -- let me touch base on the uniqueness of this. The waterway from -- measured from our frontage, linear Page 46 of 64 16 12 A2 May 3, 2012 frontage of shoreline, is 1,420 feet wide. Granted, we know this is at the end of the canal, so that's not the typical situation on this waterway. Typically the waterway's 100 feet wide. Due to the location of this one, the width is 1,420 feet. We are proposing a 35 -foot protrusion, like I've said before. And due to the, you know, remote -- or due to the uniqueness of this property, there's really no dock design that you could do that would accommodate two vessels, which is allowed here per the LDC rules. This is zoned a single - family lot and, therefore, is allowed two vessels to be moored up on there. This is -- we've worked with it. We worked the design, Tim Hall and I, as well as the customer worked on the design, and based off what -- his wishes and his current vessels, this is what we came up with that would accommodate his use as well as be within the riparian rights of his property. With that being said, we are requesting a variance from the required setbacks from those riparian lines. The typical setback requirement is seven - and -a -half feet. Now, looking at this, I've got a drawing here that shows that seven - and -a -half foot setback, and you'll see with this picture that it would be very hard to -- virtually impossible to accommodate two vessels of any typical size within those required setbacks. As shown here on the overhead, the orange- reddish color indicates the seven - and -a -half foot setback area. The white area inside shows what would be the remaining buildable area that we would have to work with. One could argue that you could turn the dock and accommodate one vessel possibly. It would be a smaller vessel, but the applicant owns these two boats and, therefore, we have to design something to accommodate those vessels that he currently owns. And during the process of the purchase of this property from the adjacent neighbor to the south, Mr. Forbis, it was negotiated at the sale that he was purchasing these -- this property for the purpose of installing this dock and this particular dock design. Now, we do have a -- do have affidavits signed by both adjacent neighbors, one to the north and one to the south. Mr. Forbis has written a letter of no objection, but then come this week he wrote a letter of objection to us, to our surprise and, of course, to the petitioner's surprise. When Nancy Gundlach of Collier County brought that to our attention, I immediately called the petitioner, Andrew Jaffe, to discuss the issue. He was just as surprised as we were. And, basically, since then we've contacted Mr. Forbis. I've reached out to him, and we have a paper trail of all the emails back and forth. And since Mr. Jaffe (sic) did sign an affidavit or letter of no objection stating he does not object to this design -- and we have not changed that design -- he has retracted his letter of objection. And I can show you that in email. I don't have it printed out. I've forwarded it to Ray and I've forwarded it to Nancy for their review. So staff has seen that email that came this morning. They can vouch for that. With all that being said, really, what we're here for today is requesting a 19 -foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 for an overall 39 feet into a water -- water body that is approximately 1,420 feet wide. That's very -- we can argue that. With that being said, we're also asking for a variance for zero setbacks from the -- from the retired seven - and -a- half -foot setbacks. As I said, you know, there's really no other design that could work, and I open the floor to questions, if the commissioners have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go Phil and then Brad. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I have a number of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, we're taking both the variance and the boat dock extension simultaneously, so ask from both packages, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now, the property in question here, that the dock -- proposed dock -- or the existing dock is attached to is a boat dock lot. Is that defined differently in the LDC than what's referenced in your application here as a single- family home which has certain rights associated with it with respect to the number of slips? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. The difference between this boat dock lot -- we're calling it a boat dock lot. It's not your typical boat dock lot in regards to Collier County normal boat dock lots. There's only a few areas that actually have boat dock lots, and one of them being -- the main one that I can recall is up off Little Hickory on the north end of -- on the south side of Bonita Beach Road, off Third Street. And those docks -- those boat dock lots are allowed to have zero setbacks. They're basically plotted boat dock lots, and you're allowed to maximize your water foot frontage of that property. Page 47 of 64 161 2 A t� A., 1V., 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I know Ray's about to interrupt, and so am 1. Phil, you hit on a question that is really pertinent. Can you show us any document that you have that calls this a boat dock lot? MR. ROGERS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. That takes care of one. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to add that a boat dock lot in Collier County was approved -- is approved through a conditional use as the ones on the Vanderbilt area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BELLOWS: This has no conditional use or anything other than it has historically been used that way since 1955, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does a property owner selling off a piece of his land constitute a legal use without going through the right process? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. BELLOWS: As far as I know, it would not unless it preexisted the LDC. In'55 I think it probably did. It looks that way to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in'55 this still was not called a boat dock lot. MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was simply the north 50 feet of Parcel 14. And what Phil has hit upon was one of the biggest flaws I found in your argument. And when you said that this morning, you kept referring to it as a boat dock lot. I don't know how you got there. So I think that the record doesn't support it being called that. You can call it whatever you want, but I don't think a boat dock lot, as defined, is one that fits this lot. So, go ahead, Phil. I'm sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, that's okay. That's where I'm having some issues. Your variance is, I think, predicated -- my words, not yours -- on the fact that the Jaffe residence across the street is entitled to have two slips associated with a dock coming out of that piece of ground across the street at the end of the canal. Is that -- those are my words, not yours, right? MR. ROGERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't understand that connection. To me that's a pretty long reach. If Mr. -- my example, if Mr. Forbis had decided to sell Phil Brougham that 50 foot of land at the end of that canal and I live in Fiddler's Creek, how many slips would I be allowed to put on that dock by code? MR. ROGERS: Two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. ROGERS: Two vessels. No? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Whoops. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, excuse me for butting in, but I think this issue has to be resolved before we go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And, Phil, you've got right to the point. And, I mean, that's the biggest issue with this whole thing. Brad, you're 100 percent right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have -- this is a subdivision. You cannot sell off your backyard in a subdivision and then give it the rights of a lot. This is still part of Lot 14. I mean, the subdivision's been amended but never to isolate this piece of property. So, yes, it could be described; anything you can describe, you can sell. Look at Wall Street. But -- but this could be described, but it doesn't have the rights. In other words, you're finding a riparian land coming off of a description of a piece of property in Mr. Forbis' backyard. I mean, right now Mr. Forbis and this other guy are partners on Lot 14, but it's not an individual lot. And it can't, any time, be expected to get the rights of a lot. It's a nonconforming lot even. MR. ROGERS: I can't argue with you on that. We are just following what has historically been done here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, did want to -- can you help out? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The reason I supported the petition or signed off on it was my understanding that this isn't a free - standing lot, that it was, in fact, deeded to the lot across the street, and it's now part of that property. Page 48 of 64 1612 A2 La y 3, 2012 So, therefore, it's not a free - standing nonconforming lot, because it would be deemed an unbuildable lot because it doesn't meet the minimum lot area. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I don't believe -- I haven't reviewed all the chain of title. This is not my particular project. But, generally, when you have a platted roadway, the property owner owns to the center line of the road. So since he owns parcels on either side of the road, he owns one parcel that's severed by an easement for a road. So it seems to me it's RSF3, and you're entitled to boats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Heidi, this is platted subdivision. You can't go within a subdivision and start describing little pieces of land and have it have the rights of the lot. This is a part of Lot 14. He's never called it part of Lot 34 on the block across the way. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, this one's -- well, that's because that's how you would describe the legal. But this one is unique in that it -- this has enjoyed this particular configuration since 1955. It's not like somebody now could go and create one of these. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why -- when the subdivision was revised in, like, mid'60s, why wasn't that lot shown? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can't answer that question. And, again, I don't have the benefit of looking at the file. I'm just looking at the documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a subdivision is a method in which you organize land, you plat it, and you can't then start to describe things by legal description. I mean, it's a subdivision. And that would mean that this little area could have four boats in that area, so this is a way to circumvent the rights of the landowners by cutting out pieces of their backyard and selling it and getting the rights of two boats per piece. I mean, makes no sense. MR. BELLOWS: One other point. Any property owner can sell off a portion of their property to an adjacent property owner as long as they don't result in a nonconforming situation on their own. Now, if the lot where this appendage came off of is still conforming, he can sell that off. But it can't be a buildable lot if it's not attached to something else that makes it conforming in some other way. So if it was deeded to the Jaffe residence across the street and is part of that larger lot, then it is conforming in that regard, and they have some rights to the dockage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is a plat. That roadway -- MR. BELLOWS: You can sell off a portion of a platted lot -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Gulf Drive -- Gulf Drive -- MR. BELLOWS: -- without replatting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is not -- the people do not own to the center of a road on this platted situation. This is not out in the Estates. This is a subdivision. The subdivision has roadways, right -of -ways platted. So what you're saying is that they can own the land in the -- they don't own the land in the roadway. It's certainly not on the plat. It's not part of their legal description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is the way -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I've written opinions since the'90s that generally they do own to the middle of the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And they're encumbered by an easement unless it expressly states that it's fee - simple. Again, I haven't reviewed this subdivision plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, look at the plat. Here it is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But those are the general principles. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a road that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there is a way that we might be able to find out a little bit closer if this is a combined lot. The tax assessor's office does let you combine lots. Has this lot been joined with the lot across the street? Because if it isn't, then they're two separate lots. MR. ROGERS: To my knowledge, no, it has not. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couple more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why wouldn't they have done that? Go ahead, Phil. Sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a couple more points that I want to pick at on this application, and then get back to the more central issue, I think. Page 49 of 64 1612 A2 Ma� 3, 2012 Supposedly, there's a 35- foot -long boat dock for the neighbor to the north of the subject site. Is that that little dock that I see in the other 50 -foot lot? Is that north? MR. ROGERS: Where are you talking about exactly? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm looking at -- look what's on the visualizer. That -- to me that's what I'm looking at. MR. ROGERS: Oh, yeah. That -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's a 35 -foot lot that's sticking out of that other 50 -- I'll say 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you know if that other one to the north was sold off, Phil? So you're saying it's a 50 -foot lot to the north, but isn't that still connected? MR. ROGERS: It's part of -- it's connected to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so that's why it's not a 50 -foot lot. MR. ROGERS: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, my question is more, that's a 35 -foot dock? MR. ROGERS: Uh -huh. Oh, I -- I don't know. I didn't measure that dock. I would guess -- no, it's probably 20, 25. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. It was stated in my document that immediately to the north has an existing approximately 35- foot -long boat dock. I guess that can't be verified. And can you speak to the hardship issue here, which is, I think, one of the central arguments? MR. ROGERS: The hardship here is the uniqueness and the history of it. The uniqueness in regards to its location and it being a separate parcel or looked at as a separate parcel and also, then, the riparian lines coming out of the corners or -- there's a couple hardships here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To your knowledge, when Mr. Jaffe purchased this particular piece of property, was he aware of the riparian property lines and the uniqueness of this? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So he bought into the hardship? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So hardship is not something that's new? MR. ROGERS: No. But when he was closing in the closing process, he had both neighbors at that time sign off on the proposed dock design that he's now proposing here. In order to -- to let -- inform them that that's what he's -- his intentions are, of building this dock, and that's why we have two letters of no objection from them signing off on the proposed dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish making things legal was that simple. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is it appropriate if I ask one clarification to the staff report as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Everything, go right on through it, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Under recommendation, Ray or -- MR. BELLOWS: Of the variance or the boat dock? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On the variance -- you say your recommendation of approved -- subject to the approval of the companion boat dock extension petition, blah - blah - blah -blah, and issuance of a certificate of occupancy for building permit number, whatever, ending in 4314, what is that -- how does a building permit come into this equation? MR. BELLOWS: The Land Development Code requires that you cannot have an accessory use such as a dock without a principle structure or principle use. In this case the principle use is the dwelling. And since they've destroyed, or are rehabbing the original by removing it -- right now, my understanding, the site's vacant. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: So we just want to make sure they don't do the dock without the dwelling. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I couldn't make the link. That's all I had right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad, did you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me continue on. And I --you know, Heidi, give me a binary answer, yes or no, is that that is a legally described lot such that we can figure riparian rights off of it and they can build -- you know, it's part of Lot 14, but you're saying once they describe it and sell it and, you know -- you know, it does go back. I think Eve sold it to Adam to start this. Page 50 of 64 1612 2 May 3, 2012 It does go back, but the point is, that how can you, just by describing things, create a lot? And the reason that's an important question, there's probably about 10 other ones like this. And before everybody in Connors come running in here and selling off the lots and duplicating, you know, the boats in the backyard -- so you're 100 percent sure that this is a lot, and they can figure riparian rights off of the property lines accordingly? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Based on the fact that it's been in existence since the 1950s, 1955, yes. I don't think that people can start selling off parts of their lots and create new lots and then entitle additional boat docks. I don't think you can do that. But in this case because it was an existing dock and it's been sold for, you know, how many years now, as one lot, then, yes, I do think he's got riparian rights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why is it being picked up in the replats and everything? I mean, this Connors Point's (sic) been replatted since then. I mean, why did they not start to show this as a legal piece of property? I mean, to me I -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think it's not a legal piece of property, so -- and I think -- you know, I think he's got rights that if we take them away the county will have some significant exposure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And Mr. Forbis, who's his partner on Lot 14, he has the ability to put in two more boats. Because the lot -- per lot, you're only allowed two boats. So what we're saying right now is per lot or per description, you're allowed as many boats -- two times how many descriptions you can get on your property. I mean -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think there's criteria you have to look at when you have a boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I'll -- the attorney says it's a legal lot that, yes, those are the riparian lines that are appropriate, then we'll go there. But the danger is everybody now in Connors can run in and sell that little nip on the back of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think she qualified her statement by the fact it was a legal lot because it was created back in the 1950s, but it couldn't be done the same way today. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, current codes would prohibit that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the difference, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll ask some questions later on the boat dock part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: The boat dock that exists, aside from that floating dock, which is not legal -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- it meets all of Collier County's criterion? MR. ROGERS: No. The dock -- no, it does not. COMMISSIONER VONIER: It does not? MR. ROGERS: No. COMMISSIONER VONIER: The existing dock does not? MR. ROGERS: No, it's not providing -- the vessel on the dock, which is part of the dock, is not providing the required setbacks. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. Second question. The adjacent lot, 14, has 75 feet of frontage and this has 50. So looking at 75 feet and his ability to put in two boats, I think it's going to get pretty tight. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir, it is, but you could definitely design something that would accommodate the property owner to the south's wishes and get two vessels in there. It's not a perfect situation; that's why this is so difficult to get this approved, but historically this is what's been done and, you know, we'd have to reverse what's been done. I mean, not -- you know, I definitely know we could fit something in there. And as the dock sits, go back to your other question, that is out past the 20 feet so -- and it does not have a DBE approval as well. So as that dock sits, it's encroaching on the setbacks as well as it's past the 20 foot. We're trying to make a wrong a right the best way we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. I notice another boat. Does that belong to Lot 13? MR. ROGERS: No. It -- are you talking about this here? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. ROGERS: I believe, by the looks of the -- if you look and see in the water, the turbidity screen that's Page 51 of 64 1612 AZ May 3, 2012 floating there, I believe that's a barge that just happened to be at that place doing some sort of -- I don't know, some sort of work. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Now, this is not a clear picture, so I'm thinking, all right, he's got this, and if Lot 14 -- there's no home on Lot 14,1 take it? MR. ROGERS: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And -- but you feel that they can go out and put in two boats out there also? MR. ROGERS: Yes, ma'am. It would be considerably tight, but they could definitely work something out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And the one across -- on the northern portion there is also a dock there. Does that belong to the other residents across the street next to Mr. Jaffe? MR. ROGERS: No, ma'am. That property is owned by the residents of the one to the north of us. He owns that whole L of the seawall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. He owns the whole L. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your opening statement you said that this lot is zoned single - family. Do you still stand by that statement? MR. ROGERS: Right now I'm unsure, but -- yes, sir, I believe -- that is my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you consider this 50 -by -30 -foot square lot a single - family lot? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that that lot was deeded to the Jaffe residence lot across the way, so together it conforms a single - family lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not combined in the tax assessor map, so -- they've not combined them -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think I go back to what Heidi was saying is it was done back in the'50s as deeded to the Jaffe residence lot. And then, because it's not a free - standing lot in and of itself -- and I would agree with you, if it was created as a free - standing lot on its own, that it's an unbuildable lot. But since -- my understanding of the way it was explained to me is that it was deeded to the Jaffe residence lot and, therefore, is a conforming lot of record which has rights to have the dock, even though it -- even though the street crosses over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the preapp, staff said -- I guess it was -- Mike Sawyer, apparently, was talking to somebody from your organization, maybe you, Jeff -- MR. ROGERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- note, nonconforming existing dock and -- I'm not sure what the next word -- also provide info regarding other comparable dock facilities within the area, single, canal, and locations. Did you do that? MR. ROGERS: There are none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are none. MR. ROGERS: That I could find on Gulf Shore Drive, that mimic this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: At least on the three canals or the two canals north of us. Those western portions of those properties were not -- they're a part of the single - family residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I played around with your buildable area, and you can fit a boat in that buildable area with a dock without protruding on the setbacks. You can do it if you don't want an oversized boat. The fact that this guy has two boats and he wants to fit them in there is a hardship that he created, and self - created hardships aren't reasons to provide variances. I -- and I especially am concerned that when you put a 35 -foot boat in there and you've got a 100 -foot lot that has 30 of it taken away, is down to 70, and of the 70, over half of it's being blocked by a boat, I don't see how that's fair to the adjoining property owner. And by the way, that's nothing to do with Mr. Forbis or his letter, because I had that conclusion before he wrote his letter. I don't particularly like his style in his letter, so it didn't -- I didn't pay much heed to it. But, the point is, it does block that property substantially when you can actually fit a boat and a dock in there, maybe 20- or 25- foot -long boat, but I don't -- so I don't buy into the hardship fact. I'm having a hard time. And then why is it a hardship in this county if you can't have two boats? I mean, I don't get it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean -- Page 52 of 64 M y 3, 2012 16 12 A2 COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's not a hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's ludicrous to think that everybody is entitled to two boats. What the code says, you may -- you may ask for two boats. Doesn't mean you're going to -- it's a hardship if you can't have the two. MR. ROGERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm having a real hard time with your variance. I think a boat dock extension would be warranted if it was within the setbacks, provided your dock configuration was different, but you've got a dock configuration that doesn't work in front of us today. So I have a problem with both of your applications today on that basis. And I'm just letting you know, I haven't found a way around it yet. And if we start deciding hardships are because you can't have two boats, that's a -- that's a strange trail to get going down. Anyway. MR. ROGERS: I didn't mean to interrupt you, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. MR. ROGERS: In my mind, you know, the biggest hardship here is the fact that the riparian lines are very restrictive, and that's just due to the uniqueness of the location of the property and, you know, that goes back to the 1955s when this was originally established. So it -- you can fit a vessel in there, you know, like you said, as shown here, but, you know, that's the area that you have to work with that Mark was talking about. And I can't argue that we couldn't fit a boat in there, but the petitioner came to us with the vessels in his ownership, and he thought he was doing the right thing at the closing in crossing the bridge, so to speak, with the neighbors at that time in making sure that they were okay with the proposed dock and vessels that were going to be stored there, and at that time they signed off on it. Can't speak for Mr. Forbis in his confusion, but he's come back to say as long as it matches what he signed originally, he's okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, again, even -- the neighbors don't dictate the codes and laws here, and for them to decide it's okay, that doesn't mean it's okay. You've still got to meet the -- MR. ROGERS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thresholds of our rules, and I just don't see how you've done it -- so anyway. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, you know what I'd kind of like to see here is if he and Mr. Forbis get together and let them design how they want to put these boats in here. Because when you look at -- you're saying it's a nonconforming thing on the 45, but that's about the only thing that makes sense so far because it looks like a boat dock place where both of them could use it. It may be, you know, going down the riparian line -- which I don't even yet believe with the riparian line, but that might catch up later. But, you know, let them sit down and design the backyard here, because this is definitely, to me, one lot. The fact that you've found a way to get four boats on it instead of two is -- we'll let it go as clever. But I do think that it has to work for everybody, and he can't ignore the Lot 14, which it still is a part of. It's always been described as a part of it. No one ever, you know, attached it across the street. They sold them together. They deeded them together, but they never joined them together. So I really -- it would be difficult for me to even really give a good opinion on this unless you work something out with Mr. Forbis and showed how you're going to put four boats there, then we can start worrying about what the other neighbors are going to think, because there are people across the canal, people who have to look at this, and maybe they don't want four boats in there. So let's get -- if we have to have four, let's make the four work together. The way you're doing it now, you're blocking his ability to come out, too. MR. ROGERS: Well, we're coming out as one, one property owner, and we're -- you know, we took the approach where we're worrying about him and trying to accommodate the best we can for Mr. Forbis. I understand it's not a good situation no matter what -- no matter what we do here in regards to dock design and slip layout. You know, state and federally it would be difficult for Mr. Jaffe to get a permit that authorized his vessel and/or dock to cross over his riparian lines. You know, that's at the state and federal level. That's something that we could work out, potentially. Page 53 of 64 AZ 1612 May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at -- the original design has these boats on 45. So, essentially, they pull away from their docks and they go into the center of the channel. They don't cut across, you know, the backyard or the dock area of Mr. Forbis. Those boats look like they've been designed -- and you're right, there's nothing perfect there, but you're not coming in with that. That big boat can pull out into the center of the channel and not block the Forbis site. MR. HALL: Sorry. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall & Associates, and I think I understand the concerns that the Planning Commission has been expressing. In terms of the riparian lines, did you say you had a question or you were confused about how those related to each other or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's -- I mean, the one that's obviously going east/west is a riparian -- is a property line with a riparian. Somebody did a legal description defining a piece of property -- and now I'm starting to think this is actually competing with Wall Street in cleverness. But they defined a piece of property, and now we're -- you know, they just defined something out of an existing lot, and now we're giving it riparian rights. MR. HALL: Well, I mean, it's a deeded lot. It's been through 10 or 11 different transitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a lot. You can't use the word "lot," because it's not. It's never been a lot. MR. HALL: Okay. It's a deeded piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's been legally -- it's been legally -- MR. HALL: It's a property that has specific ownership, okay. There's a gentleman that has a defined area that he owns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's been legally defined, and somebody in Iceland might have bought it. But go ahead. MR. HALL: Okay. Well, that -- because that property is on the water, there are riparian rights associated with it, which -- and riparian rights are basically, if you own property on the water, you have the right to access that property from the water. And there are -- the ways that they define those riparian lines, generally, they start at the mean -high water line or where the water meets the shore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know how they define it. If -- my problem isn't with the riparian line. My problem is, does it have the rights for riparian line. And we can move off of that. MR. HALL: No, I mean if it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If Heidi says it does, it does, so -- MR. HALL: And in terms of interfering with the riparian rights or the riparian lines of the owner to the south, you know, this design doesn't. If you look at how those lines -- if you look at how they line up, I mean, where the edge of the property -- the property to the south here and this property where they adjoin, that riparian line would come off a 45- degree angle to the center of the waterway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we're allowed a riparian line, that's the one you'd be allowed. MR. HALL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm with you there. MR. HALL: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is, too, is that since everyone's known about this lot and everybody's known about riparian lines and everybody's known about setbacks, what is the hardship then other than they can't, you know, take overadvantage of it? I mean, this is a very small lot so, obviously, shouldn't they be entitled to a very small boat? What would make them think that they should have the rights of somebody -- you know, a 39 -foot boat, let's say 40, that's an 80- foot -wide lot. MR. HALL: If you look at the boat that's there now on the aerials, that's a 32 -foot boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HALL: But it's not there legally. It's there -- well, I mean, I guess it is there. It's grandfathered in, but it doesn't meet the setback or boat dock extension criteria that the county has in place now. So if he wants to upgrade that dock or change it, he has to become compliant with what the codes are now, which is what we're trying to do. And in taking that, what was a -- the 35 -foot boat and doing the design, it was to move it as far away from that property to the south as possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if this guy wanted a variance to build what's there, he'd have a Page 54 of 64 16 12 • ` 2 May 3, 2012 friend in me. But what he's trying to do, the way he's trying to aim it down the channel and, essentially, make it difficult for the other lot and, essentially, put it in full view of the other lot, I'm not with that yet. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one more question; might be rhetorical. What if -- well, I -- what if he did nothing? In other words, you say this is nonconforming and a boat that's currently -- I assume is currently docked there is not, quote- unquote, legal; it's grandfathered in, I guess. But if this petition were denied and it was not appealed and ultimately approved, what harm is there then? I mean, how is this gentleman harmed? What would he have to do? He could keep his boat. He could keep the dock as legal nonconforming; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No harm, no foul. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The existing situation can continue into the future. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can or can't? MR. BELLOWS: Can, C -a -n. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ray, let me question. MR. HALL: Except for he loses the --just to keep this right now, he then is limited to the one boat instead of the two that are there now. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Ray, he's built boat lifts and stuff. I mean, he didn't have a boat lift in 1955. 1 mean, when they installed that boat lift, Elvis Presley wasn't on the radio. MR. BELLOWS: I don't know of any code violations on this site, but there very may well be. But my understanding is it's preexisting dock, and the boat is there. I don't know how long that boat's been there, but I'm sure they've had many numerous boats over the years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's designed in a courteous position where it will pull out and not, you know, block the other people around them. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. It's -- MR. HALL: Well, I think I might disagree with you a little bit. Just if you look -- if you look at the -- can we blow that out some? This boat currently has to back into this because of the way the lift is situated and all. So to come in and out he's actually -- if this owner brought another boat in which is, you know, permitted there and has this boat here, then to get in and out of that, he's got to work around both of these in reverse to get in and out of that slip as it exists now, whereas, with what we have proposed, none of these adjoining owners are affected at all, and it makes it easier to get that boat in and out of that lot without having those -- you know, without having to come in in reverse and go around those lots -- those docks that are already there now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, actually, you've pointed out a hardship. Your boat might -- if you come perpendicular to that wall and you're within that setback, you're going to make -- that boat's got to work around the tip of you. You're much further out than you'd be -- MR. HALL: No. The way this one can come in and out into the corner, the way we have the boat sitting right now, he's not affected by it at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could discuss it. I mean, you're going to be sticking out towards the apex of that triangle. So anyway. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim and Jeff. Staff report? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Come on up, Mike. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You've got it, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon. For the record, Mike Sawyer with planning services. I actually worked on the boat dock extension for Jaffe. Nancy, my colleague, did the variance for this request. Page 55 of 64 16 1 2 A2 May 3, 2012 On the boat dock extension, you've got a staff report originally dated April 6th, revised April 11th and the 13th. As you can see, basically, what we found as staff is that they're meeting four of the five primary and four of the six secondary, with one of the secondary being nonapplicable. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer what I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll play. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll play, huh? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Primary Criteria 1, you know, the intent there is to keep it an appropriate number, kind of says for single- family use, two boats is good, right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're still claiming that these two boats belong to the house across the street? MR. SAWYER: Since'55, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- okay. I mean, the lots have never been joined. To say it's on the same lot, that isn't true. Even in the descriptions it says "and," and then describes this guy's backyard. But anyway. MR. SAWYER: Well, just to clarify one possible point, that in 'S5, this -- you know, certainly, the boat dock extension process certainly wasn't in the code at that time either. A minor point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, to me I think there's only two boats allowed on Lot 14. Even though somebody else owns part of Lot 14, that's just creative. Let me see if there's any other ones. They're claiming this, you know, the -- and because they measure perpendicular, they measured all the way across into Ohio, I think, to come up with the 1,400 feet. Do you believe that's the width of the waterway? MR. SAWYER: As I tried to point out in the staff report, in black - and -white terms, that's what the criteria says; however, in this particular case, it's very hard to make that argument, quite honestly, and that's why in the staff report I tried to go back to what the actual intent is as far as navigability, and that's how we found that it actually, you know, met that navigation. Whether this configuration is used or the existing one is is not going to affect navigation because you don't have anything -- any navigation going further west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, obviously. MR. SAWYER: Obviously. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or this boat will stop them if they try. MR. SAWYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number 5, is the -- will it interfere with the neighboring docks. When you look at that, do you look at it in terms of what's built now or what could be built later? And the intent of the question is, did you give Lot 14 the ability -- I mean, did you figure out what's going to happen on 14, what they can do to see if this is, in fact, especially with the variance, you know, interfering with their rights? MR. SAWYER: We did. Quite honestly, Lot 14, whether they come in now or later, are still going to have to go off of the riparian lines that you see on the screen right now. They're going to have to -- whatever configuration of dock they propose, whether they need an extension or not, are still going to have to go off of that 45- degree riparian line that you see, because they don't have rights to that lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But, remember, they're asking for a variance here, and that variance will make that more difficult for them, correct? MR. SAWYER: To an extent, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Hold on. There may be another. No, that's good. Thanks, Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. I'm reminded of the Isles of Capri case that we just reviewed a couple of weeks ago, and those conditions were not nearly as severe as these, and we did not allow one of the docks -- or one of the lifts to be -- to encroach on a riparian right. So this is a much worse condition in my estimation than the one we voted out in Isles of Capri. And, for the record, I looked at that as 100 - foot -wide waterway. I didn't buy your 1,400 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. Page 56 of 64 1612 A2 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. Mike, you did the boat dock extension? MR. SAWYER: Correct. May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if I had anything left. No. So I only have a couple of questions on the variance. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of the variance, of course subject to the approval of the boat dock extension and also the certificate of occupancy for the new house that's being built across the street. And it would be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have this afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the variance from Nancy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, a couple cleanup questions maybe. Page 5, did you do the aerial? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I did the aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you -- if this is appealed, or wherever it goes, you reference that lot as a boat dock lot. We now know that's improper. Could you just make that correction? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your variance criteria on Page 6, No. E, the question was, will the granting of the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. Your answer was no. And then afterwards it says, most other neighboring properties moor two vessels. Did you rely upon any kind of data, survey, or statistical information submitted to you to come to that conclusion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- MS. GUNDLACH: I had to think about that for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So our record -- we don't have anything for the record to support that conclusion? That was just something you wrote in there? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, it's based on the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you were not given any supporting data to validate that conclusion, were you? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. I just wanted to make sure -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we have data here that we're relying upon, it's accurate. And under a variance, I wanted to especially check that. So that's all I had. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the public wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any rebuttal wanted by the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys got any more you want to say before we close the public hearing? MR. HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record state that, rather than shaking his head, he actually said no off record. Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion first on the variance. Page 57 of 64 1612 ��¢� W�� 4 May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made to -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- deny, second -- by Mr. Brougham, seconded by Mr. Vonier. Discussion? I'm going to support the denial for the following reasons: The -- I believe the hard -- first of all, under variance criteria, I don't agree that they've met the criteria of Elements B, C, D, E, and F. Most of that has to do with the fact that the hardship is based upon needing two vessels. I can't see where that occurs, and also the impact on the neighboring property. But those are my reasons for denying this variance. Anybody else have any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries, 8 -1. ** *Boat dock extension. Does anybody have any comments on the boat dock extension? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I will move to deny the boat dock extension, BDE- 20110001573. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Motion made by Mr. Brougham, seconded by Mr. Vonier. Discussion? I'm going to be supporting the motion. I believe that they did not meet Primary Criteria No. 1 or No. 2, and they do not meet Secondary Criteria No. 1, 3, and 4. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll be supporting the motion but adding Criteria No. Primary 5 and Primary 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in addition to the ones I have suggested? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion to deny, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -1. Page 58 of 64 1612 A2 May 3, 2012 Thank you, all. Appreciate your time. We're done with our advertised public hearings. ** *Next item up is a new business item, and it's I IB, suggested -- by -- Brad asked for it earlier today concerning the CCPC representation at the BCC meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is actually the right roomful of people. At the Wahl presentation -- the concern I have is I don't want to second guess the BCC's judgment. That's made. That's locked. The question I have is how does our work -- I mena, we work hard on these things. How is that presented to the BCC? At the Wahl hearing, the applicant, who's standing right where he was, stated that the application was solely about safe access to the boat, okay, and repeated that. I mean, I don't agree with that, but that's what -- he's allowed to say what he wants. Nancy got up and said, staff doesn't approve -- or votes for approval. Do you have any questions? And it wasn't until midway in the hearing that the attorney actually stated, wait a minute. This is just about a boat lift, and a boat lift doesn't provide safe access. So how do we spend time like we just did, how is that supposed to be presented to the commission? MR. BELLOWS: The executive summary prepared for the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals in a case of variance and conditional uses always outlines the CCPC vote and the reasons for the vote. And it's very important, like you did on this petition, to outline the criteria and the reasons for recommending denial. That information is placed in the executive summary for the board to hear. Now, if staff -- after going through the CCPC hearing and the information presented during that CCPC hearing, if we decided that information or new information presented is enough to change our recommendation, say we were -- either support or -- whatever our recommendation was different from the Planning Commission's, but as a result of the hearing, we are now in agreement, we will note that in the executive summary that staff is changing their vote for a recommendation that was presented to the Planning Commission and are now siding with the Planning Commission based on that information presented. However, if we still feel that our recommendation is correct or we think that it should be presented as our recommendation to continue forward, we will note both, that staff disagrees with the CCPC. So that both information there -- so the Board of County Commissioners gets both recommendations when they're different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you see the problem. The staff of the Planning Commission is you guys, and you're the ones saying we want to approve this thing, which you're allowed, but you're also the ones that are supposed to be presenting our point. I mean, so what I'd like to see -- and, Heidi, it would be great if -- and, Steve, if it's a legal thing, if the legal department is kind of watching the hearing to make sure. And, again, like I said, it was Jeff well into the hearing that finally said, wait, wait, this is only about a boat lift. And I think that statements -- for example, the boat lift didn't -- doesn't have anything to do with safe access to a dock. So if someone's saying this is about safe access to a dock, somebody somewhere has got to say, wait a minute, wait a minute. It's about a boat lift. The boat will be down in the exact same position it would be with or without the lift. So, you know -- go ahead, Phil, you wanted -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, no. When it's my turn. But I just want to join in with you, Brad. I watched the BCC meeting, and I was almost beating on the TV because I felt that the fullness of the discussion that this commission had concerning those two requests was not at all presented either in black and white or verbally by the staff. And I'm new at this game. But I guess I could come up and register as a public speaker, but I don't feel appropriate doing that. I would just like to see some way that no matter what the recommendation of staff is, to approve or deny, that we have more forthcoming -- or more substance to the discussion or the debate and the conclusions and -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Rationale. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good point -- rationale that this commission put into their recommendation. Because I feel if the commissioners, A, didn't read the executive summary -- I'm not accusing that -- or didn't ask the right questions, then our discussion in substance wouldn't have been presented or was not presented. And I felt the same as you, Brad. I just felt disenfranchised for all the time we put into those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we can't expect one of us to run down to these meetings. We give enough to do this job. The problem is we work hard. We worked an hour or so on this one, and to have that thrown Page 59 of 64 161 2A2 May 3, 2012 out in the presentation by two parties that really aren't interested in what we came up with in our hour anyway because it goes against what they want, I do think something should be done. I would love to see the county attorney kind of watch a hearing like that and be the one to say, wait a minute. That's -- you know, I want -- you know, the commission to know the Planning Commission was against it. It is not a question of safe access to the boat. The boat would always be allowed at the dock. The question is whether we can lift it in the air after you're using it. And, you know, someone's got to speak for our voice, or let's just quit screwing around on these things. I mean, we are going to take them up, but it is disrespectful that we waste our time from our businesses and our resources and then have it blown off like it's a flippant opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me comment on a couple of things. First of all, I have no reason to doubt on this executive summary that was presented on the Wahl docks -- I didn't -- I haven't read it, but I'm assuming staff articulated our position as they stated they have. So we've got to rely on that as an unbiased way to present our case, because that's why we have a consent agenda and the other agendas we have. So assuming that was done correctly, for anyone, whether it be a member of this board to go there and try to represent this board or for the county attorney to speak on behalf of this board or Ray to speak on behalf of the board, all they can do is tell what's on record. If the BCC had watched us, which they probably don't, but had read the executive summary, I think they would get the gist of it. To request staff to state our position without -- I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable with that, because they're going to state the majority position, which may be contrary. And your position right now, by the way, is not why I voted no on the Wahl docks. I voted no on that Wahl dock side not because of the lift and the height of it and all that, but because there was no hardship shown for the variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't even match what you just said, so how could we get that straight at the BCC level? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but that proves the point that one of us can't go down -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because we would never -- you know, and that's not fair to us and that's also the fact that we don't always speak in a unified voice. I think maybe one thing to do, Ray, could we see the executive summary that you're going to present with the consent agenda so we could critique that to make sure that that's covering what we're concerned about? And, like I said, it was really the county attorney who finally had to step in and get the thing a little bit back on track with the boat -lift issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the executive summaries are made the week prior. How could we chime in on them? It wouldn't do any good. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But they read -- I know that some of the commissioners read our minutes. They read the transcripts of the meetings before -- that was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we -- how could they -- I mean, we don't get them. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was read before they voted on that by many of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we haven't -- the transcripts aren't ready that fast. MR. BELLOWS: The best way to accurately reflect the varying opinions of the Planning -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The video's right here. MR. BELLOWS: -- Commission would be to provide the minutes. And on the bigger cases, such as the Lost Grove Mine, we do include the minutes of the Planning Commission, because there's no way you're going to summarize that in an executive summary to the board. On a thing like the Wahl variance, staff did put in the staff -- Planning Commission recommendation, the recommendation of denial and the reasons for it. That's -- you know, like Mark had indicated, not everyone on the Planning Commission has the same opinion about a petition, and we would have to basically include the minutes to accurately reflect everyone's opinion to fully convey that to the Board of County Commissioners. And I don't have any problem attaching minutes if that's so -- the desire of the commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you can't expect the commissioners to read an hour hearing. MR. BELLOWS: And timing -wise of getting things into the agenda packet for the board, I don't think there would be time to get each one of you to respond and say it's accurately reflecting your concerns. Page 60 of 64 16 12 A2 May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think our response off record substantiated as a policy of this board, so I think that would be a very difficult thing for you to change -- MR. BELLOWS: I think so, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based on someone's individual comment. MR. BELLOWS: I think the only way to really -- to help your concern is -- because we do our best to try to reflect the Planning Commission vote in our executive summary. There's nothing gained by us trying to hide something or change the direction of the Planning Commission vote. We want to express to the board your findings as accurately as possible. And if doing so requires the minutes to be provided, we will do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then in your staff presentation, make it part of your presentation. Don't just say, staff is in favor of this. Any questions? Sit there and say the Planning Commission -- and then use those -- executive summary to go over those points. MR. BELLOWS: Well, that is a good point, and I will stress that with staff- - COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, don't just blow us off. MR. BELLOWS: -- in the future that when they are presenting the -- when they're asked to give staff comment on their executive summary that they make sure that they reference the CCPC vote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, today covering the consent on the cultural arts, there's a nice thing presented. Nancy prepared it. Given a rundown of what our concerns were -- now, she was doing it in more checklist, I think, to show that it was in the packet, so that means that the best time for you to really think of what it is we're up to on that hearing is right away. So why can't you, within two weeks, have that -- it could be outlined. It could be what your executive summary's going to be -- to make sure that we're all on the same page with the points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think consent does that, Brad. I think if we get the consent -- now you want not only a consent approval, but a draft executive summary approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would like -- for the draft of the -- what they're going to say. I mean, the final executive summary, when they put it together is only about a -- two paragraphs anyway. It's not like a lot of written work. Go ahead. You obviously want to say -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray, I have a -- MR. BELLOWS: There's a couple points I'd like to make. One is, if a petition is recommended for denial, then there's nothing to bring back to the Planning Commission on consent, because the resolution that was attached at our ordinance is not being forwarded with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So there's nothing to bring back for you to verify. In regards to an executive summary, they're working on four or five different projects at the same time, responding to other -- so not everyone can be able to get an executive summary comment, because they have to run it by me, Bill Lorenz, Nick Casalanguida before it's ready to be presented to the public eye, so to speak. I don't think the timing would ever work for an executive summary with the short time frames that we have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Something like this cover letter today could not be done then? MR. BELLOWS: Well, we could do a check list, certainly, or general outline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you consider what Brad's asking for denials. When we've denied something, maybe put together a check list from staff as to why we denied it that you would eventually use for part of your executive summary. That's very minimal because we don't often deny things completely. So where there's a denial and you wouldn't normally have a consent, well, at least just summarize our denial points so that we know going forward on a denial that could be controversial, our points are made as well as we expected them to, because that's normally what we check on a consent. Does that -- would that be a happy medium to get to a point where we could kind of test it out, see how it works? MR. BELLOWS: That seems like a reasonable -- because we do need to reflect in our executive summaries the reasons for denial, and we want to make sure we get that right. And many times staff have to pull the minutes, go over the minutes, make sure what they have in their notes jives with the minutes before they finish the executive summary. So as part of that process of verifying everything that's stated -- because, you know, when you go three or four hours on a petition, there's a lot of comments to weed through to make sure that we're accurately reflecting it. That's why it's important when you make your motion, like you did just now, to cite all those reasons why you are not supporting it. A lot of times it's not very clear the reasons why you're denying something, so it's hard to Page 61 of 64 1612 A2 %1 May 3, 2012 reflect that accurately in an executive summary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, Ray does mention a point that I noticed in the past that is a problem. If we do deny things -- because we're pretty good at running up stipulations, summarizing them. You are, Mark, at the end -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so we know where we are. If it votes down, I honestly think we still should forward those stipulations almost at -- because if the commission overturns us, they don't get the stipulations then. In other words, we should almost have a clause that if you -- you know, we recommend disapproval, but if you were to approve, and then list things we would want, so maybe we should have a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is when you do it that way, it acts as an incentive to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then they say, well, the Planning Commission, if we did this, they probably wouldn't have a big problem with it because they said they wouldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to go there because I think that opens another door we don't even want to test, because we have some strong opinions on some of these things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But we do lose some good ideas if they were to approve it, and sometimes they approve stuff that we deny. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: But in that case, if staff does a -- like, a consent but just basically a rundown of reasons for denial for motions that we do deny, maybe that will take care of it. And we've got to try that at least, Brad, and see if that clears up the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think just bringing it up for discussion helps emphasize the issue, too, so -- MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a good idea. There's nothing that would make me more uncomfortable if we're presenting something to the board that isn't reflective of your condition and -- or -- and motion. And it's not the intent of staff to confuse the issue. We want to be as clear as possible. So I think this is a good solution. And I think I'll work with staff and the attorney's office to come up with kind of like a consent agenda item for denial outlining the specific criteria in the code that you're referencing that's led to the motion of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray, I have a question. These only come to the BCC if they are denied through the CCPC, or they just come on consent agenda; is that how it goes? MR. BELLOWS: The way it works is if, like a variance petition or conditional use, the approving authority is the Board of Zoning Appeals. Our PUD rezone is the Board of County Commissioners. A boat dock extension is approved by the Planning Commission. Now, if a variance or conditional use is acted upon by the Planning Commission and the recommendation is for denial, that executive summary also includes the resolution. In case the board approves it, the resolution will be there with conditions. Now, if the Planning Commission has recommended denial, you don't have conditions that you're forwarding over to them, but you have conditions or reasons why you've denied it, and that is included in the executive summary, why did the Planning Commission recommend denial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other question, because they had opposition for the Wahl dock -- and you had quite a few people here. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and that lady spoke during the board hearing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. Oh, she did? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was going to ask you, did the neighbors come and speak, okay. Because sometimes people don't even know that it's going to go to them. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. They've been coordinating with staff, and they were informed of the meeting, and they did show up. Page 62 of 64 } 12A2 " May 3, 2012 16 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just -- but remember, the thing was, without the variance they wouldn't have safe access to the boat. So what I'm kind of looking for is -- and I don't agree with that. And maybe -- he and I could argue forever -- is that somebody -- the Planning Commission never considered safe access to the boat as anything in that application. So somebody somewhere has to say, wait a minute, it's not about safe access. It's about a boat lift, you know, and make sure the commission's clear on that. That's what I don't -- we're walking away from this conversation without that probably happening. MR. BELLOWS: No, I understand what you're trying to say, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and actually -- MR. BELLOWS: -- I believe the applicant has the right to express their reasons for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He does. I didn't say shoot him. I said, when he's done, talk about it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't drop them in the middle of the presentation. Enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we've wrapped this one up. MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a great idea and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point's been made. MR. BELLOWS: -- I will -- for the next meeting I'll try to draw up something similar in this vein for you to look at on a consent item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Much appreciated. It works. Public comments, items, anything else? Looks like we're about done. I do want to thank Karah Lewis for the brownies brought in by her mother, Terri. K.D., thanks for the movies today and, records, thank you for the coffee. We appreciate it all. And with that, I'll look for a motion to adjourn. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can we -- we may have already done it, but can we officially continue the LDC hearings to the May 17th hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Let's have a motion to continue to May 17th for the LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Brad, seconded by Melissa. 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 9 -0. Now, whoa, whoa, whoa, adjourned, motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. By Melissa. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Karen. Page 63 of 64 All in favor? 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. May 3, 2012 1612AZ There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:20 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION fAARk STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on % -1 - as presented _L,-' 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 1612A o lRdwW R D� AGENDA '] U N �, I 1`0 1 L COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THVjWD Yl.MAY 17 , 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,�COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES t� Fiala_ Hiller Henninrgj Coyle Colette 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 13, 2012 (LDC Amendments), April 19, 2012, April 25, 2012 (LDC Amendments) 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. VA- PL2011 -1576: Jaffe Variance - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA- PL2011 -1576, for a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 10091 Gulf Shore Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] Misc. Corres: Date: 9) i l l 1-2— 1 item #3 �= 2 ►42, Copies to: 161 B. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Naples View RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of sixty -six residential dwelling units on property located at 6900 Airport Road North in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1 l +/- acres; and by providing an effective date [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 3, 2012 CCPC meeting per the applicant. SV- PL20110002805: Agave Grill, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida relating to Petition Number SV- PL20110002805 granting a variance from Section 5.06.04.F of the Land Development Code to allow two wall signs on one building consisting of an existing wall sign of 93.33 square feet on the northern building fagade and a second wall sign of up to 96 square feet on the western fagade of its building which building is located at 2380 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 02, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] B. CU- PL20110001157: Ichthyo Park Conditional Use, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow an educational aquarium within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.0l.A.l.c.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager] C. PUDA- PL20110001497: Bent Creek Preserve RPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps for a project previously known as the Sununit Lakes Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) which is henceforth to be known as the Bent Creek Preserve RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 450 residential dwelling units on property located approximately one -half mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 138.4 +/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 06 -62, the Summit Lakes RPUD; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1 [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp *x NOTE: AFTER THIS REGULAR MEETING IS ADJORNED THE CCPC WILL OPEN A CONTINUED WORKSHOP ON THE MASTER MOBILITY PLAN FROM THE APRIL 12TH MEETING. 1 f2 A2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 17, 2012 May 17, 2012 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: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 95 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham 16 1 2A2 AY 17 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats for a couple seconds. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, May 17th. Now that you've sat down, will you -all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney probably just hasn't gotten here yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably not. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. We have a very interesting agenda today, so -- and I'll explain it all to everybody. And we're going to start out -- we have three typical hearings for the Planning Commission today. We're going to be going through those first. They're noted on our agenda. At the end of those, whenever that finishes, which might be late this morning or right after lunch, we will go into the Land Development Code amendments, the continuation of that. And there's a whole page of amendments. There are quite a few to go over today. And then after that we will adjourn that meeting and open the workshop up that we had partially processed through for the Master Mobility Plan and try to get into that, of which there will probably be quite a bit of discussion. So I expect the meeting will last the whole day. And we've tried to include a little bit of everything to entertain everybody. So if you get bored today, well, maybe the next thing won't bore you so much. With that, is there any addenda, Ray, that you know of at this point? MR. BELLOWS: I have no other changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting is June 7th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Ray, on that meeting we have the Master Mobility Plan workshop scheduled, so I'm assuming that means if we don't finish this afternoon, we'll recontinue to that meeting date as well. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We had three sets of minutes distributed electronically to the Planning Commission members. We'll go through them one at a time for either recommendations to modify or approve. April 13, 2012, anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation for a -- is there an approval? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. Page 2 of 95 16 12 A2 1Y f" 17 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill made it, and seconded by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) 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 8 -0. April 19th minutes. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) 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 8 -0. April 25th minutes. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen; seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 3 of 95 1612 A2 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) 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 8 -0. Thank you. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: During their May 8th hearing, the Board of County Commissioners continued the SSP rezone to May 22nd at the petitioner's request. I think Commissioner Fiala had some concerns about some of the uses, and the petitioner wanted time to review those with her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report, I don't have anything new other than the agenda we're getting into, and it will be lengthy enough. Consent - agenda items. We had one item on consent. It was VA- PL2011 -1576, the Jaffe variance. Is there any questions, concerns, or comments about that consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Brougham. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, or I mean Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) 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 8 -0. Okay. With that, we get to our -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We have a second item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we have a second consent, you're right. Naples View RPUD. PUDZ- PL20110001519. Anybody have any issues on that consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that it's representative of our hearing. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? Page 4 of 95 1 2A2 i 6 May 17, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) 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 8 -0. ** *Now that takes us into our regular advertised hearings. And, on time as usual, Mr. Midney just showed up. Let the record show that Paul Midney got here. Our first item up today is a continued item from our last meeting. It's the Agave Grill signage request, SV- PL20110002805. 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: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I think I had a conversation with Wayne about their continuance and maybe this morning about just that they're up for review. Other than that, I don't see any others. So with that, we'll leave the presentation up to you, sir. MR. WALTERS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Theodore Walters. I'm an attorney with Cummings & Lockwood here in Naples. I'm joined by Ken Knief; right on time. He's the general manager of Agave, the restaurant that we're talking about this morning; and Wayne Arnold from Grady Minor. Ladies and gentlemen, we're seeking approval of a variance to erect a second sign on the building. If you're not familiar with Agave, you may be familiar with it in its former life. The building was the home of Pizzeria Uno on Vanderbilt Beach Road. The building is part of a corporate condominium called Olympia Park. The restaurant that is there now is a Mexican restaurant. It's been in operation for several months now, and it has a sign on the northern facade of the building facing Vanderbilt Beach Road. The problem that we encountered in planning was that that sign is not easily seen as traffic moves easterly on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We thought that it would be better to have a sign on the western facade of the building because you can see it simply as you're driving in an easterly direction on Vanderbilt Beach Road. In addition, when you enter what is, essentially -- and I think I'm going to make Ken cringe, but a shopping center. There is -- MR. KNIEF: Cringe. MR. WALTERS: There is -- MR. KNIEF: I said, "Cringe." MR. WALTERS: Cringe, okay. You can't identify the building. There's no other signage available. It's not clear, perhaps, to the uninitiated what it is, and that's why we are seeking this additional sign. The sign would be 96 square feet in size maximum. The one that is on the front side of the building or the northern facade of the building is approximately the same size. I think it's actually 93 square feet. So pretty similar in size. It's -- the reason for the request is primarily for identification for the public to identify the restaurant, to identify the business, of course. The building would be -- if it were not in a corporate condominium, it would be an outparcel. As the staff indicates in its report, it's treated as an outparcel, or if this were an outparcel, the second sign would be available. There's the restaurant on the screen available for you. Page 5 of 95 16 12A2 May 17, 2012 We have several photographs. I don't want to inundate you. It's a relatively simple request, I believe. Very happy to answer questions. Mr. Arnold's happy to answer questions. But that is essentially what we're seeking from you -all this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WALTERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kind of a statement. I live around that area, and one of the things this area does have is that's a good interconnection for a lot of the shopping centers on that corner. So I think, as a reward for their interconnection, this certainly made sense to treat it like a outparcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I drove by the place just to see what it was like, and I certainly agree with you, a sign would be needed there, and it would help your business, and it would help the public as well. So anybody else? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I move to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to see if there's public -- we've got to hold off yet. Can't go that fast. We've got a little process to go through here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was going to do that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your brevity today, and a few words go a long way sometimes. MR. WALTERS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Review Services. And staff is recommending approval of this petition subject to one condition, that the sign is limited to the western facade of the building and a size of 96 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion or -- well, no discussion needed. Motion, Diane or Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I move we -- what do I want to say? I move that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend approval with staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made by Barry, seconded by Diane, to recommend approval with staff recommendations. 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. Page 6 of 95 16 1^^ 2 lay 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Well, that was short and sweet. Thank you, guys. MR. WALTERS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You came all the way in for a quick hearing. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: But they charge by the hour. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question on that. Can we waive the consent requirement on that one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. We certainly can. We have done that in the past. Is there a motion to waive consent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion that we waive the requirement to come before us with a consent item. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion waived, seconded by Diane. Motion made by Brad. 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 passes 9 -0. So that -- we'll save you the additional time in coming back for a consent hearing. So thank you all. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. MR. WALTERS: Thank you. MR. KNIEF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, when they're that simple, gee, I wish staff could just do those. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we need more sign variances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, save people a lot of money if we could do it that way. ** *Next item up is a conditional -use petition. It's CU- PL20110001157, and I'm not sure I'm going to say this right. It's the Ichthyo Park conditional use. It's off of Sabal Palm Road and Morgan Road in East Naples. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. And some guy with gray hair --short gray hair is just at the podium. I'm not sure who that is anymore. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I haven't had any either. Tim, you definitely look different. We haven't seen you for a while and -- God, you're more distinguished looking. Is that a better way to say it? MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. I think so, and I appreciate that. And there's a picture of my younger brother in the hallway out there. But good morning. I hope to keep the string of easy and short going, and it is pronounced Ichthyo Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you say that again? MR. HANCOCK: Ichthyo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ichthyo. MR. HANCOCK: Ichthyo. And, actually, Viktor Jarikov does a nicer job with it than I do, but it's basically Page 7 of 95 o� r May 17, 2012 based on the scientific term dealing with fish, and so a very appropriate name and one that I'm sure will continue to cause conversation. I am here representing Viktor Jarikov and Arena Lavickova (phonetic). They're the owners of property at 316 Morgan Road. The request before you today is to pen-nit a Conditional Use No. 3 of the agricultural zoning district to allow a small, privately -run aquarium to be erected and basically located within the existing structures and lanais on the property. Again, this is really for the purpose of operating a small educational display of freshwater aquatic species. The property's located at the northern end of Morgan Road, which is just north of Saba] Palm Road, approximately 1 mile east 951. It's 9.17 acres and consists of two existing structures with a connected screen patio, and there's a second screen lanai, which is behind what used to be a studio or was used as a studio. In selecting a site for this use, the owners probably could not have found a more perfect setting. Some of you may recall this property was featured in news articles and at least one television piece as the home and working studio of Jonathan Green, a world - renowned artist capturing the Gullah culture of South Carolina. Mr. Green spent 25 years here creating an oasis with his partner where he lived, worked, sold his art, and at times had hundreds of guests and clients attending parties where he displayed and sold his pieces as frequently as two times per month. Unfortunately, the decline in art purchases forced the property into foreclosure in 2009. As I say unfortunately for Mr. Green but fortunately for Mr. Jarikov. That allowed he and Arena to move their plans forward to revive this oasis in much the same way that Mr. Green created it by living here and operating a small -scale business that's an extension of Mr. Jarikov's passion for freshwater fish, including breeds of catfish over 4 feet in length. Specially constructed tanks will be crafted, and the existing studio and patio areas will be used to create an intimate and educational aquarium for locals, visitors, and schoolchildren to enjoy. The site is ready -made for this use with minimal modification required. Really, only ensuring ADA accessibility is the primary issue that we've discovered. Vehicular trips will be far less than the prior, shall we say, unregulated parties that occurred when Mr. Green was on the property. Neighbors got used to a lot of cars coming up and down the road for these parties several times a month. We're really kind of going from a somewhat unregulated use to a more highly regulated use with a conditional -use approval. We've received no letters or emails of objection. And the required neighborhood information meeting was held and attended by a handful of residents whose primary issue was really the use of Morgan Road and the narrow condition. It is a private road, but it is paved from Sabal Palm all the way back to its terminus, which is right here at 316 Morgan Road. And it is wide enough for two vehicles, although sometimes you may have to slip to the shoulder a little bit if you have a wide vehicle coming. There are businesses that exist on the road that have been there historically that have orchids and other things out there, so it's a little bit of mixed use, if you will, on Morgan Road. This application is really one of those rare times that if it's approved, a small owner - operated business can become established that can be an asset to the community that doesn't currently exist. We really don't have an aquarium here. We do have some nice exhibits here and there. And the owners have put everything they have into this project, including overcoming Arena's fear of snakes and things that slither -- that's something odd to have to deal with moving to Florida -- and really turn this into -- their love of aquatic species into a business. With the conditions proposed by staff dealing primarily with the low volume of trips that the site would generate, the limitation on the size of vehicles, and the requirement that any parties in excess of six have a pre -set appointment -- in other words, this is really intended to continue as a small -scale operation. With those conditions, we achieve compatibility. My sincere hope is to be standing before you here in the near future asking for an expansion of this use because they will have been wildly successful. But as it stands today, those conditions certainly match the intent and goals of the property owner. Mr. Jarikov is here and can answer any questions you have with specific requests to the aquaria itself, the types of species, the operation, if you will. But with respect to the land use itself, we find it to be both compatible and consistent with prior use of the property, the traffic volumes to be extremely low, and the conditions set forth to more than compensate for any potential issues that we foresee at this time. Page 8 of 95 16 1 2A2 May 17, 2012 So with that, I will ask your favorable consideration and be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: A couple. First question is, does the owner have experience in operating an aquarium? I mean, is this some of his past life or work experience? MR. HANCOCK: It is, indeed. Mr. Jarikov has shared pictures with me. In essence, what he's doing is turning an extensive hobby into a business. And I'm probably most appropriate to let Mr. Jarikov talk about his experience with aquaria if you'd like a further explanation. But, yes, this is something that -- at his home in Rochester, he had turned the entire basement into these types of tanks and whatnot. So his experience, in my opinion from what I reviewed, is fairly extensive in this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Perhaps you can answer, perhaps the owner can answer, but can you give me some idea of the size of, quote- unquote, the aquarium. Why don't you come to the podium, sir. I mean, I can envision home aquariums, or I can envision Sea World. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you -- did you rise, and were you sworn in when we asked for -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, he was. MR. JARIKOV: Yes, I was sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. You have to state your name for the record, and please spell your last name. MR. JARIKOV: My name is Viktor Jarikov. I'm the owner of the property and the petitioner, along with my wife, Arena Lavickova. So the question is as to the size of the displays and exhibits -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. MR. JARIKOV: -- and quantity of them; is that the question? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. We know the size of the building, and there's no expansion to that. But if you can just give us a broad idea of how you're going to populate the inside of the building with these devices and how you're going to control them. And I have no experience with operating an aquarium, so I don't know what the risks are or not and -- MR. JARIKOV: Right. For starters, all we could really erect is about 25 aquaria. The smallest is about 220 gallons. The biggest is four - and -a -half thousand gallons, and in between. Those are being made by -- primarily by Dolphin Fiberglass Products out of Homestead, Florida. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So they're individual aquariums of various sizes to occupy the building and so forth? MR. JARIKOV: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I have a couple -- go ahead. MR. JARIKOV: The smaller ones are all glass and the bigger ones are pretty much -- you know, it's like an aboveground swimming pool with a window. That's what it amounts to. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Couple questions regarding traffic, I guess. That seemed to have been one of the primary concerns at the neighborhood information building, and there's been comment that it's a one -lane road, quote - unquote. And I understand the staff recommendations, and your agreement to the conditions, you know, state that no vehicles with the capacity of more than 24 passengers will be admitted, you know, until and unless we have a wider road. How do you plan on enforcing that? MR. HANCOCK: Because any group greater than six much have a pre -set appointment, we can then inquire as to the type of vehicle that's being used. The focus there really was -- the concern was school buses. If you were to have a school bus come down the road which, you know, could take up or consume the majority of the roadway itself, the safety and concern for the children on the bus was the primary issue, and that's how we got to the limit of 24. That takes us down to what is typically called a minibus or a large passenger vehicle which, given the roadway condition, would allow two vehicles to pass on the roadway using little or no portion of the shoulder. It was called one -way, but it's not a 10 or 12 footer. It's actually closer to 16 to 20 feet, and a little over 20 feet in some areas. So there are certain portions of it that are a little narrower than others, but it is a little bit wider than what would be a one -lane road. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you have any immediate plans for a roadway to 20 feet? Page 9 of 95 1 6 12 N L,�o May ' , 2012 MR. HANCOCK: We do not mainly because of the -- it's four - tenths of a mile, and the cost of that is extensive. The business would have to be on the cusp of growing to something far more significant than this and really would have to generate far more traffic than what we're talking about for that to become an issue for the neighbors. We're talking about a maximum peak vehicles of 12 per hour. And I think, candidly, that's -- we intentionally put that on the high side as a projection. We didn't want to underproject. But, you know, we don't have plans to widen the roadway at this point simply due to the cost. This is a start-up business. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You know, I'm in favor of this in general. I guess my concern is the uncertainty, wishing the owner every success going forward. If his aquarium business takes off, and traffic does increase, and there's a need for school buses to want to get in there or vehicles of that size or you just have more reservations for parties of greater than six than you can handle, I'm trying to look forward into how we can accommodate that future growth. I'm not saying we should invent a new condition, but I'm concerned about that, that if this conditional request is approved based upon these conditions, who is out there monitoring? Do we wait for the neighbors to call and complain, or what would that process be? And I'll look to anybody to help with that. But that's my concern. MR. HANCOCK: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, one thing in here you mention that if you do have food it would only be by vending machines; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Do you have a problem adding a condition that those machines can't be visible from a property line? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because some of them are lit, and some of them -- MR. HALL: Understood, and that's not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other thing is the hours of operation. Is that something we should be listing as a condition or -- because under six people, you could have unlimited cars of four people or two people, or -- MR. HANCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is -- MR. HANCOCK: We're comfortable limiting the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Would you want the ability to have parties at night or something, special events? MR. HANCOCK: We anticipate very few of those. This is not an engallah -type environment, so we would anticipate very few of those, and maybe those could be limited by the special -use permits that the county requires if we were to have an evening event, so to speak. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're residing on the grounds? MR.14ANCOCK: Yes. We've already cut two trips out right there. The owners live there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: This may not be an issue, given that this is pretty landlocked and the nonnative fish species are freshwater, but we do have problems with exotic species of pythons, monitor lizards, Africanized bees. Have you given any thought to these nonnative species? They have no potential to establish themselves in the wild under this scenario, correct? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. All the aquaria are fully contained and not so much even interconnected. The water filtration system is a closed -loop system. You're not drawing or depositing eggs outside of an aquarium, for example, into local water bodies and whatnot. So they are fully self - contained. And as a matter of fact, one of the educational components that Mr. Jarikov spoke to me about very early on Page 10 of 95 A216 12 May 17 2012 was just that very issue. Many of these species, you know, would not or could not survive in the wild or could dominate others. And for those who come to the aquarium, that's one of the educational components is the presence of non - native species that will be a part of the display and part of the description and reasoning that is provided. MR. EASTMAN: Tim -- and I think that part of the story goes with the pythons, that a hurricane allowed some to escape. Does this have extra hurricane or storm protection, this structure, in any way? MR. HANCOCK: Not beyond that required and -- but I believe -- I'll have to check. I believe the roof tie -downs are post- Andrew in this home. The studio was built second to the home, and that's where most of the aquaria would be located. But beyond that, I'm afraid I don't have any information. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you, Tim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I've got a few. And, first of all, I like the idea of what you're trying to do, and I just want to make sure we've got all the T's crossed and I's dotted. You're asking for a permit -- a conditional use for an aquarium. Are you intending to sell any of the fish byproduct such as meat or anything like that? Because then that would be aquaculture, and I want to make sure we have that covered if that's what you're intending to do. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. This is not an aquaculture operation. Sale of the species will not occur on site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're up against the future residential PUD or DRI called Hacienda Lakes. Is there any interconnection at that point with Hacienda, or is there any anticipated or needed? MR. HANCOCK: There is a roadway easement that extends north and south along the western edge of the property. There has been some discussion, and I would defer to John Podczerwinsky on whether or not there would ever be an ultimate connection there. But as of right now there's not one planned. But there is a 30 -feet easement on our side of the property that could be utilized for that purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those are generally found throughout Collier County, especially on section lines. In fact, we have one coming up at the next hearing where it's being vacated because it's running right through a project, which is typical. How about the Benfield Road corridor; how close to the -- how close are you to that corridor, and is that going to have any impact involving your property; do you know? MR. HANCOCK: I believe that is actually to the east of the property. It does not have any planned impact specifically on this parcel, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll ask John later on when staff reports to verify that, and we'll get into that a little bit. On your site plan you have a road on the south side that apparently connects through another property to Morgan Road, and I see on the aerial that that's the actual existing connection at this time. You don't own that property to the south, I would assume and -- because you're showing a new connection made to the north of your property line. Is that going to be your primary access then to Morgan Road, or is that going to be done at what point and at what time? MR. HANCOCK: That connection actually -- and it doesn't show up very well on the aerial -- is kind of a dirt or gravel drive that exists. One of two things. Either we will secure the formal legal access through that driveway. The property -- excuse me. The adjoining neighbor doesn't -- you know, isn't there all the time. So we're working on getting an easement on that. If we cannot, then we will construct something on the property to close that loop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what the optional easement is for. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At your neighborhood information meeting, one of the neighbors expressed the following: Mr. Hood indicated that the applicant was willing to work with the neighborhood to address the issue and that the anticipated traffic will be less than the previous art studio. The residents expressed an interest in only seeking a fair -share resolution. What is that about, and what came out as a result of that comment? MR. HANCOCK: What came out from that is that we are more than willing to enter into a fair -share agreement for maintenance and improvement to the roadway based on traffic numbers. One of the problems you have Page 11 of 95 b 12 4 lal y 7, 2012 on Morgan Road is there are some businesses that have been there a long time that are not -- candidly, not doing well right now, and not everyone along that roadway has a desire to participate in the widening or additional expenses. We do stand ready to, you know, fill potholes as necessary and do the required maintenance, because it is the access to the property. And we'll continue -- Mr. Jarikov will continue to work with his neighbors and participate in any improvement plans that addresses the extent of Morgan Road. That's going to be an ongoing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm -- we'll probably be asking John Podczerwinsky to verify that the arrangement you're speaking of verbally is something that's acceptable to the transportation department to assure that the road is maintained by whatever traffic is generated. So I'll look for clarification when we get the staff side, and you may want to contribute during that period of time. The preserve area, the .053 acres up in the northwest corner, that's a proposed preserve area. What's happening to that up there? What is it you're proposing? I mean, you're proposing it, so how -- how much exotic is in there now, and are you going to be replanting it to make it a preserve area? Because it's listed as only proposed, and I'm just -- MR. HANCOCK: Oh, okay. No, it's actually in very good shape as far as native vegetation goes. As a matter of fact, a lot of the property -- let me go back to the aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, the reason I'm asking the question is because you have Hacienda Lakes going into the north, which is residential, and your preserves, I believe, are adequate buffers as long as they are retained as preserves and they have the growth needed that preserves generally have. So that becomes an important piece for buffering to your future residential to the north. Most of that is native? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Actually, exotics are less than 25 percent in the green area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, fantastic, okay. Good. Then my last question, in your packet was a plan of Morgan Road. You may have it. It's black and white. Could you put that on the overhead. And that shows Sabal Palm to the south which, obviously, that's where people would come in. They would go up Morgan Road, but then they hit that one little piece right there in the center that doesn't have any of the dashed lines on it. And to the north of that -- and to the south they even have half a dashed line, which means you've got 30 feet. So you don't have 60 feet solid through there. What happens where you have nothing? How is your access through that area guaranteed? MR. HANCOCK: Well, this is something we went through in detail with the County Attorney's Office to make sure the property showed that it had legal access. And on that particular parcel, after the creation of this exhibit, we were able to find a "less and accept" (sic) on that property, and here's a copy of it that we provided to the County Attorney's Office to satisfy their concern about legal access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who in the County Attorney's Office did you work with? MR. HANCOCK: Ms. Ashton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, good. Then maybe you can confirm. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I looked at the chart. This isn't accurate what he has right here, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is not accurate, did you say, or is accurate? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It isn't accurate, because I think I found one additional one. I was able to confirm that they had legal rights over 30 feet to get to their property. Now, whether the existing road is in that 30 feet, I don't know the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, on the two properties that abut that show no easement on either side, what side of those properties is the 30 feet on? And I'm sorry to split hairs, but it -- the reason I'm asking is if it's on the east side -- or on the west side of the eastern property, then you've got -- it's not -- doesn't align with the properties to the south, and if it's on the east side of the western property, it doesn't align with the properties to the north. And I'm just making sure you're covered. I'm trying to understand how. MR. HANCOCK: And, candidly, we did go through this. And I apologize, my recall is not as clear as I would like. But what we found is on parcel -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You took the overhead off, so it's hard to -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, I had to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you've got to use it yourself, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah. And now we're really going to make the gray hair get grayer. Page 12 of 95 Road. 6 ' 2 May` 17, 2012 On Property No. 10 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one -- that's that piece in the middle on the west side of Morgan MR. HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the east side of that property does or does not have an access easement? MR. HANCOCK: It does. And then in addition to that, as you go to the north, what we found that is not updated in this exhibit is a 30 -foot easement area immediately to the north of that on that next leg which creates that connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, that's great. And the County Attorney's Office agrees that those connections are all in place? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm having Gail bring down my chart, and I can put that on the visualizer when she brings it down. If you want to go to your next question, when she comes down, I'll put it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately, we'll have to go to staff, because that was my -- that was my last question. If there's no other questions of Tim at this moment, we'll go to staff and then come back and look at this further. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer with zoning services for Ichthyo Park. You have a staff report that -- original date was April 23rd, revised 25th, and April 26th. Staff has found that the petition is consistent with the GMP. We do have three conditions, as we've already discussed, as far as the access road for the project; otherwise, staff is here to answer any questions that we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of staff? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mike, on Page 8 of the staff report, it's a continuation of your No. 4 in your analysis. You say, noise from these operations will be minimal and performed by the owner /operators of the aquarium. I'm interested in how you reached that conclusion. How did you reach that conclusion? MR. SAWYER: We reached that conclusion basically in that normally when you've got aquariums of this scale, they don't generate a lot of noise. You've got motors that are generally electric, and they just simply don't generate that much noise. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would tend to agree with you, but I want to be picky. MR. SAWYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Have you visited any, have you looked up any aquarium operations, et cetera, et cetera? I'm concerned about statements that have not been researched. MR. SAWYER: Only the -- my personal experience with other aquariums that are larger than this, certainly those did not generate any high levels of noise that I've ever experienced. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was worried that Phil was alluding to some barking kind of fish or something in there. It was the equipment. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, there are fish like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. We have trouble then, don't we? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. Just to clarify, I think on a conditional use, one of the criteria that we evaluate is the effect on neighboring properties, whether it be noise, whether it be uses, et cetera, et cetera. So any time we're making -- reaching conclusions or recommendations concerning noise, concerning traffic, et cetera, et cetera, I'm most interested in what stands behind staff snaking a recommendation one way or the other. And I'll continue to be concerned along the lines as we go forward. MR. SAWYER: Excellent point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have one of you and then a couple of John. The issue concerning these connecting easements on Morgan Road, did staff initiate the questions on that, or was it the County Attorney's Office? The only reason I'm asking, Mike, it stands out like a sore thumb. If you had -- if someone had got this clarified and had it placed on these maps correctly, it wouldn't have been a question at today's meeting. I was trying to avoid it in the future. Page 13 of 95 61 2A2 May 17, 2012 So I don't know who finally caught it, but it was pretty obvious that there wasn't a solid connection based on the material provided to this board. And that should have been resolved before it got here. MR. SAWYER: Right. I believe that both staff as well as the County Attorney's Office discovered that on the initial first review of the project itself and started working with the applicant to try and get all of that determined. That information, I believe, most of it, if not all of it, was actually presented to staff on our second review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we have maps like that that could be clarified, if we can get them clarified by the time they're distributed to us, they would be real helpful. I spent a lot of time trying to figure this out myself, and you guys had already done it. So I would be very comfortable with that, knowing it was done ahead of time. So thank you. MR. SAWYER: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, John? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I have my file, and I confirmed that they have 30 -foot access on the eastern 30 feet, and the western 30 feet of the road they have access except for Lot 10 and 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want me to put that up on the visualizer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got a graphic, I would like to see it, yes. So they have -- because the way Tim described it, I just want to make sure that you've got the same connections so there's no missing pieces. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. The ones that they -- okay. I need the microphone. The ones that they do not have -- the one that they don't have is Property 10 and Property 11, so that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If I can read your chart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Property 11 is a horseshoe shape that goes around Property 12. Property 10 is to the south of 11. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. So they don't have -- they don't have the 30 feet here and here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- and they don't have 30 feet here, but they do have -- some of them that are noes over here are yeses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how are they making the cross between Property 4 and Property 5 and 9? Do you understand what I'm saying, because you've got a pinch at the bottom of property -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, but they have the whole way on that side. They have the whole 30 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that this map still isn't representative of the properties where there's an easement in regards to the easement on the west side of Property 5. You say there's another easement there that's missing? Because that's the -- kind of the different direction than what Tim was -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I mean, I checked all the deeds. So 4 and 5 over here he's got noes, but those are yeses. Okay. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But those are missing over there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, by the time this comes back to consent, could someone have put these properly on a graphic and verify that all these connections are through and that the County Attorney's Office concurs and that we can answer this at -- assuming at our consent agenda? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It's my fault for using an old graphic that should have been updated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what my concern is, when you get down to two points, one on -- two opposite sides of that line, there's not a width there to get through, and that's what I want to make sure is in place. MR.14ALL: Correct. And as Ms. Ashton said -- and you know, we've -- up the east side, we've got 30 feet all the way. There's a couple of gaps on the west. Even though we found on surveys that there was a 30 -foot easement shown on the survey, it wasn't on the deed. So that's why they're even shown as gaps. We did find information on surveys that indicate an easement, but we can't legally rely upon it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is something that this commission regularly reviews, so I'm just a little surprised it wasn't attempted to be more clear before it got to us today. It should have been. But, I'm willing -- I'm Page 14 of 95 16 12 A2 May, 17, 2012 certainly willing to work with it on -- by the time consent gets here just to make sure we cross the T's and dot the I's. MR. HANCOCK: We will have an updated accurate exhibit for you at consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And if you get it earlier, if you could email it, I'd appreciate it so I can match it up with anything that I have. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. John, can you tell me where Benfield corridor falls in relationship to this project? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In a short answer, sir, briefly, no, not exactly, because it's still under study. At this point the potential alignments that we're looking at vary in this area. One of the more likely alignments would be along the eastern edge of this property. But we do not have right -of -way reserved for that at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the process for Hacienda Lakes, you had a more definitive layout of Benfield Road corridor, and it went within a strict confined area of Hacienda Lakes. So since Hacienda Lakes is abutting this project to the north, wherever it comes out of Hacienda Lakes is where it would most likely have to connect. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, you can't get through Hacienda Lakes. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you know where in relationship to this property it comes out of Hacienda Lakes? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I knew you'd ask that. Unfortunately, I don't have that exhibit with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, you're not anticipating things. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No. I believe it's slightly further to the east. But I do know the southerly alignment of this where it does align at Sabal Palm Road, within Hacienda Lakes it's right around the section line, right at the corner. And if you wouldn't mind, I'll put a graphic up, or I could just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it would help if you put a graphic up, certainly. It's like a mirror. You've got to go in the opposite direction. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, you see it. Can you hear me? Okay. The current alignment right now, I believe, comes in right around this corner, this section corner at Sabal Palm and -- it would be the northeast corner of Winding Cypress PUD. And what I've highlighted here, what I've sort of sketched out is a rough area that is a -- it's currently a preserve easement within Winding Cypress, Morgan Road being right around in the center of this. North to south in the center of this. So we do have a reservation as part of Hacienda Lakes that runs along this -- you know, this section line, but it's a reservation and not a -- an easement of any kind yet. Reservation for future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when it goes to the north, up north of Sabal Palm Road, where does it wind through Hacienda Lakes at that point? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Again, that's a good question. I don't have the exhibit with me. As I recall, it is further -- slightly further to the east. I believe it is in this region here. I don't believe it backs right up against this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this property's not going to have any influence on this corridor? Well, you're coming up looking for sympathy. You've even got a red volleyball -- or little ball that you must use in croquet or something there attached to your arm, Nick. What is going on? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can I put a timer on how long he can badger me for? Mr. Chairman, for the record, Nick Casalanguida. The 300 -foot corridor is exactly abutting the easterly line of this property. It's a 300 -foot corridor so that -- for 120 -foot road, and it abuts his property line. I just pulled it up on my laptop in the back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this property doesn't impact that corridor? MR. CASALANGUtDA: Not at this time. It's a 300 -foot corridor adjacent to this property. And, obviously, we know that there's a residential property. We would avoid it with our design and right -of -way alignment. Page 15 of 95 LA;�ay 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any concessions you want from this property in regards to noise - proofing barriers and other things like that that you would be asked for if you didn't say you wouldn't give them out now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think as long as the gentleman puts on the record as the property owner and understands it's potentially a four -lane road there and he's not going to be asking the county for a noise wall or any concessions, I think that would be a good thing to put on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put on the record or put in the recommendations? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Put on the record, stipulation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- they understand there's a four -lane corridor adjacent to them and there are no expectations for a noise wall or anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope whatever's causing that massive array of slings and stuff gets better. Doesn't look good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Thank you, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, since this is, essentially, a rather long dead -end road, is there any provision for emergency vehicle turn- around or even emergency vehicle access to this site? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Just the stabilized surface, sir. This is -- this roadway is treated just like a private driveway as far as transportation looks at it, and it falls under the engineering standards that are in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And wouldn't a private driveway, longer than 150 feet, have to have a cul -de -sac or a turnaround on it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I couldn't quote that. It's a private driveway, sir. I'm not familiar with the engineering standards for a private driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't go away yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, because, I mean, we do have to do that. I mean, so I think one condition I think I'd be comfortable with, since I assume -- is this going to be a gated situation ever? Will the roadways be gated? I guess Tim will have to come up and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, John, isn't this a loop road anyway? I mean, it goes -- it looks like there's an internal loop on the property that brings it -- any emergency vehicle could turn around within the internal loop, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: To answer your question, as far as I understand, that's not a public easement of any kind. It would just be private within the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But if it's gated, will it ever be gated during off hours? MR. HANCOCK: Because of the level of investment going into the project itself, there may be a requirement at some point down the road to put a gate across the drive. Right now there's no turnaround for anybody on Morgan Road. If there is a turnaround, it's us, but it was not -- it's really just an internal circulation drive. So, unfortunately, I think even if you were to try to require a 100 -foot turn, there's nowhere to put it other than on his property, thereby making it a public turnaround on his property, which seems excessive. I understand the desire to have one, but I don't think it's Mr. Jarikov's responsibility to provide that for everybody on Morgan Road. I would be concerned if that were a condition of this approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There would be no easement width to fit it in either, would there? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. The only way to do it would be to take his private property and turn it into a turnaround for the people on Morgan Road. And, candidly, we're talking about a very small operation here. I don't see how that could be borne by the property owner feasibly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this road would never go further, do you think, than his northern boundary? I mean, could it go into the Hacienda? Page 16 of 95 16 12 Q2 May 17 2012 MR. HANCOCK: It could, technically, but they would have the same issues we did. In looking at the easements, there's really only a 30- foot -wide area continuous up to Hacienda. But particularly with the Benfield Road approach, I don't see any way or reason for this to be extended in Hacienda. So I don't think that's a possibility. The piece to the west of us is still owned, I believe, by Jonathan Green, and there may be a time that that property comes forward. But I -- beyond that, I don't have any additional knowledge on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the intent was -- is to maybe leave some dedication for a T -turn. I don't think a cul -de -sac's necessary, but -- MR. PODCZERWIN SKY: Mr. Schiffer, maybe to help out, when this does come in for an SDP of any kind, the fire district governs this, and the fire district does require either hammerhead turnarounds -- in some cases they would require a cul -de -sac, and that's all governed by the state fire marshal's office and their code requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if they want it, they can get it. It doesn't matter what we do here? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm sorry. Can you repeat? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said, if they want it, they can get it. It doesn't really matter what we do here then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- and, John, before you leave -- anybody else before I ask another question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I had brought up earlier that the residents are seeking -- expressed an interest in only seeking a fair -share contribution in regards to how that Morgan Road is maintained. How does the county enter into assuring that that road is -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- worthy of vehicle travel? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Essentially, it's looked at by the engineering department under the SDP as a site access, just like any other driveway would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How -- now, as a site access, are they limited to within the site of the owner's property, or are they limited -- does that extend to the full length of the accessway all the way down to Sabal Palm? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It depends on what the legal rights of their access -- you know, the legal access rights dictate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, legal access right; looks like they have a continuous 30 -foot legal access right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the road gets potholes in it so bad that it's hard to transverse (sic) with a larger vehicle, is there any issue that can be enforced to make sure it's repaired? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, sir, not by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, Tim, you know where my next question's going to be. How can we assure that that road's going to maintained and opened, kept open and safe? Honestly, I know it ain't -- wrong word. I know it isn't. We don't use the word "ain't." MR. HANCOCK: I was born in Florida. Ain't is just fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it isn't the responsibility of this owner to do all of Morgan Road, and I wouldn't want to put that burden on him, but at the same time it's already been expressed by the residents that there's a concern there. So it's something that you should address in some manner. So what are your thoughts on that? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Jarikov and I have spoken about this. And, obviously, our ideal solution was to have everyone join into one MSTU, and the road maintenance falls under it, and everybody pays their fair share, but it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to get a majority of the property owners who are willing to do that. As a condition of the approval, Mr. Jarikov will offer to spend up to $2,000 per year on roadway maintenance and repair to affect potholes and damaged shoulders, and we think, based on the amount of trips, that that would be a more -than- fair -share contribution to keeping the roadway maintained. And, plus, with a business at the end of it, it does him no good to have a road with -- that is in disrepair as the entry to his business. But if you find that acceptable, I think that, based on what I know it costs to fix potholes and crumbling edges here and there, that should be allowed to keep the road in serviceable condition. Page 17 of 95 b 012 12 A �ay 17, 2 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, lacking any further testimony, then anything is better than nothing, and it shows a good -faith effort to try to work with the people. If they are here today and can express any of their concerns, that will only -- we'll see where it goes. Thank you, Tim. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. And what we need now is any -- are there any registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience wanting to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. And I have a list of five items that were brought up during our discussion. In case anybody wants to make a motion for a recommendation of approval, I would hope that these would be included, in addition to the staff recommendations. First one is that vending machines will not be visible from the property line. Second one is that hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Third one, there will be no expectation for noise barriers from future road links that would go alongside this property or near this property. The fourth one, that the new Morgan Road graphic will be produced and that it will show a continuous 30 -foot access, and that weighs heavy with my vote, because if it doesn't, then we have to reconsider this. But right now, I'm assuming what I'm hearing from the County Attorney's Office and from Tim that there is a continuous 30 -foot access. And the last one is up to $2,000 per year will be applied from this applicant to fix potholes and repairs along the shoulders. I would suggest that you keep accurate records of that in case the issue ever comes back to light, because it is a conditional use. Did I miss anything? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I move we forward Petition CU- PL20110001157 -- that's harder than the name of it -- with a recommendation of approval with the three staff conditions and the five -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six -- oh, yeah, five. You're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and the five Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad, second by Melissa. Is there any 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. And, Tim, we'll look forward to seeing you in consent to clear it up. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *Okay. Next item up is PUDA- PL20110001497. It's the Bent Creek Preserve RPUD located approximately one -half mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. Page 18 of 95 16 12 A2 May 17 2012 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 on the part of the Planning Commission? I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson. I'm disappointed he's not here. We'll have to -- I'll walk through the whole conversation again. It was about various issues. I hope he relayed some to you, Patrick. MR. VANASSE: Actually, if I may interject. I spoke with Bruce, and my understanding is that Bruce had talked to you and had requested to be put at the very end of the agenda, and I think the agreement was -- he's at the RPC this morning, and he was hoping to be here around 11 o'clock or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that the one we did last month for him? MR. VANASSE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's this one. I was a month off. Okay. Well, then my fault. I apologize. Yeah, we will put it at -- we will move it further on today. I think he wanted it this afternoon, didn't he? MR. VANASSE: If we can. And he said he'd be here around 11 o'clock. The rest of our team is also going to be here around that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry for the confusion. I thought this was one previously addressed. I didn't realize it was today. So with that, we will defer discussion on PUDA- PL20110001497 till later today at the end of our -- probably the LDC discussion that we're going to be having next. ** *With that in mind, I guess we will --that's the end of our typical advertised public hearings. 1 know there were some people that wanted to talk about the LDC. And, Caroline, can you come up for just a moment. We might take an early break to accommodate anticipated public speakers. MS. CILEK: Caroline Cilek, for the record. Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. And I know there was an issue that was recently rerisen, and I certainly appreciate all your background information that you have provided. And I know what they're going to come and talk about. MS. CILEK: Yes. And they are on their way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then why don't we take a break, and we'll commence at 10:15, and we'll go -- we'll just go into it the best we can starting at that time. MS. CILEK: That would be great. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll break now till 10:15. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from break. * * *At our -- just before break we were going to go into the last item on the regular hearing. And I had forgotten that the applicant had asked to be heard last today because of a commitment by one of their representatives earlier this morning, and because of that we will move into the LDC cycle amendments now and continue those until we get through them today. There is a new issue for the LDC amendments. Some members of the public had gotten in touch with myself and staff about an item they didn't believe was at least exposed enough to public review. I'll discuss that more when I see those members of the public here, which I believe they're on their way. What we'll do right now is just go into the regular course of review of the LDC amendment packets that we got for today's meeting. And there are 16 LDC items on it. So let's just start with that, and we'll move back into the other item when we need to. Caroline, it's all yours. MS. CILEK: Great. Good morning, again. Caroline Cilek, for the record. The first LDC amendment we have on the agenda is the kenneling amendment, and that was brought to you on April 13th, which was a Friday, on a special session. And at that time we discussed the provision of removing the number of dogs. And what I have before you today is just the --just the text change. And what we'd like to do is bring up some individuals, Amanda Townsend from Domestic Animal Services, and code enforcement as well to discuss the issue and give you a little bit of a broader picture of the amendment and what they'd like to do, and then we'll go from Page 19 of 95 ,1612A2 4 May 17, 2012 there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Well, let's move forward then. You don't look like Amanda Townsend, but -- on, no. We don't have to swear in for this. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. It's my first time here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you're Amanda Townsend. I'd like to know that. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm here to answer any code questions as far as this change is concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody have any questions of code? And I'm -- I need some refresher on -- maybe some of the questions I'm going to ask are repetitive from our last meeting. We've had so many meetings, I'm not sure of everything. What has generated this problem that's needed for change? Can you refresh us on that? MS. CILEK: Sure. This amendment was brought forward in an executive summary written by code enforcement last year, and that's in the header. I think it was in September of 2011. It was among five or six other LDC amendments to bring forward in the next amendment cycle. And that been -- the executive summary was done because there had been a petition, a public petition to remove the -- public petition to the board to remove the number -of -dogs component of the definition. And so the amendment was brought forward in this cycle in reflection of that executive summary. And in speaking with code enforcement, they would like to continue with the amendment as it is written right now, which would remove the number of dogs, and that was an issue with the Planning Commissioners on April 13th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the public petition that originated this change, what induced them to come forward? Was it a code enforcement action? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. I personally had a case against a gentleman that had four dogs in a residential area, and there was a complaint generated. And we did take him before the special magistrate, and she did find him in violation of a prohibited use of kenneling in a residential area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did he own all the dogs? MR. LETOURNEAU: He did own all the dos, yes, sir. They're actually really little dogs, Yorkies and Chihuahuas and such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it a complaint that originated his -- the investigation to him, or how did it -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir, it was a complaint. It came in, anonymous complaint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it a noise complaint or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No. It was -- I think somebody knew what they were -- you know, had researched the LDC and found out that it was a violation and called it in on the gentleman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you had four dogs, none of which were really making, apparently, noise or anything to generate objections to the neighborhood. An anonymous complaint gets called in just to have him cited because he had one more dog than the code allowed? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe so. I don't think there was any issues with DAS at any moment with this gentleman. Just kind of came in out of the blue, and we had to, you know, do our job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, on the other hand, if this quantity is removed, how do we avoid kenneling as an operation, then, in the Estates? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, in residential and estates properties, kenneling still will be a prohibited use, according to the LDC. I believe kenneling is mainly allowed in agricultural properties of 20 acres or greater, or you can get a conditional use for that type in agricultural properties. Code enforcement would still enforce the zoning aspect of kenneling. You -- you wouldn't be able to board dogs that weren't your own. You'd have to prove that your dogs on your property are registered to yourself at that -- or anybody that's living on that property. So we would also use the home - occupation ordinance which clearly states that you can't have any kind of customer or employee traffic coming to and from your house. That's how we would normally do any kind of home occupation. We'd sit out there and, you know, monitor the property to make sure that you don't have that type of business going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my questions are really trying to center around to make sure that if someone is operating a kennel illegally in a residential area that it can be addressed, that you guys do have the horsepower to Page 20 of 95 1612 '• Z May 17, 2012 address it. And the definition change goes from the word "kenneling" to the word "kennel." And it says, an establishment licensed to operate as a facility housing dogs, cats, or other household pets. So that would mean if they're not licensed to operate, then they're not a kennel. Well, how does that prohibit them from operating -- from operating? I mean -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It's not a -- it's not a permitted, accessory, or conditional use in residential or estates zoning, so we would go after them for a prohibited use if we had to enforce the kenneling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if someone had a residential house and they had six dogs and that was -- and they were a nuisance, what would you go after them for? MR. LETOURNEAU: DAS would have to step in as far as a nuisance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: Good morning. Amanda Townsend, your director of Domestic Animal Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You changed your hairstyle. MS. TOWNSEND: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You look totally different from the last time you spoke to us. It looks very nice, but definitely different. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you very much. Good morning. The animal control ordinance has provisions for, as far as I can tell, all the nuisances that a large quantity of animals would create in a residential environment. So, for example, if an animal owner's dogs were making excessive noise, creating a sanitary nuisance, running at large, et cetera, any nuisance that might prompt a complainant to say, you know -- to ask us to intervene should be covered within the animal control ordinance, and we're prepared to answer those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Theoretically everybody's supposed to register their dog. MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the language for kenneling included some reference to dogs owned by the occupant of the residence, limited it to that, then wouldn't it make it easier to prove that they're operating something beyond what they're allowed to do by the mere fact that some of the dogs that are licensed aren't theirs? MS. TOWNSEND: That's an interesting question. You also -- if some of the dogs present are not registered to the owner -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. TOWNSEND: -- then that would, de facto, mean that the owner was kenneling? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is if, say, somebody had six or eight dogs and they were becoming noisy and neighbors were complaining, based on the -- if they owned all the dogs and they were all licensed to them or registered to them, they're not a kennel; I don't think they would be. So how would you address that? MS. TOWNSEND: Through the animal control ordinance. Then you have, you know, a noise nuisance and if -- you know, if that's persistent and can be documented, you can cite the animal owner for creating a noise nuisance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the same time, if they had six dogs and three of them weren't theirs but they were keeping them there, would they then be considered a kennel? MS. TOWNSEND: I would like to -- I would consider -- let's say, for example, that person was working with a legitimate 501(c)3 rescue organization and fostering those animals, that should be a permitted use, providing that they're not creating some kind of noise, sanitary, nuisance, running at large or creating some kind of other violation of the animal control ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would just like to clarify what is an operation that's acceptable in regards to residential ownership of pets, of dogs and cats at a residential versus if they're keeping them for other people and then making that threshold one that you could actually utilize to say that's not a licensed operation or a legal operation. Phil, did you have something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Along the same lines, I guess my question would be, what problem are we attempting to solve here, to impose some sort of a limitation on the number of dogs, cats, and so forth, resident on a premises, or are we trying -- what are we trying to do? Because I might have 10 dogs, for example, and they're all debarked. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir, and I understand. And in the instance that came forward, in fact, the only Page 21 of 95 16 R �2 t May 17, 2012 violation was that there were more dogs than the LDC allowed. There was -- there was no other nuisance being created. Animal Services had never had any calls for service at this residence. So exactly what is trying to be addressed is an instance where the person is in violation only in an arbitrary manner, only in the number of animals and that they are not causing a nuisance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But with this amendment, there's no restriction on the number of animals I might have? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Own personally and residing on my Dronerty whatsoever -- MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- unless they're causing a nuisance. MS. TOWNSEND: Precisely, in which case DAS is prepared to address any nuisance that is -- you know, that comes about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm in favor of fixing the solution that would cause this problem. I just want to make sure we don't open a door even wider to cause a bigger problem. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. First of all, I think in the code this was a cleverly written part of the LDC because you would go to a house, and you would not say you have too many animals. You're saying you're an illegal kennel, which I think is an excellent way to control it. I'm not a big fan of doing this. I think the danger of it is that by having more and more animals, you have to go to failure of that, which is create the nuisance or the animals aren't being cared for. And we all -- you know, once a week we're watching that on TV. So there is a potential danger. The people will easily slide into more three -- you know, more animals than they can control. But even with that aside, where are we taking out the two dogs requirement for the industrial properties, which are essentially guarddogs? Why would -- you know, do we want 30 dogs on the other side of that chain link fence or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Is that a part that is taken out? I'm not sure. Oh, okay. I wasn't aware of that. I don't really know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have here is that -- you know, in reading a change in an LDC, you have to give your forefathers credit for thinking this through, and there must be a reason they came up with three. There must be a reason they wrote this. They're preventing something, something we may be missing. And it's scary to just throw this thing into pure anarchy on the number of dogs. The animal services has no requirements now, and Amanda, I don't think you're going to in the future, that's going to somehow restrain the number of dogs, except for what you can maintain, which is maybe a dangerous way to limit something. There is a problem. I do think that if I have three great danes, that's acceptable and some guy has four little, you know, fluffy dogs. You know, that's -- my great danes are a bigger burden, I think, on the residential neighborhood. So there could be clever ways to do it. But I think as soon as we eliminate this, and as soon as it goes into effect, there's anarchy on, you know, dog ownership in the county from that point on. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got something, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Brad, I would think probably 80 percent of the residents have no idea this even exists that there's a limit, and the other 20 don't care. So I don't think by changing this people are going to change their behavior. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, how often have you used this kenneling in code enforcement? MR. LETOURNEAU: I've been with code approximately 12 years, and less than a dozen cases that we've had on this. And a lot of them were actually kenneling. People were out in the Estates, and they were breeding dogs and having customers coming over and everything else. So we could have got them either way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what would you do now? So you'd come out, and I have 20 cocker spaniels, some of them in cages in the backyard. How would you prove that I'm a kennel? Let's assume I'm smart enough to even get them registered. Puppies, obviously, wouldn't have to be. MR. LETOURNEAU: I want to kind of segue back to, Mr. Strain, I do like that idea that you had about Page 22 of 95 16 12 A 2 May 17, 2012 maybe having a little -- a snippet in there about the animals being registered to the property owner. Now, if you can see the section I have up there right now about all the animals do have to be registered to the property owner at some time. At that point we would work with DAS to make sure that the animals are all registered at that property. If you've got animals that aren't registered at that property, we're going to assume that you have some form of kenneling going on, and we'd go with the prohibited use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in my example all my 20 cockers, you know, breeding cockers were registered. The puppies, I mean, do I register them at birth, or what's the length of time? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think it says four months in this ordinance right here, you have to get them registered by. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would sell them before that. So I can run a kennel. You'd never be able to MR. LETOURNEAU: You can't -- breeding would also be -- would also be a prohibited use in a residential and estates -zone property. It's also under the section -- let me pull up one more section here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if a person has a residence and one of their dogs gets pregnant, that's not allowed? MS. TOWNSEND: It's not preferred. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- MR. LETOURNEAU: As you can see, in permitted use in agricultural property 20 acres or greater, breeding is included along with the kenneling as being an acceptable use. It's not in residential. It's not estates. To be honest, people's dogs are going to get pregnant. It's a way of life. But you know, if you're selling them, if you're advertising, if you've got people coming in and out of your property, that's how we're going to enforce it. We're going to monitor the property to see if you've got customers, see if you've got employees, see if you have any advertising on site or off site, and you can't do that. MS. TOWNSEND: If I could add to that, there's a provision within the animal control ordinance that allows DAS to permit pet shows, stables, rodeos, et cetera. And we've recently worked with the county attorney to determine that residences that are doing kenneling also fall within that permitting, and we've begun permitting those residences. Now, I can give you an example of a residence where animal care is at an acceptable level, more than acceptable level, all animals are registered. They are breeding animals; however, they're conducting all of their commerce through the Internet and through, you know, postal service, so they're not generating traffic to their home. They're square with the LDC, they're permitted by us, inspected by us, and they're perfectly within their rights to do what they're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how are they square? They don't have more than three animals? MS. TOWNSEND: They do have more than three animals. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're in a residence not registered as a kennel that is -- MS. TOWNSEND: They are permitted with DAS as a kennel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. In residential zoning? MS. TOWNSEND: They are in estates zoning, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's an allowable use? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think it's an allowable use. It's not a permitted accessory or conditional use in estates -zoned property. It's only listed in the agricultural. You have to have -- it's a permitted use in agricultural property 20 acres or greater, or if you have something less than 20 acres, you can get a conditional use at that point. I think it's pretty clear in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the LDC classifies the Estates as agricultural, so -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It -- the Estates is somewhat agricultural; however, it does not list kenneling or breeding in the Estates as any kind of use in there. MS. CII,EK: If you check on Page 2 of the amendment, I have listed 1 through 6, the places where it's permitted and as a conditional use, just as a quick overview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Amanda, looks like you just got somebody in trouble. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. TOWNSEND: I must be honest that there is also a definition of kenneling in the animal control Page 23 of 95 1612 May 17, 2012 ordinance. It does not match the definition in the LDC. It is something that we'll be addressing in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is something we ought to see when this comes back is your definition. I'd like to see it. MS. CILEK: And that ordinance is in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 14. So, yes, we can work with counsel and get that cleared up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be smart to have consistency in our different -- or definitions. MS. CILEK: That's the first time -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we should definitely consider adding some language to address the residence -- registered owners to a single residence, and that does help avoid being a kennel. And I don't think that the necessity to limit them to three dogs is a good thing, especially if they own more than three registered dogs to them. Somehow that ought to work into the equation. I don't know what else to say about it. Phil, did you have something else you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not really. I mean, it's coming back, and I would sure appreciate more clarity in language addressing the problem or problems that we're trying to solve here. It seems like this spawned out of one person's complaint against a neighbor for probably another reason, but -- and it got to the BCC and -- knee-jerk reaction, and here we are. But I think the way it's written is going to create more issues than solve myself. So if it comes back, it comes back with some clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing. We do have to address also the commercial and industrial properties, because there are dogs on there. Some cases the dogs are owned by the business. Some cases they're security dogs brought in every day and taken out every morning. MS. CILEK: Right. And that struck language is simply reflecting what went to the board as an LDC amendment. Simply reflecting that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But -- so the board wants no limit on how many security dogs I can have on my industrial property? MS. CILEK: That is what went forward in the executive summary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. I mean, that's -- you know, dogs are pack animals, you know. They're dangerous when they get together. COMMISSIONER AHERN: They're breaking in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if someone's breaking in on a piece of property, I think that's probably a good thing to keep them -- keep it as a deterrent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there could also be a hole in the fence and killing all the neighborhood cats, but the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not bad. MS. CILEK: Are you requesting then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, anyway. The point is, so we're just going to leave it unlimited? There's no -- the ownership of the animal wouldn't be necessarily the property owner. It could be a security system and stuff? I guess we're going to let it go then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it needs more work. I don't think we're there yet. And if we don't get there, then it may go forward without any recommendation or change -- or different recommendation. But another try to coordinate it with the Code of Laws and DAS's definition would be helpful. Maybe a stab at trying to incorporate a reference to the registered owners -- animals registered to one owner would be helpful to limit the quantity by the mere fact they'd have to all be registered to the person. MS. CILEK: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those might mollify some of the concerns, I guess, when you write the new language. We'll see and take another -- one more shot at it before we just call it quits, okay. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MS. CILEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much for attending today. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. Page 24 of 95 6 12 A2 May 172012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we had a request by a -- two civic associations in Golden Gate Estates to address an item we already addressed. They didn't know it was coming before us at that point in time. They've worked with staff to have another public information meeting where they can express their concerns to the final language that came before us that we had already voted on. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they asked if we would consider a reconsideration of that. I think it's a good thing if it's going to have more public input. It will come back at another time before we finish this LDC amendment cycle -- MS. CILEK: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to hopefully see if there's anymore issues there. MS. CILEK: Yes. And we -- CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: And Peter Gaddy, I think, is here representing one of the civic groups at least, and I know there was a letter circulated by a second civic group in Golden Gate Estates. Peter, if you want to tell us your concerns, we'll see if we can work with you. MR. GADDY: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Strain, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Planning Commission. Gosh, I first learned about this in January of this year. One of our representatives had suggested that we need to come up with some limitations and parameters for these storage containers, if they're going to be allowed, so we did that. In the meantime we've just been bombarded with a host of telephone calls and questions, you know, about these containers and what their effect is going to be on the Estates. We're concerned. We have just a whole host of concerns, which I don't want to really get into in depth but, you know, let me just list them for you. We're concerned about the condition of the containers when they're installed. We're concerned about the standard and quality of the manufacture of them. We're concerned about how they're secured to the ground. We're concerned about what kind of foundation these units are going to have. I learned this morning that, you know, the base of these containers is made out of wood, and it's untreated wood. And normally the shipping companies are able to use these containers in a saltwater environment for six to eight years, and at that point they begin to lose some structural integrity because they stack them, you know, maybe 10 or 20 or 30 high. They get rid of them. They get rid of them in bulk to recyclers. They get rid of them to companies that will sell them for temporary storage. After they come from the shipping companies, they come in widely different qualities. If they're used in the Caribbean on small freighters, they're particularly usually in pretty bad shape. If they're used by one of the bigger shipping companies on larger ships, like Maersk, they tend to be in better condition after six to eight years. But, anyway, I learned that the recyclers are paying $11 a hundred for these containers, and occasionally they can buy them for less than that, in which case they buy them directly from the shippers. But they do buy it from members of the general public. And I have learned, to my surprise, that they only last for three to five years. The floors are the first to go. They became very popular with contractors years ago. The floors are the first to go, and then the roof is the second thing that goes on them. So in a -- it all depends on where they're placed. If they're placed in a wet, damp area, the floor's going to go out at six months or a year. So I think there are just a whole host of issues, including wind load how these are going to be maintained. You know, what kind of transition is there going to be for a ramp to get into it? Are cars going to be stored in it? Are there going to be explosive materials stored in it? Should there be some requirement for venting it? You know, are these really appropriate for permanent use in a residential neighborhood? The bottom -line issue is, is this going to affect the real estate values of properties in Golden Gate Estates? The secondary issue is, Estates zoning extends east of 951. There are even areas in the coastal zone, as you're aware of, that are zoned estates. I don't think those people are aware of the potential for their neighbors putting shipping containers in the backyard, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GADDY: There is a lot of estates zoning off of Goodlette Road, isn't there? Page 25 of 95 1612 May 17 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. There's a lot of estates zoning in East Naples south of Davis, too. It pops up in different parts of the county. I think what this board saw when we had our presentation on it, or actually our discussion with staff, I think the reference was mostly to pods. And are PODS the same thing as shipping containers, or are there -- if what Mr. Gaddy is saying is true about wooden floors and everything, that's -- I don't think we envisioned that as one of the issues. So it's good that this is going to be discussed again, but at the same time, when we compare it to things that are acceptable -- you know, remember, you can always put a shed up and -- you know, you can get a permit for a Ted's Shed. They're done routinely. So whatever we do to assure that a shed is safe, if a shipping container is as equally safe, that's one hurdle to get past. Then what is it that we don't like about it after there? I'm not sure you eliminate all of them is what I'm saying, Peter. MR. GADDY: Right. You don't eliminate all the problems. We have people out there with visions of kids jumping off the top of them. We have people out there with visions of people operating kennels in them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, you could do that with any structure -- MR. GADDY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I'm not sure that needs to be focused as an applicable criteria -- MR. GADDY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- against a shipping container. It needs to be more -- MR. GADDY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can say kids are going to jump off it, they can jump off the balcony of a house, too. So what are you --we can't prohibit --we prohibit all balconies? So there's got to be some reason inhere that's special to these particular units. MR. GADDY: Yeah, well, sheds have, you know, treated lumber, and they generally aren't in direct contact with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that may be a criteria that has to be added. So I think the idea is good to have at least another airing of it, and then have it come back. Is that okay with this board? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: What's the number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody against that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Caroline, is that enough for you to work it up and bring it back to us after the next -- you get some more public input? MS. CILEK: Yes. We can work with the organizations. There are several out in the Golden Gate Estates, and work on their timeline and bring back what they propose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good. MR. GADDY: Okay. I don't have a position on the issue; neither does our organization. We just want to gather more information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when it gets finished and back to us, it would be helpful if any organizations where these could go had input on it and took a position. That's what we're here to do is listen to the public. So I would -- it would be nice if you could take one as we go on. MR. GADDY: I can guarantee you won't be lonely when it comes back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Caroline, could you develop maybe some definitions as to the different types of containers so -- MS. CILEK: Yeah. So far we've been categorizing them by size. We can take a look at the materials and how they're constructed as well speaking to the lumber. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, actually, what we had presented to us was very limited in the way it was categorized. It was sized, and you actually used the reference to PODS in the staff summary. So that was getting us into a focus that seems to be a little different than maybe where it could go if it was used in a wrong manner. So, Page 26 of 95 16 12A� y a 17 4.012 yeah, we'd certainly appreciate more clarity. Thank you. MR. GADDY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've finished up with the kennel issue for now. Let's move onto No. 2. It will be 4.05.02, design standards for parking space requirements. MS. CILEK: This was presented last CCPC meeting, and we have made corrections highlighted in yellow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, sure do. That would be under -- in our tab, it would be 4.05.02. Does any -- go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 3 in our packet under that 4.05.02, down on B 1(A)(i). MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Grass parking spaces shall be compacted, stabilized, and well drained and surfaced with a durable and maintained condition. Grass cover driveways, handicap spaces, and access aisles shall be paved. Just so I understand, if you have a grass parking area and you have handicap spaces designated within that, then those spaces -- MS. CILEK: Must be -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- must be paved? MS. CILEK: -- paved, correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions or concerns? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm happy the way it's organized and everything. I think we got it just about right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Phil. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Next one is 1.08.02, definitions, usable open space. COMMISSIONER VONIER: What is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1.08.02, usable open space. That would be the second -- third 1.08.02 in your tab -- of your tabs. MS. CILEK: Correct. And similar to the last amendment, the changes that we discussed are highlighted in yellow. We are adding back in language that is currently in the code, on Page 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this was -- I think, Brad, you brought some of these points up last time, and it wouldn't be good to take them out, so they're put back in. Page 27 of 95 1612 N COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any discussion first of anybody? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question. Define floodplains for the purpose of this amendment. MS. CILEK: I think -- and I'm speaking offhand here, but floodplains are probably something that is defined in the LDC. I can't speak to the pure definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they're defined in the floodplain ordinance because we went through all that, but I don't know if the definition got matched up to the LDC. You got your definitions up on your MUNI code at all, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'll look. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The reason I ask is, what pops into my head is a floodplain can be 100 acres, 200 acres -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could be. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- or more. MS. CILEK: Yeah. This doesn't limit size. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Pardon? MS. CILEK: This doesn't limit the amount that they can attribute to the open space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's a floodplain and doesn't have any obstructions, then that's what it is is open space, so it would be -- it certainly should be qualified as open space. MS. CILEK: And this provision doesn't limit any size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was before. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm talking about the limit or the uses or the designation. But if I want to use this as open space and I say, okay, I am going to designate that as a floodplain, is that sufficient? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I'm looking -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mother Nature -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Everybody's going to help me then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, Ray, is there a definition in our LDC for a floodplain? MR. BELLOWS: There's not a separate definition for floodplain. It occurs currently under the current open -space language as it's currently provided in the LDC; therefore, I think it -- like you mentioned, it would be subject to how the floodplain management ordinances define it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if staff got a request from an applicant that says this is -- I'm going to declare this all a floodplain, therefore, it's all open space, you wouldn't allow him to declare it a floodplain until you verified with the floodplain ordinance that it is, in fact, a real floodplain. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I have the hard book. I'm not on the MUNI code online. But I do have a definition in my book of floodplain area inundated during a 100 -year flood event or identified by the National Flood Insurance Program as an A zone or V zone on flood insurance rate maps or flood hazard boundary maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that probably matches up pretty much to what the floodplain ordinance MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But it's not one word, so you might want -- I think in here you've got it one word. MS. CILEK: But it's going to reflect what that definition is in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the definition in the code being two words. That may be why you didn't catch it, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Let me check. CHARMAN STRAIN: Unless Heidi's got an outdated book. Boy, then we're in trouble. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's updated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it's -- Phil, does that solve your concern? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, as long as we can fall back on a specific definition, then I'm good Page 28 of 95 � 1 6 12 2 4 May 17, 2012 with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Brad made a motion to recommend approval, and there's a second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Next one is the -- was tabled from 4/13. It's 4.02.14, and it's on design standards for development in the ST and ACSCST districts. Harold Hall was here earlier, and I'm sure this is the one he was probably wanting to talk about. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's gone, so -- hi, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Land Development Services Department. Actually, I did speak with Harold in the hallway, and he is in support of this amendment. You asked us to discuss this amendment and pretty much resolve all the issues. Then there were stakeholders present that voiced concern about the limitation of impacting jurisdictional wetlands and also that the TDRs are no longer -- you're no longer allowed to transfer TDRs out of the ST area and into the urban area. And we had -- I asked David Weeks to verify that, and we had presented a memo to you indicating when the TDRs are no longer allowed to be transferred out of the ACSCST, and that was in -- by Ordinance 99 -66. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, David did an excellent job on the research in the way he laid it. And I'll tell you what, that's why he's the -- kind of like the historian on the issues. He did a real good job in laying that stuff out in the research, so please let him know. Okay. We'll probably definitely see if there's any -- are there any speakers on this here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any issues with this today? MS. CILEK: We have no speakers that have submitted anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From the Planning Cormnission, with the revisions and the changes in the new language, does anybody have any issues with it? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: C3, I think that first sentence needs some punctuation. Soils exposed during site alterations shall be stabilized, comma, and retention ponds or performance equivalent structures or systems maintained, comma, in order to -- et cetera. That's a whale of a sentence if you don't put any commas in there. Anybody have any problem with that? MR. LENBERGER: The language is taken right out of Florida Administrative Code and also out of the Growth Management Plan, but -- however you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's existing language, right? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We haven't been changing existing language, Bill. Page 29 of 95 d A. ,. May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if that's a mistake, we will have to pick it up at another time in the future if it's needed, but -- anybody else? Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa makes a motion to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Next one up is 5.03.06, dock facilities and new admin procedure. MS. CILEK: As you're searching in your binder, this amendment was also reviewed on the 13th of April, and following our discussion, I added in a couple of the recommendations. First on Page 3, we tweaked H2, removed some language regarding the -- putting the dock facility, "maximum square footage," tweaked that language, and it is -- actually it was in H 1. And then we've added language in H2 which reflects the appeals process, updated the number of criteria, needed for approval by the planning commission. And then on Page 4 we added in the recommendation from Brad to add a criteria looking at the water depth at the proposed site. We utilized the existing language. We tweaked it a bit for consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: And then at the request of Heidi we added language regarding the appeals process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. H is what the Planning Commission used to use for dock extensions, and now it's going to be shared with staff -- MS. CILEK: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for them via the administrative availability. So a couple of the things I wouldn't mind keeping in there. Do you see the word "in order for the Planning Commission to approve," which you're striking? MS. CILEK: In H. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In H. That's kind of always been important in the argument of is this a scorecard or is this a condition that has to be met before we can start to approve it. So let's not have that debate now. But is there a problem in keeping that in? I think the wording of that is important, at least important to me, that it means that it's a condition that has to be met before we can start considering. Staff has interpreted it that the criteria is a scorecard. But just so that we can maintain the argument on our side of the fence, since we're sharing this thing, could we keep that in there? MS. CILEK: It would be a reiteration of 1-1213, but if you're fine with that double, putting it in the overall umbrella of H and then under -- Page 30 of 95 1612 ' ` 2 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not a reiteration because you have -- you're actually saying that the Planning Commission do it "provided." So, in other words, the words "in order for" is the important wording. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: "Provided" doesn't equal that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we change the language in H2B to put in the "in order for" there and then not have to have it redundant in both sections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I have no problem with that. And I think we should just rewrite B that kind of adds the wording of -- that you crossed out above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do it now so we can finish with this one if that's okay. MS. CILEK: Sounds great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we pick a spot to put that language in. There doesn't seem to be an objection from staff. I think it meets your concern, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Then right where it says "may be approved," start right there, add, "in order for the Planning Commission to approve a boat -dock extension request, it must be determined" -- essentially just put -- MS. CILEK: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- from maybe, cross that out and put the one you crossed out above in there. MS. CILEK: Well, cross out "maybe" all the way to the end of the sentence and put in the sentence in H that is currently struck. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And you obviously changed the numbers, so make sure they match with the update. MS. CILEK: Correct, of course. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The way we revised this with staff was so that, you know, you had to have four out of the five criteria of the primary and two out of the three, but even if you had that, you'd still have the flexibility to not approve it if you had other reasons, and that's why we changed the language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't know if putting the language back into the way you want to put it gives credence to the former zoning director's opinion which is if you -- you know, if you met them, you get it. And that's what we were trying to do was get away from that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, and we have exactly the same intent here. So maybe the -- the wording "in order for the Planning Commission" versus "provided" four of the five, I mean, I think -- when you have the words "in order for the Planning Commission, the criterias have to be met," I think that establishes a baseline from which we can move forward. We don't want it to be a scorecard. So if you think -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the "in order" causes scorecard, I don't think so. I think -- because that was always the words that gave us the strength to say that no, no, no, this is not a scorecard. It's a condition that has to be met before we could give approval. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'll work with Caroline to work out the language. I hear what you're saying, we thought we'd resolved that, but you're saying. You know, that you still think it's a scorecard. So we'll work the language. Can we work it out and bring it next time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because what you're saying is it may be approved provided, and then that sets up the scorecard to me. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. Well, that's why we put "may" instead of "shall." MS. CILEK: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The "may," I think, gives you more flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. "May" doesn't mean it's mandatory, so that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd certainly think from a legal perspective, Heidi, you need to weigh in on the two when it comes back next time. If it needs a change, make it. So I understand Brad's point, and it should be considered for sure. Page 31 of 95 16 12 A2 May`) 7, 2012 One other thing, and it's a sidebar, really. This section of our code allows for up to two boats for a single- family residence. Somehow the reference to "up to two boats" has become a hardship if you can't fit two the boats on there, and I don't understand how we've gotten there. And I just want to make sure that this doesn't make it easier to provide a hardship that doesn't exist. I mean, I don't know -- I'm actually puzzled, because we say "up to two," so somehow that's been construed to mean if you don't get two, you poor person, you've got a hardship, and I don't see how we've gotten there. It could be better written; maybe you should consider it. If not, just leave it as it is. But I just keep seeing that in here, and it bothers me because we've always -- we're now looking at it differently than what I've ever perceived it to be. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would support that, your point there, and maybe we could put in "up to two" subject to some conditions that exist or so forth in the request. I don't know if -- I think your language would help. What -- my other question here is what happened to three of the secondary criteria? MS. CILEK: We consolidated criteria. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I didn't get that link. All of a sudden we went from six to three. MS. CILEK: Right. We consolidated site conditions into certain -- so some of the secondary criteria were actually brought into the primary criteria because they were all seen as site conditions. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- Caroline, this one's going to have to come back because of the rewrite with you and Heidi, so -- MS. CILEK: Anything else that you wish to be adjusted before we bring it back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine isn't something that I'm telling you to adjust. I'm just suggesting to you, it's been a strange interpretation that -- in regards to hardship. It's just not one that I've seen before, and lately it's come up twice. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, recently. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think we can make it clear that if this -- all site conditions are met and there's no navigational issues, then up to two is appropriate. But if there are variances required then, you know, maybe you size the dock to fit the one boat. MS. CILEK: Right. And any boat dock that has a variance attached to it will have to come before the Planning Commission. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one more question on it. We're eliminating the requirement that used to be there for 50 percent would be the maximum amount of boats. So now we have unlimited boat length on the docks. MS. CILEK: We don't have unlimited boat length. You just have to outline the envelope of your dock facility area, which would include where your -- the length of your boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. There's a phrase that's crossed off. Petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's, linear waterfront footage, the applicable maximum percentage should be maintained. So in other words -- MS. CILEK: Can you give me where you are, and speak into the microphone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's on Page 5 up at the top. It's in C up there. MS. CILEK: Right. And we actually talked about this at the last meeting, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do we really -- I mean, that's a requirement that -- MS. CILEK: What we're doing is, we're not asking the petitioner to provide the length of their boat, and this was basing -- this criteria is actually looking at the length of the boat, the length of the vessel itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. CILEK: And we're no longer wanting to include that in the section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, in -- I think the original ordinance was -- really had in mind the wharf dock, which would be like a four -foot dock running parallel with the seawall or parallel with the property, and Page 32 of 95 1612 Az May 17, 2012 then the boat could go out past that up to 20 feet. But they did not want to block more than 50 percent. So can we maintain that 50 percent of the width of the thing is still in there? I mean, What's the advantage of getting rid of that other than people could really put some big boats out there? MR. BELLOWS: Well, that would still be part of the boat -dock extension. But I think if -- your concern is mostly to address how much width of the lot is covered by a dock, then maybe the 50 percent should be addressing that more clearly. Is that your intent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, in other words, they don't -- if -- sideways, I think is the original intent, but they could be perpendicular, not covering more than 50 percent, and that gives them plenty of room. You know, a 100 -foot lot, that's 50 feet. MS. CILEK: Right. And this historically hasn't been applied even keel, so sometimes it's looking at 50 percent of the linear waterfront footage, looking at the 50 feet on 100, or the extension, which a lot of them didn't meet simply because they're going to be over. If they have a 60 -foot parcel, then they're over 30; they don't meet it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I'm kind of okay. I'm not really worried about the length sticking out. I'm worried about the width at the lots, and really thinking of the neighbor, if you're up against the right property line. Okay. Thank you. MS. CILEK: We can look at that. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 5 -- I just noticed this now. On Line 13, petitioner shall demonstrate, and then struck out, whether seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. What we're left with is the petitioner shall demonstrate compliance with, blah - blah - blah -blah, if seagrass beds are present within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. And I'll harken back to quite a few meetings ago, how will they demonstrate? Because in prior -- in some prior dock petitions before us, it was merely a statement by the petitioner, "there are none," and we've since learned that seagrass beds can be evident or not evident depending upon the time of year, the salinity, the warmth of the water, et cetera. How shall they demonstrate or how should we require that they demonstrate? MS. CILEK: I believe it's a submerged survey that is provided at the time. MR. BELLOWS: Building permit. MS. CILEK: At the time of the building permit. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: At the time of the building pennit, which may be subsequent to any hearing before this board, correct? MS. CILEK: I'm going to let Ray speak to when they provide the -- whether they have identified if there's seagrass beds or not, and someone who works with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one thing -- now, this says, though, shall demonstrate in compliance with Subsection 5.03.061. So I guess, really, we need to read that in unison with this particular application to understand how they're going to -- what compliance they're demonstrating for. MS. CILEK: Right. And I read that a while back, but that is just the seagrass bed provision. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Which says you have to have grading and so forth and so on and so on if seagrass beds are present. I'm earlier in the timeline than that. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm very uncomfortable with the petitioner just saying there are no seagrass beds. MS. CILEK: Well -- so that would be adding a new element to the current -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And we're not here to add to it. MS. CILEK: -- process, which would be adding a survey at the time of submittal for this. This is just following. We just treat the language on that criteria. We didn't intend to change it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think -- yeah, what you're saying is Phil's statements would add criteria that we've not vetted. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So that would be another -- Page 33 of 95 1612 'May 42012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be a whole 'nother process, yeah. Maybe that's something -- MS. CILEK: And I'm not prepared to speak on that fully. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But did we not learn in the past that they can skip a year and not be present but -- I mean, so -- and you're right, if people know when to go out, which would be your submerged, they would go out during the time seagrass beds weren't there. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that is -- we're kind of caught there in between. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, we're striking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. You could just change the language "are present or have been present within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility" or put a time frame in there in which they have to look back or have been present within the past two years or something like that, or have been known to be present. COMMISSIONER AHERN: How would you know? MS. CILEK: A survey would still be submitted at this time which, I mean, we can discuss. I'm just not fully prepared to discuss that since I'm not as familiar with that part of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Usually we receive something from environmentalists that show whether they're present at the point they bring it to us. So it seems like there's quite a bit of time that lapses between the time they come in for a pen-nit and then they have to submit a revised one, correct? Or can they use the one that they -- MS. CILEK: Revise following -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: For showing if there's beds there or seagrass there. MS. CILEK: I mean, they have to submit anything that would show that there are seagrass beds. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm just saying if they have to do one at this point, then they have to do a revised one at the time of pennit, then that's going to cover a wider area if they -- MS. CILEK: They'd have to redo. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- right, if they were there and/or will be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, this is a hard one for anybody to do on the fly. And you guys are in kind of an awkward position now that we've brought it up as questioning. But now that you know it's an issue, similar to the research that David did or the way that Bill Lorenz -- I mean Steve Lenberger does, his studies and analysis back to us, you could ask that this one be looked at that way to explain to us how seagrass beds are protected through a demonstration in compliance with this. That might solve the issue, and you'd have time to digest it before we have to discuss it again at the next meeting, and everybody then would be on the same page. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would add, Mark, protected and/or defined, because there seems to be some looseness there as well. I mean, if it's going to be a major criteria for us to consider, I would like a lot more specificity in terms of what we're going to evaluate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I could fully expect that this issue's going to be hot again when the Dunes comes back for its resubmittal, because they didn't appeal, so that means they're going to resubmit. And if they resubmit, then the whole idea of seagrass beds is going to come back up, and we might as well get it on the table now so we're not -- we're looking at it as a broad spectrum to everybody that comes in instead of just rush to one project, so COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we didn't finish with that one. Sorry, guys. MS. CILEK: I will get with environmental and the pen-nit process and be more apt to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one up is 5.03 -- oh, 5.06.00. That is sign regulations. MR. CARROLL: Correct. And this one was also reviewed on April 13th, and I have gone through each of the proposed amendments to the sign code section and outlined exactly what is changing, if it was a correction from the 2009 or if it's a new addition or if it's trying to clarify something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions or concerns about the rewrite? MS. CILEK: Brad, we included language regarding the sandwich board sign and when it should be brought in. That was a good little note to include. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only question I had -- and, you know -- and, actually, never mind. It's Page 34 of 95 1612 2 May 17, 2012 something that's a standard. The point was that all of these sign square footages are one side only. We can have V -shape signs, but that's covered someplace in this, correct? MS. CILEK: Well, this says that they are -- have two sides, two sides. So it's like an A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. No, I'm back on some of the other stuff; let's let it go. MS. CILEK: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I've been noticing lately that you're seeing more people walking around with signs. Is that covered by this? MS. CILEK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, the sandwich board ones are. That's what we're -- right? MS. CILEK: Well, these are designed to be within 10 feet of the front door of the business, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about on a street corner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, people parading back and forth waving signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've been seeing it, too. Sign of the times, I guess. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, labor is cheap. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No pun intended. MS. CILEK: Those are directional signs. I'm just going to let Heidi speak to those. It is not addressed in this amendment. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm really not the appropriate person to answer your question. We can have someone come and address that. I can tell you there's free speech issues involved. And whether they fall under one of the definitions of the sign, that would be someone other than me in the office that could address that issue, if you'd like me to have them come down. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know. I guess why fix a problem if it's not -- oh, if it's not broken, if people are not complaining about it or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going to go next. I think your issue is a good question, but it isn't part of this LDC cycle. But it is one that if it is to be brought up because of the number of stakeholders that would be involved in it, it would have to be initiated, most likely, by the board after a public petition or complaints, and then we'd have to go out and vet it in the public, especially with those business owners. And I've had some of them come to me, because I've told them, you know, what good is those people with those signs out front, and they've actually said -- they've told me their traffic tremendously increases in some instances because of that. I didn't even realize. So I think it would be a really strong process to get that one through any kind of regulatory process here. So I think that's for another day and another time, to be honest with you. But it isn't regulated at this point to that extent. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know I did move to approve, but you dropped the definition of flag. MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that on purpose? MS. CILEK: Yes. Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. There was something on flags and also religious symbols and, you know, we've gone through an overhaul a couple years ago with our sign code and with the constitutional law expert. And so I'm recommending, the County Attorney's Office is recommending, that we don't make changes to those sections at this time. They were -- changes were removing the content neutrality from what we had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I just want to make sure it wasn't an accident. MS. CILEK: Yep, it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On purpose. MS. CILEK: -- sent in correctly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Still my motion to approve. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad made a motion to approve. Second by Melissa. Page 35 of 95 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Next item up is 10.01.02, development order requirements, early construction. MS. CILEK: All righty. Again, this was reviewed on the 13th of April. The changes are highlighted in yellow, and most of them occur on the last page. We're just tightening up a little bit, making sure the county has enough of a bond to cover all improvement to the land. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know if I like the way this is written or not, because the county is also putting stuff in here to kind of cover them. I fought with the county manager for 18 months because they didn't follow this code. I notice they've doubled the time, and that has to do with the clearing early. And you're right, bond money is big on this. That, I know, is going to be taken care of MS. CILEK: Can you speak to the doubling the time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's -- maybe it's not this particular one, but it is with the -- MS. CILEK: I don't know if there are any -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: The development order -- MS. CILEK: We have -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you, Jamie. MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon. The intent of this language was based off the Florida specialties project that we took to the Board of County Commissioners. The board asked us to come back with an alternative for those companies that wanted to move forward. May have -- you know, talked about business - friendly environment, so you may have a company that says, hey, I want to build here. My zoning is in place, but I'm not quite through the land development process yet, but we'd like to go ahead and go vertical. The state does address that within the Florida Building Code and allows for an early work authorization, but it only allows for them to work up to that very first inspection. So they can go and maybe pour a slab, or maybe they can go and stub out their plumbing. But at the end of day, they're stuck at that point until they get their Site Development Plan, their PUD -- or I'm sorry, their Site Development Plan or their Site Development Plan amendment corrected. This would allow for phasing. It involves both us from the building department side as well as fire district side. And building code -- and I'm sure that Mr. Schiffer is listening closely to correct me if I'm wrong, but -- or Commissioner Schiffer, I apologize. The Florida Building Code allows for six -month provisions, so that permit is active for six months. In the event that they don't call in an active -- a passing inspection, some sort of passing action occurs; what happens then is that the permit then becomes expired, and we can only extend that permit 120 days, I believe, after that expiration, otherwise they've got to come in and completely re- permit. So what we were suggesting here is that if we could negotiate some sort of bond in the event that the developer changed his mind, lost his customer, couldn't go vertical, what would happen is that we would have the Page 36 of 95 "< 1612 May 17, 2012 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Next item up is 10.01.02, development order requirements, early construction. MS. CILEK: All righty. Again, this was reviewed on the 13th of April. The changes are highlighted in yellow, and most of them occur on the last page. We're just tightening up a little bit, making sure the county has enough of a bond to cover all improvement to the land. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know if I like the way this is written or not, because the county is also putting stuff in here to kind of cover them. I fought with the county manager for 18 months because they didn't follow this code. I notice they've doubled the time, and that has to do with the clearing early. And you're right, bond money is big on this. That, I know, is going to be taken care of MS. CILEK: Can you speak to the doubling the time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's -- maybe it's not this particular one, but it is with the -- MS. CILEK: I don't know if there are any -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: The development order -- MS. CILEK: We have -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you, Jamie. MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon. The intent of this language was based off the Florida specialties project that we took to the Board of County Commissioners. The board asked us to come back with an alternative for those companies that wanted to move forward. May have -- you know, talked about business - friendly environment, so you may have a company that says, hey, I want to build here. My zoning is in place, but I'm not quite through the land development process yet, but we'd like to go ahead and go vertical. The state does address that within the Florida Building Code and allows for an early work authorization, but it only allows for them to work up to that very first inspection. So they can go and maybe pour a slab, or maybe they can go and stub out their plumbing. But at the end of day, they're stuck at that point until they get their Site Development Plan, their PUD -- or I'm sorry, their Site Development Plan or their Site Development Plan amendment corrected. This would allow for phasing. It involves both us from the building department side as well as fire district side. And building code -- and I'm sure that Mr. Schiffer is listening closely to correct me if I'm wrong, but -- or Commissioner Schiffer, I apologize. The Florida Building Code allows for six -month provisions, so that permit is active for six months. In the event that they don't call in an active -- a passing inspection, some sort of passing action occurs; what happens then is that the permit then becomes expired, and we can only extend that permit 120 days, I believe, after that expiration, otherwise they've got to come in and completely re- permit. So what we were suggesting here is that if we could negotiate some sort of bond in the event that the developer changed his mind, lost his customer, couldn't go vertical, what would happen is that we would have the Page 36 of 95 16 12 A2 4ay 17, 2012 engineer of record up front come forward and say, this is our phase permit, here's the cost of what it would take to demo what we've done to lessen the burden back on the county. And whatever the remaining was, much like we've done in other code enforcement type cases, we intended that if there was monies left over, we may possibly lien that property, but yet we would have a mechanism or a dollar in the bank to go ahead and move forward with that. And I know what you were talking about, I believe, with Vita Tescana, but in this particular case we're not talking about a large housing development so much as we're talking about a specific site that would allow for a business where zoning was in place to go ahead and begin their construction project while they're working on their land development work as well. So it's a simultaneous work. Again, we did incorporate our thoughts with the fire districts, so we've got fire plan review; Ed Riley's office did make comment on this and added some suggestions. And I'm happy to answer any questions this board may have. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple things. So the limitations on construction activity, essentially what you're doing is allowing them to dig the footing, put the steel in, and that's the first inspection? MR. FRENCH: Well, currently under the early work authorize under the code, that is all they're allowed to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then, obviously, they can go on with phase permits and stuff like that? MR. FRENCH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Down at the Procedures B, there's a clause in there that says you can revoke the bond if they fail to get an approved site plan and the building permit expires. So, I mean, you know in the permitting process that's a -- you know, a volleyball game between sides. One side is the people that can forfeit the bond. So, I mean, is there a way -- is that -- I mean, what do you foresee the problem there being? I mean -- MR. FRENCH: Well, I don't foresee a problem, because once the land development order has already been applied, what would happen then is that then they're entitled to their bond back so that we don't create an undue amount of burden on the developer, on the property owner. Essentially, what happens -- the current process, they go through their Site Development Plan work. Once that's approved, they would come forward and they would get their building permit. There is no requirement currently either at the state level or at our current level that requires them to put up a bond in the event that they abandon that building. That's where your state licensing and your insurances come in through your qualifiers and general contractors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the only thing, small thing. Up in -- top of Page 4F, it should be approved by the office of the fire code official and under the Fire Prevention Code. Can we get rid of the word "and" up there? Let's just make it under the Fire Prevention Code. That's enough. MS. CIL,EK: Sure, done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Hold on just a second. Where are we again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up at F on the top of 4. It says it has to be approved by the fire code official and under the fire code. It's only under the fire. MS. CILEK: Yep, I can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He should be dealing with this. MR. FRENCH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Melissa, made by Brad. Page 37 of 95 1612 AZ May 17, 2012 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we jump down to the one that's kind of like this one, the next one, 10.02.03B, B3, and just get rid of the two SDP ones together. MS. CILEK: Sure. Number 12 on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Submittal requirements for Site Development Plans, 10.02.03. It's a couple tabs past the one we just heard, and it's similar to the one we just heard. So at least --similar topic. Anybody have any issues on this one? MS. CILEK: This is really reworking the insubstantial change procedure, outlining the different criteria that apply when someone submits an application. It's grouped by type, so transportation, zoning, stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, on Page 4 of that, under I -- first of all, you crossed out IV, which I think you want to leave in, because then III has to go to -- III goes to V. MS. CILEK: Oh, I'm song, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then, if you read IV, it says there is no significant change to the required retained vegetation. This may be established by the following, and go to B, a significant change to the reconfiguration of preserves or conservation area. Wasn't the intention of these subparagraphs, A, B, and C, to really establish what a significant change is? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how can you establish what a significant change is by saying if there's a significant change? MS. CILEK: You know, that's a very good question. That word was added by an individual, and with good reason. But I do believe that extra word "significant" may not be necessary. It's caught under the umbrella of IV, which is currently struck but should be there. So it's really -- I mean, we could just keep it to a change or reconfiguration of preserve or conservation area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, this is all under the heading of -- there is -- of evaluation criteria in order to be insubstantial. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to change that, there is no significant change to the required retained vegetation established by the following: B, to change -- a change to the reconfiguration or preserves or conservation area. MS. CILEK: Or the reconfiguration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or what? MS. CILEK: You could start with the reconfiguration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what that means is if you were to change -- if you reconfigure preserve or conservation areas -- MS. CILEK: It would be based on how significant that change is. If you're moving two feet around, you Page 38 of 95 6 12 May 17, 2012 know, adding two feet here, reducing two feet here, then that wouldn't be considered a significant change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But wasn't the whole purpose of laying these out in this order that you've done them in -- which I think is a good idea -- is to allow more definition as to what -- take out the ambiguity as to what is insignificant -- or insubstantial versus substantial change? And I'm wondering how that's accomplished by what Paragraph IV provides. MS. CILEK: Are you looking for like a -- to quantify it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- how -- I mean, wouldn't that be easier for staff, because what is an insignificant change to you may not be an insignificant change to somebody else, and I'm just -- I'm trying to figure out a way to get you guys into a more quantifiable assessment than one that's ambiguous. MS. CILEK: Well, I can speak to the environmental department and see if we would want to quantify this or if they are comfortable with it as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like a percentage. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they feel like you've got to preserve -- no matter what acreage it is, if a certain percentage of it is a threshold -- MS. CILEK: Like 2 percent or more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would keep you guys in a less -- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- problematic position. MS. CILEK: And we've gone through and quantified several of these since the first version we sent to you. So I think we could work that out, and it would be a low percentage. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And I'd just like to point out, the LDC does have a percentage that would pertain to changes to preserve areas on the master plan that's 5 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five percent or five acres, whichever is greater. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. So maybe something like that could be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think that would be a good way to approach it. MS. CILEK: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd suggest that one needs to come back for that clarification. Anybody else have anything? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, in the old language B was called construction of required improvements. You're calling it something else; is that right? You're calling it final site development? MS. CILEK: Actually, I believe there was a typo in the first one, in my first draft that I gave to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's still here in the -- so in other words, are you retitling B; if so, I guess underline it. If not -- MS. CILEK: Yes, good point. I will make sure that is clear in the next draft. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Secondly, you know, all these criteria are here. If we had a change in use in a building, let's say, from one occupancy type to another -- and that could change, let's say, parking, so is everything covered in here? In other words, we're not ever discussing the use of a building; yet, the ramifications of a change could affect some of these items. You may -- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- hit the 10 trips limit. You may have to add more pervious area if you're changing the parking layout or something. So in other words, this is for a change of use, and it would be an insubstantial change. So in other words, if I had an SDP for, let's say, some occupancy, and then I want to go back and just change the occupancy, I can do it through this procedure if I don't trigger these thresholds; is that right? MS. CILEK: I think I follow you. This would be used in any instance where there's an insubstantial change whether you're changing your use or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think the answer is yes to your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, the use part of it isn't discussed -- MS. CILEK: Correct. Page 39 of 95 A 2 1*4 1612 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but the ramifications of use does fall into these categories. Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this one's going to come back for a short rewrite. MS. CILEK: Yeah. Anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that, I think we're okay. Anybody else have any other issues? MS. CILEK: I'll work with the environment, and we'll get -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to No. 8, new draft provided 4.06.02 for buffer requirements. MS. CILEK: 4.06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.06.02. MS. CILEK: All righty. This is a freshly revised amendment. And on Page 6 and 7 is the new language. And what we've done is we've really taken out of -- or we had first amended the exceptions to the landscape buffer section, and now we've really just put together a whole new section so it's very clear as to what will apply for this type of joint project, which enables applicants to remove a side buffer that is shared or a rear buffer that is shared. And in place of that, the square footage and the landscape material will be maintained elsewhere on the joint project. So no net loss of green space. It just provides for some flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. It appears that that's a little punitive, because this is directed at people with small properties. That's the idea of common buffer and a connection between the two. And so if the property is properly buffered to begin with and it's a small property, why do we make them take what -- take the buffer material and put it someplace else that they gave up on the combined buffer? I mean, that's punitive. MS. CILEK: Because they might want to do something else with this. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Let them -- MS. CILEK: They could create a courtyard. COMMISSIONER VONIER: But that's their problem. That's interior to their development. That has -- why should we say they have to do it? MS. CILEK: Well, they don't have to do this. This is an option. And here's Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: How you doing? One of the works -- Nick Casalanguida, for the record. One of the things we discussed is if you look at shopping centers, southwest corner of Pine Ridge and Airport Road. When a person develops that site, they can keep it as one unified Site Development Plan or they can break out the outparcels. By breaking out the outparcels and selling them individually, it triggers all these buffer requirements in between the adjacent parcels. So you're almost punishing someone for selling off individual lots because now they've got to do this. What you're getting at is, okay, so if we allow them as a unified project to say, in between two, the Taco Bell and the Chase building, they are right there, if you're going to eliminate that buffer, what we've heard from the development -- not the development community, but the people that are interested in making that green space, you know, prevalent in Collier County, put those plants someplace else on the site so there's no net loss. But we will give you the ability between two adjacent comparative sites to eliminate at that location, but we don't want to, all of a sudden, people doing that purposely and eliminating the need to do landscaping and keeping that level of landscaping on the site. So it's a flexibility issue for the developer. It's a compatibility thing that we support as staff. And from the community, their concern that it will be taken advantage of and will eliminate plantings in Collier County. So where it makes sense two -- in a unified project, two side -by -side sites, the Taco Bell and the bank, you can eliminate that buffer between you because it's a unified site, but take those plants and put them someplace else so we see a lot of green space or a lot of green, you know, in Collier County, because that's what they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the -- what Bill's point is, he saw this as punitive, but really what happens is by allowing the reduction of the landscape buffers, it becomes -- it isn't punitive. It provides them with the flexibility -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to put that elsewhere on the property, but it takes away the requirement. So it may Page 40 of 95 16l2A 2 May 17, 2012 be actually beneficial for some of those outparcels. COMMISSIONER VONIER: All right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, it's meant to be not punitive but beneficial. We keep the green space. You get to that use of that adjacent property line without having to put those buffers in, and it looks kind of silly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, Bill's point about the smallness of the acreage is another -- is a question I had, too, and I tend to -- why are we limiting it to three acres? Because, for example, the site you just used as an example, it would be a joint project. So that means you say you have a Taco Bell with the overall shopping center. You're in excess of three acres. So you couldn't -- this couldn't apply then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't add the three acres. I don't know where -- MS. CILEK: That three acres -- so this went through, in a sense, a review by local landscape architects and stakeholders, and the concept of adding a limitation to the acreage was so that you wouldn't have vast expanses of parcels, 10 acres, five acres, that wouldn't have any green space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not any. We're not reducing it to zero. Reducing it to 15 out of 30. MS. CILEK: But it wouldn't have -- they wouldn't have any buffers. They wanted to maintain that green space that you would see after a certain size, so that was where that came from was from stakeholder input. COMMISSIONER Al ERN: Do we have stakeholders other than the people who make their living off of doing this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure I would like to put the reduction on there, but that was something -- MS. CILEK: It's something we can discuss, most certainly. And I did do a review of parcels in the area, and most parcel sizes are an acre, little over an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, Bill's point about being punitive -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have no problem with a larger parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER VONIER: But with three acres, you know, they're under the gun to begin with. And the joint buffer is fantastic; they get a little more room. And then we say, okay, you know, let's plant -- you have to plant something someplace else. I don't -- for a small parcel, I think that's -- I think it is punitive. I still think so. MS. CILEK: Designed to help those small parcels so that they have that extra flexibility. But if the Planning Commission would like to make a recommendation to remove the size limitation, that is just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, maybe what it is you note that you're going to have two parcels, maybe more than two, but at least one of them has to be three or less, then that cures the small piece on a big piece, and that's kind of the intent of this anyway. MS. CILEK: Sure. That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm trying to process it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's trying to process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What he's saying is that you've got to -- you can't have two big parcels take advantage of this. MS. CILEK: You can't have a 10 -acre parcel -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could have a smaller parcel take advantage of it in relationship to a bigger parcel. And that makes sense. MS. CILEK: Benefitting the small parcel, and they can work with the larger parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do have -- this does -- has no effect on the perimeter buffers. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. MS. CILEK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an internal issue to the project itself. MS. CILEK: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could have two developers; one side of the road who doesn't break up his lot and doesn't have to do this, and you have the developer on the other side of the road who does outparcels and is stuck with all these interior buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That doesn't make sense. I don't know why we've limited it to three acres. I Page 41 of 95 A 2 1612 May 17, 2012 think that's a mistake. MS. CILEK: I think the recommendation of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MS. CILEK: Yeah, brad's recommendation is a good one, because it is designed to help out those little guys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another point. Nick, in your presentation you said the unified site plan, but these could definitely be independent owners, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep. MS. CILEK: Yes. We describe in the header of like the different ways to submit them, and that's just the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Five different owners along a property street, that's kind of unified in our view. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the shared buffer that remains, instead of 30 -- 15 and 15, it goes down to 115. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. MS. CILEK: It does, and that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the appropriate way to go. MS. CILEK: -- already provided for in the exceptions above this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've still got the green space. It's just half as wide, but the balance that is missing, say, could be contributed to the outside buffers if they wanted -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or some other open courtyards. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all positive. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's all good stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. CILEK: It provides a lot of flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to make some tweaks to it, like were identified. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just some tweaks, yeah. MS. CILEK: I think that's a good idea. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that one will come back. MS. CILEK: Just to note, it also won't apply to any of the interior main accessways. So if you have a road along that way, you still have a buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's just between parcels, yeah. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one up is landscape requirements for vehicle use areas and rights -of -way, buffer requirements, requirements of continuation of nonconformities. It would be 4.06.03, 4.06.02, and 9.03.02. I think they all are found under 4.06.03 -- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if I'm not mistaken, the second 4.06.03 in our book. MS. CILEK: All right. And this is the first time we're reviewing this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: And the overall goal here is to provide for one year through all of these different amendments. So in the first one we're looking at -- update revising the 90 days to one year before the listed site designs shall be brought up into conformance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any issues or questions involving this? It just basically gives it more time. MS. CILEK: It does. It grants a larger grace period before things are brought into the code, and that would apply to the buffers, from 60 consecutive days to one year, and the same for nonconfonnities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have a comment. I think it could even be longer. What we've just Page 42 of 95 16 12 ,. May 17, 2012 experienced, you know, even one year's not a big benefit. I mean, this is important, and this is some of the things some of the study groups have come up with as a problem with the LDC, but why do we pick a year? In other words, why do we pick -- MS. CILEK: Well, the year was first picked as a good time period. So a yearly time frame would be what we would look for because of the occupational license. It's when we -- the best way of tracking when a business has ceased and when a new business would begin. But if you're talking about one year versus two years, that would be a different issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're going from 60 days to one year, and from 90 days to one year, right? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we're already tripling and -- MS. CILEK: We are. We are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- quadrupling. That's quite a bit. MS. CILEK: -- extending it double or more. And we did a little bit of research. And the one -year time frame does work for a lot of smaller businesses. If you just take a quick glance on Pages 4 and 5, those bigger stores that are -- have a lot of square footage, they take a lot longer to fill. But the mom and pops and the ones that are a little bit smaller do -- a year would be a good time -- I mean, is more applicable to that, to being filled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have any realtors weighed in on this? Because it's really a problem for them if these -- MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if these projects are losing -- MS. CILEK: They were in support of a year or greater, as you mentioned before. But, yeah. It was earlier. It was last year we spoke with them. But they are in support of this change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comments or questions? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just wonder, is there any other way to do it than a time frame? I mean, I guess -- because what -- these could be very considerable expenses to a property owner. It will devalue his property if he looses the grandfathering of his buffers. It will devalue his property if he loses any of these, because he has to redesign them -- in other words, if he has a property that was built without buffers. Some properties might not even have them -- MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then this will eliminate parking, this will eliminate elements of his property which will maybe make it so he can't even -- you know, he may have to tear out a piece of building because he doesn't have enough parking anymore. MS. CILEK: Well, I do know that for landscaping it -- you know, an option would be an SIP, which would be to the greatest extent possible. So there is a little bit of flexibility currently there, just with when you submit your application for redoing your landscaping. Parking might be more difficult, but there is some flexibility. MR. BELLOWS: And we're just extending the time frame. They're still going to have to provide it when a new business comes in and they're ready to do it within that time frame. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had any -- have there been any issues with this that wouldn't have been cured by the time frames you're recommending today? MS. CILEK: I can't speak on behalf of, you know, if there have ever been any time frames. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that you know of. I mean, Ray's been here longer than you, obviously. MR. BELLOWS: Not that I know of. MS. CILEK: I mean -- and the goal is to really help -- MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure why board directed this. This was a board- directed change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it came -- there was some task force -- MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- vacant property, and this was one of the major things is people would Page 43 of 95 �4 bMay 17, 2012 have to walk away because they can't make the property useful in its present condition because it lost the grandfathering of these requirements. And not every property has a, you know, Site Improvement Plan. There's conventional zoned property that have been long built that don't have that -- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and don't have -- and are the ones most affected maybe. MS. CILEK: Sure. This is -- you know, 90 days to a year, 60 days to one year. So we went out and we suggested a year. If the Planning Commission wants to go beyond that that's just fine. We do have support for this from the realtors, and we do know that this will accommodate some of the smaller businesses. It won't get to all the square footage of the big box stores, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the advantage of this, what this is for is to bring all of the parts of the county that are below our standards up to date. And I can remember conversations with people who no longer work for us that they were pretty aggressive in doing that, and that's why they liked these 60 -day things. MS. CILEK: Right. This is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the architectural standards drop somewhere in here, too, and that could be a, you know, disaster to the building, structurally, and everything. MS. CILEK: Well, we didn't include the architectural in this amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but there is a time frame in there. MS. CILEK: There is a limit, and I think it's -- I think it's 180 days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, which -- and I don't know. I mean, it's a punitive thing. I'm just -- I don't know what the right answer is. I don't know if it's -- you know, we're in an economy where projects are easily off -- vacated for easily a year. I mean, you could -- if you did a count, you could probably find a lot of properties that have totally lost their grandfathering. MS. CILEK: Are you saying you would like a longer time period? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but, see, then we're going to end up having to go back through the process again. I think it's a start to get something changed now. This works the fastest. And if we have an issue that seems to warrant more, the board can so direct it or defer it until it is corrected further. But right now, this is six times the 60 days, and four times the 90 days. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're already quite a bit -- MS. CILEK: I think this provides a balance for, still, you know, bringing sites up to code and always giving people a larger grace period to get in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my point is that, you know, the one year -- most of the projects have been vacated for a year already. I mean, current buildings that are dropping out aren't as great as the ones that dropped out two, three years ago, so -- MS. CILEK: Right, but how do you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're not helping them at all. COMMISSIONER AHERN: How do you figure out a time, though; three years, five years? MS. CILEK: And you have to look at the code as dealing with, you know, the current situation as well as the future. In five years, you know, some of those buildings will be full, some of them won't, but this provision will, you know, still be there likely. So finding a balance is important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, it's an issue the realtors should be in here discussing, but they never show up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you said you did meet with them? MS. CILEK: We did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what does that mean you did? You went to the board of realtors and they had a straw vote amongst the people at that meeting, or what happened? MS. CILEK: We had one of our staff reach out to a realtor, and we provided them this amendment. And they said that they supported it, and they were even in favor of a longer time period. But this is what we had proposed moving forward after discussions with staff, because we were looking for a balance overall. Yes, we might be in a downtime now, and we need to address that, but this is a code provision. Page 44 of 95 16 1 e- A2 May 17, 2012 So, I mean, if you want more input from realtors, we can definitely find that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this is better than what's there. But, again, it doesn't help anybody that's had a problem over a year already, and that's most of the vacant buildings. MS. CILEK: Right, but -- MR. BELLOWS: I'm not aware of anybody pushing the county to provide more for any specific site. So staff does work with them on a case -by -case basis when they do come in and want to move into a new property that is nonconforming in other ways and so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had any issues with -- I mean, Brad made a good point. He says there's been some that may have been in this situation already for a year. Are you looking at any that are already going to -- that are going to be triggered into noncompliance? MS. CILEK: I mean, I don't think we keep an inventory of buildings that are -- already have the use ceased. That's not something that's tracked by the county or staff. But staff does work hard to help these people out and get them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, the assumption would be that if a year goes by and they want to reactivate their empty building, that the buffers and parking spaces and everything that are currently in place a year ago are inadequate for the rules today. How much of that has changed in the last year? MS. CILEK: That's a good question. It's going to depend. You know, if it was done 15 years ago, well, then it might be more out of date. If it was just a new building, it was built two years ago, it's ceased for, you know, a year and a month, well, then the buffers are not going to be out -- are not going to be that off of code, if at all. So there's going to be a mix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no grandfathering in for the older projects once they lapse in this time frame. MS. CILEK: They would be subject to this provision, from what I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why isn't the architectural standard included in this? MS. CILEK: That's a good question. But given the recent -- I think it might be best to include that in a larger review of 5.05.08 altogether, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they could, in a year's time -- or they could lapse from -- say, a 15- year -old project could lapse and not be grandfathered. There are -- not only would they come under the buffer issues and the parking issues that may have changed in 15 years, but now they would come under architectural standards as well? MS. CILEK: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look at this more comprehensively and bring in the realtors and people -- more than just one phone call to one realtor who may not be as -- let's say, as tuned into things as a broader base might be. MS. CILEK: I think that's a really good idea. And in general, redevelopment in Collier County is something that we need to take a look at, and all of these -- these apply as well, and that would be part of architecture. I think for the purposes of this amendment, we're just looking to help those people out right now who may be subject to recently going under or -- you know, just extending this period and granting more in general, but that is something we could also address in the next cycle when we look at more redevelopment as well as 5.05.08, which in -- you know, looking at all of those combined are big redevelopment issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When's the next cycle? MS. CILEK: After this one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, when does -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This year? MS. CILEK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If this thing went smoothly through, when would it go into effect? MS. CILEK: This amendment was scheduled to go to the board this summer /fall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it would immediately apply upon their passing? MS. CILEK: I'm actually not in tune with how quickly -- Page 45 of 95 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's assume that -- they don't meet in August, so let's say the end of July they cover this. MS. CILEK: Right. We're planning -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So all's we're helping is people whose building have gone vacant from last July? MS. CILEK: Or people who may go out of business in the future, tomorrow. They have a year to get those building and have someone new in that business. So I think this can really help out businesses now, and then we can definitely take a look at this section again in connection with 5.05.08 when that time comes. But redevelopment is definitely something that needs to be addressed on a broader scale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's not shut it down. Let's -- I think we should approve it as it is, and then come back and study it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the first time we've heard this one. MS. CILEK: This is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You expressed to us that you went to one realtor. MS. CILEK: Correct, NABOR, yes. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Who did you -- Bill Poteet, was he the person? MS. CILEK: Actually, I think that might have been him, yes. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Bill Poteet would be the best person to be -- MS. CILEK: This was -- I have to be honest, we -- and that's - -1'm 99 percent sure that's who it was. I have to be honest, we wrote this amendment in November and December of last year, so my recollection on, you know, his exact phrasing is not there, but I believe it was him. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what you're saying is he said a year or more. MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, and I'm coming in here for "or more." MS. CILEK: He did. Again, I don't have his email in front of me, but, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was trying to go, but let me finish my thought. You went to one realtor. I would prefer you to go to quite a few others, maybe the Chamber of Commerce, maybe someone like --just ask them, talk to them about it. But we have an opportunity to have this -- we're going to hear -- this isn't the end of our LDC cycle. We've still got another meeting or two before we finish. So why don't you come back and check on that time frame. And if the two years or three years works better, why don't we just consider it? And it wouldn't hurt to change that one number. MS. CILEK: That's fine. I guess I'm just apprehensive of taking this off this cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't think we're suggesting that. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think as a minimum this would probably pass. But since we have a luxury of a time -- because we're going to have to have another continuing of this LDC review anyway -- MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why don't you come back with some more input from more realtors. MS. CILEK: I can do that. I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have people that sell commercial properties. I think Ross McIntosh does that. He's well known in the business. Call people like him and find out what they're looking at from sales perspectives, some appraisers that -- like -- well, maybe the tax assessor's office. What is their -- how many properties have they seen going out of business that could benefit or have problems with this kind of an operation. MS. CILEK: And that's why we did supply these tables. I mean, we did do a little research before we said a year, because a year will cover a lot of the smaller square footage of buildings. And you have to recognize we are in a bad economic time period. So we did do work, but we will reach out to some of these realtors and the Chamber of Commerce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the year covers half of them basic -- less than half of them if you count the big ones. MS. CILEK: If you count the big ones, which is a lot of them, yeah. Page 46 of 95 16 1 2,^A2 Mi 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, if they went to the trouble to put their infrastructure in their site work and everything else and they got a valid permit for it, I'm not sure it's fair to cut that permit off. MS. CILEK: I am just fine bringing this back with more support. I just want to keep it in the cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's do it then. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is okay, then. And maybe what you do is you come up with time frames for projects in different periods; in other words, give some amnesty to some of the projects that went down in the middle of the crisis. And also the other things, too, is some of these projects are on conventionally zoned land versus -- you know, I think the PUDs would be fine, but it's the people with the old conventionally zoned commercial properties -- MS. CILEK: Straight zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that are going to be the problem, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think what we'll do is, before we just go to lunch, we'll end our LDC review with this, but I have one question. Patrick, has his eminence bothered to show up yet, or are we -- MR. VANASSE: Be ready at one o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're able to make sure -- okay. Bruce is going to be back at one, so I'd like to get back on our regular agenda now that he's graced us with his presence. He's so popular. I hope he's listening. But we'll come back at one o'clock, and we'll resume with our regular hearing agenda, finish up that one in north county. MS. CILEK: Are we going to finish these today or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to finish these right after that. We're going to go into the regular agenda first, finish it up, then kick back into where we left off here, and then we've got our Master Mobility Plan to the extent we're going to have time today to get into it, and we will probably not finish that today. MS. CILEK: Busy day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. Okay. We're adjourned till one o'clock. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, if you'll please take your seats. Welcome back from the lunch break. But I really don't know if we can proceed unless Mr. Anderson says we can. Let's see. Is his eminence here? Oh, he's here, good. Bruce, you think we were allowed to start now? We don't want to upset the apple cart at all. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much for allowing me to go the Regional Planning Council to take care of my other client needs there. I very much appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we see you as rarely as we do see Nick. So like we give him a bad time, we have to give you a bad time once in a while. So with that in mind, will 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: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson, and I'll be going over all the issues that he and I talked about. During break I had a conversation with Patrick Vanasse on the same kinds of issues, so we'll hear them all during the course of this event. Okay. Bruce, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just had a quick conversation with Bruce during lunch break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all yours, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress law fin-n. I'm pleased to be here today to represent Centerline Homes. They are new to the Naples market. They are a Florida -based homebuilder with successful communities on both coasts of Florida; Tampa/St. Pete, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Vero Beach, Daytona, Jacksonville, and Orlando. I want to introduce some of their officers that are here today. Rob Stiegele, the executive vice president; Jonathan Keith, the vice president of land acquisition and development; and Jeff Kronengold, the executive vice president and general counsel for the company. Also here to help me are Chris Wright, chief executive officer of RWA; and Patrick Vanasse, the Director of Page 47 of 95 1 A2 f.. 7, 2012 16 Ma y Planning at RWA. And this property is located on Immokalee Road east of the intersection with Collier Boulevard. It's directly across from the Quarry, and it's approximately 138 acres. The current zoning is as the Summit Lakes PUD with 968 homes, 200 of those homes were to be affordable housing. That was approved in 2006. All interconnection and access points that were previously approved for this PUD will remain as they are. I'll briefly summarize the most important changes to the PUD and, really, the most important one is reducing the number of homes by more than half. It's going from 968 to 450. And in connection with that, the affordable housing provisions would be removed. And we are adding a reference in all appropriate places to -- we've had -- everything that was in there was based on zoned height, and we have now added actual height for everything as well. The only height change is for the clubhouse. It can now be 50 feet zoned height as compared to the presently- approved 35 feet zoned height. We're also switching to the new PUD format. And there are three deviations that have been requested. We've spoken with Ms. Deselem and reached some modifications of the language to address any concerns that staff had. I'll deal with the first one about the number of model homes. We're asking to be allowed to have as many as 15 model homes to account for variations either in the interior or exterior of the homes. We worked out with staff -- the language was kind of unclear where it says we have to provide the number of model homes every time a development order is issued. Well, if you read that very broadly, every time someone bought a home, we would have to provide that information and, frankly, that's not what staff intended. And so the wording would be changed to require that we provide the number of model homes that have been approved and are continuing to serve as model homes every time we come in for a building permit for another model home. On the second one about boundary marker signage, we have agreed to the staff condition to limit the signage to the frontage along Immokalee Road. And the third deviation is to allow 8 -foot fences or walls in the interior of the project and 18 -foot wall berm or a combination along public roads to reduce -- to provide visual screening and reduce sound. We are modifying that in two instances. Well, we are -- we are proposing to only allow 12 feet along Woodcrest Drive. We would like to keep the 18 -foot option along six -lane Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Excuse me, but in our report it says 15 feet. Is it 18 or 15? MR. ANDERSON: Eighteen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one I've got says -- what page are you reading 15 on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eight of 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight. Nine of 17 has 18. Deviation No. 3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh. I'm on Deviation No. 2 then. Okay. Got it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're okay, then, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm okay. Well, maybe not, but I'm okay with 18, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: And, Chairman Strain, based on the discussions you and I had, I do have some proposed modifications to language. I can go ahead and go through some of those now or answer in response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll probably walk through that thing anyway. So as we get through the pages, that would probably be easiest. Is that it? MR. ANDERSON: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short today, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: They're not paying me by the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's good. They're harder negotiators than the local guys, huh? Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one. With respect to the clubhouse -- I may have overlooked it -- where are you potentially planning to construct that? It's in an area designated as R, but there's Rs all throughout the Page 48 of 95 16 12 A2 4 May 17, 2012 plan here. MR. ANDERSON: I've got my pen at it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So that's designated RA? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I thought I read that a clubhouse would be constructed in an area designated as R, but perhaps I'm mistaken, at least in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way this is currently written, Phil, all the uses of RA can be in R. So, technically, you're right. You can put the clubhouse anywhere on this project, which is one of the issues we're going to be discussing -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because the way it's written, they're not limited to RA by the way the language is. So the language has to be amended to reflect what they really intend to do. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And -- okay, thanks for designating that. And just from the perspective of development sequence, when do you anticipate the clubhouse would be constructed; early on, midway through, after so many residences are constructed? MR. STIEGELE: Historically, in a development like this, the recreational facility will be a big selling benefit for us, so that would commence construction early on with the models and the finishing up with the entry features, the buffering, the berm. So I would tell you in the first 10 percent of the development we would have that -- we would have the recreation facility up and running. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to identify yourself for the record, please. MR. STIEGELE: Oh, I'm sorry. Robert Stiegele, Centerline Homes, one of the principals. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you -- would you agree to stipulate that? MR. STIEGELE: Sure. You know, this -- and I guess it's just stipulated to what and how many COs or at what point in time, just simply because it's going to be a pretty extensive recreational facility, so it's going to, you know, take a little bit of time in the process. But, yes, we would absolutely be willing to stipulate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As many as you want, sir. I've got plenty. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The areas designated around the property as RA, they total 4.59 acres in total; is that correct? And I'm just wondering, we now know where the clubhouse is pinpointed to be, and there's other RA areas spread around the perimeter here. What do you anticipate in those? Are those going to be playgrounds or passive parks, dog parks? MR. STIEGELE: Yes. Most of them will be open passive areas. We're talking about putting some gazebos in certain areas, perhaps some dog parks in other areas. We're working through all the amenities now on the development. But at this point in time I would probably tell you they'd be best as open space, open green space. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're going to walk through the PUD page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we get into the pages of the PUD? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with the PUD. Let's go to the first three pages, which is Exhibit A. Anybody have any questions from the first three? Bruce -- and I expressed this concern to you over the phone. Basically, your tracts RA are supposed to be the recreational tracts, but because you've incorporated all the RA uses as principal uses in the R tracts, the entire project is an RA tract, in essence, as far as uses go to the extent you would want to make it. I'm not too concerned about the interiors, but if you were to move your clubhouse and things like that closer Page 49 of 95 16 12A2 May 17, 2012 to the exterior parcels, they would have more of an impact on the neighboring properties. And for that reason I need to suggest -- need to see if you can suggest some language that would limit the RA uses. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The proposed language would go -- we would put it at the end of number -- Section IA5 where it says, "All principal uses permitted in Tract RA." We would add a new sentence that says, "No principal uses permitted in Tract RA shall be permitted in Tract R where it abuts adjoining offsite lands." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That'll work. MR. ANDERSON: And we would also make that same change with regard to the accessory-use section to also limit any accessory uses for RA in the same fashion. So that would be 1 B6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us there. Anybody else in the first three pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's move to the -- let's go to the Exhibit B, which is three more pages, and it includes the development - standards table. Bruce, we talked about the 23 feet being the standard in the code for the 20 -foot setback from the front. You have any -- did you make that correction, or did you have any problem with that? MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to ask Patrick Vanasse to come up and address that, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. The distinction that we want to make is that we are requesting 20 feet for the building setback; however, we do acknowledge that the separation from the front of the garage to the back of sidewalk has to be 23 feet. It's in the code. But we can suggest that -- some language to clarify that. What we have is, under the notes section we could add No. 7, and it would read as follows: "For all residential units, garages must be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk located in the street right -of -way closest to the garage except for side - loaded garages wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided perpendicular to the sidewalk to avoid vehicles being parked across a portion or all of the referenced sidewalk," and that's standard language that we've used in other PUDs and had approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work. MR. VANASSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your notes to your development- standards table, your side yards, no side yard shall be required between units when more than one residential unit is in a single structure. Can we make sure that the word "between units," we're referring to units within the same building? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 3, your 85 -foot setback from Immokalee Road, in its current six -lane configuration, but your setback is measured from the back of curb, and I just kind of wanted to understand why you picked the back of curb on a public road when it has a right -of -way. MR. VANASSE: Again, Patrick Vanasse for the record. When this project was originally approved as Summit Lakes PUD, there was discussion at public hearing regarding two -story structures along Immokalee. And I think part of the concern was that maybe those two -story structures would be looming over Immokalee. So the idea was to provide a setback, and the language that was recommended by the commission at that time was from the -- not from the right -of -way but the curb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll have to -- when John comes up later, I'll have to understand how the distance between the back of curb and the right -of -way in regards to the width in Immokalee Road -- because you have a travel -- a bicycle lane or a multi -use lane in a grassed area from the back of curb before you even get to the right -of -way. So that doesn't tell me how close this building is then to the right -of -way. That's what I want to see. MR. VANASSE: Well, at that time there were plans for six - laning of Immokalee, and the idea was that we had to be consistent with those plans. And the idea wasn't to provide back of curb at that time when there's only a four -lane section. And what's been built since then is the six -lane section. So from what is there in the ground today, we would measure 85 feet from that back of curb. If we were to measure from the right -of -way -- the right -of -way is even larger than the current roadway -- it would really make it that we have to provide a much bigger setback, and it would Page 50 of 95 A2 May 17, 2012 really encroach into our development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm not saying that you have to measure from the right -of -way at 85 feet. I just want to know the relationship between where your houses would be now and the setbacks in your rear yards versus where the right -of -way is, because there's the right -of -way -- between the right -of -way and the back of curb, there is more activity area that could be used in the future and that is used now by the mere fact we have a pathway there of some kind. So I need to -- and John can tell us that later, and I just want to understand how -- what that's going to be like. MR. VANASSE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can't tell it by "85 feet from back of curb." On your -- well, that's the next page. Anybody else got anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In some of this stuff, the rear and side setbacks, could we make that those are measured from the buffer line if a buffer exists? We -- for example, the rear's 15 feet. I would not want the rear of a property to be the buffer. MR. ANDERSON: You're talking about the minimum rear yard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The minimum rear yard. And it could be a side yard, too. The intent is the way this is written, the buffer could be the rear yard, and that would not give the people living in, let's say, a townhouse a rear yard. You don't want them putting their barbecue grill in the buffer. MR. ANDERSON: My clients have indicated that that would be acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You note here single story for side yard and two story for side yard. Three story would be the same, correct, as the two? So maybe just note it as two and three. We -- one thing when we do these charts, we don't have any maximum length of any of these units, the townhouse projects or the multifamily. So is -- I don't think there's anything in the development standards, I can't think of anything in the code -- because you can break buildings up with fire walls -- that would make it so that the building -- and these weren't continuous. They were one giant snake going around the lakes and things. Would it be okay to somehow put some sort of access at -- come up with something? Otherwise, don't you agree the building could be contiguous for the whole lot? There's nothing to break the building up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a massing issue with the size of the building, Bruce. We've done this before in many other PUDs that have come through. In fact, any of them that -- where it wasn't clarified. The buildings can be so long before they -- I mean, you could run a block -long building in there. And I know you don't maybe intend to do that, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you could do a total circle around the lakes and stuff like that. I mean, obviously, there has to be a utility easement someplace, but -- MR. VANASSE: We just talked with our client, and we'd be amenable to no more than 10 units attached without a break. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. And that's for the townhouse and the multifamily? MR. VANASSE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I'm -- two noted the Immokalee Road thing. If we maybe did measure setbacks from the buffers, do we know how far the curb is to the property line now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what John's hopefully going to tell us -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when he comes up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. MR. VANASSE: Maybe to clarify something. Along Immokalee, any tract you're going to have there, you're still going to have a rear yard setback. This was an additional setback just for Immokalee Road. And maybe one of the reasons why it was measured from the back of curb and not the right -of -way is because the right -of -way along Immokalee is kind of jagged. It's not one smooth right -of -way. So it would have been difficult to measure directly from that right -of -way. Your setback would have actually been jagged also; whereas, if we do it from the back of Page 51 of 95 May 1, 2012 16 12 A2 curb, it provides one consistent setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But a jagged setback breaks up the massing of the building, so it's a good thing. MR. VANASSE: But this would be for --it's just a separation from the roadway and where your building is going to be. You're still going to have a rear yard just like you have in your table here that we're going to have to abide by. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the building would be at that 85 feet the way you had it, face the wall of the building -- MR. VANASSE: At the very least. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and the yard would be front towards that. Why would you want to measure from something on land you don't control? What if they move the curb? MR. VANASSE: Well, it does say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's current -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The current curb? MR. VANASSE: -- consistent with the six -lane configuration. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. We'll wait for John, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us on this plan -- look at that R tract up along Immokalee Road to the left of your entry lakes. On that R tract, see the dotted line? That's your -- that would be your slope and drainage utility easement for, I guess, the utilities along Immokalee Road. From that dotted line back, assuming the 85 feet is left intact, where would your house fit on that plan; do you know? Now, if you have -- drawings showing how that 85 feet factors in? Because I don't know what scale this is to, but I'm not sure those slope easements -- I'm not sure if that's a 10- or 15 -foot easement. But at that scale from the back of curb, you might wipe out that R tract. MR. VANASSE: We -- it would be very difficult to show at that scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. VANASSE: But we've already done some tentative site planning that hasn't been finalized, and we did factor in the 85 feet, and we did have enough space. What we could do is when we come back for consent, we could have an exhibit that actually shows what that strip would be for the 85 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would be helpful to understand it, yes. Okay. Anybody else on Exhibit B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to Exhibit C, which is the master plan. Does anybody have any questions on the master plan? Bruce, we spoke about a couple of them, I believe. The reference to Tract P in the southern part of the site says the preserve tract may be supplemented without additional planting -- with additional plantings to satisfy both landscape buffer requirements and native - preserve requirements of the LDC. It shall be supplemented where needed to meet those requirements. Not "may," right? MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. There is a reference -- at the northeastern side of the project there's a long strip. It's called a county dry detention area. It's off site from your project, and it says it may be excavated by developer. That's an agreement that we're not going to get into, and I don't think it's a zoning issue. So do you mind if we strike that? I don't care if you work out a negotiated contract with the county to dig that lake, but I don't think it's something we ought to grant any kind of reference into a PUD that's not even part of it. Is that -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, again, it says "may," not "shall." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but you may buy fill from off site. You can do anything you want. I don't care. It's not part of your PUD, so I'm not sure why we would want language referencing somebody else's property in your PUD unless the county wants to give you an affidavit saying you're here to represent them today, which I'm sure they won't. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We'll strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entrance lakes. They're sitting on top of an existing drainage easement or Page 52 of 95 16 12 May 17, 2012 stormwater management pond for Immokalee Road. And I read the easement. It was an either /or condition. You had one drainage lake further to the west or this one. The county chose to build this one, which was their prerogative. But how do you justify a site plan over the top of an existing easement for -- and it's got an actual drainage basin constructed on top of it? John or Paul or -- I mean, yeah -- Patrick, I'm sorry. Whoever wants to answer it. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon. For the record, Chris Wright. There are a couple of existing drainage easements along Immokalee Road that are in place now, and they provide for drainage for Immokalee Road. We are going through the ERP permitting process, and as part of that process we've already provided for all the attenuation and storage within our system which will allow for the vacation of those easements. We anticipate doing that at the time of platting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John Podczerwinsky, have you, your department, verified that the compensating storage that they're going to provide in lieu of that storm drainage easement that's already constructed as part of Immokalee Road is, in fact, equal to what you need? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: This is for Immokalee Road, that's correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Take a look at the plan in front of out, on the overhead. See that left L, that left -- that lake to the west of the entryway? You see the dotted square around it? That's where you currently have your storm drain already constructed -- your stormwater management system already constructed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're proposing to eliminate it, build it with houses and move it -- move its capacity to elsewhere. Have you got easements in place for its movement? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The easements are not in place yet, but this hasn't been platted yet. We expect those to be in place when this is platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we approve this today, Heidi, with that kind of configuration knowing it's on top of an existing easement that hasn't been replaced, are there any issues that we have regarding that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Is the easement shown on this master plan? I'm not seeing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one on the overhead, it's shown. I'd say -- the alpha (sic) survey showed it, that's how I picked it up. It shows it as a stormwater drainage easement. And the aerial already shows it constructed and functioning for Immokalee Road. What's going to happen is it's going to, apparently, be reconfigured and then utilized as part of their front interior lakes. Who's paying for the reconfiguration? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: My understanding is the developer is paying for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your understanding, is that going to carry -- I'm sure that's all we need, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's the way it's been posed to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but there's nothing in writing; is that correct? You don't have a signed agreement between the developer to either vacate this or relocate it or to do all the work and costs it takes to move this stormwater drainage? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: There is currently -- this is something that we've discussed. There's currently a vacation, an easement, right -of -way vacation that's been proposed to the county through the county's VAC process. We've worked on that; we've had some conditions on that, and we've definitely been in contact with the developer about this, about their intention, what our intention of allowing that vacation would be, and what compensation we would need in return for that. The negotiations that we've had so far have been agreeable that we are aware that they're going to give us in return the stormwater treatment area and volume and capacity that we need. We are comfortable that we're going to get that back out of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would relocate the catch base -- the outfalls as well as any RCP or anything else that's coming out from Immokalee Road? MR. WRIGHT: It's all going to be integrated into the system for Bent Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we don't have any of that currently in writing; it's not been approved by the board? MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse. Just to clarify something, the version of the master plan that you have is a little different than the one that's in Page 53 of 95 1612 May 17, 2012 your packet. What we've done on this one is we've actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one that we have is the one in our packet, so what do you mean? MR. VANASSE: The one on the overhead is a little different than what's in your packet. If you look at the one on the overhead, we've actually gone back and added those easements, those drainage easements on there. And the intent is to keep them on there and identify them as "to be modified." So there would be assurance that as this would be approved those easements will stay there until they get modified. And the idea is that through the DCA we insert some language in there as to how these modifications are going to occur. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I have concerns if they're going to depict that on the master plan, absolutely. MR. VANASSE: But this is a carryover from the existing master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, you don't have any acknowledgment from the officials in the county, meaning the Board of County Commissioners, that they're going to allow you to modify it. That's negotiations that they have yet to have with you. MR. VANASSE: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by us -- and by it going on a plan, it kind of takes the negotiation part out of it. It's going to be done, and that's apparently what you're claiming. I'm not sure that's to the best benefit of the County Commission to have that position, I guess, foretold by them before they hear it publicly through the process that they've got it here for. Heidi, if it's not shown on the plan but yet it exists, what happens then if we recommend approval on a master plan that is inconsistent with the existing easements that are actually developed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the easements are county easements, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. They'll have problems and conflict with the county, so you'll approve it from a zoning standpoint. But from a building standpoint, they won't -- they should not be able to go forward if it's properly reviewed by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they were to take off the references to the drainage easements that they have on here, mostly the ones that they're going to relocate, that removes the problem of having any predetermined judgment on them before it goes to the board. But if we approve the master plan knowing those easements are there and they have to modify them, it's up to them to make sure it gets done before they need it, basically; is that right? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't want to undermine the board's ability to modify those in any manner that's best for the board to do it in. And that's what I'm concerned -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't want to do in a process here today. So if you're comfortable with that, then that's fine. I just wanted to make sure -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, because the easements deal with the land rights as opposed, you know -- development as opposed to the actual uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the master plan that we would be voting on today would be the one that's in our packet, not the one that's on the overhead. Okay. And I think that get us there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is a better picture of it that where there's a full color picture under sign, sealed, boundary survey. You can really see that detention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. Okay. The next section -- is there any other questions on the master plan by anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next exhibit is the legal description, Exhibit D, and I'm sure nobody's going to have anything on that. Let's go to Exhibit E, which is the list of requested deviations. We've already talked about some changes that are being suggested, and staff will have to comment on those when they come up for their presentation. Does anybody else have any questions on it? Page 54 of 95 16 12 A2 May 17, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit F is a list of developer commitments. Does anybody have any questions on those? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Um. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you the "um," Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was the "um." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll wait till transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll wait for staff, because my issue is something that needs to be removed. And that's the PUD. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant in any other parts of this particular document? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Bruce, maybe you can answer this. What is the sale -- what is the sales price of these units going to be? Do you have a range? MR. STIEGELE: For the record, Robert Stiegele, Centerline Homes. You know, we're still working through the preliminary design of the product right now, but we think it would be very consistent with what we're seeing in the corridors. I'd tell you probably in the three to five hundred thousand dollar price range is where we would probably market the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All the product will be in that range? MR. STIEGELE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the product will be in that range? MR. STIEGELE: Yes. I would tell you -- you know, by the time you -- you know, and I'm talking base house prices of the homes. Now, by the time you add in options, upgrades, lot premiums, lake premiums, the whole nine yards, it could even escalate from there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. MR. STIEGELE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'm a little concerned about an 18 -foot wall along Immokalee Road. Have you decided that it's going to be a wall or a berm/wall combination? I don't have any problem with the 18 feet, but I just wouldn't like to see it all wall. MR. VANASSE: No. The intent is to have a wall/berm combination. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if that's the intent, then we need to make sure it's stated as such in the deviation, so the deviation language will have to be modified to reflect the percentages of wall versus berm or heights, or however you want to word it. I have a question, Bruce, and I mentioned it to you. On your existing PUD you had a couple of deviations that you did not attempt to use this time. One of them was the width of the internal roadways. So does that mean you're not going to change or modify the width of the internal roadways? MR. ANDERSON: I asked the planner that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which planner, your planner or -- MR. ANDERSON: Our planner, Mr. Vanasse, and he advises that those were taken out because they can now be granted administratively. Those are deviations that can be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. SPEAKER: -- approved administratively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew we were working to that. I just don't remember getting it done. I'm glad it did. I'll have to double -check with Kay when she comes up; likewise, with the tangents in between reverse curbs. So if that's what staffs telling us -- because right now we're getting some staff administrative deviations processed for the current land code amendments. That means these would have had to have been done awhile back. And I just must have lost memory on those, so -- okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Or didn't see it. Page 55 of 95 A2 ,. May 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else got anything of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there staff presentation? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I am a principal planner in the zoning section. And you have the staff report. Here with me also today is Laurie Beard and John Podczerwinsky and Chris D'Arco, and they can respond to questions in their particular realm. I believe that Laurie Beard wants to make a brief statement as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Nick said to give her a hard time when she comes up, so we're prepared for that. MS. DESELEM: As you may -- some of you may remember from the last hearing that we had with another PUD, we did remove some of the utility commitments that were made on that PUD, and to be consistent, staff is offering that we should also remove the Utility Commitments E through H on this PUD as well. And I've spoken with the utility staff members, and they are comfortable with that. As I said, you have the staff report on file. I won't belabor it by going into all the details of it. We have provided findings of fact for the rezone and PUD in support of our recommendation. After listening to the applicant's testimony, staff is in agreement with the changes that have been made up to this point, and we are recommending, as noted on Page 16, approval. And we have set forth some changes to the Deviations 1, 2 and then 3 that was addressed today where they were going to make a difference -- a change to Deviation 3 to only ask for 12 feet along Woodcrest, and then the change to Deviation 1, that it won't be per development order. It will be for a model home building pennit. And other than that I don't have anything else. Like I said, John Podz is here to address transportation issues, and Chris is here for utilities, and Laurie has some other information for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me get some clarifications. You addressed that you accepted their new language for Deviation 1 and 3, but what about 2? MS. DESELEM: Hang on. Let me get to that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two, I believe, was that the sign was only going to be along Immokalee Road. I don't know why you wouldn't accept that, but I want to make sure you're in concurrence with it. MS. DESELEM: Yes, that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the question I just asked about the approval of the narrower width on the internal roadway system and the reserve curve, the tangents, I'm -- they're telling me that was done -- that can be done administratively now? MS. DESELEM: It's in LDC Section 6.06; I believe it's O. And in older PUDs you saw them listed as substitutions, but there is an allowance to have that done as part of the platting process. And at that time they're required to provide engineering information to show that what they're proposing is at least equivalent to, if not better than, what's required. And staff would rather see them done at that stage, because that's when the detail's provided to support it, but some petitioners wish to have that up front so they know that they have it when they go for financing and selling purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that wasn't a change to any particular code or anything? MS. DESELEM: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just a different way of approaching it. MS. DESELEM: It's been there for many years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I -- okay, good. Then I didn't miss anything. I thought I was getting old and forgetting. MS. DESELEM: I was looking at an email sent by Jack, and he says it's through the PSP process that they get those approvals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Is that normally granted? MS. DESELEM: I couldn't answer that question -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm just wondering why -- Page 56 of 95 A a 17, 2012 1 b 1 Z May MS. DESELEM: -- because I don't review them. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Why not go ahead and put it in if -- I mean, what you said makes sense that they know going in that they can plan on this whether -- rather than waiting and potentially being denied. I guess that's up to the petitioner. MS. DESELEM: It's the petitioner's choice. Like I said, from my own personal point of view, I would rather see the engineering data to back up what they're asking for. But it has traditionally been the county policy to grant the deviations in most cases when they are requested as part of the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't think of a time we turned them down. That's why I was surprised -- okay. Well, that's fine. Anybody else have any question of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, did staff have any conversations about the elimination of affordable housing in the development? MS. DESELEM: Not really, other than the fact that they did request it. And this is being commonly requested now. All of the petitions that I've seen come through that have had that particular thing where they've worked through an affordable housing bonus density agreement, they're asking to have that amended if they come in for amendments. We did one for a couple more projects, and I think there's several more pending that have had preapplication meetings, and we anticipate they will be submitting their applications seeking to do the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Was there units given to them in the Summit Lakes from -- for affordable housing? MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was a bonus project. MS. DESELEM: It is affordable housing bonus density agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're eliminating that whole density bonus? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just -- Kay, for clarification, I'm all right with where I see access points on the master plan, but on -- in your staff report on Page 2 you say two points of ingress and egress will be provided to the property, one -- with one from Immokalee Road and one from Woodcrest Drive instead of the originally proposed two access points on Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive. I'm okay with what I see. I just don't understand what your intent of that wording was. MS. DESELEM: It was trying to explain what changes are proposed as part of this amendment. The original ordinance in'06 reflects two access points on Immokalee Road, and this one only reflects one. This one has one access on Immokalee, as you see from the arrows, and one on Woodcrest. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MS. DESELEM: The'06 ordinance showed two access points on Immokalee and one on Woodcrest. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I was confusing the two and the two. To me it was apples and apples. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the RV -- actually, it's not just RV, but the storage facility at Crystal Lakes, they have some on -- this project has some residential butted up to that with only a 10 -foot buffer. Do you recall the width of the buffer or the buffer requirements for Crystal Lakes? MS. DESELEM: I do not recall off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Crystal Lakes was done through a provisional use, if I'm not mistaken; wasn't there -- or a conditional use? I remember it coming forward. I just don't remember what process -- because that -- based on the aerial, that may not be the prettiest of sites to be up against, and I would just hate to see this project go in and then Crystal Lakes start having trouble with something that they've already had existing for a long Page 57 of 95 16 May 17, 2012 period of time. MS. DESELEM: I believe that is a PUD. If you look at the site plan, it reflects a PUD. I don't have the zoning map. Ray has it there. But I do believe it's a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know the Crystal Lakes is. I didn't know if they had gotten a separate use designation for that parcel, because it's a pretty intensive use they've got going on there. I don't know if the buffers are in place or if they're supposed to be. But the aerial shows that it's pretty jam packed with facilities. And I -- you know, with these -- this project's only providing a 10 -foot buffer in the rear yard up against that particular site. And I don't see -- doesn't seem to be much on that site with regards to buffering. They have paved areas, and it looks like buildings as well. So, anyway, it's just a notation. I don't know if you looked at it and it had any consideration when you allocated the buffers for it. MS. DESELEM: It really didn't jump out at me as a major concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if I was living there, it would be jumping out at me. It's a pretty good -- pretty substantial area. And I think that's all I've got. Yes. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: I don't know that John has anything to present, but I know Laurie does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John, do you have anything you want to -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm answering your question in regards to the measurements back of curb between back of curb and property line along Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And, Fred, can you zoom in for me a little bit -- please and thank you -- along Immokalee Road. All right. Mr. Jarvi and myself, we took a look at this on the computer, and those are roughly the distances between the existing back of curb and the property lines in those areas. You'll also notice that that is quite variable, depending on where the property line sits and also depending on where the existing back of curb is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see that -- to the left of the page, do you see the haunch that goes south and first -- along the right -of -way where it's 20 feet, then it says 35 feet. So you're saying from the back of curb to the bottom side of that deepest point of that haunch that's there is 35 feet? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Approximately, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that leaves 50 feet then from the right -of -way to where the house could go. How deep are these lots? Does anybody know? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That I can't answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you've got a buffer up there, so you're going to be outside the buffer. But that -- even if your buffer's 25 feet, that means your minimum setback's going to be 25 feet more. You're going to -- how deep are these lots? MR. VANASSE: Throughout the project we're looking at minimum lot depth of about 100 to 110 feet minimum. A lot of the lots will exceed that. Something to point out is that we have a 20 -foot buffer along that boundary also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: And then we have a 15 -foot setback. So just from a buffer and setback, you're creating a 35 -foot separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Plus 35 makes it 70. So you're still 15 feet more before you get to your building. MR. VANASSE: And, again, we were not suggesting the 85 -foot buffer for a separation. It was an issue that came up when Summit Lakes was approved; we were carrying that over. By all means, we would rather do away with that 85 -foot requirement. We believe that the space from the right -of -way to the beginning of our property plus the rear yard setback and the buffer provides ample separation. Also you have to consider that we're going to have a wall/berm combination there. So we really want to have a nice product where the residents don't feel like they're right up against Page 58 of 95 6 12 AZ 4 May 17 2012 the roadway and hear the noise. A So by all means, if the commission would recommend removal of that condition, we'd be more than happy to abide by that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know about that so much as understanding it better. I mean, you've got 35 feet plus -- and that's where you'd be talking. So you'd be 75 feet from the back of curb now, and you'd be 35 feet from the back of the right -of -way in that particular location. That's something to consider. I'm also thinking, price points aren't really an issue, but three hundred to five hundred thousand and a hundred -foot lot along Immokalee Road. I mean, wow. MR. VANASSE: I said throughout the entire project, that would be minimum lot depth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but -- MR. VANASSE: Along those -- along hnmokalee we'd probably go deeper than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even -- wow, that's a lot -- you guys are pretty optimistic. I'm glad the market looks that good to you over here. That's steep for along Immokalee Road, but -- I don't know what to suggest on the Immokalee Road setback. Anybody got a feel for it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd go with some dimension off the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was thinking, too. I don't like the idea of measuring off the back of curb. That just doesn't -- MR. VANASSE: From the property line? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or property line. You know the little knots you're talking about? That would make a building look good. I mean, that's not a detriment. MR. VANASSE: But the idea is, our setback is measured from property line. So we already have that in place. We're actually talking about -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait a minute. We discussed earlier the setback's going to be measured from the buffer. These will probably be rear setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope they are. MR. VANASSE: The buffers right now as we have them are on the outside of the property line. The rear lot line will begin after the buffer. So that's what I was saying. We have 20 -foot buffer -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The unit, okay. MR. VANASSE: -- and then we have 15 -foot of setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come back for consent, could you -- you were going to give us a cross - section. Would you detail some of this out? It might help us come back with a recommendation for the setback and what you would think a setback from the right -of -way line along Immokalee Road. I think there's certainly some flexibility needed there. I hate to see you guys locked into a curb location. That just doesn't seem practical. So maybe there's a better way to do it. And I think that's -- MR. VANASSE: And I think we will find a better way, and maybe the 85 was excessive. We just wanted to carry that over. We'll come back with a good recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might look for the recommendation differing on the height if you're doing single story to two story, too. I think that will -- I think the more flexibility you have along there the better, but at the same time, we can't crowd out Immokalee Road, so -- MR. VANASSE: Sounds good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sony. Were you still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the last thing, you might want to check on what Heritage Bay is doing on the north side. MR. VANASSE: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that would -- then you've got justification for it, and that would be a lot easier, then, to put it in a document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, you know, that setback could vary on the product, the -- single- family product -- MR. VANASSE: Single - family versus -- Page 59 of 95 16 1Z h tl May 17 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which is different than a three. You know, with that 18 -foot wall, I mean, with a single - family hidden behind it, you wouldn't see it no matter how close, just the back. So I think you can vary that setback based on product. MR. VANASSE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Patrick. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. To be honest with you, I would really like to see this continued. This is a new developer. I would like him to really just scratch the other PUD and start fresh. It's just -- you know, you're trying to do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they did. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I know, but there's a lot of going back and forth, and I just would feel more comfortable if they really understood what's going on here, because there is so many different changes in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Diane, let me --I was going to suggest, especially since we were just handed DCA today and we were just handed the -- I just received some copies of the vacated easements to see how they match up to the easement locations -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I was going to suggest that we continue today to do a vote at the next meeting but combine the consent and the final vote in the same meeting; that way your timetable hasn't changed any, and we can get these refinements and feel better about them by the time you come back. And I think that's important, especially with the cross - sections of Immokalee Road because, actually, that's all -- some of that's to your benefit. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be better for you guys to come back with some of this detail and make sure we've got it locked in right. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But before we do that, we've got to finish all the other parts of this hearing first. Did you have more? Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that was part of it, but the other question -- I have a couple questions. One for Mr. Podczerwinsky on Transportation Element. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good afternoon. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It was interesting reading this the way it was put in there about -- that you reviewed everything, and it says, although the per -unit trip generation rate will increase as a function of the changing unit type, the reduction in the total number of units will offset any increases to be experienced; therefore, staff concludes that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period. As such, the subject application can be found consistent. What if this wasn't? What would you do? Immokalee Road is already in six lanes. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And it can't go any -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. It's something we didn't -- we haven't quantified that because, simply put, there's plenty of capacity available on Immokalee Road as part of our concurrency system. We continually monitor that, and we're always looking ahead into the future to make sure that we retain capacity there. Alternatives to this are to provide alternative corridors, like Woodcrest, Tree Farm, Massey roads. That's why these developers are asked to contribute towards those sort of items to help relieve the primary networks from all of those trips. It gives alternative routes to travel on. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other thing is I notice they're talking about a traffic signal on Woodcrest. So you already are planning for this? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no, we're not planning for it. But should warrants be met in the future, there will be a proportionate -share requirement placed upon the developer, and they've agreed to that in there Page 60 of 95 16 12 A2 May 17, 2012 contribution. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I don't have any problem. But -- all right. Thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yep. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, John. You don't need to run away too much. Unless Laurie can answer your questions for you. Maybe I'll try that on her. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Public utilities. Do you have the correct piping to this community already? MR. CROMER: For the record, Aaron Cromer, public utilities. We do not have the current infrastructure in place to serve this utility -- or this PUD; however, we are negotiating with the developer to have those utilities provided through the DCA. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You will -- where will they hook up? MR. CROMER: In the DCA where we've actually talked about this with the developer, there is a temporary means of connection to the north side, which is a temporary option, which public utilities does not really want to do, but we understand the timing constraint of the developer. So public utilities is also going to the south, looking to the south, going down Tree Farm Road to Massey to do a south connection to the existing PUDs to the south for a permanent fix. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which is Habitat? MR. CROMER: Which is south of Habitat. It goes down to -- I can't remember the exact PUD. I can't remember the exact PUD name. I could point to it on a map, have no problem, but we're trying to develop that route as the primary route for development for the connection to the Summit Lakes /Bent Creek as well as Calusa Pines in the future when those do come online. So, currently, there's an option to go north, which is in the DCA, which is drawn as temporary. But the primary option for public utilities is to go south. And there are some timing constraints that we're working with the developer on to make sure we meet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. CROMER: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER EBERT: And Calusa is just to the east? MR. CROMER: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So when that develops, they also need it? MR. CROMER: Yes. When that develops, they will have an agreement, I believe, with the developer here to ensure that they pay their proportionate fair -share agreement outside of the public utility agreement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Is the existing cell tower included within the property boundary of the PUD? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: And that cell tower is very close to the road. I assume there must be a variance for the setback, or is that something you guys know offhand or -- MR. ANDERSON: We don't know. It's not our cell tower. It's just located within the boundaries. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. And then at some point everything within the boundary would be turned over to the HOA unless it's public, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yep. I'm not sure if the cell tower would be, no. Cell tower wouldn't be subject to the HOA. MR. EASTMAN: So the cell tower would be carved out and retained with -- the developer would own the cell tower? MR. ANDERSON: Yep. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? John? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm getting used to this today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to wear the carpet out. Hey, on the original PUD, there were three pages of traffic conditions. On this one there's only four paragraphs. Why? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. Mostly because of the redundancy with the LDC. The original PUD Page 61 of 95 .16 May 17, 2012 was written at a time when all of those conditions were used as, quote - unquote, boilerplate conditions. Most of those have been moved or refined into the LDC and are universally applicable now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any of them being relied upon through the DCA? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe that there are two conditions that were moved to the DCA. One of them had sub - conditions, subparagraphs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Heidi, we've heard from the utility department and from transportation that they're relying on the DCA for some elements that would normally be, I guess, called out for in this PUD process. Is that then something we need to rely upon by this board as part of the PUD in order to assure that the commitments that are needed for the PUD to function -- which one of them includes utility availability -- is there, meaning does the DCA then have to be signed before the PUD is approved? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, these should be going to the Board of County Commissioners together, the DCA and the PUD. So if there are -- if you're relying on that testimony regarding utilities and transportation, you could make your -- if you do a condition of approval, it could be conditioned upon the execution of the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of anyone at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any speakers from the public, Ray, registered? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're not going to close the public hearing. We're simply going to -- at the applicant's request, or at our request -- I guess it is ours, not his as much. We're going to request a continuance to do a final hearing on this with the reflected changes that we've asked about as well as a consent on the same date when it comes back in -- what would it be, June 7th then. Ray, is that going to work, or it's not -- MR. BELLOWS: We have three items on June 7th. It looks like that would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, is that going to work for you, since you're the one that's got to review the -- MS. DESELEM: I was going to say, that gives us till next Wednesday to get all the changes made and copies made for you. Hopefully that will workout. I'll just have to rely on the applicant to do a turnaround very quickly to respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a commitment from the applicant, then. What day can you get Kay the corrections she needs? MR. VANASSE: We will be working on that tomorrow, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: I'm assuming -- either tomorrow or Monday at the latest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you don't get your corrections to Kay by Monday and if she can't get to us in time because of your delay -- MR. VANASSE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we just want to make sure -- MR. VANASSE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- who Bruce gets upset with. MR. VANASSE: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bruce, do you have any problem with this continuance under those criteria, under those conditions? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do we need to summarize some additional commitments to be sure that they're included -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- in the modification? Page 62 of 95 1b1 2 A 2 4Ma y 17 , 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they've probably made pretty accurate notes during our discussion today. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine, if you think you got everything. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. On your question about the clubhouse. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's one. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We would have it read to the effect that construction of the clubhouse will commence prior to the certificate of occupancy for the 45th home, which would be the 10 percent number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bruce, we will be reading the DCA -- it was distributed to us during our lunch break -- prior to the meeting, so we may have some additional questions from that. So -- and hopefully your new language is complete enough we don't have too much more to do with it. So -- okay. MR. ANDERSON: And if anybody does have questions on the DCA, please feel free to call or email me about them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh -- and before we vote on the continuance, did you have any time problems we need to worry about for you? We want to snake sure we're convenient for your schedule. And by the way, this one will be the first one up on the 7th unless Bruce has another conflict. MR. ANDERSON: That was going to be my request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. Well, that will be fine. Is there a motion for that continuance? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad had raised his hand first, so it will be Brad made the motion, seconded by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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: Any -- okay, 9 -0. Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I didn't get the stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What stuff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The DCA agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I set it on your desk. It was there. I put one on everybody's -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Barry probably stole it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll get you one. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll see you guys next meeting for the continuance. And with that, we'll move back to our LDC hearing which we had -- wait a minute. Laurie, did you have something you wanted to say? MS. BEARD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on, Laurie. I forgot all about you. MS. BEARD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, she didn't have anything? MS. BEARD: If you want to discuss the DCA, I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is it you're going to discuss? You're going to have to come up here and tell Page 63 of 95 F a t ^ 17, 2012 1612 us, Laurie, unfortunately. MS. BEARD: For the record, Laurie Beard, transportation planning. I have a quick overview of the DCA, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're probably going to be able to read it. I think the next time --it would be more important to be here next time for that, and then we would have very specific and hard questions for you to address at the next meeting. MS. BEARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Laurie. We appreciate it. Okay. With that, we will resume the LDC hearing that we had broken off on to come back to this. Okay. Caroline, thanks for your -- thanks for allowing the interruption. MS. CILEK: Of course. For Bruce, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's for Bruce. MS. CILEK: One last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce is going to have a terrible reputation for having delayed things, isn't he? MS. CILEK: But he makes us laugh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We all would have got home early had it not been -- but anyway. That's fine. We left off on No. 10 was the next one up on the LDC amendments. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask that if you guys are going to converse, please do it out in the hall so we continue our meeting. RWA, you guys -- thank you. Thanks, Bruce. The next item up was Amendment 6.02.01 and 6.02.03 about transportation levels of service. MS. CILEK: All right. This is a new amendment, first time to review it. And I can walk through the various amendments. They start on Page 3. And the first one is really getting to the point of clarifying what the transportation concurrency management system is reviewing for, outlining specifically the final local development's orders, which include those that are underlined. It's not really changing the intent. It's just listing out exactly what is applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mainly construction materials, it looks like? MS. CILEK: Oh, that's actually the second one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you -- we're on? MS. CILEK: Yeah, she's on the next transportation one. We're on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.02.01 starts with the word "generally." I think that's the one we're on, right? MS. CILEK: No, I'm on the wrong one. There we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.02.01 and 6.02.03. MS. CILEK: Yeah, okay. And then, as you can see, there's -- the biggest amendment that's proposed in this amendment is 6.02.03, which is changing the time frames for the capital improvements schedule, and that would be a pretty big change. If you have any questions on that, we have transportation planning here to speak to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that would be a pretty big change, and can you explain to us how significant the change is. MS. CILEK: And I'm going to leave that to the experts. But out of this amendment, that is really the one that would be changing the most. Reed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think he's reading something -- oh, hi, Reed. I think he just understood he was being talked about up here. MR. JARVI: I was listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. JARVI: Sir, Reed Jarvi, transportation planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The statement was made that this is a significant change. Could you tell us why it's a significant change. Page 64 of 95 16 2 A2 May A 7, 2012 MR. JARVI: Yeah. Currently the system allows people -- developers to use the first two years of the Transportation Improvement Program or Capital Improvement Program at -- for purposes of concurrency. That was done probably five or six years ago when the roads -- there were being constant delays because everything was going crazy construction -wise, and there was comments to the effect that we can't depend on when the roads are actually going to be done. So let's wait -- let's make it the first two years rather than the first three years of the Capital Improvement Program. The DOT historically and traditionally used the first three years in their workings. Collier County has changed it to two years, as I mentioned, and that's been what's been used for, like I said, five or six years, something like that, as the basis for improvements to the concurrency system. The difference would be, really, that if a road is proposed to be built three years from now, you could not use that expanded capacity for concurrency purposes in today's -- the way it is today. If it was proposed to be built three years from now as a discussion item as it was, then you could use it for concurrency purposes. Probably from the developer's standpoint, it's -- if I'm using it -- something three years from now, by the time my impacts are really hitting the road -- because it does take some time to build anything they're talking about -- the road will be updated. The county's perspective is, well, what happens with the challenging budgets we have that we have to use the three years to four years, and now you've depended on it -- or it's been depended on for concurrency calculations, and we have to move it out in the program or keep it at three years and, you know, it just doesn't get built, doesn't move forward because of budget issues. So that's the county's concerns. Nick has talked to us briefly about it, and his discussion was -- or his direction was to bring it up for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you'd be doing is if you had a reliance by a developer that you would have the road within three years instead of -- right now it's two -- MR. JARVI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that correct? So if it was going to go in within two years, the developer would be allowed to go forward, right? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir, if there was a concurrency problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it was within -- by saying three years, he could still go forward -- how's that -- now, that's worse for us because we'd be -- how is that worse for the -- I'm worried more about what it means from a taxpayers' perspective. How much obligation does it put on the backs of the taxpayers to upgrade this one more year, actually 150 percent of the current process that we have? MR. JARVI: Yeah. What the -- generally, it wouldn't be a problem, not now, because we're not having the problems at the county that we were several years ago for getting roads built. Before we were having problems with subcontractors. You might remember Vanderbilt Beach Road was, you know, delayed for a couple years because they couldn't get subcontractors to work there. If somebody had depended on that, you would have had the development traffic on the road and, yet, it hadn't been expanded. So from a taxpayers' standpoint, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but -- from spending money perspective, but it does make a difference by -- if it's a two -lane road now and you really need four lanes of capacity, you might put on that -- the development traffic on it before it actually is expanded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- MR. JARVI: So it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why would we want to do that? I mean, who's going to be -- to whose advantage is this? MR. JARVI: It would be an advantage to the development community, because it would be more consistent with what the state does, or it would be consistent with what the state does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Collier County has always gone with two years. MR. JARVI: Not always. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what was it? MR. JARVI: It's relatively --it's five years ago, six years ago. It's'12 - -'7, probably 2006, 2005. I don't know when it was exactly. When we first started concurrency around 2000, it was three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we cut it back to two. Page 65 of 95 1612 � :.� May 17, 2012 MR. JARVI: We cut it back to two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're suggesting going back to three. MR. JARVI: It's suggested as a discussion item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do the rate of impact fees influence the reaction to this; anything at all? MR. JARVI: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Don't impact fees change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they do, but they don't have any -- he's saying there's no impact on this scenario from impact fees. MR. JARVI: No. The impact would be, there is a potential that you could have a more congested road because you could put development traffic on it sooner or earlier before it was built, and it may be a year, two years before that road is actually expanded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we left it at two but a development came in and we weren't going to have the road improved for three, they would have to wait for a year before they could go forward? MR. JARVI: Or some other mitigation, yes. I mean, there might be some other ways to do it, but basically the answer would be yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this -- leaving it at two is a more conservative approach for the road system? MR. JARVI: Two would be more conservative. Now, remember, this is for concurrency, what you see as consistency, so it's a little different, but basically the same idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Where is the system broken then? I don't understand why we would want to change this. MR. JARVI: I think -- well, this was part of the developer -- MS. CIL,EK: Yes, these are staff - sponsored -- MR. JARVI: Or excuse me, not -- the CBIA. MS. CILEK: -- amendments, but some of these did come from the development community. And so this is one that we would just like to bring for discussion purposes, and that's why I wanted Reed up here, because he's very knowledgeable about this, more so than I am to speak on this amendment and this part of it. So this is a discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- you know, personally I'm in favor of things that are practical, but I don't see the practicality in this. We don't have a system that's broken. This actually makes the roads more palatable when they are used. Why would we -- I don't see the reason why we would change it. I mean, now in this economy, if a developer has to wait till the roads are better, he's probably going to be better off because he waited because he'll get a better price. It's like the guys in front of us right now who are here telling us they're going to get three to five hundred thousand. My God, if that's -- if they can pull those numbers off right now in Collier County, that's great. But, you know, if they had to wait for a year to get them, they'd be smarter doing it. MS. CALK: Nick wanted to just bring this forward as a discussion item, because it was seen as an issue for the development community, but you're making very good points. So just keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd be in favor of leaving it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa and then Karen. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Reed, not to put you on the spot, but I know you worked with CBIA, too. So do you have a different take? Now being on the county side, do you see anything different than on the development side? MR. JARVI: I mean, I see the -- I don't think this is probably as big a deal now as it was a few years ago because things were moving much faster and construction was delayed. I think at this present time it's probably not a problem either way. I mean, most of the roads that we're going to develop have been developed or, excuse me, expanded, with exception of some in the -- out towards the eastern Estates area. The interior roads, it's probably not that big an issue. The thing on the -- from a developer community standpoint, at least my perspective of it, was this would be more consistent with other jurisdictions than with the state. There's nothing that says we have to be consistent. I Page 66 of 95 2 16 12 May 17, 2012 mean, we can be more restrictive. We can't be less restrictive. So there's nothing saying we have to change this by any means. It's just -- it was just brought up as a discussion item. I think from a positive standpoint, it would -- it could possibly lend to economic development where there wasn't some. But like I said, in general, our roads are built out to six lanes with some exceptions of Collier Boulevard in the urban area, and we're not going to be expanding them anyway. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Wasn't part of the issue or conversation -- and we're going back a little ways -- but having Collier County be more consistent with other areas is more attractive to bring people? Because the perception is, don't build in Collier County; it's a nightmare. And, you know, we had discussions with people that -- or developers that would not build in Collier County because of their experience. So do you think that has an impact in helping? MR. JARVI: I mean, I can't answer directly to your conversations because I have not been in any that said one way or another. But I could see that perception that would be a possibility, because the rules would be different here than in, for instance, Lee County -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. MR. JARVI: -- right across the border. Not necessarily wrong, but I'm just saying they're different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope we never get as bad as Lee County, if that's the example you're using. MR. JARVI: Well, I just used them because they're the next county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow. Karen, you had something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see the need to change it from -- to the three. I thought the whole point of a lot of what was here was to be more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see a need to change it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the consensus from at least -- we can take a poll of the board. I think leaving it as it is is fine. If we see a crisis down the road -- MS. CILEK: And I'll relate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we can do anything. Does anybody else want to chime in differently, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I think leaving it -- if it doesn't seem to be broken, let's not try to fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Reed's comment was more appropriate that whether we leave it or don't, it's really probably not going to have much of an impact. MR. JARVI: I mean, there could be an isolated development here and there that could take advantage of this. But I mean, there's nothing that I know of on the boards right now that this would make a difference to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've provided, through our review of the LDC amendments -- and there's been many of them as we've gone -- and we've got more to go -- quite a few advantages or incentives now to help the economic situation. So I think if we don't go too far overboard and just --and provide the ones we can without any kind of possible consequence that could be negative, we're being conservative, and that's the way maybe we should approach it right now. So I'm all in favor of not seeing this go forward, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Would you like to make a recommendation of denial then and -- MS. CILEK: If we could maybe do -- there's two others amendments following that, and those are staff supported. They're outdated sections of the codes. Maybe we could do a recommendation to remove just that one amendment but keep the whole LDC, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one amendment. Which one -- give me the number you're referring to, the one that you -- MS. CILEK: The next ones -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're only on -- MR. JARVI: 6.02.03E. MS. CILEK: Well, yeah, the next two on the page. Just to strike that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So basically the recommendation would be not to accept the change to three years and leave it at two? MS. CILEK: Yes. And to just strike the amendments, proposed amendment to 6.02.03D4. Page 67 of 95 May 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That changes it to three years, and we're saying we're not going to -- we don't MS. CILEK: Yeah. We're not even going to go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion from someone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have one question of Reed, because -- Reed, what this means is if I'm going to do a development and the road isn't in the improved or is in trouble, isn't in the improvement plan for two years, is what we're keeping, the alternate here is it could be in the third year of that plan. MR. JARVI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it may not be, but -- so that's just letting me out of the gate sooner because it could be in the third year? MR. JARVI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I don't see how two years is stimulating the economy. I see how three years is. MR. JARVI: Well, at the time there was discussions of having actually zero years to -- and I don't know if I'd call it a compromise, but the decision was to be at two years versus three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JARVI: I mean, we have a five -year work program, and so every year we have a different phase, different projects going on, and so this -- the way it was before was that anything that was in the third year of the work program we could count as being on the system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JARVI: Now it's only the first two years on the system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the only thing I think that's important is the length of time to build the project. I mean, you can't even get a project in two years, but that's a joke. But the -- so I think three years is the one that's the stimulus for buildings, because that means there may be projects that today cannot go and maybe would have to wait a year. So why would the three years be a problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what Reed said is if the project were to get approved now and they had a three -year window before the road was installed but they got their construction up and ready in one year, they could go on the road system, and we'd have two years of a jammed -up road, which is what I think is a bigger concern than making them wait a year until they are within the two -year window, which is why we went to two years in the first place, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Maybe the concern I don't have, if they got the project done in one year, they'd be so busy going to awards banquets that they wouldn't have time to tardy up our roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buyers wouldn't be at the awards banquets. The buyers would be putting their kids on the road and themselves and everything else, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, just to keep the controversy, I'm a three -year fan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, do we have a motion of any kind? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we accept the three years. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Motion made by Brad, seconded by Melissa. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I will just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I won't support the motion either. But, anyway, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying by aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raise your hands. I guess just the two of you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the two of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those against the motion, same sign. Page 68 of 95 16 AZ 4 IMay 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion failed for support of 6 -2 (sic). Is there another motion in the affirmative to support the two year over the three year? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. MR. EASTMAN: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen made it, Bill seconded it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8 -1. So that takes care of the two- and three -year issue. Now let's move onto the next issue you have. MS. CILEK: And that is on Page 4, 6.02.03, E and G, and staff proposes striking this language because it is outdated and not utilized. We have new language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, and I don't -- that I didn't see a problem with. MS. CILEK: Or -- well, new process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions or issues on those, 6.02.03E and 6.02.03G? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Melissa. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Brad. 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: The motion carries 9 -0. MS. CILEK: Yeah. Page 69 of 95 1612 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: One down. MS. CILEK: All right. The next one is 6.06.01. It should be the next tab in your binder. Street system requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the cleanup of the last time it came to us, right? MS. CILEK: Yeah, just a couple tweaks on it. This is the first time that you are seeing this, and the tweaks come from Heidi. So we are proposing to strike 6.06.01K altogether, and the reason is is that we don't utilize this provision, and it would be at the developer's discretion to do so inside their own development. And Reed can add, elaborate if he would like. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How did this come up? MS. CILEK: This amendment was also originally proposed by the development community. We worked with them, and we came to a compromise on those that we wanted to bring forward. And they had originally asked to revise this language, but when staff took a look at it, we actually suggested just removing it in whole because it's not really applicable to what we review for. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if I'm understanding correctly, you want to put in less materials into their sidewalks; is that what it's saying? MS. CILEK: Oh, we're above. We're above that under 6.06.01K, which is at the top of the page walking through the different amendments. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're walking one set at a time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, we haven't got there yet. Okay, go ahead. All right. MS. CILEK: Are there any questions on K? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: Okay. The next one we are just making S more clear in what the developer will do during a proportionate -share agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As -- so, essentially, he's agreeing to doing things according to a standard that he hasn't seen yet, which is the amended version? MS. CILEK: That's just language so that if it's amended in the future this will still apply. So their -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But his contribution will be based on a standard that he hasn't seen yet. MS. CILEK: But it will be the standard at the time. And then if it's amended and it's changed and you come forward, you know, in five years and there's a new TIS guidelines resolution that has been amended from the one that exists now, that's the one you would use. So it's just whatever is current with your development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you see my problem? When he's agreeing to that, he's agreeing to the future one, which he hasn't seen yet. He may not like something in it. So what you're saying is that he can't base his decision on the current one. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a floating standard that he hasn't seen. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. The guidelines are adopted by resolution. I'm told it's a 2006 resolution. Caroline may have the number. MS. CILEK: I do. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So just, essentially, you know, the board can amend the resolution and adopt a new standard. It's just going to be whatever the current one is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And hold the past agreements to it, right? Is that what -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Past agreements? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Isn't that what that's saying is that he has to do things according to Page 70 of 95 lu 12 ay 1 J 2012 the standard as may be amended, or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think it's talking about impairing existing contracts. It's just talking about what's going to apply. I mean, if there's a contract, you're going to govern by the contract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he's making a proportionate share to devices as defined. MS. CILEK: I see what you're saying. It's like if we have a code right now and a developer, you know, makes a change in five years and the code is changed, then they would be held to that new code standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In the building code world, we're not allowed to do that, you know. MS. CILEK: This language was suggested by Heidi as amended or superceded just to stay current with the TIS guidelines that are utilized. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, again, it's a deal he's made based on a standard that's -- he hasn't read yet because it's in the future. MS. CILEK: Right. I don't -- I think that the guidelines that were current when they come in to use the proportionate -share agreement would be used even if that language wasn't in there, because that's what would be the current for that day. I don't know if they'd go back 15 years and use what the TIS guidelines were back then. I think they would use the ones that are current whether this language is in there or not. But I am going out on a limb on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we add language that suggests that the guidelines that were current at the time of the agreement or at the time the proportionate share was established? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or get rid of the -- MS. CILEK: I'm going to let others weigh in on that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, if you want to take out as amended or superseded, we can do that, but I can tell you when we apply it, we're going to look at the current resolution, and that's what will be applied. But, you know, if you're comfortable taking it out then, you know, we don't often in our code indicate the successor even though we apply it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem either way, so whatever this board wants to do. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we do a straw vote to take out the yellow? MS. CILEK: It's up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it makes it clearer to leave it in to the person reading it, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's the concern I have is, you know, we make a deal with the county. I'm a developer. I'm looking at that standard, and that's fine with me. Since then the standard changes where you have to gold plate all the equipment. Now it's a very expensive deal. That could -- would not be fair to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But aren't all of our ordinances like that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But that's what happens -- MR. EASTMAN: You would have received your approval before the gold - plated standard, so you're fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, this is telling me I'm not fine. This is telling me "as amended." MR. EASTMAN: No. That's just saying that the next person through who's going to be subject to the gold - plated standard, it would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think -- Tom, right now, for example, PUDs, many of them have language in them that they'll abide by the LDC at the time of submittal or development orders. It's no different than this. So I'm not sure how you can design a PUD when you're subject to future development standards any more than you could design to this. So why is there a concern of this language when there never has been in the PUD language? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because this is a proportionate share. Well, would I make that before the new standard comes out? MS. CILEK: Sorry. I don't follow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, if I make this agreement and -- or a developer does -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But there is no agreement theory here. This is one where they say we want a traffic signal and the county says, okay, you can have a traffic signal but you -all have to pay your fair share, correct? MS. CILEK: Right. MR. JARVI: Correct. Page 71 of 95 1612 May l7, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then we can calculate -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. So that's when it meets warrants that they look at it and the county says, yes, you can put one in, but we're not going to pay for it. You can put it in if you pay for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that would be the current standard at that time would determine what it is I have to put in. MS. CILEK: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Fine, we'll go with it. MR. JARVI: If I could, this is how you do it. And how you do the proportionate share really doesn't change. The inputs might change, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't some of the agreements where -- especially where developments have slumped around them and they can't fulfill their thing, aren't they being held off for the future, and wouldn't they be caught with the future standards? MR. JARVI: I don't think it's the future standards. It's just -- it's more of a methodology how you would do it. I mean, if you had a signal in Heidi's example and you had Developer 1, he's got 100 percent. If you have two developers, you know, it might be 50 percent. It might be 75/25, whatever. But how you get that percentage is by doing a proportionate -share calculation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the current standard? MR. JARVI: Just a proportionate -share calculation. I think this is saying, in accordance with the TIS guidelines, because that tells you how to do it and that TIS guidelines may be amended from time to time, which is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JARVL• I mean, this is -- I mean, and engineering standards typically are more performance based than I think the building standards are. You know, you have to have a 2 -inch member, and if it changes, well, I'm grandfathered in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. We can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know when to fold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to go on -- on to 6.06.02, right? MS. CILEK: Yep, next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, are you saying by this that we can't have brick -paver sidewalks anymore? MS. CILEK: I don't think so, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on the next page. You're right, you're right. MS. CILEK: It's on C. We just made them A, B, and C so they're easier to read. And on the brick -paver sidewalks one, it's really for either one, either public or private. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then A and B, for sidewalks you're substituting 6- inch -thick concrete over a compacted subgrade. Before wasn't it over a limerock base? MS. CILEK: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And both -- and then the 4 -inch concrete over a compacted subgrade whereas before it was over a limerock base. I was here when that came through. Stan Krasowski was concerned about it, and he -- rightfully so, because big trucks, like FP &L and the others, drive over these sidewalks, crush them up and break them and then drive away. And they wanted -- because compacted base is not nearly as sturdy as a limerock base is. So why would we want to change this? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have the same concern. They're doing some new roads over in Immokalee now, and we have so many sidewalks that are just deteriorated in just 10 years, and they're having to tear them up, pull them out, and put in new sidewalks because they weren't done right the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when -- this change went in years ago, and it's been pretty effective since then. What's the point? MS. CILEK: Again, this was put forward by CBIA. Staff does support it. We did tweak it. And I'm going to let Reed really speak to the specific changes and how we're differentiating between the private and local roadways and the 4 -inch concrete and the county - maintained roadways, which are remaining at 6 inches of -- thick concrete. MR. JARVL• If I could, we discussed this at length with the county engineer, with Nick Casalanguida, and Page 72 of 95 16 12 A 2Y a 17 2012 we came to an agreement by looking at what was required from FDOT, the counties in the surrounding area, and what is correct from a construction perspective. And the limerock base is a flexible -- is a base for a flexible pavement, asphalt. Concrete you don't use a flexible base, because concrete is a rigid material. So the appropriate way to build with concrete is for a compacted base. And this is the way we do buildings. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you define compacted base? MR. JARVI: It's -- what happens with concrete is it breaks when you have a differential pressure, so you don't want to have something that moves. Limerock can move. I mean, you and I, we walk on it, it doesn't move, but if somebody goes over it, it can move, and that's where concrete breaks. Where you have -- asphalt moves with the limerock, so you compact it with a compacting machine to a standard that we set here, I think -- or there is a standard. One's 98 and one's 95 percent. I can't keep them straight. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is this base that you're compacting? MR. JARVI: It's a -- the first so many inches, 6 inches, typically, of the dirt, just standard. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just black dirt? MR. JARVI: What's underneath. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: With roots in it and sand? Because I think that's -- I've seen them pour these concrete sidewalks onto just dirt, and they're just full of cracks now after 10 years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, can't we -- what we're really doing is we're putting specifications in the LDC, so why don't we reference the standard here? MR. JARVI: What we tried to do is take the specifications out of the LDC because they had -- before they were ASTM, and those things aren't appropriate. It's more performance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're putting -- I mean, first of all, do we have a standard somewhere that has how to build a sidewalk in Collier County? MR. JARVI: We would refer to FDOT specifications. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we don't, it's the only one missing. MR. JARVI: I mean, FDOT specifications, all of them are -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But somewhere we must have a standard we could reference, and we could reference it for private roads, and we could reference another for public roads. And we shouldn't be doing specifications in the LDC. MR. JARVI: Yeah. We tried to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think compacted subgrade isn't specific enough, so, I mean, that's even weaker than -- MR. JARVL• If you look at the FDOT specifications, which I don't have with me, it tells you how to do this and what testing is needed to make sure it is done to correct specifications. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that what you want people to do? MR. JARVI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't you reference that? MR. JARVI: It's, I think -- MS. CILEK: Under F1 it says, all sidewalks shall be designed and constructed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CELEK: -- in accordance with the latest edition of FDOT design standards. So that is the first thing that would be in the sidewalk section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Then how would you differentiate between an A sidewalk and a B sidewalk, since you describe them the same, other than the thickness of the concrete? MS. CIL,EK: An A sidewalk is for the county to maintain, which will be capped at the 6 -inch thick, and then B is for local or private roadways. That's the distinction. And the local or private can be at a 4- inch -thick concrete. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And taking the knowledge of the concrete thickness into the FDOT design standard, I will -- everything will make sense to me from there, right? MR. JARVI: The FDOT design standard is actually 4 inches with exceptions at driveways. Page 73 of 95 16 'Nn May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But if I take the 6 -inch number with me and go into FDOT, I know I have to meet the 6 -inch on the FDOT base, we'll be covered, right? MR. JARVI: Yes. The base is the same in either case. One just has more concrete. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I think that's exactly what it's saying then. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are allowed to improve on FDOT standard, are we not? MS. CIL,EK: And we are -- for county - maintained roads, we are doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't let me finish. MS. CILEK: Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language that we had in here, wasn't it an improvement over the FDOT standards, meaning 6 inches on top of limerock is much better than 6 inches on top of just a compacted subgrade? MR. JARVI: Not necessarily, because the limerock is not the proper base for concrete. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Is it a more solid base than sub -- compacted subgrade? You'll get better compaction of limerock; will you not? MR. JARVI: Yes, I guess that's a true statement. But from a building standpoint, it's not the correct standard to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it works -- it actually would give the sidewalks what we're trying to accomplish, and that simply is not to have failure when large trucks of differential mass drive over them, as the FP &L trucks do when they fix poles. So how is going to an FDOT standard going to help us accomplish that goal? MR. JARVI: But the previous standard -- the FP &L truck, typically, would be driving over a county road, which we have 6 inches. The previous standard was 4 inches of concrete over 4 inches of limerock or 6 inches of concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or -- which may be constructed without limerock base -- MR. JARVL• Without limerock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- must be constructed over a compacted subgrade. MR. JARVI: Yes, which we are maintaining the 6 inches over a compacted subgrade. We've just taken out the 4 inches over 4 inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we -- so we're taking out that option. I mean, so if someone felt that was a better option for them, they'd still have to put in 6 inches over compacted subgrade based on this? MR. JARVI: On a county collector or arterial, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the county's thoughts on why one isn't equivalent to the other when in the past we had thought they were? MR. JARVI: Our thoughts are that it's not appropriate to do it the way it was said before, and the county engineer and I and the growth management director and some others discussed this and came to this agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how many times that option has been used? MR. JARVL• Haven't any idea. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not an engineer, but it just seems like you would get a better -- if you put sand or limerock, you would have control of what was -- you were pouring on. Instead of pouring on -- trying to compact whatever dirt was existing there previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm troubled by the change that -- this was sold as a big deal back when it was -- I sat on this board when it was brought to us. We kicked it around for -- quite length, and all of a sudden now it's the wrong thing to do, and we're going back to something that we thought was the wrong thing -- the wrong thing at the time to do. I haven't understood the philosophy in getting there yet. Currently, if we left the old code in, what would a private roadway require? MR. JARVI: The same. There wasn't a difference. It just said sidewalks before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So an FP &L truck on a public roadway is going to cause more damage than if it was on private roadway on the same sidewalk. So the same sidewalk on a private roadway being less doesn't -- is there different trucks they drive? MR. JARVI: Well, the thought is twofold. One is, first off, it's a private roadway, so the county's not responsible for the maintenance. May or may not be a good discussion -- good idea, but that's one of the thoughts. And the second thought is, when the trucks that we're talking about pull off, it's more of a trunk -line issue they're looking at. They're not looking at a private -- community street very often. Page 74 of 95 6 12 A2may `� 17, 2012 And, typically, when I've seen them, they stop on the street. They don't pull off on the side of the road. On a collector or arterial, they quite often pull off to get out of the main travelway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, basically what you'd be doing is for lessening the requirement on private sidewalks, which lessens the cost to somebody, the homeowners' association or the CDD picks up the cost for any future damages because the roads -- because the sidewalks there are less -- have a less standard than the sidewalks in the public system. I don't know why we wouldn't just insist on the same for the public system. If you want to take out the option to go to 4 inches of concrete and then the limerock but leave in the 6 inches of concrete over compacted subgrade, because that's always been here anyway, that -- but as long as it's attributed to both public and private, I think we're fine. MR. JARVI: Before we go too far, it's not always been there. It's since the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since the change years ago, right. MR. JARVI: Prior to that we just did the FDOT standard. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On private roads, every single one of our sidewalks were ruined with trucks coming in with the building. Because the sidewalks go down first and, you're right, everything, I have to agree, is -- has to be replaced. And it's not 10 areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Let me just walk -- so Collier County does not have a standard somewhere showing how to build sidewalks in Collier County other than this verbal description? MR. JARVI: I think they do not have a specification saying how it's supposed to be done, you know, what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no drawing anywhere? MR. JARVI: That says 28 -day compressive string, 3,000 pounds and all that stuff, that's all DOT. What this is -- and I haven't looked word for word, but it's pretty much what DOT says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then do you have any amendments to the DOT in any other areas? In other words, DOT's the standard you've adopted, or the county has. Do we have any local amendments to that? MR. JARVI: Not to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because maybe that's what you do here is just make a local amendment to the standard and reference that here and show somebody a drawing with the specification and everything else on it. MR. JARVI: But, I mean, typically the county has had a standard on how wide the sidewalks will be, and it was -- or it's a five and six depending on what kind of road it's on, and pathways and that sort of thing, which DOT doesn't really have. They do have a standard 5 -foot width, and then we changed the thickness with the amendment that Mark was talking about seven, eight, nine years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was quite a while, yeah. MR. JARVL• Something, early 2000. And we changed the thickness of the sidewalk. We never changed the specification. All the stuff in here is just -- is a standard concrete specification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I recall that. I was there, too. But, I mean, for us, I can understand the Land Development Code having the width of a sidewalk, location of sidewalks, the requirements for sidewalks, but to have the -- you know, the depth of the base and the compressive strength of the concrete and all that doesn't make sense in the Land Development Code and, therefore, I think we should have a, you know, sidewalk drawing somewhere that you reference in this. In other words, it has to be 6 feet wide and it has to be built as according to, and reference that standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make a suggestion, then. Why don't we take part of the sentence in A, this part, and put it in No. 1 as the first sentence. Sidewalks shall be constructed of a minimum 6- inch -thick concrete over a compacted subgrade, then go on with 1, all sidewalks shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the FDOT's design standard, and strike all the rest. That gets us the 6 -- that gets us the option that apparently has been used the most, that gets us equal treatment for public and private, brings in the FDOT standard, and doesn't have any of the specifications that Brad's Page 75 of 95 'S .Swa r May 17, 2012 pointing out that's in the code. Does anybody see anything wrong with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's a good idea, because the only thing different is the thickness on the county sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 2 inch more means that you're going to put a -- instead of using a two -by -four, you use a one -by -six or two -by -- well, which is probably what will be used. So, I mean, I don't see what's wrong with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't either. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Sold American. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anyway, does that -- anybody? ]:'an], you have -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you try revising the language and bringing it back. MS. CILEK: Okay. So we want to keep -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have something about asphalt sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the standard -- who gets the asphalt sidewalks and who gets the concrete sidewalks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee gets the asphalt. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I was going to say that, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were; that's why I was going to head there for you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why are they putting in asphalt sidewalks now and only on the south side of Immokalee? MR. JARVI: Immokalee town or the city or road? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The town of Immokalee, yeah, where I live. MR. JARVI: I don't know the answer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why aren't we getting concrete sidewalks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's an answer that we would like to have answered when this comes back to us. Could someone find out if there's a difference in specifications in another part of the county? Because if this doesn't apply to the whole county, we need to know why and what does apply to the whole county then. So that might be the way to answer your question. MS. CILEK: It does. And I know that asphalt pathways are on the second page, Page 4, describes those. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. I'm talking about on the east side of South 9th Street across from Pine Crest School and the Catholic church. MR. JARVI: Is it -- and I don't know the answer. Is it greater than 5 or 6 feet wide? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know the width. All I know is that they're putting in new asphalt sidewalks there, and I don't know why. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's a pathway. It's not a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. It's by the side of the road. It's not a pathway. It's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then it should be concrete. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. May I chime in here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: To be honest with you, I'd rather have an asphalt pathway than a concrete sidewalk. Several reasons. Joggers do not go on concrete. It's hard to ride a bike. Just -- walkers just prefer the other. And if you get a -- I prefer pathways. They are easier to maintain. If something breaks on them, it's easier to fix than the concrete, and pathways are becoming very big in Collier County right now. People absolutely love it. By the canal on the north side of Immokalee Road, that's 10 -foot. There're wonderful comments on it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm not talking about asphalt pathways. I'm talking about asphalt sidewalks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I don't know if yours -- the width of it would be the difference, right? MR. JARVI: Pretty much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Would that be right, Reed? MR. JARVI: If it's wider -- Page 76 of 95 61 A2 May 14, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: If it's wider -- MR. JARVI: -- a wider area, 8, 10, 12 feet, typically those are done as asphalt pathways because it's convenient -- it's more -- not convenient. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Multi -use? MR. JARVI: More cost effective for it, because it's hard to do asphalt in a relatively thin area, and it becomes a -- it's a more user - friendly surface than concrete. There's advantages to concrete, too. But if it's a wider area, then typically we would do pathway as -- anything 8 foot or above would be asphalt. I'll check in -- I mean, they're going on -- I just need to make -- find the right person to ask the question, because I don't know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Which are more expensive to build? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Concrete. MR. JARVI: Concrete, typically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the answer to your question, by the way, why do you have asphalt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think you got direction on that one. And let's take a break for the court reporter. We'll come back at five after three and resume where we left off. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. If you'll please remain -- yeah, remain. If you'd move to your seats, we'll resume the meeting. It's been a long day already. And hoping in an effort to probably shorten it, staff approached me on the Master Mobility Plan during break and suggested that maybe we wait and hold off on further review after they do the rewrite from the direction and drift that we were heading when we reviewed it, the first half of it, a month ago or however long ago it was. And I know I had a lot of comments on it at that time, and I'll be glad to share those with staff over the next couple of weeks. But they suggested it be more -- may be more productive for this board if we just wait and -- we have a scheduled meeting -- a special meeting on that plan on the 19th of June. So if we wait till that date to review their revisions as a workshop, we would have the same emphasis and maybe less time if we do it that way. Sounds like a good idea, but I wanted to make sure any of you, if you had any concerns, we addressed them. What's the rest of the board think? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I think it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any objections to it? Okay. Well, Debbie, that works. So we will -- we'll move along as we just discussed. And so anybody that's here today for the Master Mobility Plan, we're running out of time anyway, so we will not be discussing it today. And we also have it scheduled for discussion on the 6th or 7th of June, our first meeting in June, so we might as well take it off that schedule, too, but leave it on the special session on the 19th. Okay. Thank you. And with that, Caroline, we move back to your focus, which is No. 13. We're on 10.02.13. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: PDls. MS. CILEK: And this amendment was delivered to you at the May 3rd meeting and wasn't originally in your binders. And the intent of this is to allow for an administrative removal of affordable housing commitments to PUDs, which was briefly discussed earlier today. And in doing so, we took a look at the whole section and made some changes just so that it would be a smoother read. But the new language is on the last page, Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so we can celebrate there's no more need for affordable housing? MS. CILEK: I am not going to speak to that, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're making it easy to get rid of commitments people made to provide Page 77 of 95 I2 AZ May 17, 2012 that. MS. CILEK: There's been a direction to put forth this amendment so that we can administratively remove these affordable housing commitments in PUDs, yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I had some discussion, so -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion to approve made by Melissa, seconded by Phil. Discussion? Under C where you -- the staff -- basically, staff can remove the affordable housing commitments. The problem is these commitments, many times, were part and parcel to a zoning application, and they weighed in with the various boards as to whether or not the zoning application should even be allowed based on mitigation offers by the developer. In this particular case, and some of them will be affordable housing, I'm not sure that every PUD in this county that has committed to affordable housing has done it in the manner that it isn't -- it might not be considered differently if we didn't have that commitment. And since -- I've been here for almost 11 years, a lot of the affordable housing commitments were the reason some of these projects were approved. And if they weren't going to make those commitments, then some adjustment to the project would have been needed, such as density and things like that. How is this taken into consideration of those activities, meaning -- say a housing, affordable housing commitment was made on a percentage of the project. They now come in and say, well, we shouldn't need this anymore because nobody says it's needed, whatever the reason is. Staff says, okay, we'll take it out. Do they still keep the density? COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to ask. MS. CILEK: As far as this new language is written, yes. And what would happen is the PUD, the residential community, and those outside would be notified of that change, that that PUD went through with that density and gets to keep that density. From what I understand, there would be no changes to the PUD. But Ray may be able to elaborate more on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, those people that are notified are the adjoining property owners. They aren't the ones that voted on it. We did. MS. CILEK: True. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we probably heard them come to us during that process and say they don't want affordable housing, because nobody in the county wanted it. So I don't think they're going to object to it. But I think that this board would have a right to want to understand the implications of just wanting to leave -- to completely removing it when it was a commitment that was made. It was a commitment to the taxpayers. It was committed to the people of this county. It was committed to everybody. And in lieu of that, you're still going to get the density. Well, that's not the deal that was cut. And I'm just wondering why it can be just unilaterally taken away without individual consideration of these actions. MR. BELLOWS: I think some clarification is necessary. For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- I believe the intent of this amendment is not to eliminate those affordable housing density bonus agreements that were approved with PUDs, but only those PUDs that had a commitment for the developer to contribute money to an affordable housing trust fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, that's a different -- that's a different animal, and that one I agree with you on. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And this amendment is to allow -- instead of forcing a property owner to come in through an expensive amendment process to eliminate it, to do it administratively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this only applies to monetary commitments? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't apply to density? MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then I don't have a problem. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 78 of 95 1 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you go --just tell us again what that trust fund is used for? MR. BELLOWS: That's a good question. MS. CILEK: Actually, I don't believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't exist. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can answer that. As a member of the Affordable Housing Commission, I've been told that all money for those thousand dollars, 50 cents a square foot for commercial, has not been spent. MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in a pot somewhere that has never been drawn on. So it's all there, including the -- so, obviously, people have paid, and they will get a refund themselves, anyone that's paid in, so it's an even thing. Everybody that that money was -- you know, and some of us used the word "extraction" at the time -- that that money was extracted, whether they paid in or not -- if they paid in, they get the money back, and if they haven't paid in, it's in their PUD; it'll be eliminated from it. That's what's going to happen, right? And where Mark was concerned, no density bonuses, has nothing to do with that. MS. CILEK: Right. I'm so sorry. I didn't understand there was a density bonus that you could apply as well. No, this was just speaking to the monetary and whatever the density in the PUD without the density bonus. Yes, that's going to remain the same, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has the money been refunded? I mean, this doesn't reference that, and it shouldn't in the LDC, but -- MS. CILEK: Not from what I understand. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Is it a fact that if this is done, is the money going to be refunded? I mean, is that -- I mean, Brad said that, but is that what's going to happen? I'm just curious. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- and it wouldn't be fair if it didn't, by the way. If you took a commitment away from somebody and then made the person who honored that commitment look foolish, that wouldn't be fair. MR. BELLOWS: We'd have to follow up on that. That wasn't really what I was told how that part of it would work. I was just told that this was a board direction to eliminate the need for property owners to come in to amend the PUD to take out the language since, basically, they feel that that program has no way to implement or spend that money appropriately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know that there's been money collected, and do we know that it's not been spent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. It's -- the money -- we got a sheet here ourselves -- or at least I did somewhere -- they had of a printout of all the money that's been collected. And to the best of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you know -- and the question was asked, black and white and cold, and they said the money's still there, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What was the money supposed to have been used for, and why wasn't it spent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Concrete sidewalks in Immokalee. MS. CILEK: Those are very good questions and, unfortunately, I don't have the answers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was affordable housing. I think the reason it wasn't spent is people feared this would happen, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before this is approved, wouldn't it be wise to verify that the money is there and that it -- and how -- what's going to happen with it? Only because if it's -- if we -- if this is voted to be done and that this wouldn't be a requirement anymore but it's only if someone or a designee asks for it not to apply -- MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if he doesn't ask for it not to apply but yet we no longer want it to be in place, they can voluntarily pay this money, how do we know that the people that have already paid want their money back? I mean, I'm just wondering how all that -- how that works. MS. CILEK: There's a lot of other issues that are associated with -- that are still being worked out. And I can have someone come and speak on behalf of the money that has been contributed so far. And there's a spreadsheet. I've seen it. And we can do that at the next meeting, if you'd like, just so -- Page 79 of 95 A2 16 17 May 17, 2012 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I would also like to know, maybe there -- maybe there is a legitimate need for some of that money that really needs to be spent, and I'd like to know about that -- if there is something -- some projects -- you know, with so many people in need now that are in the, you know, very low income and very lacking of housing, maybe we might decide that we want to spend some of that money because it's a worthy use of the money and it's already been contributed towards that. MS. CILEK: Sure. We can discuss that more when we have the numbers in front of us if you'd like or make a recommendation to the board as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just think we'd like to get a little more clarification -- MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on what's there and what you're going to do with it. MS. CILEK: Sure. I'm not very knowledgable about this specific amendment, so -- there's a lot of history behind it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And I will withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Phil, do you withdraw your second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I move to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. It will just come back to us again. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just bring it back. MS. CILEK: Yep. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just as a comment, I mean, the problem of housing is probably worse now than it was four or five years ago in terms of people being without housing, not being able to afford housing, inadequate housing, substandard housing, at least where I live, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And good time for a down payment assistance. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Paul, I think part of the issue was, is this a legal way, as Brad said. I mean, you're extracting money to get an approval, and is it a legal way of supplementing affordable housing, and I think that was the biggest issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're right, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was deemed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings up another -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- legal. I mean, no one was sitting up here doing illegal stuff. But it just -- some people felt it was more fair than others. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Po- tay -to, po- tah -to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment, I don't understand -- I mean, I understand an LDC amendment, the purpose of all these, but as we all watched a succession of BCC meetings where all of the foofaraw and hoorays and negative comments about the use of these funds and the county trying to extract themselves from the management of these funds and building houses and rehabilitating houses and so forth, what are we -- are we trying to deal ourselves back into the -- into this mess as a Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's totally different, yeah. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Different animal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about how this is going to function if it's approved. And if it's been now determined that this wasn't the right thing to do, then if it isn't, then why are we -- why do we have i, ii, and iii? If it's not the right thing to do, it's not the right thing to do. Give staff permission to amend the PUDs, take it out and deal with money that we got. Why do we have to worry about people objecting to it if it's not right to begin with? I mean, what was the decision? Was a decision made that this wasn't something we should have done? Regardless of whether it's technically a legal extraction or not. Let's just say, did the BCC decide this wasn't the right way to approach affordable housing? Is that the synopsis? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it was my understanding that there were two PUDs that came in for an amendment to eliminate that language. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Page 80 of 95 1 6 12 A2 . May 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: And the discussion involved, kind of like right now, that this was not really a GMP type of housing element provision that could legitimately require these donations, so they felt a little uneasy about that, is my CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. And I think that's a good thing to recognize that, okay, this may not have been done the right way, so let's correct it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how are we correcting it if we leave it up to the neighbors to receive notices and say, oh, I object to it. Then that's not correcting it; it's just enforcing it, I mean. So -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe we want to make this simpler. It's not the right thing to do. Here's how we should handle it. Let's get it done a little bit simpler than trying to suggest that, oh, we may have not done the right thing, but we're going to let the neighbors decide if we did or not, because if they object to it, we're not going to -- we're going to throw it into another process. That's just going to cost somebody more money and more time on an issue that maybe we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. So maybe that's the better way to consider this. MS. CILEK: Sure. I do know that that actually was directed by Nick to include a public notice requirement. When he was speaking to the board about this, I recall him asking that that would be a component of it, that people know about it. So following that directive, that's why those parts were included, but we can have a further discussion on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But thinking out that scenario, require a public notice to undo something that apparently has been recognized as something we probably shouldn't have done. MS. CILEK: It's still in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what good is that public notice then? It only just digs us in a deeper hole. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Or unaware. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I could be wrong, but my memory of this was that this is when housing, looking back on it, was overvalued. Houses that were projected to be worth $100,000, by the time they were built, the market had built it up to $300,000. And so that was where this whole idea that we need help with affordable housing came from. It was sort of almost a reaction to just the general housing bubble. And, you know, people are assuming that it was the wrong thing to do. But in the context of that time and place, maybe it was the right thing to do, and maybe it should have been used to help people who need housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then another thing, remember, in the beginning people were asked that they would come up and they were -- I don't want to use the word "ambushed," but they were approached at the meeting with this requirement. It didn't take long for the developers to be volunteering. They, in their introductory statement, tell us that they're going to donate this money. No one ever asked their. They just assumed by behavior of the past application. So some of this money was voluntarily donated. It wasn't asked for. It was just out of the kindness of their heart, wink, wink, they gave it to us. MR. BELLOWS: And they don't have to apply for an amendment either. It's only for those who want to apply for the amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who would not apply? MR. BELLOWS: Well, if it was the goodness of their heart, what has changed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right. Maybe I only should have done one wink. I'm done. Thanks. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I was just going to follow up with Brad, is it wasn't out of the kindness of their heart, but basically they either had to provide the housing or pay the amount. And the cost of land, it was cheaper to pay a thousand dollars a unit than to try to put the housing in their project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was never a mitigation fee. It was a -- we could -- it's like -- Paul described it best. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think you're going to come back with some -- MS. CILEK: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- better information, and maybe get with the county attorney to see if there's a -- Page 81 of 95 16 ,r May 17, 2012 that this process is the right way to go. When someone wants to remove something, that we question whether or not we should have put it there in the first place, let it be challenged. But anyway, we'll wait to hear what you've got to say in the future. MS. CILEK: Sure. I will bring back some numbers and some other individuals to elaborate on it, but that sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it's a good thing for staff to be able to do this. It's just a matter of making sure it's done in the manner that is equitable to everybody that got involved in it, so -- MS. CILEK: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item up is 10.08.00, conditions and safeguard. MS. CILEK: Can we do 14, which is 9.04.08, administrative adjustment, first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. I just skipped one. I thought I was on -- 9.04.08; my fault. Administrative adjustments. MS. CILEK: This is a new amendment, and it creates a new process to allow for a little flexibility regarding setbacks and some sign adjustments in the future may be expanded. What it does is sets up a process for someone to come in with an SDP or SDPI type of process to work with staff and request an adjustment, provide a reasoning why, justification. It's checked by several individuals, county manager or designee, the county engineer, zoning manager. They review it, and then there's a public notice process as well so that everyone is aware of the adjustment that is being made, and then at the end there's an appeals process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? This is a -- we've seen this before? MS. CILEK: Nope. Actually, this is the first time this has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: And we do also have one public speaker on this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's got to be -- not Jean, because she's here for Bayshore. Bob? Jeremy, okay. MS. CILEK: Yeah, Jeremy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's hear what Jeremy's got to say. MR. FRANTZ: Hi. Jeremy Frantz representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. When this amendment first came through, we were concerned about the provision for reductions in preserve setbacks. We were concerned mainly about the possibility for abuse or maybe for it -- for the language that was previously in there to be used towards an entire PUD or any number of possibilities. We think that the language that is in there now is more restrictive to specific parcels, and that was the intent of the amendment in the first place. So just want to recognize staff for working with us on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. It's good news. Does anybody else have any issues with the administrative adjustment language? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one question. Is this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- intended to be used before or after you build the thing? I mean -- MS. CILEK: It could be used in both situations. So it could be used when you come in for your first SDP, or it can be after the fact as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you make a mistake you can still use this? Now, we have administrative -- MS. CILEK: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- variances and stuff. How does this tie in with that? MS. CILEK: Well, you have to -- you have to really prove why you need this, and you have to have a design or an engineer kind of certify why you need this adjustment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it is in line with the administrative variance process, which you have to prove why you need it, or you can't get two boats, one of the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Diane, did you have something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This affects us, again. This was the same -- where they can go in the preserve. Page 82 of 95 May 17, 2012 It's administrative. I don't know. This is -- MS. CILEK: So for -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: You weren't here at the time, but it affected quite a few people in Olde Cypress because of the preserves. They weren't 20 -- the accessory structures, some of the homes weren't -- the setback was not there. It did involve quite a bit. People tried to change lot lines, give part of their land to the next -door neighbor, and -- so they could get these. It's a little troubling to me only because I've lived through it. And it's the administrative part of it that I think I object to. MS. CII,EK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have to have a burden of proof as to the need if a request comes in to apply one of these administrative adjustments? Say someone has an SDP coming in, that's the time they do it, and they want to reduce all the front and your rear yards and they've got a bunch of lots on a -- MS. CILEK: I'm so sorry. I'm a little distracted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Say an SDP comes in, they have a series of lots on a cul -de -sac -- those are irregular lots -- and they want a reduction of five on every one of them as a process. So -- but yet they've got a PUD with those cul -de -sacs on their master plan. They knew darn well they have cul -de -sacs, and that's not how you do front -yard setbacks on cul -de -sacs. So what would prevent staff from saying, no, you can't have that? I mean, do they have to prove that they have a hardship? Because if that's the case, that's a standard that we understand. There's got to be a need -- well, at least we did understand until boat docks came along. But I'm just wondering --anybody can just come in and get this as a matter of fact, or they've got to prove something? MS. CIL,EK: Under C, which is review criteria, there are four criteria that the applicant will provide, the lanser (sic). They'll provide justification. So the first one is that the zoning director's going to make sure that the proposed adjustment does not negatively affect the adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's say a cul -de -sac, six lots -- go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I may. And, again, you know, should you decide to go forward with this amendment, this is how it would work. The outside community would hire somebody under Item D4 and D3. So the outside planner /engineer is going to evaluate the impacts and provide that information to staff, then staff will look at that information, and if they agree, then the zoning director would then issue an opinion. I don't know that the zoning director would be making their own independent evaluation. They're just going to evaluate what's submitted. And if they agree with it, then they can make that finding. If they don't agree with it, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But this is done at the time of SDP. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SDP on a cul -de -sac village, for example, will be done by the developer. They're going to own all the outside properties, so they're going to say that there is no impact on the adjacent properties. As the owner, I have no objection. They're going to go down the list, and they'll have no objection to doing things that they want to do for the 5 -foot deviation in the front of all the lots on a cul -de -sac. How do we prevent that? That's a blatant misuse of this application. This is supposed to be for areas that were, for some reason, unique and different unknownts (sic) in the planning process, I would assume. Bob? MR. MULHERE: May I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. MUL14ERE: -- comment on that? I didn't register to speak, but as I heard the discussion unfold -- two things. One, honestly, the Olde Cypress situation was a different situation. It was a question of interpretation. It was a question of interpretation that, you know, one argument versus another argument. I know it was very divisive, but that's what it was. This administrative variance process is -- has been written to have limitations, criteria, and appeal process, so -- and it is intended to be on a case -by -case basis so that, just like a variance, if somebody came in and asked for a Page 83 of 95 1612 May 17, 2012 variance and -- Mr. Strain, and asked for it on five or six lots, I don't know how -- I mean, I assume that staff would say, that's not a variance anymore. That's now -- that's now -- if it was a PUD, it's a PUD amendment, because it's affecting multiple lots. So you would handle that differently. I would think that that would be the same case here. Perhaps some language could be structured, a sentence could be structured to say this is intended to apply to unique case -by -case, you know, applications. I think that's implied. It's not expressly stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it does -- I don't -- I mean -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, Mr. Strain, I think the way it would play out is if they request it and they check off all the boxes -- MR. MULHERE: It would be denied. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- they're going to get it. There's no staff discretion here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's what I'm concerned about. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So if they ask for it, they'll get it. So you can pretty much consider that A through F MR. MULHERE: Let me ask a question. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- if they ask for it, they'll get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Let her finish speaking before you -- you do this a lot. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And this isn't a variance. There's no hardship. This is more like a special exception in the planning world. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. Let me ask a question, then. They're going to provide some information. That information is reviewed by staff to see if staff concurs with the position of the applicant. If staff does not concur, staff cannot deny or not approve the administrative deviation? I think they can. And then there's another process to go through if staff doesn't support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what is the basis for the need for it? I think that's where my concern is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody can walk in and say, you know, I'd like five feet off the front of these irregular cul -de -sac lots because they could fit a house there better. How could staff not say -- turn that down? What is the criteria that staff -- MR. MULHERE: There's four criteria written into the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. She started going into them, but they aren't really criteria. The zoning director has reviewed the request and issued an opinion that the proposed adjustment does not negatively affect the adjacent property in the surrounding neighborhood. Well, what -- MR. MULHERE: What if he finds that it does? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. MULHERE: Can he not deny the application if he finds that it does? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the neighborhood -- MR. MUL14ERE: I'm asking the question, because Heidi said that it couldn't be denied, and I want to get to the bottom of that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I'm not saying it can't be denied, but the -- MR. MULHERE: Then I misunderstood. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- but the information in the opinion on how it affects the surrounding property is going to be provided by the owner or developer -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- developer's agent, and then staff will review it. MR. MUL1 ERE: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And if they disagree -- but I don't know -- I don't believe, based on this amendment, that staff is going to be conducting an independent evaluation. They'll review what was submitted to them and say, yes, I agree or, no, I don't. If staff doesn't agree, then staff will have to provide some kind of basis why they don't agree. And, you know, that's the way it will work. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's -- Page 84 of 95 f6 ' 2A2 417,2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. Because No. C, that all happened in our case where the zoning director, the county engineer, the county manager -- I can't agree with this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not against the staff having some administrative rights, but I -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- think they have to be criteria that are attached to -- somehow to make that decision that isn't arbitrary but that isn't so broad that someone couldn't come in and ask for a slough of these as a routine. MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only thing I'm concerned about, and I didn't see that kind of restriction here. MR. MULHERE: I understand. So we need to come up with some language that talks about limiting this to unique circumstances on a case -by -case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did that in one of the other ones today where you got into explaining what was -- this is a substantial impact and you had then criteria -- MS. CILEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the one 1 corrected where you had the -- for Roman Numeral IV crossed out. That really said, okay, here's what substantial means. Here's what it is, and you can't do it if it doesn't get to this threshold. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for that I think would be beneficial to staff because you guys don't have to have any arbitrary decisions then. You're more locked in, and it's either -- and I don't mind if it's yes or no, but it better be with some good reasons. Hardship has been one in a typical variance application that has -- normally has to be proven. Maybe that's something you should look at, because we have definitions of hardship. I don't know if that's the right way to go, but it's a suggestion. Did you have something, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment on B, on B 1 B. Is your intent to say that the lots or parcels are irregular or the setback's irregular? MS. CILEK: Setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the way -- an irregular setback? What would that mean then? MS. CILEK: That would mean that it wouldn't be consistently 25 feet, I think it is, all across. So that the parcel, parcel line and the -- and the setback is irregular. It has an odd shape. It's not squared off or it has a change in the -- if it's -- you know, sometimes they're not equal. They're 25 one side and maybe 27 on the other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is if the parcel line and the preserve line aren't, you know, colinear, parallel, then the setback for the preserve wouldn't be the same? Why is that a problem, though? MS. CILEK: Well, we wanted to make sure that we weren't adjusting the actual preserve, impacting the preserve, the edge of the preserve. And so we want it restricted to those that have an irregular setback so they give a little flexibility for those people who have a different type of setback than their neighborhood, per se, who has just a straight edge and 25 feet all across the back of their property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I think an angular setback from the preserve people could live with and design around, but -- if that's -- if you want to make every building in town square, this is the way you do it, you know. MS. CILEK: Well, speaking to what Mark said, these are supposed to be for unique circumstances. It isn't intended that a giant swath of them be brought forward. So someone might have a really irregular setback and might need a couple extra feet for an accessory structure or their principal structure. It's important to keep in mind that, regardless, there is still going to be some setback that is maintained for any of the setbacks, because you can only go up to certain amount, certain percentage, and up to a certain amount of feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Still bring it back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have great intentions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, personally, I'm concerned about the fact that it couldn't be applied -- someone couldn't use it in a more broadbrush application and that there isn't the criteria spelled out as there were in other Page 85 of 95 May /, 2012 examples that I've made, that -- where staffs limitations are and how much they could approve and why they could approve it. And I think that is to your benefit. You don't want to be arbitrary -- you don't want to be in a position where you're making a decision that you can't defend based on quantification or qualification, and I'm not sure this gives you any of that, so -- MR. BELLOWS: No, I concur. And the idea is maybe to address things like some of the minor variances that came before the Planning Commission and board where the board had questioned why is the county making this person come through this process. But where do you draw the line? And it needs to be validated in this amendment. So we'll work on it some more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: Yeah. It really is to get to those oddities that happen that -- you know, it's kind of a no- brainer that they should have this looked at and approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, we should be doing that, but I'm worried that you're not there with this language. MS. CILEK: Well, I'm going to look into making sure that it isn't used in a broad swath of parcels and lots. think that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will come back for a rewrite. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This will come back. (Ms. Ahern is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa's sneaking out. Nobody notice that Melissa's leaving. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Don't say anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, don't tell anybody that she's leaving early. Okay. Let's move to 10.08.00. Without Melissa here, we'll just go on by ourselves. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bye, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Bye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where's Melissa? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is conditions and safeguards, 10.08.00. MS. CILEK: Right. And this is a combination of board- directed and a developer request. And we worked with it, and the board directed, I believe, to change the time frame for a conditional use from three years to five years and then to allow for two (sic) two -year extensions following that time frame of five years, which would go up to a total of seven years, which I believe is consistent with PUD -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MS. CILEK: --time frames. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is written to be one five -year -- it would go to five years with one two -year extension, so it would be a total of seven years. MS. CILEK: Correct. Sorry, I said two. I meant -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought, so I'm just making sure. A showing of good -faith effort to commence the use. What does that mean? You love this language, don't you? MS. CILEK: I believe that was added by DSAC, actually, one of the advisory boards. I'm just speaking on -- and that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it doesn't -- what is a good -faith effort? If I go out and put a -- I mean, knock a tree down or put a shovel on the site, is that a good -faith effort? I mean, how do you prove that? MS. CILEK: I think they want to see that there has been some progress on the site, that people are doing something. They've either -- I mean, I'm going out on a limb here, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you are. MS. CILEK: That they are making progress in fulfilling their conditional use application. MR. BELLOWS: One of the items that I was thinking that meant was obtaining a valid Site Development Plan approval. If you have a -- you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases on Site Development Plans, Page 86 of 95 16 2,QMayl- , 2012 that's a valid attempt to vest the CU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather you, on No. 3, just put a list of the things that -- upon a written request of petition, you're showing any of the following, and then list the things you think are valid. Why leave it up to subjective decisions by anybody down the future? It only gets you in trouble. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The conditional uses are always kind of -- I thought the three years was shortsighted given they face many of the same problems PUDs do. So one of the attempts was to put it on the same timeline as a PUD sunsetting type of timeline. But, you know, conditional uses also have that language. We want to see some kind of commencement of use in order to vest that CU. And if you don't attempt to do anything with that CU, it will go away. One purpose of this amendment was to include things such as getting a valid SPD approval. But, you're right, it makes sense to be really clear what we think is a valid attempt to commence the use. MS. CILEK: I think in some circumstances --and I'm just speaking from conversations we've had that, you know, if you have a church, they might be saving up money for it, and they've only done an urban garden up until that point but they're really still working on it. So I don't know if we're going to be able to name all the things that would qualify under a good -faith effort, and I know that's really broad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know -- that language is going to get somebody in trouble. I mean, what one person does for a good -faith effort may not be what anybody else sees as a good -faith effort. I just suggest you find better language. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we should just take the language out of there. And— because if you do put a lot of requirements on it, then you start to eliminate people who can't forward SDPs and maintain it. I mean, if somebody at church, especially, went in and got the conditional use and can't raise the money and they're going through, they're going to lose in five years. So why put any, you know, requirement on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. And besides, it's going to go for -- if after five years they want the one two -year extension, they've got to go before the board, so they're automatically going to have to justify it in a public meeting, and that's good enough. Why even -- MS. CILEK: They're going to have to explain what they do, so this was added language following stakeholder input. But I think the sentence ended at, "upon a written request of the petitioner." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Petitioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The old sentence. So I would favor we cross that off, like we said -- MS. CILEK: That's just fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and vote approval of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. I'm there. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion to drop the last part of the underlined sentence and for approval -- for recommendation for approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak. 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 HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. Page 87 of 95 112A2May 17,'2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? MS. CILEK: End on a good note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show -- Huh? MS. CILEK: I said, end on a good note for me, but I'm going to leave you in the hands of Chris for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Melissa's not here, and Caroline's abandoning us as well. MS. CILEK: I'm not leaving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're leaving, aren't you? MS. CILEK: No. I'm going to sit back in the audience and watch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have one more up, which is -- MS. CILEK: Thank you for all of your input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, it's been -- oh, I should say fun, but I'm not sure that's the right word. We're at 2.03.0- -- we're on the Bayshore Overlay District. MR. SCOTT: For the record, Chris Scott, principal planner with the Growth Management Department. This came before you at our evening meeting last month. We did submit -- there was a revised draft consistent with the changes that were read into the record at the evening meeting and in the format that was discussed at the meeting where we took away the text boxes which showed old language. So this just shows it as clean. And those changes were highlighted in yellow. And, I apologize, you may note, some of you I talked to as I was dropping them off during the break, since that draft was sent to you, there were a couple minor comments from the County Attorney's Office that came up and then some discussion with the CRA; Jean Jordan is here in the audience, and Patrick Vanasse with RWA, who helped draft these. So there is a change sheet that I passed out. It's a two -page, double -sided that reflects -- and for the large part they're non - substantive changes. They're more clarification. And I'm happy to proceed however you wish to do, Mr. Chairman. I know you weren't at the meeting last month when this first came forward, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you won't get a lot of -- I won't disrupt the game plan here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But we expect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, I never do such things. Let's work on it. I don't know how you guys want to do it based on your review last time. If you felt comfortable with the thoroughness of the review and you wanted to approach it pages at a time, or you want to just go into the whole document? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, Mark, why don't you give us some of your questions. Do you have comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I honestly didn't dive into this one since my original review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm kind of looking at you guys to -- I had plenty on the original review, but I did COMMISSIONER VONIER: What's the number? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's 237G. COMMISSIONER VONLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have to say this, because I was here; I'm sorry you weren't, Mark. On this particular thing, on the CRA for Bayshore, it was like we were doing -- we were going along and doing this. We had already heard Bayshore, and now we're going to change the LDC to match what we had already heard. That --and we were having so many changes that night that we just plain stopped. Remember? We just plain stopped and said, look, just bring it back to us. MR. SCOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that was a little upsetting, I think, because it was like you weren't prepared for these changes. So now you're saying that -- how do I want to say this? I don't -- I think Bayshore is great. I think everything is going to be just fine, but it was like we're doing these LDCs to match what we want them to match. In other words, Page 88 of 95 1612 A 2 A` May 17 2012 we're changing the LDC just for this project so we can do what we want. MR. SCOTT: I don't think that's the case. Are you referring to the cultural arts -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. It was just -- there were so many of them and everybody -- and we finally just stopped making corrections, because there were so many correction. MR. SCOTT: Just as background, the amendments are for the entire gateway triangle and Bayshore overlays. And when they were first drafted, I don't even know if the cultural facility was -- MR. VANASSE: A project. MR. SCOTT: It wasn't a project at that time. This was well before the Pizzuti group and the CRA were working together on that project. So these amendments were more broad and encompassing than just --they weren't specific to that project is all I can say. MR. VANASSE: If I could get a second. If I could just recap my understanding of where we left things off last meeting. And, Brad, maybe you can tell me if I'm right or wrong. My understanding was that we were going through the detailed amendments, and there was -- there was certain things, certain details that were not substantive, like footnotes, that carries from one table to the next. And I think there was confusion because of all these small details. But everything that was substantive I think we did address and we got all the way through. And the direction I believe we got was, please come back with a clean copy without the boxes because that's a little confusing to us. And everything that we've asked you to reconsider or change, make the changes, highlight those and come back to us, and we'll review those highlighted areas and those changes. I don't think the intent was to reopen the entire document and go back and re- examine the entire document. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree with your recollection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem. We don't have the clean copy. Do you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have a clean copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a highlight copy of what he just said was changed based on your guys COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have these couple of pages. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, no. MR. SCOTT: No. There should be a clean copy that was in a packet delivered to you. And then I mentioned when I first sat down, there were some subsequent changes that, unfortunately -- not to the extent as last meeting, thank goodness, but there were some subsequent changes that I would like to note. And I'm happy to discuss those and provide the reasoning for why they're there if they're not readily apparent to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there were 65 pages of -- redistributed on May 3rd, at our last board meeting, and that's what you should -- that's what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was here May 3rd. I've never seen this before. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I didn't get that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bill didn't get it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I've got it. MS. CILEK: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus you handed out several pages this morning, four pages this morning of changes to the changes. MR. SCOTT: Yes. And, again, I do apologize for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what your time frame is, but we have another LDC amendment hearing on which this one will be continued to the next meeting. We may be able -- now that some members didn't even have this, it might be better just to wait till that meeting so everybody can chime in together and we can make it clear at this meeting it's going to be done at next meeting. Is that a direction that Bill and Brad -- and I see Diane shaking her head. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I would feel better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a better direction to head in, or are you -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I went through all this, and all the changes that we -- everything that we spoke of are in here. And we've had it since May 3rd. Page 89 of 95 161L May 17, 2012 MR. VANASSE: We were hoping to possibly come here today and look at all the highlighted areas and look at those areas, were the correct changes, was it consistent with the discussion that we've had, and if the answer was yes, maybe get done today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got no problem going either way you guys want to go. But it's back to what some of the members here may not (sic) or may not have seen in regards to the new changes, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, my recollection of the meeting was that, Brad, you had most of the comments, my recollection, you know, regarding facades and cornices and heights and so forth and so on, which I believe, you know, have been incorporated in here and what we asked to be done, in other words, eliminate the boxes and all of that, because it was very confusing whether this was old language, new language, and so forth, that you did that. I mean, I can respect the fact that you'd like to complete today, but in view of the fact that Brad's comments, in my opinion, drove a lot of the revisions at the last meeting and Brad just received that, I would defer to the board. But if Brad's comfortable that everything that was discussed is in here, then -- and I've reviewed it, Karen says she's reviewed it, but I'll defer to Brad. If you would like to defer it, Brad, so you can go back to your original notes, then I'm all for that, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we can do it. Let's try to do it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't you walk through the changes that you've added, and I think it would be the highlighted text. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can move through it starting with the first page and walk us through it then. MR. VANASSE: And if you'd like, what I'll do is I'll turn it over to Chris. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of you -- MR. VANASSE: Chris has been the author of most of this stuff, and I'll be here for support. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: The first change is just for consistency sake. On Page 7, it is B, I, I, C. It is just to clarify -- there was a semi - conflict with the previous citation. But the table of uses -- (Mr. Midney is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. VANASSE: That's in the green sheet. MR. SCOTT: And this is on the green sheet -- basically a project can develop either under -- based on the uses allowed by the underlying zoning designation or by the uses allowed in the table. But in either circumstances, they must comply with the site development standards. So we just wanted to clarify at the --or the following table of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And then that is also reflected in the headers above the table of uses. We wanted to reiterate that point on the table of uses so somebody didn't have to go back and read the text. And that is also in the gateway triangle mixed -use district, Section 4 -- or 2.03.07, which is shown on Pages 13 in the text and then in the header of the tables on 14, 15, and 16. So those are all very similar changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Take us to the next one. MR. SCOTT: The next changes -- and these are going to be pretty redundant. But on the next -- when you get into Chapter 4.02.16, which is the design standards, it describes each of the overlay subdistricts. And within those it meant -- references the maximum density allowed. We were trying to simplify it from what was previously shown to you and also make it -- the CRA is currently pursuing or exploring the potential to do an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. So -- and the densities that are allowed on a property are established in the GMP. So we just wanted to recognize the maximum density, 12 units per acre, and note that it's comprised of density allowed by the underlying zoning and any available density bonuses. Now, how those density bonuses played out are all set through the Growth Management Plan, so it was a little redundant to emphasize it here in the LDC. And in case of any future amendments to the GMP, we didn't want to create a potential for future inconsistencies. So this way if the GMP is amended in the future, this would still remain consistent. The maximum density is 12, but it can be comprised of bonus densities in the underlying density. Page 90 of 95 LDC. 6 1 2 " ' 2May'17 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if -- you can't then increase the GMP above 12 without having to rechange the MR. VANASSE: Exactly. MR. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: So the 12 units would apply to the BMUD, neighborhood commercial, the BMUD waterfront subdistricts, the other BMUD residential subdistricts. We just added "and any available density bonus" because the GMP does allow for some density bonuses within those subdistricts -- or within the Bayshore redevelopment area. And then when you get to the Gateway Triangle mixed -use district, the MXD has the same 12 units per acre language proposed, and the residential has the consistent addition "and any available density bonuses." Are there any questions regarding those changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. MR. SCOTT: The other changes, the next two changes, Page 62, this is a correcting of a citation. It was identified by the County Attorney's Office, so we -- it used to read Chapter 4. Now we're being specific, Section 4.02.16, which are the design standards for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle overlays. Page 63 is also a clarification requested by the County Attorney's Office. We are noting for MUP deviations, that they are only available for those MUPs that were approved through a public hearing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And on the back page of the change sheet that was distributed, there's -- these are carried over from the existing overlay provisions. There's a list of administrative deviations for mixed -use projects. There was the landscape and buffer requirements. There was a portion that was not included with the original amendment. That is being added, too, at the request of the County Attorney's Office. So this is reverting back to the existing LDC language, and that language specifically states that in order to get that deviation on the buffers, you must additionally provide a minimum of 110 percent of the open space requirement for mixed -use projects in addition to other conditions the county manager or designee deems necessary. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And I'm not requesting this specific language. I just asked for more criteria. MR. SCOTT: Criteria. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So in most of these instances I'm not advocating specific language. I'm just asking for more criteria. And there is another one -- one other citation correction. Under Item D, the reference should be 4.05.04G2. Instead of F2, it's G2. MR. VANASSE: And just to confirm, we did have that communication with Heidi, and we agree that this additional criteria with 110 percent is acceptable to us, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And then the final changes is in the -- Section C, in 10.02.15. It's the bonus density pool allocation. The specific number of bonus density units that are available. It's -- 388 units were originally created. That number is specified in the Growth Management Plan. We're proposing to strike it from the LDC which would allow in the future, if the CRA were able to amend the GMP to increase that amount -- for instance, if a public project came in and the density that was associated with a property similar to what happened with Naples Botanical Garden, came about that that residence density could be added to this pool in the future, that would require a GMP amendment. But should that happen, we're just proposing to strike this so it wouldn't also entail the subsequent LDC amendment. And then at the final strikethrough the MUP public hearing process was changed to just a public hearing approval process, and that is in -- to make it consistent with an existing GMP amendment being sought by the CRA, how those density units are -- they're specifically -- they're specified within the GMP on how they are available. So the LDC is somewhat redundant to the GMP. But if there's changes to the GMP, we want this to hopefully be consistent with that in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? Brad, do you have any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, one simple one. In going through this stuff, it looks like Page 91 of 95 r� .r 1612 May 17, 2012 everything's fine with that. The -- did we decide to have two primary facades for a corner lot with a single- family house, or would that start interjecting porch problems and stuff? Remember the illustrations we -- all the other ones noted -- you know, you've added the note for primary facade. MR. VANASSE: We placed -- MR. SCOTT: Houses -- I don't believe houses are covered in the architectural section of the LDC as having primary facades, so we didn't add it to the LDC here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you have requirements for porches and stuff on a single - family home. And I guess the confusion could be is you may require two porches if you consider that. So I think we can let that go. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, we don't have that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you did point to primary facades, there's -- like, some diagrams had multiple buildings, and you didn't point to all of them. Do you think somebody's going to be smarter than us and say, well, look, it doesn't mean all of them have to be? You see what I mean? MR. SCOTT: The pictures are really for illustrative purposes. The text would be the controlling language. And within the 5.05.08 it specifically states that any facade fronting a street is a primary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're not worried about that? MR. SCOTT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then in the deviation process, the old code listed the whole process where you truncated it. There's five components of it. You went one to three. I guess, Heidi, you were going to look at that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is the -- well, you can -- the best way to look at it that's a good example of it -- and it's in a couple areas, but in the last sheet of the handout today. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Oh, on the last page of the handout. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Section --just above the green it says F1, 2, 3, not including 4 and 5. And what 4 and 5 are in the architectural standards is the ability to convene a group of, you know, design professionals to -- I could give it to you in -- would you rather see it in the -- what page it is in here? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just want to make sure I'm referring to where you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you need to pull that mike to you, too, if you don't mind. It's facing away from you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you go to Page 63 in the actual -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Are you on the MUP deviations or the asset pool? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you see -- let's take front setback. It goes down 5.05.08FI to 3, and there is a 4 and 5 in that section. The old code referenced the whole section. Do you guys know why you didn't reference -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I believe I spoke to this at the last meeting. I believe No. 4 -- let me see if I have my old notes. Number -- there was a -- I believe one had to deal with an appeal process, and there's an appeal process built into these MUP deviations, so it was just not to have two separate appeal processes. And then the other -- I don't have that section of the code in front of me. But I thought neither of those applied, so they were just stricken. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Then No. 4 deals with applicability, and so I don't think you want to create a conflict for whatever you have in the CRA -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- versus that, and then No. 5 is the appeal process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's an appeals process for design issues, so you don't want to go there? I mean, where do you go in this process if there's an appeal, to the CRA or to the board or -- MR. SCOTT: Well, these would be administrative. It would follow the procedures of 5.05.08, so it would be to staff, and they can utilize the Architectural Arbitration Board, I believe, is the name they use as a consulting forum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's No. 5. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, that's No. 5. MR. SCOTT: Well, the -- that board is also set up within the previous earlier text in that section in 5.05.08 Page 92 of 95 16 12 A2 May 17, 2012 that staff can utilize them as a reference when making their decision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the applicant -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The appeals process is Section 250 -58 of the Code of Laws, which is a different appeal process. It's usually directly right to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you look at No. 4 on Page 64, that's where it's talking about the effect of a denial may be appealed under those provisions. That's why. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I mean, in the past we stayed with the architectural or the design professionals. That's not all architects, but -- do we want -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's a policy decision where you want to go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do think getting rid of 4 makes sense, but -- and then that can be appealed to the commissioners. MR. VANASSE: We're trying to pull up 5.05.08 on Bob's tablet so we can look at No. 4 and 5 and get the exact language. MR. SCOTT: It was deleted specifically from front setback deviations, the landscape and buffer deviations. I -- if -- I don't see it being a problem adding it back to architectural and site design standards, because that's -- as far as having an appeal of an administrative decision regarded to those deviations, go to the -- allow those to be appealed to the Architecture Arbitration Board, I believe, is the correct terminology. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you can add 5 to B. And then, obviously, 4, the appeal of that, is still available, and C, put 5 back in there, that would be good. It does not make sense to have 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying on B and C, it would be 5.05.08F 1 through 3, comma, 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would be for both B and C. Is that a problem? MR. SCOTT: I'm not sure if the Architectural Arbitration Board reviews landscape and buffer deviations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's made up of landscape architects. I mean, it reviews the whole architectural standards, which does have landscaping, landscape requirements in it. MR. SCOTT: I would look to Heidi to say if it's within their authority to review landscape and buffer deviations. I don't think it is, because I think they're specific to the architectural and site design standards section of the LDC. So I would limit that, and 5 just being added back to B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. Go ahead. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're in agreement it's just going to be in B. It will be I through 3, comma, 5, just B only. MR. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on these? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Out of 65 pages, anybody got a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the changes -- or the change -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the changes noted, including today's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry already made his second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 93 of 95 May 17, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries, what, 7 -0 (sic). MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Is there a seventh over there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Phil's gone, 6 -0. 1 believe one -- the rest are not here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's in the restroom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He could bang on the wall. MR. VANASSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That wraps up LDC amendments for today. Caroline drew kind of like even 8 -8. So you've got eight rewrites and eight going forward. So that's 50/50. That's not bad. Does anybody else have any issues for today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I will certainly -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To continue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have to apologize to Jamie if he's listening. It was not his portion. It was 3.05.07 is the one I was going to -- so, Jamie, I'm sorry. It was not your fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the date we're going to move this to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to continue LDC amendments to what date, Caroline? What's going to be convenient? Our next meeting is June 7th. If you can have some ready by then, bring them with you. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get them to us ahead of time; we'll be ready for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll make a motion we continue the LDC amendment meeting to June 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made to continue -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the LDC amendment meeting -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to June 7th, seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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. How about adjourning today's regular hearings. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Barry. We're done. Thank you all. Page 94 of 95 I 16 12 a2 May 17, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:12 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLA MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COMMISSION V v These minutes approved by the Board on f — Z , as presented or as corrected b1l TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 95 of 95 r 16 �t A t I ay 16, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING May 16, 2012 Naples, Florida BY: 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: CHAIRMAN: Lee Horn Vice Chair: Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Excused: Patrick White Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓' Coletta C— ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney Mist Cones: Rob Ganguli — Licensing Compliance Officer Date: 91 11 W2- 2 Item t: I k-0 Z'2 R 3 Copies to: A3 1612 May 16, 2012 NOTE: 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. Eight members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Change: • Under Item VI- (A), "New Business" — Chester A. Hayes, Contesting Citations, has been continued to a future date. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 18,2012: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes of the April 18, 2012 meeting as presented. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, S — 0. (Note: Michael Boyd, Robert Meister, and Jon Walker could not vote to approve the Minutes because they did not attend the April 18th meeting.) V. DISCUSSION: None. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In the following case and the case heard under Section VIII, "Public Hearings," the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney fur the Board.) A. Chester A. Hayes — Contesting Citations #6981, #6982, and #6983 — has been continued per amended Agenda. B. Valerie T. Ouattlebaum — Qualify a Second Entity Michael Ossorio noted there were two information packets. • Ms. Quattlebaum currently qualifies one company, "Tile -It Industries, Inc.," ,under two licenses: o tile and marble and floor covering 2 14 A . 1612 May 16, 2012 • She has been the qualifier for Tile -It Industries, Inc. since 2008 and works as a job supervisor • She has applied to qualify Manasota Flooring, Inc. for both tile and marble, and floor covering licenses. Valerie Quattlebaum stated: • She applied to qualify Manasota Flooring, Inc. because it is the vendor for a builder who is expanding his business into Collier County • She has worked for Manasota since 1986 in sales and job management • The companies are separate and work for different builders. Michael Ossorio explained Floor Covering Contractors must take /pass the Business Procedures exam; the nature of the business is the installation of carpet and/or vinyl flooring. He continued a Tile and Marble Contractor will also perform stone work. A Tile Contractor cannot install carpeting unless he has a Floor Covering license. Thomas Lykos outlined other methods to accomplish the same goal. He expressed concern for two companies being licensed for the same type of work in the same area, i.e., Collier County, and the potential pitfalls. Ms. Quattlebaum stated Tile -It Industries, Inc. has its own builder division and has been working for at least two builders in Collier County. She continued Manasota Flooring also has a builder division and works for a builder who is expanding his business into Collier County. Manasota Flooring has been in business for 40+ years. The builders for each company are separate and don't "cross lines." Mr. Lykos stated she, as the qualifier for both companies, is the legal "tie" between the companies. Even though the entities are separate and each has a separate client base, one individual has some influence over both companies. Ms. Quattlebaum stated she does not solicit work — the builders are established in Collier County and either Tile -It or Manasota Flooring will work for a particular builder, but not both for the same builder. Michael Ossorio stated the County has no objection to approving a tile and marble license and a floor covering license for Manasota Flooring. It is allowed by law. Kyle Lantz moved to approve the application to permit Ms. Valerie Quattlebaum to be the qualifier for Manasota Flooring, Inc. for both licenses. Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. �4 12 A3 May 16, 2012 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case #2012 -07: Robert E. Elwell, d/b /a Service Star Cooling & Heating, LLC Chairman Horn outlined the general process of the Public Hearing: • The County will present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how it 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, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, introduce Exhibits, cross - examine witnesses to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and rebut any evidence presented against the Ply • 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: o Whether the Respondent was guilty of the offense(s) charged in the Administrative Complaint, and a vote will be taken on the matter. o If the Respondent was 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. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering the packet for Case No. 2012 -07, Board of County Commissioners vs. Robert E. Elwell, d/b /a `:Service Star Cooling & Heating, Inc., " License # CAC 0582521 C. C. #36992, into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. • Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence, marked as County's Exhibit "A." 16 A3 May 16, 2012 Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: • Mr. Elwell is the qualifier of State license CAC #058252 for "Classic Air - Conditioning, d/b /a Service Star Cooling & Hearing, Inc." • He is the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #36992 • Mr. Elwell has been charged with violating Collier County Ordinance #90- • 105, as amended, Section 22- 201.1(2), to wit: "Willfully violating applicable Building Codes or Laws of the State, City, or Collier County. " Chairman Horn asked Mr. Elwell if he wished to present an Opening Statement. Robert Elwell stated there was a Stipulated Agreement. Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Elwell has signed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement which he requested to enter into evidence as County's Exhibit "B." (Copies of the document were provided to the Board members.) Kyle Lantz moved to approve entering the Stipulated Settlement Agreement into evidence as County's Exhibit "B." Second by Vice Chairman Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Chairman Horn read the terms and conditions of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement into the record as follows: " BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD, Case # 2012 -07 Petitioner, License No.: CAC 058252 and VS. CC #36992 Robert E. Elwell, d/b /a "Service Star Cooling & Heating, Inc., Respondent. Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Agreed Order Robert E. Elwell and the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractor's Licensing Board (hereafter "the Board "), hereby stipulate and agree: 1) Respondent admits the allegations in the Administrative Complaint for the purpose of this Stipulation and settlement of this matter. HE V A May 16, 2012 2) Respondent and the Board hereby agree that he will be subject to restriction for a period of twenty -four (24) months whereby the Respondent will perform his permitting activities under the supervision of the Board. 3) Respondent and the Board further agree that Respondent will personally apply for all permits and be present, either in person or telephonically, for any review or questions as to the contracting operations of the company which he qualifies during this restriction period. This includes permits issued by the Cities of Marco Island or Naples, inclusive of Fire Code Reviews. 4) In the event the Respondent violated Paragraph 3 of this Stipulated Settlement Agreement while on restriction, his certificate /registration and permit acquisition privileges will immediately be revoked. It will be the responsibility of the Respondent to petition the Board for a hearing to have these privileges reinstated if he chooses to do so. Findings of Fact in this matter shall be forwarded to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board with a recommendation for "further action" to be taken. 5) This Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Order shall be forwarded to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board with a recommendation of "no further action." • If the Licensing Board rejects this Stipulated Settlement Agreement and pursues further action, this Stipulated Settlement Agreement shall be null and void. • If the State Construction Industry Licensing Board rejects this Stipulated Settlement Agreement and pursues further action, this Stipulated Settlement Agreement shall be null and void. Executed this 8`6 day of May.. 2012. ls/ Robert E. Elwell Robert E. Elwell Respondent Michael Ossorio Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Order Adopting Stipulated Settlement Agreement THIS BOARD BEING FULLY ADVISED on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, it is hereby: ADJUDGED that the foregoing Stipulated Settlement Agreement is adopted in its entirety, and the parties are ordered to comply therewith. DONE AND ORDERED at the regularly -set Contractor's Licensing Board hearing at Naples, Collier County, Florida, on this day of May, 2012. Lee Horn, Chairman Contractors' Licensing Board " 2 A3 May 16, 2012 Chairman Horn asked the Respondent if he was familiar with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and, if approved by the Board, would he agree to follow the terms of the Agreement. Respondent replied, "Yes." Attorney Morey asked Mr. Elwell to indicate if he entered into the Agreement of his own free will and had an opportunity to review the document. Respondent replied, "Yes." Chairman Horn asked if anything had been promised to the Respondent in return for his cooperation. Respondent replied, "No." Jon Walker asked the Respondent if he understood the period of probation was for two years. Respondent replied, "Yes." Kyle Lantz questioned Paragraph 4 and 5 — the language was confusing. Chairman Horn clarified Paragraph 4 referred to action to be taken if the terms set out in Paragraph 3 were violated. But Paragraph 5 was the action to be taken if there were no violations, which was "no further action." Michael Ossorio stated if the Board approved the Stipulated Settlement Agreement as presented, he would write a letter to the State confirming that "no further action" was to be taken. He further stated if the terms of the Agreement were violated by the Respondent within the next 24- months, he would write a letter to the State to advise that "further action" was recommended. Mr. Ossorio explained the qualifier (Respondent) understood he will be required to personally appear to pull permits in the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, and in unincorporated Collier County for every job for the next 24- months. Mr. Elwell stated he agreed. Kyle Lantz asked how the situation occurred in his company. Mr. Elwell stated the company has 50 employees and it became "out of hand" but people were fired due to the situation. Mr. Ossorio noted air - conditioning companies are allowed to either fax or email a permit applications to the County, especially for emergency repairs. The Respondent will be required to personally come to the Building Department to apply for each permit, as needed, which will be a task for such a large company. Rob Ganguli stated Mr. Elwell resides in Manatee County and it will be more difficult for him to comply than a local contractor. Mr. Lantz stated if Mr. Elwell is the qualifier for the company, he is responsible for the company and should be responsible for the company — no matter what the size of the company. A3 A 161Z May 16, 2012 Chairman Horn asked about the controls the company might institute to ensure that no accidents occur in the future. Mr. Elwell replied the owner of the company was now involved in the day -to -day operations of the company — he had been absent previously. Also an operations manager was hired who is "on the ball." Chairman Horn noted the Respondent's name and reputation as the qualifier was "on the line" and the Respondent agreed. Thomas Lykos requested an update on the jobs where permits were not pulled but were required. Mr. Elwell responded that all permits have been pulled, and as of the end of this week, all jobs will be finished and closed. Mr. Lykos asked about the water heater problem and was assured by the Respondent that it had been rectified. He further asked Mr. Ossorio if the County was aware of the status of the permits and closed jobs. Michael Ossorio stated he had instructed Mr. Ganguli to communicate with the City of Marco Island to follow -up. If the jobs are not inspected, it would be a material Code Violation and the Respondent would be brought before the Board again. Chairman Horn asked Mr. Ganguli for a progress report. Rob Ganguli stated Mr. Elwell began making progress from the time he was first notified of the situation. Thomas Lykos stated he did not recognize the names initially and thought he should recuse himself. Attorney Morey stated even if Mr. Lykos had recused himself at the beginning of the Hearing, he would still be allowed to participate in discussions. He asked Mr. Lykos to briefly explain the nature of the issue. Mr. Lykos clarified he had no direct financial connection with the Respondent's company but the company has a history with one of his ( Lykos') clients. While a project was completed approximately two years ago, Mr. Lykos' company performs regular maintenance for his client. Attorney Morey concurred that Mr. Lykos could recuse himself from voting on the issue. Chairman Horn called for a re -vote on the following motions: Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering the packet for Case No. 2012 -07, Board of County Commissioners vs. Robert E. Elwell, d/b /a "Service Star Cooling & Heating, Inc.," License # CAC 0,582521 C..C.. #36992, into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Motion carried, 7 -- "Yes71 `Abstention." Mr. Lykos abstained from voting. Jon Walker moved to approve entering the Stipulated Settlement Agreement into evidence as County's Exhibit "B." Second by Terry Jerulle. Motion carried, 7 — "Yes 7/0 — "Opposed " /1— "Abstention. " Mr. Lykos abstained from voting. 1612 A3 May 16, 2012 Vice Chairman Joslin moved to accept the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and to authorize the Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing Board to sign it. Second by Jon Walker. Discussion: • Kyle Lantz noted a pattern had been established. There were 17 cases where a permit fee was charged to a client but the permit was not pulled. He suggested the recommendation to the State's Contractor's Licensing Board should be changed to "further action." • Michael Ossorio stated the City of Marco Island charged four times its normal permit fee for each of the 17 permits that were pulled after - the -fact. The company paid a hefty penalty. • Mr. Elwell stated the company paid $8,000 in fees. He stated the administrative problems have been rectified. It was unacceptable in anybody's book. The permit fees have been pulled and paid. There was one building on Marco Island for which the 17 permits were pulled. • Kyle Lantz noted the company was a state -wide contractor and asked about other incidents. • Mr. Elwell stated outside of Collier County, there has only been one other incident in Charlotte County which has been rectified. Quality Control will be done on each job to ensure that everything has been done correctly. • Chairman Horn stated the State's Board will review the paperwork but will decide what action will be taken or not taken. • Mr. Jerulle stated he would accept the County's recommendation but cautioned the Respondent to not return before the Board again. • Vice Chairman Joslin noted the 24 -month probationary period convinced him to accept the County's recommendation. If the Respondent makes one mistake, he will be back before the Board. • Michael Ossorio clarified the Respondent was charged and pled "guilty" to willful Code violations. He admitted guilt and is in no position to make another mistake. Chairman Horn called for a vote. Motion carried, 6 — "Yes'Y I — "Opposed " /1— "Abstention. " Kyle Lantz was opposed and Thomas Lykos abstained from voting. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. MEMBER COMMENTS: • Vice Chairman Joslin, a swimming pool contractor, noted that Florida Statutes has been changed and no longer allows licensed A/C Contractors to install swimming pool heat pumps. • He stated pool contractors can service a heat pump that has been installed but most pool contractors are not a/c licensed to test or charge Freon. I 1 �► 12 N3 i May 16, 2012 • Michael Ossorio noted Chapter 49 has been changed significantly, especially in the area of sub - contracting and responsibilities for both builders and contractors. He advised all contractors to carefully read the revised Chapter. He stated changes typically become effective on July 1St • Vice Chairman Joslin will provide a copy to Mr. Ossorio for distribution to the Board members. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, June 20, 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 9:55 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Lee Born, Chairman The Minutes were pproved by the Board/Chairman on ;qlqj" '2012, "as submitted " OR "as amended" [_]. lul 1612 A May 2, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITT��CE�VED MEETING May 2, 2012 JUN 15 2012 V;,.Id Of C11"V Gomrn45� LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Magaly Bowman, Operations Coordinator — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning Fiala -- — Chairman: William Varian Hiller -' Henning _ Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Coyle ✓ — Ray Allain Colette Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon De John Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley Misc. Cares. Chris Mitchell Date: I �� Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Item #: V Z 2 39 `-d Ronald Waldrop Copies to: (Vacancy) Excused: James Boughton George Hermanson ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Magaly Bowman, Operations Coordinator — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning A4 16 May 2, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eleven members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Changes: • Under Item VI -(D), "Staff Announcements" — Growth Management /Planning & Regulation will be heard first. • Under Item VII -(A), "Old Business," the LDC Amendment Update will be heard following the Growth Management update. Mario Valle moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Vice Chairman David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — APRIL 49 2012: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the April 4, 2012 Meeting as submitted Second by Vice Chairman David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (Note: Ray Allain, Chris Mitchell, and Robert Mulhere could not vote because they did not attend the April 4`h meeting.) Comment: Vice Chairman David Dunnavant clarified: • There was an interesting discussion regarding the LDC modifications to Section 5.05.08 — Architectural and Site Design Standards. • He was one of the participants talking to Carolina Valera and Caroline Cilek. • There was a certain level of frustration which, upon further investigation after the meeting, showed the CBIA - proposed language for that. Section which the Committee thought had been disregarded (and had expressed, its dismay) was, in fact, very poor. • The language drafted by Carolina Valera was significantly better or, at least, provided some relief from the current LDC issues. • Unfortunately, the Minutes were accurate — they were all too correct — and he apologized for the Committee's part in the discussion. • He maintains there are Sections of the Code that need modification but what was presented to DSAC from the CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ") did not represent realistic changes that could have been implemented. • Carolina Valera was quite right in ignoring them. IV. DSAC VACANCY: REVIEW & VOTE, AND WELCOME TO CHRIS MITCHELL Chairman Varian introduced Chris Mitchell to the Members. Chris Mitchell stated he has been involved in development as a Consulting Engineer 2 16 12 A4 May 2, 2012 for the past fifteen years. He is a Land Development Civil Engineer and has served as a member of the Utilities Discussion Board and the Fire Subcommittee. Chairman Varian noted one application was submitted to fill the vacancy, but the individual did not have any construction- related experience. He asked Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, to determine the make -up of the Committee. He asked if there were specific areas the Members thought should be targeted when advertising for additional applicants. (Note: A chart of the members including the categories they represent and the expiration dates of their terms was distributed to the members.) Blair Foley noted that Stan Chrzanowski (formerly a Senior Engineer and Engineering Review Manager for Collier County) also submitted an application, but he may have missed the deadline. Robert Mulhere moved to table a vote on the submitted application until ascertaining whether or not additional applications have been received Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. It was noted there are four Civil Engineers and three General Contractors as current members of DSAC. Dalas Disney suggested adding a Trade Contractor, such as a Utilities Contractor. Chairman Varian concurred, stating the Ordinance allows some flexibility in the make- up of the committee. He suggested advertising for A/C, Plumbing, or Roofing contractor candidates. Blair Foley stated George Hermanson may not renew when his term expires. Chairman Varian will ask Judy to contact Ian Mitchell to emphasize Trade Contractors when the ad runs again. (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3:07 PM.) V. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) VI. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management and Nick Casalanguida, Administrator — Growth Management Division Nick Casalanguida stated he may not have adequately explained the point of the first cycle of Amendment changes and provided the following background information: • County Manager Leo Ochs met with representatives of the CBIA approximately twelve to eighteen months ago 16 12 A4 i May 2, 2012 • County's goals: To become more efficient, provide better customer service (more "user friendly "), reducing redundant and/or "bad" costs in development and construction • Mr. Ochs asked CBIA to work with Staff who would "sponsor" a set of amendments with CBIA's input to ensure that CBIA did not incur any associated costs • Revisions to the Administrative Code will be presented shortly after the Amendment Cycle concludes • Suggestion for Amendment Review: "Stick to low - hanging fruit" — changes that can be accomplished without controversy when presented to the Planning Commission. Nick Casalanguida clarified, stating the idea was to eliminate as many things that "we" agreed were "stupid" from the Land Development Code, but not to completely re -do the LDC. He asserted Architectural Standards is a controversial item. Carolina Valera indicated an understanding had been reached with DSAC and a number of things that had been categorized as controversial during the last cycle had been "fixed." Some members advocated conducting a full architectural review which Ms. Valera supported to a certain extent. He maintained it could not be accomplished during the first cycle. He further stated presenting a full review of anything to the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners would slow, if not halt, the Amendment Cycle. He continued the goal was to revise the Administrative Code by pulling out anything that was redundant or didn't make sense. Mr. Casalanguida noted two issues remain to be discussed, and Architectural Standards was one. He asked Dalas Disney if a resolution had been reached as a result of a meeting which took place with Carolina Valera after the April DSAC meeting. Dalas Disney stated while not everything was resolved, some topics were "on the table" and under discussion. He noted the issue of Spandrel glass would be discussed during the DSAC meeting. Mr. Casalanguida stated the other issue pertained to sidewalks. Consensus: To approve a modification permitting locals and privates to 4- inches while arterials and collectors remained at 6- inches. He stated the Amendments cannot "gut" the Code to the point where NGOs ( "Non- governmental Organizations ") or special interest groups baulk against what is being done. The fear had been that the "brighter, friendlier" customer- service oriented Growth Management Division would eliminate the good work that had been done in the past. 4 1612 A4 May 2, 2012 New Topic: The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance will be returned to DSAC to be updated. • FEMA did not accept the Ordinance — there are issues to be clarified o FEMA set a deadline of early May or Collier County could be kicked out of the program • Conference call with Atlanta resulted in a 4 -month extension • The BCC does not meet in August — the "tweaks" must be completed by the end of June or mid -July • Robert Wiley will present FEMA's criticisms at the next DSAC Meeting • Documentation will be presented on the "all or nothing" issues — will not be discussed since there are no options — FEMA has the last word • There are some items where input from DSAC will be necessary • Sent a certified letter to FEMA requesting future communications are to be in writing from the Superintendent of FEMA — no emails or phone calls — to eliminate confusion from low -level reviews o expecting a reply from FEMA Ray Allain requested that Staff email a copy of FEMA's reply to all DSAC members. Chairman Varian asked Mr. Casalanguida to provide a brief report concerning the Workshop with the BCC and the Fire Districts. • A PowerPoint presentation was given o What works • Why a check and balance system exists between the Building Official and the Field Inspectors • Why the same system is needed between the Field Inspectors and the Fire Code Office o Explained the dysfunction • Cannot force a consolidation — trying for something in between • Currently, 4 sets of plans must be submitted by a developer — one for each of the four fire districts for review o Ed Riley doesn't have control — was set up to fail • Deadline: 180 days • The Fire Chiefs agreed to discuss /review an opportunity to bring the Field Inspectors under Fire Review, reporting directly to Ed Riley, Fire Code Official • Will establish a set of guidelines concerning performance standards between the Fire Districts and the County • The Inter -Local Agreement will be re- written • The Fire Chiefs have been supportive • If the Fire Commissioners and the Unions object, nothing will be accomplished • DSAC and Industry will be part of the review process along with Collier County and Fire — DSAC is a stakeholder • All four must agree on the terms of the new Inter -Local Agreement 161 2 N4 May 2, 2012 Jamie French: • Submitted the April 2012 Monthly Statistics Report o Building Plan Review Statistics • All permits issued by month • Top 5 Building Permit Types (6 -month period) • New Construction Building Permits issues • Building Inspections Performed by month o Land Development Services Statistics • Commercial Zoning Certificates - applications • Temporary Use Permits - applications • Land Development - application • Top 5 Land Development Applications (6 -month period) • Pre - Application Meetings • SDP ( "Site Development Plan ") - Applications • SDP Re- Submittals (Corrections) • Site Development Plan Amendments (SDPA) • SDPA Re- Submittals (Corrections) • SDPI (Insubstantial Change) - Applications • SDPA Re- Submittals (Corrections) Jamie French stated the data is accurate to the end of the calendar month. Bob Mulhere requested the inclusion of financial statistics in the next report and suggested either Impact Fees of the value of the permits issued. He stated the number of permits issued is less important than the value of the permits. Mr. French stated the figures would be approximately one month behind and he will provide a separate SAP report. Chairman Varian related his experience of obtaining a permit under "CityView" and asked why it was necessary to go to three desks: • After the receipt is obtained, the cashier is paid, • Next, walk to the back to obtain the drawings, • Finally, walk back to the front to obtain the permit card. Mr. French responded it was the way "CityView" was organized: • Money has been allocated in the next budget for "change orders." • After the project has been closed out, changes will be made to the system. • Two operational changes were recently made to the system concerning reporting structure and how Staff functions together. He noted that, previously, the cashier would also issue the permit cards but the additional step slowed the process since there are only two cashiers. Currently, permit cards are obtained at a station across from the cashiers. The extra step was implemented to reduce wait times. 6 1612 A4..,<1. Chairman Varian requested an explanation concerning receipts from the cashier to the various departments. Questions (x 3) overhead in the lobby: "Do I need to bring this back ?" and the response was "I don't know." He continued: • Previously, two receipts were printed when a permit application was submitted. • When the application fee was paid, one receipt was given to the Permit Tech and the other to the Records Room or other department, as needed. Jamie French explained the process of manually collecting a receipt was a way to verify that payment had been made and close out. He stated he would research the issue. Magaly Bowman stated "CityView" retains the information under "Documents," only one receipt is necessary because a copy can be obtained online if required. Additionally, less paper reduces filing time. It was noted Staff will clarify with the cashiers that a second receipt is not necessary. Chairman Varian asked how the County tracks certain full -time employees who work for more than one department to ensure the correct funding source is billed. Jamie French replied the weighted average salary for each position was tracked on an annual basis. He cited himself as an example, i.e., a portion of his salary is paid from Fund 669, "Utility Regulatory Trust Fund." His full -time job is to regulate private utilities. But he has picked up other responsibilities. Approximately 30% of his time, and Ken Kovensky's time, is dedicated to utilities. Approximately 60% is paid from Fund 113. The remaining 10% is from Fund 111, i.e., "Vehicle for Hire" functions, etc. The person is identified when the Budget is presented to the Board of County Commissioners as well as the transfers in from the other Cost Centers. He cited examples of other "dual" employees. If the volume of work dictates, a Budget Amendment can be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. French announced the parking lot bed has deteriorated and repairs will be made and the parking lot will be re- striped. A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager Nothing new to report No questions from the Committee Members B. Fire Review: Bob Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office Ed Riley is on bereavement leave Monthly Activity Report was submitted • Plan Reviews conducted — 861 — in March (February — 854) • Expedited Reviews conducted: five (5) ■ Overtime hours (11) were reimbursed by the contractor(s) who requested an expedited review 1 `ay 2, 2012 16 12 A4 C. Growth Management Division - Transportation: Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning • Monthly Reports will be alternated in the future between Jay Ahmad and Reed Jarvi • Engineering Report: o Oilwell Road is on track • Davis /951 Project is ahead of schedule • White Boulevard Bridge: has been re -bid; new bids are being accepted and will include costs for the temporary bridge /culverts on 23`d — work will not commence until possibly July • Planning Report: o The County Attorney's Office is reviewing the "Corridor Protection Plan" (presented during the April meeting) — the Committee's comments will be considered • Received the I -75 "IJR" (Interchange Justification Report) last week and it is under review by Staff — from a traffic standpoint, the interchange is justified since it will provide better emergency access • The preliminary draft is 1,551 pages — a CD will be made available upon request • A revised draft will be submitted to the F -DOT in 30 days and another presentation will be made to DSAC Vll. OLD BUSINESS: A. LDC Amendment Update — Caroline Cilek and Jamie French Caroline Cilek requested DSAC's recommendations on the following: Spandrel Glass: • CBIA's language permitted too much Staff discretion and subjectivity • The revised provision allows the use of Spandrel Glass to count toward the minimum percent of the primary facade Dalas Disney: • Issue: The LDC states that windows must not be false or applied • When Spandrel Glass is used, you are trying to hide something behind it and could be perceived as a false window o as long as it is not on the outside of a building with a frame Example: Publix has certain walled areas that open into secured areas or s stockrooms or refrigerated rooms — the "window" does nothing. Possible solution: Pierce the wall, place aluminum frames within the wall and not "applied" — but it is Spandrel and is still a "false" window with a wall behind it. The use could still be rejected. 2 A4 May 2, 2012 He stated there are reasons for using Spandrel Glass as well as reasons for it being perceived as false. Q. Are we going to continue to have a problem due to the language? Mario Valle it could work if the language stated Spandrel glass panels were not considered to be "false" windows and will be permitted. Carolina Valera: • It is a good suggestion and can be added to the language. • Trying to avoid the extreme — the language was inserted to prevent the creation of truly fake windows to meet the Code's requirements. • Spandrel could be a good solution when use of a clear window is not appropriate. • NCH off Immokalee Road is mostly Spandrel because of the thick floors — the "read" of the fagade from the street is as one glaze. Dalas Disney concurred and stated the revised language should state that Spandrel glazing will not be considered as "false." Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted minimum glazing percentages are required on facades and to force people into a minimum percentage, regardless of the use, due to the building's location — he did not understand why the windows couldn't be false or applied. Carolina Valera stated Staff will review the purpose and intent of what is meant by the "minimum" requirement. She agreed when the use of Spandrel glass makes sense, it should be allowed and counted toward the glazing percentage, and when it does not make sense — it should not be permitted. Example: to use a portion of a "window" to display an advertisement. Vice Chairman Dunnavant: • He did not understand the objection. • Example: There is a big block wall and the user of the building does not want vision glass into the space — why can't a false window be applied when, to the general public, it looks every bit like a "real" glass window. Q. What is the objection? Dalas Disney: • Example: The long wall of a stucco block building where an aluminum frame was mounted to the outside — the frame is outboard — it is false and applied. It would not be permitted. • The language will achieve what is needed because the frame could be recessed into the block wall and attach the Spandrel glass. • It would achieve the desired look and count toward the percentage of glazing — and it would not be "applied" to the surface of a finished wall. Vice Chairman Dunnavant requested a definition of the term, "applied." Q. How deeply must a frame be recessed into a wall to comply? Will it be necessary to structurally modify the wall? 9 a 2 A4 6 May 2, 2012 Mr. Disney explained the window would still be false, just not "applied." There are several methods to achieve the effect. Caroline Cilek noted the Amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission on May 3`a. She stated one option is to allow the current language. Another option is to present a revised Amendment at a later date. She stated Carolina Valera will present it to the Planning Commission and the Board of Collier Commissioners and will ask for direction, requesting a complete review of the Architectural Standards. Dalas Disney clarified the language change is in addition to the other items, i.e., outparcels. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend supporting the language of the Amendment. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. Dalas Disney moved to recommend a full review and study of Amendment 5.05.08 — "Architectural and Site Design Standards." Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. Carolina Valera stated she will present the Amendments as Staff recommendations and the revisions concerning Spandrel Glass as DSAC's recommendation, as well as DSAC's motions. B. Master Mobility Plan Phase III Update — Reed Jarvi and Jeff Perry (A copy of the MMP -III working draft and an outline were distributed to the Members.) Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner with Stantec — WilsonMiller Consulting: • The Board of County Commissioners approved Phase II of the Master Mobility Plan on January 21, 2012 • Goal: To amend the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Codeto encourage good, sustainable development and to reduce vehicle miles traveled • As a result of the year -long study, 20 recommendations were made and a majority of the recommendations were forwarded to Stantec for in -depth analysis and review • Several items were beyond the scope of work, in particular: o Shift of the Road Impact Fee to a Mobility Fee It is more flexible o Creation of a "Transfer of Development Rights Program" in the Golden Gate Estates • The BCC directed Stantec to draft potential policy and LDC language • May 15th — Public Workshop (from 4:00 to 6:OOPM) at the Golden Gate Community Center 10 1612 A4ay 22 2012 • May 17th — Workshop with the Planning Commission (following the regular Planning Commission meeting) • The final draft will be completed and presented to Staff by the end of June • Staff will present the document to the Board of County Commissioners • In 2013, the regular vetting process will begin with various committees Outline — "Hi hl i�hts: " • Major component: establishing a "Low Vehicle Miles Traveled Development" ( LVMTD) • A new type of development that is geared toward providing alternatives to travel ■ Employers could provide bus transit passes or bicycle changing facilities for employees • Could be applied to any zoning district • Incentives will be provided for this type of development • Example: reduced Impact Fees • A variety of incentives will be created • Establish requirements for a Multi -modal Mobility Analysis — similar to a traffic impact analysis o Determine conditions for approval as a LVMTD • Develop and adopt a "Complete Streets Program" • Design public and /or private streets to provide for all modes of travel • Create standards and a team to review a project's plans • Develop a comprehensive bicycle /pedestrian safety program • There are serious bicycle and pedestrian safety issues in the County • Program will involve law enforcement, design professionals, and the public • Training and education will be provided at the school level • Establish connectivity and interconnectivity issues o Review existing measures in the Land Development Code • Establish Comprehensive Environmental Mitigation Program ( "CEMP ") • Identify the portion of the Road Impact Fees that are calculated for mitigation • Target the funds for acquisition of environmentally - sensitive lands • A study will be conducted to identify the best areas to acquire Jeff Perry noted the proposed policy statements may be incorporated into the Growth Management Plan but will ultimately find a place in the Land Development Code. Marco Espinar noted the Pepper Ranch has already been identified for a mitigation bank. It is in the permitting process for transportation projects. Mr. Perry stated the Pepper Ranch could be the first on the County's list — the CEMP will not try to divert funds from the way the County is currently using. Reed Jarvi noted an important issue: • The allocation ( "set- aside ") of road project costs (approximately 4% per project) to use for "land- banking" of environmentally - sensitive areas II 1612 4 �i• May 2, 2012 Ray Allain asked what was the purpose of the Master Mobility Plan — was it related to the environmental or energy. Jeff Perry replied it began as a Vision Plan of the County which focused on the build -out of the County. • Nick Casalanguida recognized the County could not afford to build everything that might be needed and a way had to be developed to reduce the travel demand that would be generated in the future. • It "morphed" into a Study on ways to conserve energy. • A grant was obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct the Study and find ways to reduce the amount of travel and vehicle miles traveled o Reduce "greenhouse" gases, etc. Bob Mulhere noted there had been a great deal of public involvement in the process and suggested some of the concepts. One idea discussed was to charge a higher fee if a development had a higher impact on the transportation network, i.e. if the average trip length was much higher. The focus was on true voluntary incentives which would run with a property. For example, if there was a reduction in parking spaces which yielded a larger building footprint, the commitment to provide an alternative mode of transportation (bus passes) would have to be honored in the future. There is a large divergence between what is predicted as needed for roadway improvement based on growth and what can be afforded. One way to reduce the need for roadway improvements is to reduce the number of trips — reserve capacity. If the average trip length can be reduced incrementally, for example, by providing a conveniently located shopping center, it will have an impact. Option: The County can examine land -use patterns and identify locations where a mixed use development or employment center would be appropriate. Dalas Disney asked Bob Mulhere to define the extent of his involvement. Reed Jarvi explained Bob Mulhere is a subcontractor for Stantec , i.e., he is a consultant to Stantec. Mr. Mulhere stated, due to a potential conflict of interest, he would not vote on any recommendations made by DSAC concerning the Master Mobility Plan. Dalas Disney stated certain terms [ "fees, " - "mobility fees," - "TDR.... "reduced density "] have great impact. He does not support Impact Fees in any form and views the MMP as a way to create new fees. It seems as though it's just another line item. It is difficult enough for the majority of residents to just live in Collier County without thinking about another fee. In Denver, he rode the bus to /from work on a daily basis. Suggestion: Develop a bus system in Collier County and it will be used. He stated he cannot ride the bus from his home in Golden Gate Estates to his office, near Goodlette, because it is not available. Comment: As we begin to come out of the economic downturn, finding funding for the programs will be a huge issue. 12 1612 A4 May 2, 2012 Mr. Perry clarified Stantec is not working on the mobility issue or the Golden Gate Estates TDR issue. The items were specifically excluded from the scope of work. He stated the BCC did ask for further study of the issues. The issues will be examined by the County in more detail in the future. Laura DeJohn stated she finds the prospect frightening of how the Estates may look in the future if gas prices continue to increase, making it even more difficult for residents to live /remain there — it could become a "ghost town" — that is more frightening than the mechanics of a mobility fee. Mario Valle stated reducing density created the urban sprawl and increased number of trips. He asked if DSAC will be directed to examine policy decisions with the perspective of increasing density and providing better transportation. Bob Mulhere stated it would most likely apply to a re- development scenario or an undeveloped area scenario. Most of Collier County that is already developed at 2.2 units per acre will not change. There are a number of challenges — there is no urban area as a primary focus for people to go to for employment and return home. We are not a suburban commute to an urban and back. The costs will not be huge because the improvements will be done incrementally. Reed Jarvi: • The federal grant ends at the end of July. • The mobility fee issue will be part of the next Road Impact Fee Update and the Study is scheduled to begin this summer. • There is not a direct cost — beyond staff time — the program has been proposed as "voluntary." VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Update on BCC April 26th Fire Workshop — Chairman William Varian • A number of DSAC members attended and spoke • DSAC should follow the progress - there were a number of comments between Commissioner Fiala and Fire Commissioner Lombardo • He encouraged members to become involved IX. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: Ray Allain: • Collier County is "light years ahead" of other counties in the Country • He cautioned the personal element is often overlooked or omitted, i.e. the landowners • The flexibility fee will be punitive — anyone building a new house in the Golden Gate Estates will end up paying more • There is no other end beyond higher density • Concern: Keep the personal element present otherwise property owners' rights will be altered by default 13 16 12 A4 May 2, 2012 NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • June 6, 2012 • July 11, 2012 • August 1, 2012 • September 5, 2012 As there was no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:36 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes weZoved the Board/Comm ittee Chair on �P tp , 2012 as submitted" amended" []. 14 .' 16 12 A5 June 6 2012 0 3939 _� I` i i I r n 0 l MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNT ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, June 6, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Misc. Corres: Date: 9 11 1 1 1 'Z. Item #: I Lo-T: 219 S Copies to: Fiala Hiller Henning �- Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman (Excused) Michael V. Sorrell David Bishof (Excused) Gina Downs Gary McNally ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Chris Curry, Executive Director, Collier County Airport Auth. Bob Tweeter, Airport Manager, Marco Is. Executive Airport Steve Preston, Sr. Project Manager Rhonda Watkins, Collier County Pollution Control 1 I 12 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. A5 June 6, 2012 III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 4 - 0. IV. Approval of the October 6, 2010 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2012 meeting. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 4- 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Sorrell will not be present for the July 3, 2012 meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit Update ST — PL — 2012 -0900 Chris Curry, Executive Director, Collier County Airport Authority and Bob Tweeter, Marco Island Executive Airport Manager provided an update on the permit request reporting: • As recommended by the Council, a letter was sent in mid May to all signatories of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated September 11, 2001 between Collier County Airport Authority and other parties. • A draft of the "Conservation Easement" required in 45 of the MOU has been prepared and is under review by the affected parties. • A copy of the Vegetation Management Program (required in #2 of the MOU) was located in County files and was sent to the Audubon Society in 2005 for approval; however no record of the approval has been located. • The County has re -sent the plan back to the Audubon Society for comment. • The Authority has been operating under the auspices of the Plan since 2005. • The Florida Department of Transportation Aviation and Federal Aviation Administration will be reviewing the Conservation Easement and providing comment as necessary. 2 N 16 I Z A5 June 6, 2012 Speaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida reported the Conservation Easement has been drafted with the County recommending changes. Conservancy representatives will be in contact with the County to address any changes. A site visit will be held with representatives of the County, Audubon Society, and the Conservancy before the Conservation Easement and Vegetation Management Program is finalized. The Council requested Staff to notify them when all items have been completed in a satisfactory manner. B. Fertilizer Ordinance Update — Steve Preston Steve Preston submitted a memo to the Council dated May 23, 2012 — "Subject: Collier County's Florida - Friendly Fertilizer Ordinance activities update" for information purposes. He outlined the memo which identified the education program being undertaken by the County including a website, email notification to homeowner associations and landscape contractors, a brochure, a video, educational classes and bulk mailings to landowners. The Council recommended signage be placed at strategic locations notifying the public of the Ordinance and the Golden Gate Civic Association be contacted. Speakers Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida commended the education program and recommends it be continued. She noted at the time the Ordinance was adopted, the County was informed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services they should adopt the Model Ordinance as legislation was going to restrict local jurisdictions from adopting stricter standards. Subsequent to this, no legislation was enacted prohibiting the adoption of more stringent requirements. She recommended the County consider adopting more stringent standards to protect water quality in the area. Katie Parrish, Sierra Club reported other Counties have adopted Ordinances with more stringent requirements and supports the County adopting a more stringent Ordinance. Recent studies indicate more stringent requirements including prohibitions of applications of fertilizers during the rainy season lead to improve water quality. Discussion occurred on the Council's previous recommendations for a more stringent Ordinance including requiring slow release fertilizers, a rainy season prohibition period for applications of fertilizers, etc. Mr. Sorrell noted a greater concern is to address the issue at a statewide level as many of the commercial applicators are subject to State requirements, and not the more stringent, local requirements. 1612 A5 June 6, 2012 Ms. Downs moved to authorize Chairman Hushon to prepare a report for consideration by the Environmental Advisory Council for a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to strengthen the existing "Fertilizer Ordinance. " Second by Mr. McNally. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. C. Update members on project None IX. Council Member Comments A. Subcommittee Report Ms. Downs reported the Subcommittee is conducting a comparison of environmental regulations between Collier County and adjacent Counties. They are currently addressing stormwater management plans. Chairman Hushon announced the Collier County Planning Commission will be holding a Workshop on the Master Mobility Plan on June 19, 2012. X. Staff Comments None XI. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:00 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ,Chairman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on as presented ✓'' , or as amended L, 1612 A6 s BY...................... GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 April 717 20112 MINUTES Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta� - I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 3:08 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Roger Dick - Irrigation Project Manager Others: Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Robert Kindelan - Commercial Land Maintenance, Sue Flynn - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. FY13 Budget Richard Sims moved to approve the April 17, 2012 Agenda as amended. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried, 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — October 11, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the March 20, 2012 Minutes as presented. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried, 3 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report Staff distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification lA §CFf20F%d 153 Report dated April 17, 2012. (See attached) Date: 9 (1 1 1'Z ■ Current Ad Valorem Tax Collected $208,407.21 Item #: k U Z 2- loq '�-o I Copies to: 16 tZ A6 ■ Operating Expenses Available $100,701.14 Barbara Segura arrived at 3:10 p.m. • Capital Outlay Available $524,795.90 • Total Budget Available $631,642.05 • Purchase Order - Paid $238,459.20 B. Project Manager Report — None C. FY13 Budget Staff distributed and reviewed the draft Fund 153 Golden Gate MSTU Budget FY13 dated April 16, 2012. (See attached) Green high- lighted figures are Budget Office items. Property taxable values are finalized in June. Richard Sims suggested a discussion on future pump replacements funds for Sunshine, Tropicana and Hunter be placed on the next agenda. Barbara Segura left at 3:19 p.m. Richard Sims moved to approve the draft FY13 Budget un- amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried, 3 -0. Barbara Segura returned at 3:21 p.m. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report A. Hannula -None B. Commercial Land Maintenance - None VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Landscape Architecture Report for period March 2012 — April 2012. (See attached) Staff distributed Replacements and Incidental Request for March dated April 1, 2012. (See attached) Discussion was made on the requests made for Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Parkway, Tropicana and Sunshine Boulevards being routine maintenance and the Committee decided to exclude the Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway Fund 111 items. Peggy Harris left at 3:52 p. m. Richard Sims moved to approve all the upgrades to pump and controller for Hannula and for the other vendors not to exceed 537,000 on Tropicana upgrades. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried, 3 -0. 2 1612 A6 � Barbara Segura moved that routine maintenance normally that would be covered under maintenance contract, that is within the budget should be approved by Staff. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried, 2 -1. Richard Sims opposed. Richard Sims moved to approve the structural pruning beyond the regular maintenance for Tropicana, Sunshine and Green for $6,525. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried, 3 -0. The Committee expressed they did not like the way Fund 111 and Fund 153 were shown together on the report as "111/153." The Committee requested that in the future all Fund 111 items be listed on a totally separate report from Fund 153. Staff explained that it was not the intention of the Staff to confuse the Committee regarding the Fund 111 expenditures. It was explained that currently there are no funds available in Fund 111 for those items listed. Staff's intention was to ask if the Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee to assist with payment of those items listed through Fund 153. Richard Sims moved to use MSTU Funds on Golden Gate Parkway (Planting at the Sign/Silver Saw Palmettos, Mulch, Water wagon) even though it is the County responsibility. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried, 3 -0. Richard Sims moved to approve a one time only use of MSTU Funds to do the structural pruning on Golden Gate Parkway in the amount of $13,500. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried, 3 -0. VII. Old Business — None VIII. GPS Report - None IX. New Business - None X. Public Comments There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee 3 ib 12 A6' , These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented x or amended The next meeting is scheduled for May 15, 2012 3:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL M w I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes —April 17, 2012 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Reports A. Hannula B. Commercial Land VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado VIII. GPS Report — Pam Lulich IX. Old Business X. New Business A. Future Pump Replacement Funds XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for Ji,,ne 19, 2012 at 3.00 ,.n , At Golden Gate Cor rnunity Center - Naples, F 1 9 w I GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU FUND 153 April 17, 2012 32 FERT HERB CHEM $ 9,500.00 $ 2,582.20 $ 10,496.72 $ (3,578.92) 33 OTHER OPERATING SUPP $ 500.00 $ - $ - $ 500.00 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 350,188.75 $ 163,677.57 $ 85,810.04 $ 100,701.14 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN $ Amended $ $ 152,649.16 Actual 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY Available 677,445.06 $ $ 152,649.16 Budget Commitments $ Expenditures $ $ Total $ - AD VALOREM TAX N2'�YF $ (243,600.00) $ $ (208,407.21) $ (35,192.79) 3,500.00 AD VALOREM TAX $ $ 1,751.33 $ $ (32.33) $ 32.33 Vender Name TH THIRD O/N INTEREST $ 9,600.00 $ $ (243.85) $ 243.85 Bonness Close 4 INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (1,000.00) $ $ (3,314.65) $ 2,314.65 - CLM 5 INTEREST TAX COLLECTE $ 1,066, .81 $ $ (2.99) $ 2.99 Florida Irrigation 6 REVENUE STRUCTURE $ (244,600.00) $ $ (212,001.03) $ (32,598.97) Florikan N/A County Services $ - $ 4,200.00 N/A Insurance Gen Forestry Resources 7 TRANSFER FROM APPR $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,136.00 FPL 8 TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $ $ $ $ $ Final Design Coronado & Hunter Hannula Close 9 CARRY FORWARD GEN $ (674,800.00) $ $ $ $ (674,800.00) Hannula 10 CARRY FORWARD OF ENC $ (159,533.81) $ $ $ (159,533.81) Hannula Close 11 NEG 5% EST REV $ 12,200.00 $ $ $ $ 12,200.00 Hannula 12 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB $ 822,133.81 $ $ - $ 822,133.81 Hannula 13 $ - 1 783.81 Direct $ $ - �: ,� Indirect Cost 14 ENGINEERING FEES $ - $ - $ $ Total Insurance Gen 15 ENG FEES OTHER $ 50,088.75 $ 18,361.00 $ 13,185.98 $ 18,541.77 JRL Design Close 16 INDIRECT COST REIMBU $ 4,200.00 $ - $ 4,200.00 $ - Juristaff Inc. 17 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $ 17,500.00 $ 12,544.75 $ 2,455.25 $ 2,500.00 McGee & Assoc. Close 18 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SE $ 198,000.00 $ 112,575.87 $ 47,794.25 $ 37,629.88 McGee & Assoc.Close 19 POST FREIGHT UPS $ - $ - $ - $ - McGee & Assoc. 20 ELECTRICITY $ 2,900.00 $ 1,622.20 $ 1,417.80 $ (140.00) Naples Daily News 21 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 800.00 $ - $ 400.00 $ 400.00 Permits 22 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAI $ 17,500.00 $ 785.41 $ 1,431.07 $ 15,283.52 Southern Signal 23 MULCH $ 8,500.00 $ 6,435.11 $ - $ 2,064.89 Staples 24 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS $ 25,000.00 $ - $ - $ 25,000.00 Visa 25 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE $ 10,000.00 $ 6,935.82 $ 3,064.18 $ - Winfield Solutions 26 PRINTING AND OR BIND $ - $ - $ - $ 27 LICENSE / PERMITS $ - $ $ $ - 28 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ 500.00 $ $ $ 500.00 29 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,000.00 $ 1,635.21 $ 1,364.79 $ 2,000.00 30 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ - $ 200.00 $ - $ (200.00) 31 Minor Office Furn. $ 200.00 $ - $ - $ 200.00 32 FERT HERB CHEM $ 9,500.00 $ 2,582.20 $ 10,496.72 $ (3,578.92) 33 OTHER OPERATING SUPP $ 500.00 $ - $ - $ 500.00 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 350,188.75 $ 163,677.57 $ 85,810.04 $ 100,701.14 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN $ 677,445.06 $ $ 152,649.16 $ 524,795.90 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 677,445.06 $ $ 152,649.16 $ 524,795.90 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR $ 26,800.00 $ $ 26,800.00 $ - 38 TRANSFERS $ 26,800.00 $ $ 26,800.00 $ - 39 BUDGETTRANSAPPR $ 3,500.00 $ $ 1,748.67 $ 1,751.33 40 BUDGET TRANS TC COL $ 6,100.00 $ $ 4,406.32 $ 1,693.68 41 TRANSFER CONST $ 9,600.00 $ $ 6,154.99 $ 3,445.01 42 RESERVE FOR CONTINGE $ 2,700.00 $ $ - $ 2,700.00 43 RESERVES $ 2,700.00 $ $ - $ 2,700.00 44 TOTAL BUDGET $ 1,066, .81 $' 163,677.57 'S 271A14.19 S'` 631.642.05 -' P.O. # Open P.O.s Item FY 12 Amt. Remaining Actual Paid 0 4500125726 C Coronado & Hunter Curbing $ - $ 37,947.05 274,496 4500133129 Hunter & Coronado Landscape $ 38,449.81 $ 9,974.00 4500133373 Sprinkler Maint. $ 785.41 $ 1,214.59 4500130430 Fertilizer $ 7.92 $ 9,471.00 4500130419 Mulch $ 6,435.11 $ - 4700000777 Electricity $ 1,622.20 $ 1,417.80 4500125724 C Coronado & Hunter Landscape $ - $ 114,702.11 4500130251 Un- improved Medians & ROW $ 1,207.50 $ 2,092.50 4500134209 Repalce Valve box $ - $ 110.00 4500134310 Hunter & Coronado Irrigation Bid $ 8,249.00 $ 860.00 4500131808 Landscape Maint. $ 77,214.31 $ 37,323.00 N/A County Services $ - $ 4,200.00 N/A Insurance Gen $ $ 400.00 4500126569 Monthly Services $ $ 3,136.00 4500130355 Secretarial Services $ 1,635.21 $ 1,364.79 4500126462 Final Design Coronado & Hunter $ - $ 3,373.98 4500126463 GG MSTU Master Plan Revision $ - $ - 4500132913 Annual Landscape Services $ 18,361.00 $ 6,676.00 Legal Advertising $ - $ - Direct Permits $ - $ - 4500130407 GG MSTU Lighting Maint. $ 6,935.82 $ 3,064.18 4500130394 Office Supplies $ 200.00 $ - Direct Sprinkler Supplies $ - $ 106.48 4500133967 Fertilizer $ 2,574.28 $ 1,025.72 Line 34 + 36 = Total $ 163,677.57 $ 238,459.20 1,138,269,689 FY 09 797,305,507 FY 10 Finai Taxable value (2009) 548,992,684 FY 11 Final Taxable Value (2010) 487,196,972 FY 12 July 1 st Taxable Value -11.26% Adj. 11 to 12 Maximum =.5000 FY 12 FY 11 Reduced from FY 10 budget due to October Millage 0.5000 0.5000 TV Recapitulation Extension 243,598 274,496 Property Tax Limitation In 487,196,972 1,127,720 FY 12 Gross Taxable Value 0 Minus: New Const. Annex. 486,069,252 Plus: Amendment /1 TV Component 274,496 Adj. Taxable Value 0.5647 11 Levy 0.5139 Rolled Back Rate (less Amend. One) 91 % of Rolled Back Rate Golden Gate MSTU (136/153) FY 13 r 59 4/16/201210:32 AM IASAP Directories FY 13 \Growth Management \Transportation Road MSTU's\gryl53162521 FY13.xls Actual +y, �)/ Variance FY03 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual CommltmentEx Actual V V Variance FY03 Adopted less WBS Expenditure 06- Expenditure 07- Expenditure 08- Expenditure 09- Expenditure 10- Adopted Amended pendltures Expenditures VVV Requested- Requested- Adopted less FY04 cc Obj Project Element Title 07 08 09 10 11 Budget 12 Budget 12 3128112 3/28112 Forecast 12 Current 13 Expanded 13 Total FY 13 Justification FY03 Forecast % Di f. Requested % Di f. 162521 631403 00000 660671 ENGINEERING FEE - OTHER A 10,254 6,455 14,052 3,949 36,397 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 631400 Engineering Fees 3,236 2,203 45,000 50,089 20,199 11,348 40,000 40,000 0 40,000 Maintenance consulting 162521 634970 00000 660671 INDIRECT COST REIMBURSEN 4,700 4,900 5,000 5,400 19,100 4,200 4,200 0 2,100 0 6,800 0 0.0% (2,600) -61.9% 162521 634990 Landscape Incidentals 1,060 5,409 10,646 5,709 14,985 17,500 17,500 12,545 2,455 16,000 16,000 0 16,000 New Bid for Maintenance of Tropicana, Sunshine, Hunter 162521 634999 00000 660671 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVI 50,404 129,125 126,006 113,430 102,842 198,000 198,000 112,576 47,794 180,000 180,000 0 180,000 Blvd., & Coronado Pkwy 18,000 9.1% 18,000 9.1% 162521 641950 00000 660671 POSTAGE, FREIGHT & UPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 643100 00000 660671 ELECTRICITY 1,597 1,966 1,948 1,984 2,431 2,900 2,900 1,758 1,284" 3,200 3,200 0 3,200 (300) -10.3% (300) -10.3% 162521 646320 660671 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 100.0% 25,000 100.0% 162521 643400 660671 Water /Sewer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 645100 00000 660671 INSURANCE - GENERAL 1,000 756 1,000 800 800 800 0 400 0 900 400 50.0% (100) -12.5% 162521 646311 00000 660671 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINTEN 162 676 2,201 232 4,362 17,500 17,500 1,309 907 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 Pump Replacement 12,500 71.4% 12,500 71.4% 162521 646316 00000 660671 MULCH 5,267 8,694 5,179 5,171 18,446 8,500 8,500 6,435 0 7,500 7,500 0 7,500 Mulch x 2 times per year 1,000 11.8% 1,000 11.8% Lighting maintenance; Repair & Replacement of downed 162521 646451 00000 660671 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE 1,357 2,472 1,658 13,739 10,379 10,000 10,000 7,601 2,399 12,000 12,000 0 12,000 poles (2,000) -20.0% (2,000) -20.0% 162521 646662 00000 660671 HURRICANE #2 (FRANCES) 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 646668 00000 660672 HURRICANE #2 (WILMA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 647110 00000 660671 PRINTING &/OR BINDING - OU1 191 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 649010 00000 660571 Licenses and Permits 600 0 0 6,400 1,500 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162521 649100 66070 660671 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1,129 0 0 79 500 500 0 0 0 0 500 100.0% 500 100.0% transcriptionist services and 162521 649990 00000 660671 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS SER 3,458 3,084 2,296 7,960 3,452 5,000 5,000 1,935 1,06!, 3,500 3,500 0 3,500 other mist. services by others 1,500 30.0% 1,500 30.0% 651110 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 0 200 0 200 200 0 200 162521 651930 MINOR OFFICE 0 0 0 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 100.0% 200 100.0% increase to fertilizer 162521 652310 00000 660671 FERTILIZER, HERBICIDES &Cl 1,425 553 629 11,700 5,695 9,500 9,500 2,582 10,497 13,100 13,100 0 13,100 applications (3,600) -37.9% (3,600) -37.9% Office supplies, paper, ink, 162521 652990 00000 660671 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 50 0 15 173 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 other mist. 500 100.0% 500 100.0% 162521 Total Operating Expenses 81,673 164,335 173,621 178,876 220,641 345,100 350,189 167,140 80,247 285,100 288,200 0 288,200 60,000 17.4% 56,900 16.5% 162521 Payout of FY -12 162521 763100 00000 660671 IMPROVEMENTS - GENERAL 462,829 0 75,137 927,590 523,000 677,445 0 152,649 180,000 450,000 0 450,000 Hunter /Coronado. 343,000 65.6% 73,000 14.0% 162521 Total Capital Outlay 462,829 0 0 75,137 927,590 523,000 677,445 0 152,649 180,000 450,000 0 450,000 343,000 65.6% 73,000 14.0% 162521 Cost Center Total 544,502 164,335 173,621 254,013 1,148,232 868,100 1,027,634 167,140 232,896, 465,100 738,200 0 738,200 403,000 46.4% 129,900 15.0% 162521 162521 983000 00000 TAX COLLECTOR REFUNDS 0 0 0 0 0 ') 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NIA 0 NIA 919010 981000 00000 REFUNDS - PRIOR YEAR REVENUES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 919010 991000 00000 991361 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES 2,700 2,700 0 0 0 (14,400) 0 (14,400) 2,700 100.0% 17,100 633.3% 919010 993000 00000 991361 RESERVE FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A RES FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION & 919010 994500 00000 991361 IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total 0 0 0 0 0 2,700 2,700 0 0 0 (14,400) 0 (14,400) 2,700 100.0% 17,100 633.3% 929020 911110 00000 991362 TRANSFER TO FUND 111 0 12,700 26,800 26,800 26,800 0 26,800 26,800 26,800 0 26,800 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 929020 911110 00000 991362 TRANSFER TO MSTD GENERA 21,400 22,500 12,700 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total Interfund Transfers 21,400 22,500 12,700 12,700 26,800 26,800 26,800 0 26,800 26,800 26,800 0 26,800 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 959050 930600 00000 991363 BUDGET TRANSFERS - PROPS 2,573 982 3,598 3,566 3,210 3,500 3,500 0 1,166 3,500 3,500 0 3,500 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 959050 930700 00000 991363 BUDGET TRANSFERS - TAX C( 10,762 9,829 9,203 7,913 5,485 6,100 6,100 4,139 6,100 6,100 0 6,100 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total Transfers- Constitutional 13,335 10,812 12,801 11,480 8,695 9,600 9,600 0 5,305 9,600 9,600 0 9,600 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total Expenses 579,237 197,647 199,123 278,192 1,183,727 907,200 1,066,734 167,140 265,001 501,500 760,200 0 760,200 405,700 44.7% 147,000 16.2% ENUES 162590 311100 00000 311361 CURRENT AD VALOREM TAXE (525,815) (481,640) (450,298) (383,826) (263,164) (243,600) (243,600) 0 (186,831) (233,900) (227,500) 0 (227,500) 9,700 -4.1% 16,100 -7.1% 162590 311200 00000 DELINQUENT AD VALOREM TA (31) (452) (782) (302) (477) 0 0 0 (32) 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 311400 00000 COUNTY HELD TAX CERTIFICATES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 334210 00000 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162590 341310 69118 SALES OF BID DOCUMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 341350 69116 SALES OF MAPS AND PUBLICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 341490 66070 MISCELLANEOUS (Includes Ins. (161) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 361190 00000 INTEREST- OTHER BOARD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 361320 00000 INTEREST - TAX COLLECTOR (851) (368) (70) (36) (29) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 162590 369300 00000 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRIOR YEAR EXPENDI- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total Operating Revenue (526,857) (482,461) (451,150) (384,165) (263,669) (243,600) (243,600) 0 (186,863) (233,900) (227,500) 0 (227,500) 9,700 -4.1% 16,100 -7.1% 989080 361170 00000 991364 INTEREST - SBA (12,482) (5,422) (804) (1,102) (885) 0 0 0 (133) 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 989080 361180 00000 991364 INVESTMENT INTEREST (39459) (38364) (41082) (11689) (13067) (1000) (1,000) 0 (1478) (2,700) (1,000) 0 (1000) (1,700) 63.0% 0 0.0% Total Operating Revenue (51,941) (43,786) (41,887) (12,790) (13,952) (1,000) (1,000) 0 (1,611) (1700) (1,000) 0 (1,000) (1,700) 63.0% 0 0.0% 929020 481301 00000 TRANS FROM FACILITIES MG MT CO -WIDE CIP 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 959050 486600 00000 TRANSFER FROM PROPERTY (1,126) (623) (594) (496) (480) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 959050 486700 00000 TRANSFER FROM TAX COLLE( (5257) (4888) (4242) (3511) (2,258) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A Total Other Revenue (6,383) (5,510) (4,836) (4,007) (2,738) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A r 59 4/16/201210:32 AM IASAP Directories FY 13 \Growth Management \Transportation Road MSTU's\gryl53162521 FY13.xls Golden Gate MSTU (136/153) FY 13 -� � 9',1•Bi J8� due to FY 12G i t Value 1,464,836 Minus: N Annex. 1,259,976 Plus: Am ment #1 Component 0 from FY V 9 4116/201210:32 AM I:\SAP Directories FY 13 \Growth Management\Transportation Road MSTU's\gryl53162521 FY13.xls Actual Variance FY03 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual CommitmentEx Actual Variance FY03 Adopted less WBS Expenditure 06- Expenditure 07- Expenditure 08- Expenditure 09- Expenditure 10- Adopted Amended penditures Expenditures Requested- Requested- Adopted less FY04 cc Obj Project Element Title 07 08 09 10 11 Budget 12 Budget 12 3128112 3128112 Forecast 12 Current 13 Expanded 13 Total FY 13 Justification FY03 Forecast % Diff. Requested % Diff. 919010 489200 00000 991361 CARRY FORWARD- GENERAL (949,057) (955,765) (1,289,800) (1,588,600) (1,711,300) (674,800) (674,800) 0 0 (808,000) (543,100) 0 (543,100) (133,200) 16.5% 131,700 -24.2% 919010 489201 00000 991361 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB AMOUNT BY ADC CODE 0 0 (159,534) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 919010 489201 66070 991361 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB AMOUNT BY ADC CODE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 919010 489201 69116 991361 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB AMOUNT BY ADC CODE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 919010 489201 69118 991361 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB AMOUNT BY ADC CODE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 919010 489900 00000 991361 NEGATIVES% OF ESTIMATED REVENUE 0 12,200 12,200 0 0 0 11,400 _ 0 11,400 (12,200) N/A (800) -7.0% Total Other Revenue (949,057) (955,765) (1,289,800) (1,588,600) (1,711,300) (662,600) (822,134) 0 0 (808,000) (531,700) 0 (531,700) (145,400) 18.0% 130,900 -24.6% Total Revenue Fund 136 (1,534,238) (1,487,522) (1,787,673) (1,989,563) (1,991,659) (907,200) (1,066,734) 0 (188,474) (1,044,600) (760,200) 0 (760,200) 0 137,400 -15.1% (147,000) 16.2% Revenue - Expenses (955,001) (1,289,875) (1,588,550) (1,711,370) (807,933) 0 0 167,140 76,527 (543,100) 0 0 0 SAP Tie Out 76,527 (543,100) 0 0 0 1,138,269,689 FY 09 Final Taxable Value (2008) - 122770 797,305,507 FY 10 Final Taxable value (2009) 548,992,684 FY 11 Final Taxable Value (2010) �., 478,980,702 FY 12 Oct 1st DR 422 Taxable Value 455,031,667 FY 13 Projected Taxable Value -5.00% Adj. 12 to 13 FY 13 FY 12 Millage 0.5000 0.5000 Maximum =.5000 Extension 227,516 239,490 Changes made by MSTU staff Property Tax Limitation Impact FY 13 Gross Taxable Value 455,031,667 Minus: New Const.Annex. 0 Plus: Amendment 91 TV Component 0 Adj. Taxable Value 455,031,667 12 Levy 243,598 Rolled Back Rate (less Amend. One) 0.5353 91% of Rolled Back Rate 0.4872 -� � 9',1•Bi J8� due to FY 12G i t Value 1,464,836 Minus: N Annex. 1,259,976 Plus: Am ment #1 Component 0 from FY V 9 4116/201210:32 AM I:\SAP Directories FY 13 \Growth Management\Transportation Road MSTU's\gryl53162521 FY13.xls i 16 12 A7 May 7, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, May 7, 2012 )I)N ` BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Rooms "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller T- He�ning Coyle Coletta S CHAIRMAN: Kaydee Tuff VICE CHAIR: James Klug III Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Corres: Date: 9 1 1 1 112 Item * I Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 1612A7 May 7, 2012 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:07 PM by Chairman, Kaydee Tuff. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Bill Arthur moved to approve the May 7, 2012 Agenda as submitted Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of March 5, 2012 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the April 2, 2012 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported the First Lady, Michelle Obama visited the Golden Gate Community Center while she was in Naples for a private event. She also distributed and reviewed April and May Events. (See attached) • Spring Camp was held April 2 -6 - 28 children were enrolled with 1 counselor - Expenses - $850 / Revenue - $1,247.20 • Family Movie Night featured the movie "HOP" - Due to weather event was moved indoors - 50 adults and children participated - Popcorn and soda - Revenue $22. • Fall VPK Registration held April 14 - 11 students have been registered. • Community Yard Sale held on April 14 — Revenue $490. • American Cancer "Relay for Life" raised $108,000. • National Day of Prayer is scheduled to be held on May 3. • 5K Fun Run and Safety Fair is scheduled for May 25. The next "Family Movie Night" will be held on June 6. The featured film will be "We Bought A Zoo." B. Playground Update None VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date 0A 16 12 A7 May 7, 2012 Staff distributed Month to Date Budget and Year to Date Fund 130 reports, Monthly Breakdown Revenue and Expenses for October 2011 through April 2012. (See attached) Vickie Wilson asked the Advisory Board if the format used on those reports provided would satisfy their report request. Kaydee Tuff stated previously Ellen provided a budget comparison format the Advisory Board liked. She requested Staff research previous budget reports provided by Ellen and use her format. Barry Williams stated the system may not be set up to do the type of report the Advisory Board requested. He will research the possibility the system is capable of creating a month to month expenditures showing a snapshot of 2011, 2010 comparison to 2012. He will also request Admin Support to work with Vickie Wilson. B. Review Budget FY2012 -13 Barry Williams reported the Budget Workshop held on March 29, 2012 had not been publicly advertized due to an error. He gave the Advisory Board two options for consideration; one would be to discuss budget tonight or have a publicly noticed Budget Workshop. James Klug stated he would not be available from May 14 through June 14. He would like to understand what and where the figures come from that make up the Carry Forward. Staff distributed the Budget FY 2012 -13 dated April 24, 2012. (See attached) Discussion was made on the Budget FY2012 -13 and it was noted the changes the Advisory Board recommended had been made and additional changes may be reflected after property values come out June 1. Vickie Wilson distributed an email from Cheryl Pryor dated May 4, 2012 regarding an issue with balancing the fund. (See attached) Her email gave the Advisory Board - Options 1 & 2 for consideration. Discussion was made on Option 1 & 2. Option 2 was ruled out due to already filling the program leader position. Barry Williams will request Option 1 recommendations be made through GovMax to show implications. He will bring back draft Budget FY2012 -13 to the Advisory Board at the June 4 meeting for their final approval. Staff will email the draft budget report to Advisory Board by Friday. William Arthur moved to approve Option I after Parks and Recreation run through GovMax. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried, 5-0. The Advisory Board expressed concern on removing $40,000 in FYI proposed capital. Staff was directed to provide Option 1 recommendations made in GovMax to the Advisory Board by Friday, May 12. 16 12 A7 4 May 7, 2012 C. Review Updated 5 -Year Plan Staff distributed and reviewed the Updated 5 -Year Plan. (See attached) D. Approval of Draft Letter to Barry Williams Kaydee Tuff stated letter had not been drafted. Advisory Board decided not to move forward. E. Review Email on Advisory Board Concerns None D. BMX State Qualifier Budget Report Vickie Wilson distributed the Expense /Revenue Breakdown on the BMX State Qualifier held from January 13 through 15, 2012. She reported $4,517 in expenses and $7,656 in revenue. (See attached) E. Advisory Board Resolution Staff distributed Resolution No. 2008 -154 (A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, approving the revised guidelines and rules of the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee) and Collier County Ordinance No. 75 -4. It was noted Advisory Member Terms issue has been resolved. F. Roof Maintenance None VIII. Member Comments Jim Klug reiterated the Advisory Board would like to be involved with Vickie Wilson's Evaluation(s) and he mentioned the MSTU contributes 40% of her salary. Barry Williams will check with Human Resources to see if this is possible. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Kay ee ff, Chairman ' 1 % Ai i ` May 7, 2012 These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on "ti-atj-e 14l 70/Z as presented or as amended E On A7 13 1612 APRJL 2012 A7 i -� C, a ic, APRIL 2-6 SPRING CAMP WAS HELD with 28 children and 1 counselor. Children enjoyed a day of swimming at the GG Aquatic pool and games from the Game Guys. Expenses: $850.00 Revenue $1247.20 APRIL 6 FAMILYMOVIE NIGHT "HOP ". Due to weather this was moved indoors with 50 adults and children enjoying the movie. Popcorn and soda was sold. Revenpe;,> $22:00 Next movie "mil± BOUGHT A ZOO" June 81". APRIL 14 FALL VPK REGISTRATION OPENED. 11 students registered. COMMUNITY YARD SALE APRIL 27 AMERICAN CANCER -RELAY FOR I EFE" MAY 20 12 MAY S NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER MAY 25TR 5K FUN RUN & SAFETY FAIR If you know Grandparents that care for their grandchildren please have them contact us as there is a grant to help them with summer camp tuition 0;� a � � � s 1612 A vx 4 CURRENT REPORT fZ �. I-[-O [-MC m U)C OMC C x- 161N1- N r- OO6il Ln O[� N, r- OC Nl- V�C[-[ -61 MNMOD Ln I0MO010 M IO C Ln r- C CC LnLn Ln r- r-u 061 rIMN M[- M61 H H H z U f - O OCC[1�M O OD l0 CD r- 1061 Ln 610 N OTC M Ln OC N Ln [-- O -1 r- i' O O O to 0.7 000 OOOJ N OO l061�00 V O IpIOCCCCCO[- OIOM000r IWOOCOMI- OOO(z> LnOJC[- OO)C'[.f)000[ -IO 000 OOHI- I`0[ -NHMO m Ln Ln Ln CD W O M H O H N Ln,1 Ln* N M O C�CHM M O IO H 00 Ifl OD, O N IO C(D O H M 000 CD Ln U)610M H O N0 W l-[ -[-[- H N O H I- H N OD H M N[- 61H M Ln (N H co OD r- CC IOH U) cc) N 000 co N Ln00 COI- LOH000OMN0 H MM ID ION H N w C ODM[ -N LnH NC O ON NN 6I M N M O N N 61 M IO 10[- CLnO HLn OD Q0 M Ln CC Hr C7 �CHH[- Ln Ln�NN HCN M IO OO Ln LnN CD LnHLnCD H[- C) Ln H H N H H MMNNN H Ln HIOM C .-i1 -1 N H z NNHH a'Nr1 H W Q N a H O o -V C7 N H M C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ONO OOlfllfl Ln M O NC O MC O W H U) M CD N 0 W � Ln OC M Ln[- M C OOOH 00 (D 0 NNO CIOU)0[- ,-..0 W IO Ln Ln Ln C 00 N O1C IOH O HHH TOMr- M M 0 LnHCI- OLn[no 001- 00 000 LUNM NHH[l- H Ln H M OH lO IOCCOI oC H CO*[- Lf) OHIO 0010 00N Ifl 1fl 4 I0000061 00 OM CCO IOCOrN 4J m01NN 0 NOOD N N[- HNM[ -N HHMN[ - LC) [ ODNCC NM0007NOC Ln C) CD Q0 NCOJ rINM[ -[- (," ODNHH[- HO[-M IO ION N IOC [-C OLn 01[�N[ -M04 I`M(N 6IM IO U) MIO IO IO H[- NC dl dl dl H yl El ­4 z [-[- H MCMHIOHtnNC H NOH tnH MODLnO H00 HO [-O N �n (d • ri r--I U cM C H H Ln N (N 0) lO IO Ln M H Ln dl H 61 M M A H U r-I ri C C N Ln N r-I N O U W H 0 W w w lfl OO 0 U) M Ln z IO IO IO IO IO N N W Q 00 O MN 61 M N a H H H Ln r H OD to 0 0 0 0 C ri V 0161 61 OD H (n 0 0O +) 4J 4JJ I4 V) v � a p1 [>3 W +J q H O 3 z H b U I I I I I I I I I I I I I WO,O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W O O O O O O O G O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (d•ri 0 HE-1 0) 01000 000000000 O 61oC0 O 0r- 1` mwCD -i 000000000000 00 t P a•JzH 0 [-[ -000 000000000 O f-o100 O IOMOO IO[ -O[- 000000000000 00 rIA NUZ [n ('1(h 00 000 MCMLn 000 N 11 O HIO[ -O M[-O 61[ -N[- 00 -1 OIOO HOC C Ln[- OD NOO N0 o f:: . . , . . � . , . . . . I . . . . . I . I . . . . . . . . I 0U) •rizx O) 0161 00 00 01 NOOICNN C[-IO Ln OD CC) [ -H C OODO H MC HHLn[ -61 HN N Ln OD HU '0X2 04 NNf`)M[- N NH NC I'D NOO O H N 0') -V WW COO x u1 toLnLnN H oLnN H Ln HUUW � .q >10 HWW-o 4J N CO H H f~ :1 ti .ri 0 0 0 (d 4J (1) U w Nzz I I I I I I I I I I I I [ •rl41 W q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 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 0 0 0 0 0 P O 41 Q A N 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w [daa 5 •ri VOO a) 00000 000000000 0 00 0 1- CUIOOO 000000000000 00 mU' (.spa 00000 0000000 CD C) O 00100 0 IOMOO IO I-oo 0000 o o o (D o C)oo 00 rI b NN 00000 MCOOLnO0o "10 O OIOr -O [- MI-O 61[ -N61 OOHOHOLno v,� LnI-N NOD 0 C) 4J r•IHN 0061 CO 0610NN C[-IO Ln ON[-H C 000 H M61 HH LnMM HN N Ln OD V MMMMr- N NH NC [-NOD [- HNN O OD N HC IO LO Ln Ln Ln N H O Ln N H C H 0 H 4 4J b z +M E- iwo�z� �z�a Z�H I1w P;USHr A- vW a� °xMg,,q aoa�E+" a� W oO x w zWWZUd )n zP4 UOO ova Hf� 4w0)x >i [� U u � P+z�m O%OPH N OOUHrIUJ O W HU' UHU]WOa H 0 H z "`��w OWI -IzU H HaP4 uJ Hf=IWz z U AH Az zdCP4(ZOW H H H -',�, 0� ' I-1 O ?+HHAO W H W �HU) WHO EAOH P+OZ U >+ HH U HH HWHUUJCgN WUJ 4 H ZMC)M 4UUHW P4 O WH O Op: OId �] HHFC�UI[aH) �]H O�U [�A HZi�WW .'L"HRi2H(Y(1�W[aW $�'C7[a 7C ACC7Pi �.J H HU+��W��CH H U] 1- iY4 +jH�[n p4E1HM t>;�H WAH UH (.3,'UJr1,' o4 P1 W �H N [H U OW +. Off+ lCY�UUH HHWH xO✓ J�[IaWPi +WHHOaW aOAUH(T�HWYW OWIaWHHU H0o[� �WHw a[P'�iQ .CU�WPW4X UME- 1ZHME "�'�C7] r��17>. p4GU)�0E- A--a�iCs[� 44 gAXU4 Ha4FMQUJW ZE HH C/) -x CQ F:. OI A7'i Pa /1�,WCq ,Fj�HGaHHOU (YiU.� �W Wt'+O Hp4 UJ P�iQ', .7."[�'�[� AHHOHHO�X�oWpJ +P+W IC7� r I U) (do WoolOOOOOCn[noo000000 <0000000000000H01�Vror- lorn[n0000000Ho H 0 41 WDbo, *mL-010o00V 61NOOOC X20000000000[ WOEIOOOriHr-MWOOH['f1OOMMO U (D 0 'O Z�HNV'NNNd'�0101Q161h' 101( r1[ ���OT�IOOOr♦ HciHr- IHODriHHFCNNNNN010101NC *)r1'N[�010101H +J HOzWi- 1HH[`-t L L t`L [ �L�L�rilO0101�u�NNNMd' OD6IHNNMff1V' 11' �N�PC 'd'd'd'd'01000H.- i.-- 1H.-iM H N HW��.IHa�[MCd'�NVV'ddto10101D[ x' Hri. irlHrirINNNNNNWC �1( f1C�1c0cf1c�1c�1c�1Vd�M��Ndc�Td O f-I .%1 b1 'dl �W-(+ 1MMMMMMMMMMMMMM[• 1: aJWtn[ n[ n[ ntntll[ ntntn[1 1[ ntnLC'), IOCOIOtOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOtO H I [d N V O 0 N G a0i a q� `� -� rib a� 0 U "o c3, NNl00 M MM 61N r1 0Ln O N [nr11-- I- [o [nN Ntol0I- O[- r-ILn0 61 2 ]A� 61N vmLoLn I-- 0 V�10 l0 11 O r-I MLnlO� OM Mr-1 l0 MOl i I I IO -�wOLn 00001 - 0x-100 O O (D O lO O C) 10000 -1 I I 1 I I 00- 100000000 -10. -1 a'O 1-I co O H 000000010w I I 000 LoIOOMOto00000NO00000MO00 10000tn OOLn OOOOOl- 00Nom -cm 0tOI0(DLn00000 0 N[-OV' .- 101OM00[�OOr�C LL)OOOOON,OOOODO Ln, 0061 00VLt C0c 0tOlOOL�N L,;0 CNOLn00001000,000 co, �' OC' OIOr- IMOOOOl- 00000L1'1 POOOOC,00Ln tn0lO [-000OOION[- O[o(-OLo01000000N" vOD m NM[nt -V'M 0)0000. -i LO O O O O Ln O O Ln M 00[ -LnN [�OIOMUo Nto Otnto Ln Od'r101MN[n00 N M[� NOLf')G'r -I aD N�In V'r -IHNH Nd' NMa-I .- -1 .--I NNMM d>N N.-- INNr -1 Od�c-iN H N N HI- NNOO M 1-40 C) d' N O H O MONO M N 6110LnOlOMC' OOCO 00 MN 00I -LnO H NO 0110 H O 10 O 'C'O MO H r- lo .--I 1n N M19 C'C OO-Y' v Lna' 1D ONO N Ln Ln CO C7 L� 01 O LnI�OIO M 061 Ln4cC CNN[n0 ION 'I' 'T 6lO t0 N 10 Ol r- r- Coal I` 1n Ul T) MLn O l0 Ln l0 l0 TNr- 610)OD 6lI-61 61 l0N lO MO aI H OM Lo r- ko N M NMI-I- 10 'v C) r- t.0 V�[�Ln �T r- OJ 0 M l0 C I M O N N r 1 -I I r I N .--1 r-1 -1 N r-1 r I cM 01 M OD O a O O 0 610 O I- CO O Ln f O O O WO ON O co O O OwO Or-1 NH [- In r-I 0 O O N 1O 0l to O O O OJ 6l 4 1O O 4 OO 1- d'to 00 CO 0-W l0l0 N M O O 1O61M 0 L WLn N 00 cn l0 l0 w IV O l0 r1 r-I I-- O N I` Ol 61 M N to Ln I` Ln Ln M O r-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 O N O O O O O O C d� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl r-10 O O O O 01-1 - 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O --00 0 0 0 0 0 0 aD O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 OI- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ nOLn[ nd 'v'NOOOI- OOOOOr-10001ntnODONNO NN[oONwu-) c%j v Ln Hc) -wOtn0 00tntnOa'101 -mm lOinMMN�nr- lintl'Ir- I�I'MN�O[.[)�t'MNNr -I MOO O r-1 Mr1nM N d',' r1 `-i N r-I r-I H in N N 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 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Q 0 0 Cl LnOLnLo -w ,:rm0001- 00000r- IOOOIn1nNONNO NNInONwLn N- 'vLnr- IO-t'OInO cr-L )InOa'kqr -LoLn IO�nMMN�nr- Itn[o'- IV'MNlOiod'MNNr-i MOO O r-1 M1�1nM N � C, Lr d'; -C Or-INNr -I ir4r - ri r-1 N r-I r-I r-I ri Ln Ln z Z�OHm N HHN0MZH04� N aHC7 C4 H zW COFlHE- i%H70N w' wm r xx...z waNm A as wN z Hxp� zNHW HmUN�atzi x�Z [7Z m UH H HH OHU, WN U �HUpHN OW pm Z, HHH NH H fri 04 zz OZD WH m UwxxHr>y p4m a ���m� mF1 z x HAW P4 W WHH HOU`D mch H mpUWH pq mW H ��qq H U �HODMIOOWUa Py WOOC7gqz4mz Hm W400 W(Y Ng NUUA WOW HzzaHfQU R:FC O(� 9wz4HHW X U' OOMNM Ow OHHZN H HW %HH"1H Z HU (4 W H H m H w HH',Z0O 4 H C4124 xIm W W zWHHx mHHC7HU P4HCx mzWH(xUHp4tY,xxO W a� ();HHHm (x�O�OW MWHHm NataHF4zr,)UW WNN:4H,WzW WWU' AWH >IOOHHmgHamHOp UWUUZ,,xu)W 9HWzzz4u1oHHpaxHz WW UWHxHx U xWNZZOOP40P4 �DQZF-�9ZNNHO x PM EIS(xaaHP4M1(QAUN)9 GW�+ E -[Hain OAOwo u)OH 000OUxxUUa[NGWu x xuMWNMnO�;040 ' OOOOOOOOOriln�0[ �WO1000NO00000000LnO00000000000000000riNOlO00i�000 OOI�ONOOriODrir- Ir- It- iririNM�Nlnrirlr�[ �rilO[ �Or• iMMOlrir- lr- Ilf )ri(�lV"cir-iMHN-IN qMMMMH HW<OHM Md�r- I1010'- IN.-- IriMMM( �' 1MMMd' �NV�In�0101ririri0006101.-- 1N01O1'- 1c- Ir- INMd' InL�01O101016 161O1�- INME- +r-1ri01 (' lMd' C" V' tnln10101Dl0LDl0l000CDl0l0l01010l0tOL�C0006) 0101 61 61 rir- Irir -iNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN�I'�f'd'HMV'd' -V-1 ' d ' dl1P�N�rlzrizv .1 Kv[ lIZNlzrm nInmMLnIntotn1171nInl mMLoLoMmmU)mn '4kDw '. lfl lfl lD l0 lO CO lO l0 l0 l0 l0 lO lO l0 lD l0 l0 l0 CO l0 tD l0 1p l0 lO lD lO l0 lO lO lO l0 lD l0 lO lO l0 ID l0 l0 l0 lO lO l0 lO lO i0 t0 l0 tO l0 CO W ,"i, L� l� [� U H � p El -J o�� lfl N r-I mrn O --I O n H M O H N dl d) H 4-) 0-1 z (d rl H U AHU O U W H ,C7 J O N [� r I` O I` X O munD N H f. H I D( G da) w a� rd U -141 a) U a1Nv-odc0d.0 P-0 W W w o o kb 12T A7 'A ° O O M lO N O 10061 M O O 19 n z mNNO�'OM w 610000 Q . l4" §..mMOLn �nHONIOLn OlOOM ra mmf-Of BOO O i'IOIOCD C7 1a ..... mMrlt.C)61 r10 [-lO r10100 O 610000N1 lflHO O a-) 4J 4-) Pa � N '-I a aro 6161 vNO0 Ln r100m 41 4J O H O 3 zH O w1 V UA lO N 0 MMrI H O 'i 0 E EH N 4-) Z, H N rIA (dUZ C() OD OO�'a'N N NM OU) 1XSDI" (1) r-)0 V 2 x ol W 000 X H U U W lf)(f)MMr -d ri �y O r•i W W -0 1) N (d H H t~ O -H 0gFC ro :J u •rl00 O (d •I-) N U R Mzz �j rIWWrl P O 4-) Ca M N rl 4-)00 (1) r-I ri cA C7 t7 w' �ro O� U +� U O QI 0�0 J O N [� r I` O I` X O munD N H f. H I D( G da) w a� rd U -141 a) U a1Nv-odc0d.0 P-0 W W w o o kb 12T A7 'A ° O O M lO N O 10061 M O O 19 n O mNNO�'OM Md'�' 610000 00 . l4" §..mMOLn �nHONIOLn OlOOM O mmf-Of BOO riLO i'IOIOCD 00 1a ..... mMrlt.C)61 r10 [-lO r10100 O 610000N1 lflHO OmNO 00 ,.. NN0r1 010610 ct'ON m I- O 010 t.()�i,10 N0 MN10 m " M Lf� 00 6161 vNO0 Ln r100m O O�'O r- N C\] r- 1--i P-- 110f Ln OOH r N N NM m tS�l9O M rl•- -I lO N 0 MMrI H O 0NN r1 Lam' 0M OD OO�'a'N N NM r-I N100 m Hr-i Ln N Gom lf)(f)MMr -d ri 61NN I I I IV 0 a' O 10 rl 10 O r-I m I I I I I I I I I I I I I O OCID O Cl) 10 N 019061 M O O lO Ln I O ONNO V'OM I Ma'd' M I 00 Off' d'C) OOH Ln O %D 19MM0Ln �HON10un0100m O mm1- 0I-r10 --iLn I` O 100 OM m Ln H H OOM(nr -1 L� 61 ri0 r� 1O rI 0100--I Lf ) M0000N -- 10-10 4 (N* C OM 1� zzv- ML � rl:-iNN0 -1 010610 -t'ON MI- O M1O Ln '3'IONO (n m G) Ln CD Ln L p.Ommd' a'N00Ln H00m O 61z'O I-- NN O Lam' 0M OD OO�'a'N N NM r-I N100 m Hr-i Ln N Gom lf)(f)MMr -d ri 61NN N H M 0 v' H W(sjC a;P404E -i ) WHa U) � � mw afnl-H uw �Hr. PUWFHWU) z U)`(Y E"r - IOUZ U /� zy( I H PP4PP44(� (� JtIU xin C!) P�S+Uf7JiH w 00 P4 w Z z�oa In za Uoo o HGa 4rA(nM 5i U 7'. ayi aZ�U) OP40HH N OOUHrItn O W r7Ht7UHcnW Oc7 H t7 H z'�a >a OWHzU H HP4P4 U) HGaWZ�Q Z U AH �Z ZX%940W WWH H H��O UH O �APHAO a H U) �GHU) :7HU�4 -E a02 Z U OroHa UHH�ra HWHUU)(Y�[xa�j IY WU) R1 H Z�nt)CAW HIUUHHW a0 OaWH A(� �C Cl) H O 3Ci l A HZ�t- �".,HP4 %E-i�aW�l ,G� 4 pC x[�v0P5 HU1 -��A; A; �CHWWWH U) as (n aHHaa� �H �a �7 Hr� UHP; 04 w 4 PYN:D 9H U OWF O�"F7P4UU1 -i HHWH x >7Vr1WP4��""WHHO WW aOAUHGgHW?CW�ow4wpHU �WH0. 4P40.xUWP4 UU)HZHU)t� U ((qqx pWUHr-a�G+ X W Q�ut.4 P44FIWMW UH O' WWWWNWWa �cZZOf� WW Ri9CH WWWOWWaaWHO«aHHNE -4 HOH OWWW00�7 [xi �,s� I q�Ca�P4 u) �HG ZZHd -Q"' xWEIOOHP4 U)P4 �Gxr1 ,'� 7AHHOHHO�I $.�H 'HUHaaW (90 W =Oowoo00mmm0000 X 000000000000 1Oti l- OHOMLn000000OHO .1.1 WDOO'PM(--010000d'O)NO Wz OOOOOOOOOLo IDOIIOOO 1'jL MWOO�AmOOLf mo O Dz';r-INd'NNN�N0101616161m61 MZO'( DOD -1 IririH iCOr'ic --il 04NNN040)M 1NM�1Nl M())0)r -i -4cD rlH - IL�r,r-r- �L`I`[ -[-HW zU1NNNmdT 0001 r- iNNMMd ' Cl, �*lV'd�d"d'd'01000rlr- rig -ir-1M �W >.:�,- {r- {d,��d,�d'V' V' C' -Vww WP;,rir - Hr-i -i.- HNNNNNN:= 7MmmMMmmMC'V''I' zvKvTV Z:pol 1' d� >wr)(mcnm(nmm(mMmmMMCnM a,a mun( nln( n(nln(n(nln(n(n(n�kDtD w1D1DkowW� O1DkD1O1O1D1D1D1D >~rw a (d Ln (x i i< i< 0 d'l0 a' M N M Ln O 0161 0') (Y) M N M MN M Ln m Ln H H W 0 0 O F- t` LC) r1 N H M 0 v' H W(sjC a;P404E -i ) WHa U) � � mw afnl-H uw �Hr. PUWFHWU) z U)`(Y E"r - IOUZ U /� zy( I H PP4PP44(� (� JtIU xin C!) P�S+Uf7JiH w 00 P4 w Z z�oa In za Uoo o HGa 4rA(nM 5i U 7'. ayi aZ�U) OP40HH N OOUHrItn O W r7Ht7UHcnW Oc7 H t7 H z'�a >a OWHzU H HP4P4 U) HGaWZ�Q Z U AH �Z ZX%940W WWH H H��O UH O �APHAO a H U) �GHU) :7HU�4 -E a02 Z U OroHa UHH�ra HWHUU)(Y�[xa�j IY WU) R1 H Z�nt)CAW HIUUHHW a0 OaWH A(� �C Cl) H O 3Ci l A HZ�t- �".,HP4 %E-i�aW�l ,G� 4 pC x[�v0P5 HU1 -��A; A; �CHWWWH U) as (n aHHaa� �H �a �7 Hr� UHP; 04 w 4 PYN:D 9H U OWF O�"F7P4UU1 -i HHWH x >7Vr1WP4��""WHHO WW aOAUHGgHW?CW�ow4wpHU �WH0. 4P40.xUWP4 UU)HZHU)t� U ((qqx pWUHr-a�G+ X W Q�ut.4 P44FIWMW UH O' WWWWNWWa �cZZOf� WW Ri9CH WWWOWWaaWHO«aHHNE -4 HOH OWWW00�7 [xi �,s� I q�Ca�P4 u) �HG ZZHd -Q"' xWEIOOHP4 U)P4 �Gxr1 ,'� 7AHHOHHO�I $.�H 'HUHaaW (90 W =Oowoo00mmm0000 X 000000000000 1Oti l- OHOMLn000000OHO .1.1 WDOO'PM(--010000d'O)NO Wz OOOOOOOOOLo IDOIIOOO 1'jL MWOO�AmOOLf mo O Dz';r-INd'NNN�N0101616161m61 MZO'( DOD -1 IririH iCOr'ic --il 04NNN040)M 1NM�1Nl M())0)r -i -4cD rlH - IL�r,r-r- �L`I`[ -[-HW zU1NNNmdT 0001 r- iNNMMd ' Cl, �*lV'd�d"d'd'01000rlr- rig -ir-1M �W >.:�,- {r- {d,��d,�d'V' V' C' -Vww WP;,rir - Hr-i -i.- HNNNNNN:= 7MmmMMmmMC'V''I' zvKvTV Z:pol 1' d� >wr)(mcnm(nmm(mMmmMMCnM a,a mun( nln( n(nln(n(nln(n(n(n�kDtD w1D1DkowW� O1DkD1O1O1D1D1D1D >~rw a (d Ln (x i i< i< -i I I O M I M I I CO O I O I N I t` I I OD O N I C. pp 00 OO O O co O lfl Or -I O CO co N al Ln lfl N O (-4 O a) lfl Ln r1 ch N N O N 61 m O —i w N M O CO N lfl Ol N a' Ln O 00 N O 6l N m I_ lq lfl 61 6l 1` I� N N NNO) t` Ln -I lfl Ln M N mot' N M ►2 a7 N N O ,-1'-I O M -- CO M I— Q0 m MLn 1-10 rl -W d' H N O O Om Lf) O M co O 1-- N I� co co co O (n Ol O O O m O 00 O O co O lfl I— Ln O O Ln O CO H Ln N 6l� lfl N O 6l N m ri M lq lfl 61 6l 1` I� N N M t` Ln -I lfl Ln M N mot' N N n N M M Lo r1 M N M N I I I co I O I Ln I O I O N I rl O dl —410 61[— H O m O O O co O N Ln O-;jl Ln Ol O Ln rl Ln O lfl l9 O O ON O O al co 101 — Nl0 M t` 00 d> 0 O M r Ln M Ln r-i M Cl) N H N r-i N N N N t� ) (n O . O O F4 30 z Z�OHU) WE-L UPHNOWX PH a Hf=Lr7HU C4 HWZW WF4HEi(YiH'D z 0W E-1 U) >A� lz z WaaU) xO(�N HU)Ua��H u)(zwz U)U)�04 z�"�"w0UH H�E-LH OHU)am w2i warCU W�HU Ha 0WFG aH HpP�4(� U� zz o�WH UaxHr•C P4�n ra 'a ww m XHG z x aH�W p; W WHHEHOU� U)C7 H U)�UGuH �Pq U) W HW�� ZQ00 >-I WC)Fl Ha WOOC7q z U�ZUHw f�r�C70 pq (� P4 IX NUUC9 F WOW Hzza1�Hm (Y,r.� %W (ZWzL�HHW x UL OQzz�aNr 7-� W OW OHHza�yH W E1W f4HHYH Z HU N N H H U) H Wz HHz0x., � H IxgH R W(M W wq OZWHHx U)HHC7Hu PxPf4 WZWH9UHp4r4xxo WUR:� IYiHHE -LUl (YL> OU)t4 U)WHE -iU) 04NFlHLazUUW M04 HHgwzw NNOQWH >- 1OOEiHwQHr7U)HOaUWUUZ"4U)MI A4OW g HZZ�cnOHH(Y,xHza(� UWE -ixHx U XNNZZO0W0(x �QZXaxWWHO x,1aHx LY �r,�NgP(ZH �ME NOHHaaWOw�OWH0M- 444o�HEIXOH H� �a4HC14MMM9 w H OJ200aO U)a UooUXXUUaww x �:u OWNNMQO'3Ha0 I OOOOOOOOOr- il.(1 lOt�C001000NO00000000LC1000000000000000000�- iN01000r;000 OOC- ONOOHODHHHHHHNmKVmHHHhHLO I�OHMMOIHHHmHMC 'HHOIHNHN- 40)0)m0)HHl0Fl; OH O) MV HCDWHNHHMMMMMMM.c V V*Mtl-MMIIHH000MMHNMMHHHNMd ME-- MO)0)0)0101HNM! �HHOI MMd V �! LnLlllOIOIOIOtOI a101 fl10101OIOIO����00�����HHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNd d t -+Md d -.1 KT KT-<14 'ci•IIIKV (' TP v z' cr 'IT V' cpd' MLr) mu) LoMLnLnLoLomLn LoLn Lc) LoLntnLnLnLnCI:W01010 101 OtOV. l0l9l fll 4l0l010101 fl10t fll0l 4l fll fll0l fll0l fll fll fll0l fll0l fll0l fll0l fltol 4l 4l fll0l 4l 4l Al0l0 lfllfll0lfl<Dl4l0lfl<0<D= 1;I`rL- c, z co (MMtn anO C c"I lOr[�O O OMlliM to �'C ■ irk" I L CO A7 r- •V� 00 H 1 (vj' z U � I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I x 1010616110 lfl �- 10011000Cl) 61 ONO to ri Q0 MO CDr-MM000 T 000000M000061 000 0 wl000N Or- IOOLnm(D 1tnN OMO1- Ot-OMC CD-i Q0 M000H OOO OOO Co (D OOO to 000 0000r 0000NNtn r-irN Of�c C4c - ION' -1 C061[�N X100 V*l 0000000(::; *( i 000 W 101O00N to (D C) N101OH to 61 Ori nAo m cD r 6161 10NN611Or ON 000000 N 000 CD OON 61H1n 610r MMN 061r NN m cD-i -I to 6lvC to r-�w Nl-l- C7 r-IH (Z) C) a.O rO61rH HMtoH HNM O Or61 i M o rl 1 nMr N N i H JJ lf) u7 ri -1 1- N r-I .--I N M 10 O [- f- r-I N rA O WM M In an N r-I 00 o N H M H C] r-1 O , �\ o to cD vi N r1 0 0 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Nano MMHriO 1061 MOOl00r -I ONOC61�OM0 MNM ac) (� [� r-I l�r-I \ ••O .-i �-- 101611- ON �NOO an f- OMCDOMNOM1O NMM O N 1-1 O ri 01 0 N M OH Co 00 In 1n N* 001 I:O d'1�N ON 61 O r-IM •✓J NNan an r-1 0 rMMNOO 0,A r1 N CD lo M 610 Oaf) Ol r H r NN G', r- r110 Do I M O10HNOH an0 M0N 061 MN0 61 to M ran v a1 a) E-+ a-1 f�•rl z 0161NNN r Ntn NO0 M H r N lO (d • rl H U ri r-1 N N N H N AHU � O U W H M O M61 O O O 00 H 0 N O z W H r-1 r 6; an N co, 1O Q 016, 61 61 0 lO rlan a M) M 10 M 61 M N O C7 M cYa (r; l0 6i M o O 0 0 0 a 4) H a aro W 4J 0 Ea o O WI III IIIIIIIII I V UA 1016000 000000000 0 16000 O o00 0000 000000000000 000 rH-1 fI � l 00 OD 000 OOOO OOOOO O N000 O OOO 0000 O000o 0000000 000 fd•ri OHH m0 o Co 0000CD,C 0 0 61000 o mrr oo*1 O 000000000000 000 •d H 4-)zH N r- r- OOO 000000000 O x0100 O lO() N lOrOO 000000000000 000 '1A (aUZ G 0)NNNO MONan OOON1O O lO lOrO r r- CD 61r N61 00 H O H O to O 00 Lc) r O0 NNtn 00) •r1Xx N dtCN0061 N0610NN 0rlO an MNa - r-i IZZI, OOOO r1 M61 '--I r-1 LC) (y) 61 r-IN N an 00l0 rlU iS X:2 04 dtOMMr N NH N0 NNN r r1NN O N N rI0 l0 N (Q 900 k In an an an N H (D a[') (N H HUUW >( O r-i W W -0 4-) W (d H E-I 1~ La •ri U FC < ro Fi • rl (D u o(d 4-) 0) U¢ U)zz I I I I I I I I I I I I I •r1W W G' 0C) O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 (D O O N O 41 C) M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 a)U (daa 5 . .. . .. . . •rl 4-)00 ( 00000 000000000 O C; C O Nrr CC) 1000 000000000000 000 HH Ul0u P' 00000 000000000 O 00100 O 10MN lOrOO 000000000000 OOO HO (a NNNNO M0Nan 000N1O O OIOrO r Mr0 61rN61 NHOr -10 ao 000ln rN NNan U 4-1 Hr-INN d> 00 0610NN 0x10 to ONr__ -4 V ONO -4 MM r-1. -ItnMM riN N an OD 110 U MMMMr N NH N0 rNOO r HN N (D co N 1-i 'IT lO a' In Lr) an to N H O an N r-i O ri 4 b1'�jj WW a1� - -- Z vap;GY,HWOUZ� U7FC �+Ji a MH P4MH W Uri H4 OHUW A UWU) 9 w W oo x w zrM6P49 in zC4 9 caioox0%% HHr3 F wWmm �o H U Ua �i Nz w O OHH N OOUHaM O .HC�UHWWOrI H 0 H zF�4N OWHzU H pp1m m 1 Hr=,Wz z U Ha)z ZzI:MVM �" H H,`�yO UH O S+HH�)0 Piro H UJ[� ,�GHU) WUFf4HHOH WOZ Zf� U >-a ­1 EH U HH-� HWHUUapgGiwj-iw WU)�t� Ni ZM 1 -40UHW NO Of A 111 qq a, UlaHAW H o liu r_A Hz�ar�WW xHa4z NwaWr� Z04 x�xwc�rz 4J H� HOU+jgFCQ> HW�W�]H U2 i-4P4 r4 L � an LLHHP4F :EN �,:HgUHa%Wfct (X P4 N FCHx N r U Cw O�4PZuuH HE -iWH�x 0> �IV F40W W H H 0 « AUHMHWXW�0WaWHHUUI r-ioor 'I WE�a a�x] xfU]w�x](� UU)HZk -iU) ,rCo] xiP4MCnUE-14U c w x0a Ha4F40M nw PQ ON r1- iU]-% -K CLFCAO A7GN�W[!)T��1',Hr�uHHOW .f�ULrtW OUHWOWW� PI H .''t�.PHOHHoo "PoHWWooIWP� C7 I C, :D MU woow0000mmw000000 <00000000000001-- iillir -O (DMOo000OOOHOO H 4J WnoOV'Mr 0100oo-�I61N000w�000000000O1nWoL ,OO IHr- MWooHMOOMMOO U al O ' JZr- iNV�NNN�P01016101(TMO1MhU)Or- HOOD.- I�- i,- Irlr- ir- i00r- Ir- lr- {a'NNNN01010tNMVtNl�016101rIM. a'I 4-) HO',ZWr-ir-I1- IL-L- L -r-r -[ hl- [-riWMM UNNNMV' N01 rANNMM' ,Vi�4 Vl610o0rir- iHHr4MM H N - 141,>HHi TP *VtV'cMVtcMVtVtVt101OlOEOW(4. iHlHiA r-iriNNNNNN:7MMMMMMM ZTV KV VV' ,PCVtzrcr. O f•I N 0 b(- >G7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MCr1R+ W In to an tll an Ln an In an an anLnLq Pi W CO 10101010 CO 1O 101010 kO W W 1O 1010 HI N � a P Narn� � a O aa)) N wri it W� U•0b� � t~•d i< i< U U)k00 (d0. k k (p rl a) .:y :J O 1•i K k k -k wNwwU0 ,31 ON O LC) 00 r1 �[ -6l N Ln ri 10 CD CD -116 CO N � C C l0 N lfl r-I N L� l0 l0 l0 M A 7 0 0 0 CDC) Cl 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 1- 4000000000000000000000 m U) (.0 -zv -zm 00 C) 0 C) r- 0 0 0 0 C) r-A co0L)M000Lo N0 NMO �r- 11.C)�r- ICMNIO�C'M NNE- -I MCA O I 001000000000000000 -zr 0000000 O0 N0000000Na00a00110a000010 . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . LOOiO000000�O0n0000C', 0000C') 00000 [- 0 M000000NMO000a0[- 00000LoM MNaNL -61i1)r- �'ri00-CZV0[o000u7LOO -A-zv Olz�r- N N ri r-I 00 11 M v1 0) O � O N 00 Ln O O Vp O O r- O 61 a) 00 N r- O O L O r� O O co M O O l0 N l0 W r4 NW L- Ol to L- r-I 0o -ZZV N � -1 LO r-I 10 O 1-1 O O 000 00 N LO O 1010 lf) 001 O O 000 O O L- 00 NN . O1 . . O 10 . O . O . C. . O O O . N . mot' . r-I C. . O I` . . r-I -i 0) NH O O 0 0 Q1 00 Ln N Or- Mo) Ol 0000 N L- Co [r) N I�N .-i [f) O Lo 1010 .-I N r-I M r-i M l0 G� lD lO rI N N 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 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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[.oLo -W IV w 0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 - IN0 Lot0M0NN0 Lf)MMN[n .-i u")[o �-1 �rM N10 u��rMNNri Moo O N r-I 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 0000000000000000000000000 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OLO LO cV d+0000t - 00000f -Im 01.o 1.o 00NN0 Lo MMNLO'- -I Lo Ln r-1 C' M N Io Lo -qp M N N r-1 MN O H r-i N H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 101O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6101. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) r- r; NNLo0N10u)NlzvLn 1-10 -W 0 to00I- LoLo0C,kor- H -4 1010 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 0 00000000000000000000000000 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( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO NNIOONIO[ONV,LOr -IOC C)LnOO1 -10L0O PWr-LnLn .-i M L- Lo M N -ZV N LO v 1-1 O O r-I N N -4 I'-I'A r-i 1-1 -1 Ln Ln '�t-CSZ 2 ZT� -H U] r4-p CDHHa0vS' lYi "'HTsat7FiC? H il- H "j1 HUOa 7- W H W Ul ' -i `..' '7-, ',Zi N,4 JS W F4 W Z `T-+ a H EA M U PT T P4 1a '.V) U) a(7z fAOUH H HH O71IMMI, `:' W Wa U �] Ei Ha W pm HH, W H H W U W zi z O U a H W U) h4 `a M cun) `,I..' .. H]W C4 W WHH HOUR WCh H W� DUW �q WNHW U; �oU�HCOaWaUa HHN �1 Wood z�aWZ HW WU' Ch C4 as WW Ha'HHxHmz HU 0W WN H�HHm H WzoHH,ZOMP� O °aaHa pi W W zWHHx U)HHC9HU p,Hp', u�zWH(1;UHp4xx0 WUt4 (YHHHUi J 0ulC4, WHHU2 124 lta"fgziUUW WW'?iMH4WZW WWC70N "'0PPMnPF4WHOUwur- )z'�.`r+tAWW r4oW', HzWzWaiwoHHf4wHz WW UWHxHx U xWazooIYoflWi DQzaxWWHo x� Hx! fYIaHaCAWNwP�W ��WW124 QW O f/�F1� ()ooUXUUNWfsi x X oWWWWQ�, NO oo 000000r itn10t�COOl000NO00000000t 170000000000000000x- iN01000i -7000' 1010'- INri.- IMMMMMMMV�V�V�IO[ X0161.- i�- 1.- 10000101riN01riti.- iNMV' tf)1�010161616161riN(�')c -�r-i, -161` d'cP Ln Ln to w w lolo to koko to to w to l0 to to to L- 00000) 0) 0) 010)r -I.-i H N N N N N N N N N N N N N NCP V* -4 !.M d'-1, �r���v -r'31 ;r'T'T 'raK* 'T -1IM r�� - VKIK* -1 vLnLnLoLnLnLoLnlnLnLr )LnU)LnLnur)InLoLnLn rL4WkO o: ao to to l0 1610 to to to to to In to to to to co to to to to to to to to to co lfl to to to tri cD to to to to to to to to lfl to la to to to lc1 . �` . r r' -x 7 rir -1l0l0 v 61HOmMz'riLnO O m61r -1I_ N 1-1 CD l�� / Ova �6l MMNNM Nrl riNrlN H N H ri r rI 1-,6 ' r [� 61 CO H z U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tnLClCcTri ONOO[�0061000 ONOIdI�+LnOl-lnln O.N.0001n OOOOOOMOOONN 0010 O r,r - Ln LnM r-I OOO Lni3O L9 Ln lfl OM 6IN I-- I`OL - ri l- OMNL -00061 0000000000061 H N O O Ln 016161610 61000 Ln N 610 I- 100 Ln I� 61 O1 O 100 N 100 00 r�O1N 0010001 00000 0C C0 [�r-I BOOM W Ln Ln NNr-I 0 10 61 -4 10 -A v -I Lf) l0 1.r- IOM100M lOCM1010 f-ON OOO U-) CT O N O 00 N M r- 10061 r1-icoco 10 u-) Hf- NMI -HO1M CcM 61M(D 61 -iLn Mu)cD-i m 1 -Nr-I cor-10 Ln 61 Ln O1 cr v Ln 100 N1-10 C7 .Ir 1[�I`M I`O61 I`OH MN r- C OOH r-1 Ln C) Ln CO -I r-i MO Hr-1 U)10N N N ri H [� L- 6161 co ('\J ri r-I N ri w 1. Ln w -i N H O Lf) N Ln z M M M M r-1 H r- lT N .--I N W Cl N �l ri O O r-I (7 N O v' It7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U-) CD 01. 101661 N 61 d' w U-) O I_ In u-) 11 071 co CD r- I- OOCV, 61r- .. (D [- W Hr-I OOC100MU-) M 0 MMNNN0r -MI- 10[-I� Ol ON r-I 061N LnH CDH 01610061 O1 -iOLn I-OC N 0I Ln r� OI I�ONMO O1 I:1. O 001 Cl NLn L.C) r-i 00 11 MMI -1_00 a1� CTJM61Ln�� Mr-I r- IOInI -l601M O��.o N LnV� I` r- OH r- (Y) r.. Ln Ln 6101M r- (N N10N 00 NN Ln� LnNI- Hri r-i Ori N U)10 w U-) '' a) a) a) H 4-) 0 -ri z OOOOLn L`ri vOl ri 00M r-I Ol MNri M w 10 r-1 QHU U NN��0) N 10 'r M -1 Ln ri r-1 O U W H F U M M M I- M M M O m G N z W OCD O 6l O N COO (� m 00 00 O H N 1. w Or•1 r-i ri Ln M C7 M M M l0 N (Y O C 4-) Lr) LO LO N M Ln I-I O 00 r 1 r-1 ri ri O +L 4-)4-) a v ri W .0 H O a Z O WI 111 111111111 1 TS U ti 1010000 000000000 0 10000 0 000 0000 000OOOOOOOOO 000 r♦ ao CC) oo0 000000000 O co 000 0 000 0000 OOOOOOOOOOOO Ooo r-1 u >+ cn . . . . . . . . . . (d ­4 OHH Q1 Ol'000 000000000 o CI O CO [-�I� 01600 00000000 0000 000 V u 4-LzH (1) 1-1 000 000000000 O I-0 100 O 16M00 101 -00 000000000000 000 iiQ UUz G 00 1.00000 MCCOLnOOONL9 O 1010[ -O I` LMI- O OII-NM 00r-LOHCD LnO� �LnI -O NCoLn OU] •rlXX 4J d' ;1, 00 CO 61 000O1CNNV 1-10 Ln MNt- -A -ZZV 0m0 r-1 Mm r-1r4 LnMM r-IN N Ln 0010 r1U 'dxx Q. v-tI'MM L- N Nr-i 1.d' ONO L__ -1NN O c0 N r-1C l0 44 r. 00 x Ln Ln Ln LnN r-i (D Lf)N ri HUUG] ?I O ri W W -o 1� U) Id H H r G •rl U Q FC Id 0 N ri (7 0 0M 4-) (1) U p.I U1zz � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i rIWWC 00000 00000000. O o00o O 000 0000 000000000000 000 NO -P0C21 N O0000 000000000 0 0000 0 000 0000 000000000000 000 vU roaan ... ...... ... ...... .... •rl +100 N 00000 000000000 O oo<ro O co r�r� co lfl00 CD CD O O O O O O O O C) CD 000 H U1uup 00000 000000000 0 OO1Q0 O WMCO 101 -00 0000oo0OO000 000 r-I Id NN CO 000 MV 00 Ln OOONw O 0101-0 I` MI -O 611 -N61 1.r -IOr -I O LnO3, cr Ln r, cc) NOO Ln U 41 r-I r-I co co 61 00 O M cT N N V I- W Ln O m I- ri Vv O 00 O .-I M M r-I r-I Ln M M r-I N N Ln 0010 0 MMMMI- N Nr-I NV' I-NCC) r- riNN O 00 N e-i v w 4 LO Ln Ln LnN H OLn(\j H O H V V a) J z rf 00 HW0UZW 'uz'TMH � tI" Zai�3aiQ�U� f-l10) :4 �uW]FQfxUI4>'E -1 0 WW zi U O O O H CT4 4 W U) w '�i U Ua >JI NZ�w 0N0E -IH N OOUHrIio O F4El0UE-1 U)W 0i-a H t4 H �aµ�ryN OWHZU H HN' U) HNwz z U H Qz zxaiZ WH H 2 H> >0�0H O �LHH;DO W sWH U] ,NHCQ WU�r�HHOH NO Z U O op4 iE UHHEA UIFW-71P0wmAN U �A�Hz� H zUjc W LaUUHW NO OfxWH r� AC� WW XHLYiZ,MNWI -a W[� ;t7rl ]C :3N0Px d•) ri HU+)g Q,QXHWWWH U1 I-aN' cH +`H2) {Y.HHN'a E-I alHguH1Y,(Y�w 124 � Hx N t� U Ow O r7aUUH HHWH ';0 >8'q -1WR: WHHO W �QUHGQHWaf,W,�OWr-aWHE4-4 UU] IOOI� 'WPol�-apW; xWUWfYi 0WE- iZ,fH�UIE C7 �. p UU)QEAI��1�Gi >C [ra xUIa�HElt1aU]U)W N r- 1CO-K -K CLIr1 �OUWNPW4E C4U)�4Hf4NHHZ OUaU� W OOHf�iU]L��C:44 HH0HH0a4XE-IXEPUEW10NNOw ri U) cn N Q MCD WOOW(DOOOMLn00000000 < 0000000000000 "rl-oHomm0000000rioo H 0 4 4170oVlmL- 010000cp01N000WZOOOOOOOOOOL .OWO[ oo,- qHr- mwoo.-1mooUjmoo. U a) O ' J' �riNCNNNcI' 0101010101MO1MhcnOrilONriririririr- iODrir-i r-{^ y 'NNNN016101NCY1d'NC�610101riM'. a' 4-1 H(DZ, Z4 - IrirIL- L- L-I- C- l- I- r-r- ri1061M Cf7 NNNMV'MMjNNMM�r 'T cMlzvd'dlm0000ri.- Iririr-iMM. H u r-qW>riri'c1.V'Vc*V'V jcPVJj10101010'7R r-I HH r-I r-IHriNN(N NNN mMmmm mm"CpR*�*vvV*vv-ZIP O II u 0) 10r- >WMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M Mn,C LO Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LO W L.O W 1fl 1010161010101010 W W kD W 10 �� N -Pr. N NLLnWY Wa a ai N u ri a) B c� U)��rob m rA a1:j ou >+ N N N g U 0 — -- -- - - - -- IT O N lO 00 N 00 CO M -4 M ri 16 12 A7 4 Ln 00 L- Ln r-- M Ln m L- lfl l0 .-1 O O N r I V' lfl N L9 f-I N I-- N l4 w r- M w -1 I OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO V'00L000000 OOOO. L000000000000L- 006100000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OOOCOL�OOOOOOOOOONri000000000 0000 '- iM0000000000eMO00L.C)00000 (Y)U)10-1r000000L -00000001- OL.f). -im0Ln No I (Dom OOOOOOOLn0000000 moo 00000 OOr- I0000NOONOMO0l001000000010 LnOLn000000LnMO000I-OLf )00000000 r O Ln O 000 V• O N r- O L900 N O L- 00000 LnO M N N N 1` d>u")IO Cy r- 161000 Ln 000 N L.c) Ln OC W r-I V M LC) r-I N r-I N N LLj V' dl B O N N r-I r--I O M rO(D 0 l O o L- O N 00 U) N LnOHV' p O p CO O H M H L,o N V' l0 O O w O O N (n Ln M �10 00 00 00 Ln O O O O O O 1fl 61 O N O L- M M L.0 0) N Lf) N O O Ln O N N M 1` lqw r- O Ln N co N V' ri N r-I Cl) V' r-I M O Ln ri ri M N N Ol N MN 0 0 O O 000 O NO Lf) d>� lfllp j O o 0 0 (D L,O 0 0 l- rr) (D N N lfl <fl Ln O O O O 61 V' O ri O 61 r.{ r-A l0 O lD O O O O Ln Ln O N N O 6161 N [� O Ul N V' rq O Ln lO 01 l0 lO r-I M N N 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 0000000000000000000000000 . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co O O 0 L In 00000L- 000(D 0. -iM 0 L LO MC)NN0 LnMMNL .C)r- ILnLnr- iV�MNIOLl�VMNNr -I M00 O 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 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 CD LO t.f)V'V'00000L -00000 r-IM CD LO Ln mCD NNO LnMMNLnr- ILnLnr- IV'MNIOtnV'MNNr -I MO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . C. . . . C. . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0161 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1` r- (N NLnONWLnNV'LC)HO w0u000[- LOLnO'IT wr- -Ir-I r-i Ln Ln H r-1 H l0 l0 O O O O O O O O O O 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O.O NNLn(D Nl0U)N V'L.f)riO VV0u0001- Lf)Ln0"VWL-Lntn Ln In O Z Z, D O" M W EA C� H H P, 0 U) 04`° rmM a H P4 v4 H 0 H i�'X-R -r) Z'S Ri � WHwu2 >+xz z waafn 5C W a H zaH Hf/)Ua�H mpa Lv�cn aC7z tnOUH H HH OHW04 HU7H134 5fn z HHH H H [Y. U� zz O�WH U) wg a� w u2 H z x aH'�7W Pi W WHH HOU�7 fn C9 H t�'ppqq U]WHW�� r�Cl X�0U>A00wuF4 Ha � WOOO Z�WZUHw fT40 awa (%�� a aUUra� wowzzzzHzz HajU (Y,� O RiwzA C7ozzRCaw R, o70HHza7iE1 W HW (YHHYH z HU IY, Wa H H c/) ,H Wz HHzOx (rJ x� (Yp�H FT 9 Q+' W WAA wHHx fnHHC7HU 124 E-4 U]HHp UHaYxxO W aL aiHHEitn PI> -oulC4 WHHul aaaHazUUw wRI:H4wzw WW( ryAWH�iOHHU 1AHaUJHOUWUUZa4u�W�aOW HZL'.Z4U)0HHIx.11Hz WWd, U&aHxH� U xrX4NZ00g014 �7AZl�xWWH0 �',Fa E-1 X' �] wzx�OaH w w� Fq,4 444E �H�` HwOHaawoW o X( PF 440 EIE-, )H W 1- aHaQ�MM4 N H N OAOaO 4 UOOUXUUaww x ",F..OWPINMAOEDH,:;O. 0 OOOOOOOOriLf) l0(- 06) OOONOOOOOOOOOLn0000000000000000 ,-- IN01000� -1000 0 Ll- 0N00 1Or- iHri.- Ir1 r-1NMd'Lf)riH jr,r-110L -0Hmm m ririr - i Am v' iriOlrlN�- id'd>016)dlr♦r- 1LOQ,'OriOl ' V' ri101OriNririMMMMMMMcMd' V' L.C)[ �6101r- Iriri0000101rIN01r- IririNMd' L! )[`010161010101r- INC�E- ariri0l M�' �������0������O�OIDCOIOIOLOl�000J0101010101r�r1r -INNNNNNNNNNNNNN'r!' V'�i!F� Md'd'� d' 'd' CI' d' V' Cp cp C'J• d' V' CM c1' V� V' V' 'ct' V' CM d' �!' CM '� cp 'd' V' d' C I.f) U) Ln In Ln 0 Ln Ln LC) In u7 Ln In Lf) Lf) !n to Ln Ln LIj a O O l0 tDWkOCOlDWWWO DWIOIOCOIOtO101O�OCOIOWWWtOIOIOtOWWkoIOIOtOIDIOC WMLOIOIOI mMLOLOLOLOLOUlQ14 `NW J i i N H O r-1 N m N t1n 0 \ •• O V'NM O I~' a) a) a) d1 �•ri ro •r♦ r-I QHU 4J N O RI P4 G 3 O V H ri •�I A N r-1 U 47 Pa ?I O a-1 N G • ri � N Oro U R. N O a) U .ri O U-) O 4J H OI HI 2 rQ I U) W H z U O U W P (D z W Q a O U H z U O U W H C7 z W C) F4 0 C7 4J �� Ln W 4J P O Z E-+ U -Q N �+ U) °zH (1) muz ri) U c 1~ -1 X N 'OXZ O, GOO X HUUW HWW-0 Mpp G U r.G r.>r D •ri00 4J a) mzz �j -riwW G 4-)CaQ N roan 5 4-)00(1) U) (3 UIY. a) J V '�1 0 Q) w M O (D PZ 4-) ri N h riCD Or- 2 O M U-) D N r-i ri U) ix -K a) H N ro v4-) o >i a aa)i a rid U++u)Li vUIN�G�tCdG Ti al p p O m fr)MOOM a'MMtnLC)IOL - NL- I'll 1006161 M N CV Ln Ln L- r-1 r-iM NM'�'NN r-i MN r-1 -1 r-1 r--1 N N N .Ln T 2 rN-i 73, L- m N� .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O)61M Mr-I CD CO O OI- COO CIOM ONN Ntn co O r-I tnN OMB- Ir- IOOOL- OOOOO O CO OOON -1 r-100�0 Ln Ln NNln WNOCO to r-i 0 to N0 OMM MCIN ON �'W CD O1N GOON OOOOOOr -IO OOO1N lO 00Ln (N NNNL- N- -- 'tom00 -00w 9 u)r- mcD -NOL -M 10 co Lnl0L-- L0NO,�, OOOOOOLn000r�r�lOOOM Ln Lnmm Ln -i t- Ole- ir- INL - O[- OO m,--I tnlO Nr- ioQ Cw -m mN[ -00061 to 000 0[ -000N CO -i 0061 cnmLnLnr- Oru)mmC11I -imm Nom' MmLn61Nr -1 Mmwco 31 -)V O McoON61tnNCV•tol0-V Nr-w Lo Ln co op r- or) co to N r-i N OlO 41 CY) 0 riCD c) m w -i w Nci• stn to coN N N r-I r-1 O O l0 l0 L- r-I r-i N O L- N M w N r-1 L- -1 ri c*�LcgN r-1 10:TN (N V' ,V L - L - M CD NOOMN O IO ;;j'L- c) NN MIn NO r-1 LnN r-Mr•- 100CDM 00 ON (N 01) 'w -1 NI- NNL -hC IOL- ONCNOC[ -0l OM a) Ln o 'V ON Ln IO ('M ON000 11 00 0l0 N ON10 lO r1 1010 -r• C\j NM O1"I,1O- -c;r -IM(Y Lo r�(l to N ri O l- lO IO r-I O t�NCOM 00 000 V N6110 MO V C)O' r-iN ONCO L -Mm N r-i C) --I LnM V' O1 N to tn NM MC)Cq U) CD OM N r- (Y) r-1 -Z31 (N r-I r-I NNN Nk-ON1n0[l- OO("I N l--Q, ONN 001.r) McN'zVr -ICON m0 r-I O Ntn m M O 0 to r1 -1 N M r-1 W 0 Ln m r i Ln 0) to N 61 -1 1` 1-1 m M L- L- O '31 M O Ln r-1 N N v1 -A r1 N N N N r-1 r-i H .-I r I to co to N r LO Ln Ln N M 61 MN m M M N r-i N l0 l0 L` N L- to CO O N co N r 0 ri rn �r Lo Ln Ln M N I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1010oo0 000000000 0 lOCOO o 000 0000 000000000000 000 OD CO O o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O CO O o O. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)dlOCO 000000000 O 610 VSO 0 mrr mlfl CD* o OO0000000 CD, 00 000 t�1-.00CD 000000000 o I-o100 O IO MN Wr-00 000000000000 0(D 0 mMNNO MCNU)OOONlO O -AWr-0 r- ML -O mr- c\j v Nr- 1O10Ou)OC�wtn[ -N NNtfn (A 0)N OD 0') co o or) �wNNd•L -10 to NN[ - r-i ONO r-i Mcr r-I-A tn[-- 61 r1N N to co "o NNMML- N Nr-i CN IO N00 Ln to M Ln N r-I O to N r� 00000 oOOOOOOOO o 0000 O Ooo oOOO OoOOOOOOOOOO 000 OOOOO OOOOOOOOO O 0000 o 000 OOOO 0000oo000000 coo 00000 000000000 0 0040 o co r- 0 1000 000000000000 coo 00000 000000000 O 00100 O WMN WL -00 000000000000 000 N NN CC) O ('') d' N Ln o 00 N 10 O OWr-CD L- m1-0 611`(N (y) Nr-10 HOLn O,�TCu)L-N NODm r ,4cN Ncl Q70c1,NN�'[�10 Ln ONI�r -I V� 0000 ri ;( r-Ir -I Ln M01 r-IN N Ln Nl0 mMMMr- N Nr-I N.ZV L -NN L- r-INN O N N H- w c0 Ln Ln to Ln N r-I O L1') N r-i •-i Z U)aiP4HWOUZ� UZ< 'Z. H; U U00S P4z�W HOPONI U) O OHH Z N OWHZO H HP.41 > >O UH O >+HHtD 01 r-I E-+ U H HWHUCOM44 O rd HHA,'� W) - aH`,)f H HUJ- -I�F4W,''S'HWWH U) a-4 f4 Yi U OW O a UUH HHWE-1 ' �WE-�0.:�+!aV[ ]1:uwl�zZ UU)HZF -fC Up WF: .-Q UA7SN4( -YiM Wpf4HHum r-I CO MO woOWOOOOMLOWOOOOOC 4-1 W�DOOV Mr- MOOOO- prMNOOC O OZriNV NNNV 0)Ol0)OlO1MC)mC Hozw,- L.- Lr- Ir��r[�rr�r, -ilornc br�wmmmmcnmmmmmmmmMmn roLn a� N --I C9 MW P4V1HW W UW H4 OHUW A UWU7 -+ "4 LO zP4 U00x0��l�[P 4WU)x D-I N OOUHaU) O aHC7UHU)gWoo H 0 H M HG,Wz z U H �z ZXMP40 H H iW rA U) �CHU) !wU�yHHOH Noz� U LA RCW H z U fiWx] ODUHw No OG��iWH dU [lQ Hzp W xH�NZ(xNWa�j x; -4 x :I: h0 41 F-I Lo P4 H H P4 �P4 ;3H WH4U"p C4W4 r4N N RCH x' H4)> �(�a�Smp tW! UH4�Gufri> CAU�H (Y1�H,xUI- 1Lr��YOaaa4COU)iw`��' r4 C4 A�LYpgE -A0 ,U)arCxla,'�UHHOHHOra ',H 'HUHNNWEi. Cn a z <0000000000000H V"r0.- 4C)mm0000000Hoo Wz0000o000oomwaF- 00H r-I r,m w 00rim0Ommo0 U]O. -I IO CO ri ri ri.-I r�r10D, -Lr-I ,1�NNNNO)O)O1N mcP NL 0)c)O)r -{m zmNNNmV'wmHNNmmV1 V V V V V V MOOO IH ,- IH -4mm' Wf4riri,- I�-ir-Hr ANNNNNNWmmmmmmMdV"VTcVVV."rVzly wwMMMMMMMMMMMMMatototototototototototocototoWtoW X w O W v, O N r--I Ln CT l0 M 1-4 Ln oz) N Co M N Lo ri N lfl C N '-i I I O O O O O O O O O O O O (Do O O C O O t0 O O O O O 0000 LC) 0000000000010006100000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O w r O O O O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 C N O O N 0 0 0 O O OOOOr- iOJLn 000r00000NM00000000 M Ln lO -tv lO M 000 N O 0000 Ln r-IO MOOO Lo N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . NMO MlO Ln L[')r- IrMNtO t1")a�NNNr -I MC H co OLn r- r- N L()co 6l l0 r1 OO LnN l0 r1Nlfl� N ON l0 lDt` rM I I 00610000000100x0000610000000 C . C. O C. 00N00,ON00 000D00000010 . . . . . C. . . . . C. . . . . . C. . . C. C. . Lo0VL000OOOLn 01C;r-1OOrOCN000OOOCO r0M0000-C CD Nr-I 06100LnON000(D LC)LnM M N rl N r 61 L.() 10 C 610 COO Ln OOr-i Ln Ln O CL ri r-I-v M O r cc) 00 010 10 O HCD CL0 V1 Nt0 M Lo Or -161 00 Ql rl riLnO OM Ol O r-10MC) O ra0 r NCL O r-I C) CD lfl OONO lOr co to Ln Ln MtD O C; 0 O NNd'CO 00 r Ln M r1 Ln -1110 Ln N t0 r O t0 r-I W N O r VL r-i N N Ln cl' r M r Ilw Ln ,,o 31 O7 M N 10 r r-1 CL GL Ln C' r-I 6161 Ln r-I N N O M N O O O 010 0 10 0 0 Lo 61 0 O 10 10 r-I 0700 O O O 000 r NM r 61r O NN M 6l —4 L1') O O Ln l4 r-i dl .--I to l0 O r-I r-I N 10 Ln x Ln O N 1-1 M VL 10 Ln N 00 61 M 6161 N O 10 61 M x U) CO M 1w r Ln O W 1010 N N 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 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 OLoLn w rwc)00r00000r-i000LnLnOONNO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LoMMNLnr -1 Ln Lo r-I a�MNIO Ln crMNNr -I MN O . ri r-I N ri 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 OOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000 O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0Lo0I;r v N000rO00001-m0LoLoM(DNN0 LoMMNLn.- iLoLor- I�MN10Ln�MNNr -i (Y) OD O r-I ri N Ii O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6161 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r NNLoCD N10LnN -TU) -IO-q�OLnOOrLnLnO--vlOrr -i.-i r-I ri r-i l0 l0 I OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI OOOOO00000O000oo0000000000! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NNLo0NWLoNcvu -) - IOcrOLo0OrLoLnOqplOrLnLo -. rl MrLnM N CLN U7�riOOr -INNr� r-Ir -I r-I r-1 ri r-i Ln Lo U) P40 WU2 z ZZW0HW1a -i W ��UW H aiUjrH�Ua1i'��U1��O�D zHpC a'aW Pi WW HOU;7 U)U H Uf=i p'Lpq U)WHW U UOU?LC7C9WULa Ha W000QZ <mZ Hut f=LC9(,9a PQ Q a OHUC�Pa(�� WOW Hzz HGgUL fYia O r4wz� 7� gL z aa ��11 HHW UOZZ�aW, aO OHHza H HW �(YZM z HU R;ZWa H H UC H Wz HHzOxL� HHZ W W gzWHHx u]HH6HU v4pl% wziWH9UHtYi.'1 X0 WUP4 C4HHHU] R;>12MIX CHEIU) atal�HFgzUUW WW>LxH Wzw WW HQWHp-IOHHWoPoWHOUWUUZxc ow fxfxaHa��vai� fW Ca�LGau OQOWO c/�L7�000OUHOOWGOWL7"x0A" E -1aa�o E pH X GIw owwaCQ LO H40. o 00000OOr -imn or- 06 1000NO00000000LO000000000000000OHN M000 - -7000 rONOOritbHricirlr iriNMd tnr 1rlr lrritOrOrLMM6lrirlrlriMV Hr- iMH(,4r-i- vMm6161.--1Hi D<'Or- M rAWkDHN.-HMMMMMMMVLCM�' Mr —MMr- IHH000MMHN61riHHNM,;Z'Mr,M 161MM0)HNfr1[,r-iHM cM�P "'W MM WtOWWCDtO101010"W`I)'I)WWr OWWI01 MMIx-ir-"NNNNNNNNNNNNNNV'10 "000 �r Cry Kris.*,* m 0Ln M 0 Lo Lo In Lo M to m m Ln 0 m M Lo - 0.)-Ww10 to to to to to to to to to to to to t6 t6 to to t6 O to tD t6 to to to t6 t6 to tD to to to to t6 to to to to to to t6 tD to to to to to tn. r.>; r r r U A7 riryirr00 N r-Ar-MCr -161Un V� �'rirM N NN OOOOI 1 • Mco ' 1-1 MMtntnr N r- IrM�rrNM ri �'MNM N NN UntnUnUo r/ map H i z U l I I I I 1 W to M M m r- (D H O O r 610 C 10 Un ON M m O �O Ur)rN ON6l tf)OOON 0000000�OO O CO (1) r-100(9 O 0) 01 to Lo Ln cc) Ln Un O 00 Ln 19000 r t.() (D M 0) IV to r-i 061 r 19 ON0161000M O O O O O O H O O O CO N 1900 to U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -11-4 to Ln lO NH rI.- Imo'- INUf)tf)NN to r C r6lMO t.f) to C0o 061 O O O O O O In O 00 H r 1900M W NN' -Ir-I to rq N Mr- IOMONmm 611 -1 Cl) Mm Mr 01N�.9 1919Mmmm C) v Ln O oOCOr CD CD 0 M M x-10061 E-+� rr0Or tnrCnMcD -iHNlfl NC rmHk.0Lnri MMMUn01M10M MN00061tom� NUnC Nr10 C7 MM000 1001001000 r-i x-161- MM00 NCn CD -q UnNO r-I -1 --i t.n Lo ooN N N rI i 1019 M M 10 ri ri 61 (n 10 O U.) ri N r-i Uo m ri NV WMMNN LC) MN r-I Q N �4 r1 O CD M C7 N O N U-) C) rrr r N r 196100 M -1019 Vt.n ONm p010 010MN m U.no OOC o0 061 N N(D r-i 1--10) ••o m m � � v' m Ln 'IV O N-V M O H Nom' OMm G'Unm 00)00 1fl x0010000) (D (D OM m riHW �r 01 c�N M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D -i NNa'V+MN-imm�mrUnG'HH Inr�r000Un�Ifl 190zo407019 00 0a) v 001919 C r 43 0tnMma'r- IN10omo110m Hr-1 or- IMMOMM61r19 rUommmoM Uno 019 N C)HH Nr 0 (3)m C\j r10Nf- immmmm r-�r rr I'D M Uo Ln MrLn O1M190 -i,m mUn -i H- w CC) Ln N N N H 4-) • rl 'Z In to m m m r-i r-1 m M N r r-i 11w'r 01 00 01 r a' N O r-I O 10 co al r-i r-I N ili • r♦ r-{ U ,--1 H O o -1 1-1 to N 10 r H to <0 N AHU MMN Mr1 H 0 U W H C7 V V+ m r r rn to 0) 01 m 19 l0 lfl Un c z . W V c M 19 x Q 0 0 o ri 01 01 x M O�x r O C O7 NN 0 (A01 dl M l9 N Un M 4-) N N � O 1-) JJ V H H 04 U1 r1 a aro w +� 0 H 0 s zH O WI III IIIIIIIII I b U A t010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 0 N > o mmoo0 000000000 o mo00 0 000 0000 0000oO0oo0oO 000 ro•rI OHH rnrn000 000000000 o rnC»o o ml�l� co1000 000000000000 000 10 1 -000 oO000o000 o rO100 0 19Mm lflroO O00000000000 000 rIA 0U2 U) MM CO COO MC00Un000NW O rAWr- (D r lMrO 0) rNC m - i(D 190tf)(D f vLnrm Nmtn LI U D 0U) •r-IXx O 0)0)00 0001 mO0)cVNN 'r r 19 Ln mmrr-i -V (D 070 rf MC r--i Lnr -M r-IN N Lf) CO 19 r-IU '0XX Q, NNmmr- N NH NC 100000 x 1-1NN O x N a) -V 10 WW GOOx ultnUnto N ri (D UnN rI c, HUUW ?O 1 HWW-0 +) U) (d H H G N -ri C7 0 o ro 4-) a) U¢, Ulzz�:j I I I I I I I I I I I I I -141 1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 O o O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O P O V Q Cl N o o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. C. C. C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O NU idaa� ..... ........ .... ... .. •rI +)00 N OOOOO 000000000 0 ood+o o mrr col000 000000000000 000 'i -i C/1CD004 00000 000000000 0 00190 0 19Mm 10x00 000000OOOOOO 000 rf id NN00 m0 Mvmtn000Nw o 019x0 r Mr0 01rN01 W -AC:) - 1oUnocr ulrm NmUn 0 0 • , , . UJ-) ri.4mm0) 00 o01 vNNC1h10 Ln O CC) r-'A Omo .-I mm r- Ir1toMO1 riN N Ln 00 10 U MMMMr N NH NV' rNm r -ANN O m N x-1,31 w Un Ln Ln Lo (,j r1 o Uf) (N ri V1 ri 1) r I 4J N c3 H RCfZC9�Htn WH U? MW arnHw W U H4 0E-4 z m�aa�HWOUZ Uza� z>+ I H P4A au� ` U1 -a>+H 0 W W OOQi W ZW za�0a Ln ZC4 Uo0 oW HCc1 Q wtnx Ti U C7 >i ,Z�N HOHH I �Q N OOUHaU) Q aHU' UHU]WOF7 H C7 H z��aa OWHzU H H(1; u] 02wz z u H pz z:r: P O H H 1 H�JO UH O �iHHp' a H U) XHU) r =;U�4HHOH 1340 �Z U ! r—I X.-IE+ U HH1-� HWHU�AM,, H WU]�. 4 �H 'Z,ci�!�V W F40UHJW„ a0 OC�]iWH�" F��] -H H7C,� H roU rA FIz�aW xH(Yj2(�aWF [z� XVF� x WEC7r4 +) o� HOd C4W��CHW�WH U) 1llY,(ZRS '+ H to t�HHR'iRCfxU,3H WH4UH(Y�%U)� xa a dE-i N r U OW O�"i- (H) H HHWH O >bbbb'�l'1 -7WCti y'WHHO1-�WW�IC- OHUHMHWXW�jOW1..awHHUM rioox �WHa r-af�x]WWx�U]W[R�;(X UMPZH� E-i(40 x wuiUH�1FCCuL�x r4 xUrlp�HrlFlFgU)C, �mj N r-I - 1(1) -k -k NFC,�- iOUAJGa�CWU) E- ir34HHUr4 MnE- 1H�WWWOF ]�xU- a��;�HHOHHHOoXPXHUHOaaOW�] IC7� I A��WHOOH(Y,U) z I C000�Wool90000Miom00000c < 0000000000000H VgroHomLn0000000,-iooI H Fl 4J WDOOVMrrn0000'* MNoocW20000000000Mt0oE 100, --I.- 1x0)(900,- IMOOM1.11001 U N q 0 �zriNV 'NNNV'O)6)O)6)6)M0)M[�U)Or- 11900, -i.- Irk,-- I,- i.- Im,- i,- I,- �r�NNNNO)0)6)NMV'Nr0)rn0)riMi � � (d HozWri.-- Ir- Irrrrrrrrr.- i19rn0) zc!) NNNMV�mOIr- INNMM�xV' �M 'q'V�V�d�61000r- I,- iriri, --iMM H N riWJrir1�!" V" V' V 'V'd��[t'V"cM10lOtOlOIWp�'r.i,- Sri,... 1, �,.. 1, �NNNNNNWMMMMMMMV 'V�V��V�V�cMV�V'V�, 0H p a) 4-) O drW�MMMMc)MMMMMMMMMM aWUntnUnUnUnUntntntntnUnU)Ln1 ,t919toWW( WWt.9t919t9t91ot919t9! O N Q1 P -1 W a U i! wl rd o 01+1 a) * . C) ENar�ro� N N 1-0 0 cn I- .-i Ln O m Ln Ln !` r-- Ln Ln 61 O 10 .-i O c- oo -vOLn Ln Ln zT O 10 r-1 N 10 d' N ON N l0 10O I I OOin0000000000000L-0010000CD 001` 1) Ln00000000000N006100CD 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 M 00r-0000Lna0000CoM0000000CD 0010- 1(`')0000L- 0000010 �V 0000000 M Ln t- "r M 6) 000 N 000000[ -O Lf)M 000 LnN NM[� NOU")N.- II�MNIO�V�N.- iN.- -I Mv� r-f 0 C'J&-i� i 2 a7 I I I O OL- 0 0 0 0 0 0 OL- O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OO":V OOOONOOMO1000100000000(DOW . C. . C. . . . . C. . . . . C. . . . . C. C. . . . . . LnOMOOOO1 OCL)MO[�OOL�O1000000C 0 I- O N O O O OCR O N N O 000 Ln 00000010 Ln 00, MN0)Nr- MLn10� 00C)mCLnMC>NLnLn0I-V rim r-I M i 61 L -Ln00 O OM -V O MONO 10 NLn 10 Ln0LnO 00 Ln . .-I -v Lo O . . . . O . C) r- . . co . O Lf)ONO CT [-10 M cN NON 00 L� O Ln N O Ln N O 10 . . . . . 10 NOD l4 . O . . O Ln . N . . . . CON O M . . O O O Ln N W O L- M Ln N N ,u, Ln V'10 V+ w 61 dl L- w O I- M Ln r-1 L- 00 O 0) �v 00 Ln 00 Ln I- L- L- r-I Vw V, O r r-i t;v O W Ln M r-1 MO CO riri L- Ln Ln 00 1010 ' i MO M c--1 M r-i M O r-I N N M r-I r1 CO Ln O N O O O W O 10 00 00 Ln Ln O 0 1016 c . Ln . . CD . r . O . O 0 Ih0 M Nom' i` ry O (N N N l0 l0 O N O . O . . . CD .--I . CS1 . . O . ri . . 61 M . O . . r-i ri 0) M Ln O Ln O O Ln M .--I W N N 61 M M MM Ln C51 ri Ln N L-- O O L- 61 L- Ln Ln 00 1010 61 M c--1 M M O r-I N N M 1010 ,--I N N 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 OInm O0001-00000 r-I 000LnLn000NN0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LnMMNLn ILn to rlv MNlO Ln�MNNrI MN O r-i r-i N r-I 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 0000000000000000000000000 . . . C. C. . . . . . . . C. . . . . C. . C. . . . . . 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00Ln 'Tvm0001- 00000x- IN0 LnLoM0NN0 LnMMNLnr- Itntnr-I�MN10Ln�MNNr -I Mm O � ri N ri O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0161 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OL -L- NNLnON10LnN vLnr-i O,.vOLnOOI -LnLo 8, lOW - r -Ir - I 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 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 . . C. C. C. . . C. . . . C. . . C. C. . C. . C. C. . C. . . . 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 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 NNLn0N10LnN,�wLn r -I O-c:vOLn00[- LnLn0�Wr-Lo Lo N N Ln .--I O O .--1 N N ri r-1 .-i H H r-I H Ln Ln �9:0'ZipgZ')0H'cl) WH Ur- 4HP40V) "HW` RL HTxit-7HU' HWzw-'tO-gHp'1IOPiPa "Zi ,7'jr� WH Ww 71JS Z T Wt11`+(q .� CTa as W Zf�HI 'Z.WH HU]�U1W H '[�ai'I U2�04H H �cnOUH H�HH OHU�W W� �WW�H nFR U14 Q) �C�cn� �zHX, WH H UrQ z�2 z.7 OBWH U] UW H C4v�frx� a u� m - ffipl�IMHH �w a w wHH Hovb woM,] H wn Uw �q wwHw U' OU>iCUWUa Ha wooCD ZiWwZiUHm f=LC7Ch wtx a aUU0 I HzzaHmo t,4 � H p4wz�HHw x oozzaNW ao oHHza xH z Ho P; NN H H w H Wz HHz0xm uC xaH W WAl1A7ZWHHx wPPoHU (Y.,H(Y, wzWH%uHr4xmo wur4 (Y.HHHw m>-Ow, E-IHcA W HaZUUW miH�wzw wwoQmH}AoHHw8p4wHOUWUUzxwNA0 E1zz9w0HHW,xHz WW Ww UN XHx I-� U [z� PXNNONZOOIX P4�7 �AZp4xWWHO aqa H " d�] wzf], )J :)NH Wy P44 PgHp4H QH�aHCLIoHI- ai- 4WOwe�o�H HaagonaHE --HRH : W aHammw/y� N H wwa OOONO wa 000UXUUp NP4 x OwWamAO'DH4o- 0 { OOOOOOOHLC) wr- 0001000NO00000000LnO000000000000000rINMOOO ,-7000 �I�ONOOr -I ODririr- Ir- Ir- Ir1NMd' lnr- Ir- Iri[ �ri10[ �OriMM6lrirAT- 4HM I- AW< OHM ' 'A toWHNHH MMMMMMM ''4zV'Tn[X610)rir-H000MMHNMl 4 H H N Cn',-P M r- M M 0 M M M H N (q El HT-iM "-,It7' LfI Ln 101010 W k'o W<D W 10 W W W W W W W r 0000610) 0) 0161 r-4 r-I -i N N N N N N N N N NN N N N'IT T McT r, d' d' did'CV�V'd'd'Cd�cpV'�Pd'V'CT-zr -1q *-zr v' * �* " -v qp Ln Lo Lo Ln Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Ln Ln Lr)Lf)LoLoLnLnLnlntnRJl0Ww lOIOIOIOIOIOtOCDtOIOIOIOIOIDIOIOIO10101010101,01010101010WWko101010101010101010101010101010101010W L - L - L - ; & t' • �., .. •. - -off ... ,*;::. n. -x _k a�m:z: -. a r. rr� n • ?.: ._a.:,.mn.�'i1:3.$ Ei z U 0 U W H U z W C] N a r-1 O CD v' U N M N LC) O \ • O C N M O ri G�. N N N H 4-) 0 •rl z m -r(ri U QHU O U W Ea (D z W Ca a O U )-I O 00 O -U 4-) 4J a rz a ro w4-J a H O 3 z H V U .Q N >A U) (d •ri O P E-i V N 4-)zH a) aQ coUz U) r-1 U 'd X X Qa WW g00x H U U W >tO HWW-O 4J W M P Ei 1:1 C•rl Ur�r.>±ro � N •rIUU 0 N +1 a) UR mzz�J Hww a N O 4-1 M O (1) NU cdaa -Iirt ai (D (Da 0 :j U .) �i O +-) N 'Lf d J, ,Q �0 0 (N I -10 O r- O M u) O N r-I r-i U -x -x cpCNN' -i �-OMMN, -CDMCO O -M cok -oL)t- .-I N6l OOOCO 00 N V' M M1O 10N N r-I OD U)00 M� -VMM� M MN Ln u)Lnf ,O to to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I 1010"l'�rI�I .CI0010Ln0C6IN6IONNOr-IM061�N OON61000MNO00000 CC) OOOC1O00010 MMNNN NI�w ONOO CD r- co O C' OM I` N OI t- 0101010 OG' 1010 O OOC W 000000. - 100000 r-i Ln OO U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I H O N f-I b1 NNNNN OI- Ln a'OOCI-r -i N'v u)NI -�'MN MC'O M61MW LO M U) O N W Ln N MC U) tnC NI-- W � a)+ * 'Q� O O Ln -1 r-1 N -' M N L() r-I r-I ri Ln zzjl a af.i a MMNN to M,- -i I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cp C 1010 M r- CO rH 00cr 1n o w r-I N 6I ON N 061 N 061 M N ON 6lo o(D-4M 00 OM NO 10000 NO 0 CD-1 1I- OOI- MONMMON - -iM''O MI- NONOlO M10 lO MW 000r -I 1O 00 OlO 070 r-I I�In r-i 6l 1010MM4C C 0 CM0IONOLnMLn OI61r10001O N10CC0000N00 OLn COI CLnN LnL� 00-1- -1 -1 N N O N 00 GO 01010 U) CD --I M.- It-6II -wLnw NO1O 07000 X6100 00 (N 0') d'I- N M-i � waw"UOw cpCNN' -i �-OMMN, -CDMCO O -M cok -oL)t- .-I N6l OOOCO 00 N V' M M1O 10N N r-I OD U)00 M� -VMM� M MN Ln u)Lnf ,O to to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I 1010"l'�rI�I .CI0010Ln0C6IN6IONNOr-IM061�N OON61000MNO00000 CC) OOOC1O00010 MMNNN NI�w ONOO CD r- co O C' OM I` N OI t- 0101010 OG' 1010 O OOC W 000000. - 100000 r-i Ln OO U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 10 IOn Nd'u)r- It.f)1000[- Ol a'M t1�L�Cr -IO N0�6llO NcrO�v'mOON000000t1),�OOU7MNOOM riH00mMr -iNt- OIL- i.- ir- iOMM 0') 1-- 1MONt -M 1-o r,O lOr- IO0w00N00 61000000[- OCDCDLnOONOOCSI NNNNN OI- Ln a'OOCI-r -i N'v u)NI -�'MN MC'O M61MW LO M U) O N W Ln N MC U) tnC NI-- W OOOOON 106107 �'[-ri 100 C co -v Ln (M --i 061 C('•)O .-16IN CD U') NN N N r-i ri * 'Q� O O Ln -1 r-1 N -' M N L() r-I r-I ri Ln zzjl MMNN to M,- -i I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cp C 1010 M r- CO rH 00cr 1n o w r-I N 6I ON N 061 N 061 M N ON 6lo o(D-4M 00 OM NO 10000 NO 0 CD-1 1I- OOI- MONMMON - -iM''O MI- NONOlO M10 lO MW 000r -I 1O 00 OlO 070 r-I I�In r-i 6l 1010MM4C C 0 CM0IONOLnMLn OI61r10001O N10CC0000N00 OLn COI CLnN LnL� 00-1- -1 -1 N N O N 00 GO 01010 U) CD --I M.- It-6II -wLnw NO1O 07000 X6100 00 (N 0') d'I- N M-i Ili Ln u)u)r- Nw NO OI O Ln I`�' OM6)LnM v MOM OIMW W Ln M lO COI` r-i riin t -0 cpCNN10 N -1 CD r -IM 0w MCr-I MM 6I lO M0 .-100N O CON -1 OIM r, Imo.MMN N ri10 -1MO N Ln -1 r-1 'v (N N (n (N Cr-I r1 N M O co Ln rnrn rn rn �o LO Ln In Ln Ln v to rn 1010 10 l0 10 1010 lO lO M N [� N O O O O N M ri r1 � r-i W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 10 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O CO CO 0 O O C O C C O D C C C O 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O ..... ......... . .... . ... .... ............ ... 01rn000 o00000QOO O 610�'O O N[�t� 071000 000000000000 000 1 -1-000 000000000 O I-OlOO O W 0 W1-00 000000000000 000 MM 00070 MC NLn000N10 O r- iWr- (D Mt -o 6It -NC COr-iO10OU)Od' wLnt-N NN U) 01 61 00 07 61 NO OICNN CI-10 Ln 07 N t -r-i C ONO r-I MC r-I-1 Ln I`0') -1 (N N u) 00 10 NN Cl) MI- N Nr-1 or IONN r- r-INN O N 610 w In L) If) U� N r-I O Lf� N r1 C it I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Q0000 000000000 0 0000 0 000 0000 000000000000 000 OooOO ooOQOOOOO o 0000 0 oOO ooOO o00000000000 000 0 CD C700 000QOOOOO O C7 O W100o 000000000000 000 OQOOO OOOQO000o O 00100 0 10MCC) wr--oo 000000000000 000 N N 07N0 M N U)OOON 10 O CD w r- CD I- MI-O mr- 61 OOr- 10. --IO in OC C'u7 I-N NCO U) ,-i r- 100 07 61 N O M N N 'IV I- IO Ln O CO I- r-I v' O CO O - M 6I r-I r-I Ln M 6l r-I N N to N 10 (Y)(Y)Cl) Mtn N NH NC r- N00 1` HNN O co N H-V lD In Ln Ln Ln (,4 H OLnN H C H r-i W u OOHWOUzW Q U xOW�t+ft, zWZWZ�C0N InH zx UO RCW(�i]x W zwjM 0 OHH NI OOUHt4U) 0 14E- A0UE4 U)W Oa H 0 H u W OWHzU H HC4f4 U) Hf4wz(.� z U Ht-� �z zmp�iXOWW WH H H >0�UH O �iHH�O W H U) X,HCO 7Urf,4HHOEt W02 7 U E-1 U HH�] I HWHUWMFX4,�?_HFI lCl WUl R',�7 �H z C ODUHw WO O WH�, U HZ HO�y F4F-A ]H O rJUr�IIQ ��](W� xHlliZfY�awaff�� XOF4 x m OP4 1)Y/}QJSHWW�W U1 aCGtiiYi (O QiHHaiF4WH HQUHC4P4tAA R'iPi W FCHx U OW�y O�,�"40UUH HHwH :40> �CF4PjC4 wHHOaW. G,QUHMHHW`XWwjOWi- 4WHHWUEn OF, AWNWWHWUWt1if1Q �zzOWH4��UfYSSH�j UOWHQWHpWPPWP'ZPOHHWWWOOta�'. �WHOOHpiU]fY,�µW4,k G4<W Q UQ�CP+Ft,'p4U) E-I IHHUaU_Qu HHOHHOt-a,X XPUPNNWH I MO 41OO100000Mlf m000000 <0 00000000000G1Hd +(- Ori001t(10000000ri00 4-) WnOOd'(' r-MC000- zVMNOOOF, ,Z,000OOOOOOOMWoE- +001- 1r-ir- wooriMOOMLn00 O ' 0' Z.- IN�PNNNd' 016I610101MOIMLU] Or- IIOCOr- IY- Iririr( r- ICOr• Irir {'NNNNO101O1NM'd�N[�d10101c -1M H07. Wrir- Iri[ �L�L�L�I�[ �CI�l�ri106161^ �, UINNNMd' NO1riNNMMcpP: V'��V�d'd�01000�- iriY- ir- Ir-IMM r1W' Jr- Ir- Id 'd'C'cl'd'[�d�C'd'�l'IOIOIOIOW R' ri`-( ririY- Ir- iriNNNNNNC ;- 'MMMMMMMd�d�V��Td'cl'�T�NcMV� ' dI��WM(' �MMMMMM( Y•1 MMM( Y) MM( Y1�, WIl) Lt7 Il7 1nInIl) Lntototot) Intf](' �lOIDIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOtOIOIOIOIOIOIO, Nlrna�a ;c t9 1< -x + -x i Ic * * NN100 M a'M O Q'O Ln Ln Ln 00 N r-i MM lfl LO O V� O O O MLn L -t- NN lO Vr Ln Lnrn V, ON OM10 NOh N-1 l0 N l0 r--I OCR 0 6 /r)� � or- r-1 r-I r-I l0 kOLn N 0 ,� Ln N O 10 C 1 1 o0Ln0000h00000000L-00100000 OOMOLn000000000000N00 . 010000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oommr-00L- 01n 00000000100000000 . . . OOIOr- IMOOOOt�000001Od+0000000 MLnhCMd>oaDONLn00000hOLnM000LnN NM[� NOL[')C. --Ih NlO tf')CNrI Nr--I M� I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OC 10 O N O N I O 0000I 010 OMOOOOf -00-,1+010[ -0100 Lo 00000000 . . C. C. . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . O M O O O O l00 to Ol O h M O N O 0O O O O O O h M* 0100000010 NL- O O N O,}v O Ln O O O O l00h N 10 cll-ML)r -1 r m0MC 1-[)h Or -iLo NOv ri ri M 10 m NLnoo M O OM M O 00010 00 00 v'Lo0 H O or- N O L-Oh0 l0 kOLn N 0 N Ln N O 10 O kO N M 10 CO 10 N W 0 m h M Lo m O CM Lo M 10 r-i 10 00 O Ol 1-1 dl 00 1.f) N 00 h O r- V� Vr M O rl rI r1 rl r-i -i I 1-1 M U) O M O O r1 00 Ln O I� O O M O)1fl O N O O r-I 10 Lo O ri O O Ln O ri Ln N h O 00 rl r--I N M O r- i 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 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 . . . . . . C. . . . . C. . . . . . . . . C. . . . . 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LOLncr'zl'N000h00000ri0001nL0 000NN0 LnMMNtnrltnlnr- IV�MN101f)CMNNri MN O r-i r1 N rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 . C. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . C. . 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 o O o o O o o o o o 0 0 o o o o O O O O 0u-) n,,T q,w000h00000 H w0 Ln 0 w 0 N N 0 �nMMNIf)ri ntnrid MNlOtncl MNNri MN O rl r-i N r1 l0 N m l0 :v Lo M to N 0 0 OD hl0 MNNMNU) 00 rl Or-I N10ONOr -i OM O C0 r- 011vhlvO(y) tM 61 10 CLn OLO CVh Ln r-i M l0 �r OriO -'T Or1 Ln a) Lo 10 O ONO VV N h(MhO O 0:) cM r-i V: 00 ri C Ol h O VVIOM O 10-;zr Nri 01N M 0 -V 0) VV 10 Ln Ln tnh 'H N 1-1 N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O h h NN1n0N10tnN�L r)x10 -V 0Ln00htotn0�wr- -1rH rl mhLnM N N Ln Cr-IO C) -1 N Nr-i -1 Ln Ln r-1 ri r1 1010 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 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 O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 NNLo0N10LoNCrinr -i0 v Ln 0Ol-LnLo0,.w10[-tnLo r--I MhlnM N d'N �f)Ce-- IOOrINNr1 ri rir -I rl H rl Ln Ln z OH E4HP4O t=i( a HT3L,F4 7 H zW r/�17H4�;H�Opi�j Zi Aw�7 ((�� Waa(n >C w as W z H.7. M�pq -IH HUDoNo ,H U]PSz U)U) NHUH���04 H zzi. OAWaW w C/] UP1 H HUaH��U���] U]� Z ZHx Hew P4 w wHH HOUp coo H Cn�Uw rr, WPQHwFL� o; £AOU>1C7C7WUa riff WpowzAzi U)ZuHrn (=1C.9UaWWq WggaUUC'J� p WOW HZZ Ht�IU a �7 HEiW uozz�CWWz O OHHZP, H � ! HW IXHH H 'Z H lZZWpa H H U) H Wz HI--170P Pi W NQg(�HwHHx MHHOHU P4HP4 t!�'7+WHfYUHWxxO W Pi P',HHHU� WHHm aaHHazUUw WWyixHgwzw WWC7AWHy10HHUlAHaUJHOUWUUz `4U1W<p40W H t'�RCU�OHHPixHz'�7[G�� W W� f�H�H.� �U W �GvW'�a00P;OPi C)QZ :1:NwH0�7 HNC; wzPi Np W fZ as rX49HP4H H aHGuOHaaWOww�jo H Haar�0M,i EH �fxP:aHP1fAWuIrC N H 44W OAOP 0 Ma 000UXUUWCL1fs1H X 0 W04MnOOI -1 of OOOOOOOr mw r- wmoo ONOOOOOO000mo000000000000000r- IN�OOO�IOOo�l ONOOriWririririririNMV' lnrlririh .-iW1- Orifr')MO)rirlHHm1'r HMr-IN,-i -'p M 010101riH ILO <C)H0) - i101Oc- INrirIMMMMMMMd'V�d�Mr-m 1ritirj000mmHNOlHHHNM -;TMr -0)0)0101010)x- {Nf''1['rlv.i6l: -! V' �I' d' Ln�) lOIOIO( D101010101O1010101O101010h000D01010 )0101rirlriNNNNNNNNNNNNNNd�N E HrAM� .' c!' c>' ��d' q' d" V' V�V 'd'V'V'V'd'V'd'V'Vrd'Ca'V�V�dr V'd'vv00m Ln Ln m Ln U) M Ln M Ln In Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln P, WIOW IOIOIOIOCOtOLOlplplOIOIOWIOIOIOtOIOCplp101p1O10( OlOtplOtO101plOIOIOIOIOIOIOIpIOIOCO (OtOlplplplp'. F�.:�hhl - U g N 1--i O 10 N O NLOO V N M O 1--I G�. N N N 4-) p.'ri N •ri r-I AHU p O P4 a) a 3 0 "a H H N •1-i 10 H O U) Hu AIM .o ?L 0 +) N Oro Ua N 0 NU r-I (d 00 U� 0 E-+ z U x O U W H U z w A a 0 U H z U 0 U W H U z W A a 0 (.D 0 00 J-) 4-) 4-) H aro w-P H O z U .o OHH �zH N idUz m U D F: .Hxx" 0) "OXX I4 a00 x HUUW 1--I W W -0 OPH G 0 FZC LZ4 (0 •ri0U 4-) (1) razz �l •ri W W C 4-)C]A N roan 5 4-)00(1) U)UUP: -*VWO c) Ln 1--i H MLn O Ln O NLn C MV'Lom 00 m m r t -00 MNH00 Ln Ln H1`Ln H 1--I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 Mr) V' V' 00[ �0000N 01601016inO61ON001-Ln1- OONNI -OV r- IOOOO�000000o000NO00hr -iCDCD U! N001- L-N00NM . . bl b . . . . N NCU co . . . . . . . . . . 1--i m M U-) co � i.n 01 � � M Ln � H NIA 6161 1--100 Nm CD lO Cl m -IM x'001- 1-f-im �W'Tr -- 10000 01 -m o 000001- 1nr -1CD -I OONNOO 0 0fy� NC 1--1 V'00 N U -)1-1 NM1- M � 01 m L9 m d) m U) O 001` U-)00 w mLO U') V' N 1 1-- IOO1-x u1 u107 mN t`Ln O MLnD 01000 V'0 HV'N OLn00H H N H (N 1--1 1--i U) -k -K V•. uj U) m 1--i 10 H q mMr1 -1 p I H O Si p H N N4-) O OONNL- 00001--100 �I G 0 w v lOIO.- ir�1�Nr (Z;C ML� 01C 1 000L�N00 00 CCO 0001 Ol CO 00 CD CD CD roU) OT-im 00 1--1M M 1--i o 10';I' CO 1--I 1--100 000 u) 0100 Or-1 N`3'00 OD MNr -WW ma00m � 10 rN000HV'000 1`V• Or- 1o711Ln Ln N 011 - to Ol m w c7' to 0110 OO(n .-I 1- r10') M.-I -*VWO c) Ln 1--i H MLn O Ln O NLn C MV'Lom 00 m m r t -00 MNH00 Ln Ln H1`Ln H 1--I H �WW�P4'�tn.a,Uz�y��C..zy+ c�1H aU1fH�aA UW aUxUH]UuWiA0.;ULa�H U' w -OOH a W zW zFCO Pi Ln zap U00 0% HN r wmm yi U U }i LL'z- "nl OfxOHH N OOUHF7U) O aHOUHU] OFF H U H �FCFCWW OWHL,Z,U H HP4m M HNNZ '%L U HLF.J�L�DZ ZMMV40�7 >y0 UH1� O S+HHAOW�1 N H w �Hw WU.4 L4HHOH NU Z U O-1E1q(� UHHa� Hr4E UcwnwN;> aU t gUIH',7�-+�j L�]N 'zrnU n 4000HW WO uwH : HUa- Jgr�r.�XHW H U1 FIHPW !-JIB Ln (YLHHC4 E-i HH9C) 4PGui�au;a wwL�Hx- U OW� �O] Fa�a]U�U]�H] HHWH�]!x�07��]V.F�]�Wp[J�I, �W]H�H]O [�7 �AUHMHHiWXWwjOWi- IWHHUrpU), FY4< -Qc UApap4zwx<prX44HHUWU. -QM Wt-1017 WUMWX14- � HHOHH04XPXPOPNNNNWH �+ � W U) NOMwOowc) 000mmm000000< 0000000000000i '-,:rr-OHOMMO00oo00, --1oo' 4J WDOOV' Mr- M0000VL O1N000C �IZ00000000ooL n10opoOrir- ir- mwoo,- AMoOMMOC)0'. 0 1-J'' �riNd' NNNd '0101610101m61mL�u]O.-ilO0Jr- 11--1,- I1- - 1,-11-1 ODri,- I1-- Iry 'NNNN010101Nmd'NI�010101r -IM' HozW1-lr�riC �[ �l�l�L�l�I�L�L�1-i100101 '�C/�NNNmd' 0001,- INNmM' c1 'Cl'd'V'V'V'V�cM61000,-- 1,--I, --L1- -1 rim m' rlW�ri,-Iv dVdd * IV I;T IV wwIOIOWnZHHr- l,- i,-L HHNNNNNN41 mmmmmmm11 V 'VV'11vvV*vlzri C�wpW,' m m m m m m m m m m m m M M M 1-1 � a M M M M m In Lo U) M MM MM(1O p W W W W W W W W IO W lO W W W W lO{ MLn� 'f7 it .1c -)< I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 Mr) V' V' 00[ �0000N 01601016inO61ON001-Ln1- OONNI -OV r- IOOOO�000000o000NO00hr -iCDCD N001- L-N00NM . . 1--I O O O m 16-1-12 00 . . . . N NCU co . . . . . . . . . . 1--i m M U-) co � i.n 01 � � M Ln � H NIA 6161 1--100 Nm CD lO Cl H �WW�P4'�tn.a,Uz�y��C..zy+ c�1H aU1fH�aA UW aUxUH]UuWiA0.;ULa�H U' w -OOH a W zW zFCO Pi Ln zap U00 0% HN r wmm yi U U }i LL'z- "nl OfxOHH N OOUHF7U) O aHOUHU] OFF H U H �FCFCWW OWHL,Z,U H HP4m M HNNZ '%L U HLF.J�L�DZ ZMMV40�7 >y0 UH1� O S+HHAOW�1 N H w �Hw WU.4 L4HHOH NU Z U O-1E1q(� UHHa� Hr4E UcwnwN;> aU t gUIH',7�-+�j L�]N 'zrnU n 4000HW WO uwH : HUa- Jgr�r.�XHW H U1 FIHPW !-JIB Ln (YLHHC4 E-i HH9C) 4PGui�au;a wwL�Hx- U OW� �O] Fa�a]U�U]�H] HHWH�]!x�07��]V.F�]�Wp[J�I, �W]H�H]O [�7 �AUHMHHiWXWwjOWi- IWHHUrpU), FY4< -Qc UApap4zwx<prX44HHUWU. -QM Wt-1017 WUMWX14- � HHOHH04XPXPOPNNNNWH �+ � W U) NOMwOowc) 000mmm000000< 0000000000000i '-,:rr-OHOMMO00oo00, --1oo' 4J WDOOV' Mr- M0000VL O1N000C �IZ00000000ooL n10opoOrir- ir- mwoo,- AMoOMMOC)0'. 0 1-J'' �riNd' NNNd '0101610101m61mL�u]O.-ilO0Jr- 11--1,- I1- - 1,-11-1 ODri,- I1-- Iry 'NNNN010101Nmd'NI�010101r -IM' HozW1-lr�riC �[ �l�l�L�l�I�L�L�1-i100101 '�C/�NNNmd' 0001,- INNmM' c1 'Cl'd'V'V'V'V�cM61000,-- 1,--I, --L1- -1 rim m' rlW�ri,-Iv dVdd * IV I;T IV wwIOIOWnZHHr- l,- i,-L HHNNNNNN41 mmmmmmm11 V 'VV'11vvV*vlzri C�wpW,' m m m m m m m m m m m m M M M 1-1 � a M M M M m In Lo U) M MM MM(1O p W W W W W W W W IO W lO W W W W lO{ MLn� 'f7 it .1c -)< I I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 Mr) V' V' 00[ �0000N 01601016inO61ON001-Ln1- OONNI -OV r- IOOOO�000000o000NO00hr -iCDCD N001- L-N00NM . . -i00 OM Oto[- NV'OMr -M M1-- 000M lO 1- 00000000 Cl 00000 CD 0 CD - it- 1-CDMM CD M CD U-) . . . . N NCU co . . . . . . . . . . 1--i m M U-) co � i.n 01 � � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M Ln 1� M�- IO1�M1O 10 co 31 NO N N 000 O O O i.n u') 01001 x-101 N 1 � d'IVm m01'- immm 1--100 Nm CD lO Cl m -IM x'001- 1-f-im �W'Tr -- 10000 01 -m o 000001- 1nr -1CD -I OONNOO In LO U-) a-) l9 wmu-)Wmc0Cmtn NC 1--1 V'00 N U -)1-1 NM1- M � 01 m L9 m d) m U) O 001` U-)00 w mLO U') V' 1-iL -N �V•w 1001 u1 u107 mN t`Ln Q• 1--I V'tn V'10 01000 V'0 HV'N OLn00H H N H -i V•. uj U) m 1--i 10 0 01 U) -V -i H H in V' mMr1 -1 LoNH H I I I I o a c\i r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m N m c) T -j c) w Ln cD m o N m w LnmcDo m N1` WM(DC)00N0700 010 N000 O I'D HONO OONNL- 00001--100 N 01100 Ln N 00 -;4, O m 1` N W N 000 0101- MMOD o CD CD WW00 CD ::r Co NM N -i O 1-r -101 lOIO.- ir�1�Nr (Z;C ML� 01C 1 000L�N00 00 CCO 0001 Ol CO 00 CD CD CD 01010 CO 1 -- 1-OOM U) OT-im 00 1--1M M 1--i o 10';I' CO 1--I 1--100 000 u) 0100 Or-1 N`3'00 OD MNr -WW 0000NNM 10 rN000HV'000 1`V• Or- 1o711Ln Ln N 011 - to Ol m w c7' to 0110 OO(n .-I 1- r10') M.-I 1010 N (\A 0) N V' -10 10 1--I V' 0) 1--i 01 V' H V 00 1--I 1` a' O 1--i M N O 00 1` 1--1 o M co 00 00 00 ('') N 1- 00 10 M m N 1--1 Lf) M 1-•i V N M MMN 'IT N. -1 N m M M V' L- 00 IT 1010 l0 1--I Lo 00 00 Lo 1-i ,--i 1-'i N 61 L� OD 00 Ln Ln Lo 00 M N 0161 rn Ln rn (n 1-1 N 10 M 0) m 01 01 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 10 O o 0 O 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO00 o00 000000000 o woOO o CDOO OOOO OoOOOOOOOOOO 000 ..... MOlOoo ......... 000000000 . .... . O mc040' o ... .... ............ 00L�1` 001000 000000000000 ... 000 r- r- 000 000000000 O 1-0100 O WMCO 101-00 000000000000 OOo mm00 000 mV'cc) to o 0CD N 10 O H10 L-0 1- c'')1 -0 01L -NV' 00 H O W O Lo O V' V U) 1` 00 NCO Ln 0)010000 01 00 061 V'NN V'L -10 U) 00001`-1 V• (D 00 0 1--4 MV' 1--i 1--I U)1`M HN N Lo 00 10 N N M M 1- N N 1--i N V' w N 00 1` --I N N O 1` (N 0) V 10 Ln U) Lo Ln N 1---i O Ln N 1--i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OoOOO ....... OO0000000 ......... O 000O 0 . .... ooO OOOO OooOOOOOOOOO 000 O000O 000000000 . O OCD CO O ... .... ............ 001`L� 00 1000 000000000000 ... 000 00000 000000000 O 00100 O L9 M OD 10L -00 000000000000 000 NNOD00 0 MV MLo000NW O 0101 -0 L- mho 011-Nm mO or- 4oLnOV -,rvLn -N NmLo 1-i 1--1000001 U1 V• O00O 1--I 161 1--i H Ln M61 -iC N Lr 0010 m m m m 1` N N 1-i N V' L- N OD 1` 1--1 N N O 00 N .-i IT 00 Ln LC) Ln Ln N 1--1 O Ln N 1--i H �WW�P4'�tn.a,Uz�y��C..zy+ c�1H aU1fH�aA UW aUxUH]UuWiA0.;ULa�H U' w -OOH a W zW zFCO Pi Ln zap U00 0% HN r wmm yi U U }i LL'z- "nl OfxOHH N OOUHF7U) O aHOUHU] OFF H U H �FCFCWW OWHL,Z,U H HP4m M HNNZ '%L U HLF.J�L�DZ ZMMV40�7 >y0 UH1� O S+HHAOW�1 N H w �Hw WU.4 L4HHOH NU Z U O-1E1q(� UHHa� Hr4E UcwnwN;> aU t gUIH',7�-+�j L�]N 'zrnU n 4000HW WO uwH : HUa- Jgr�r.�XHW H U1 FIHPW !-JIB Ln (YLHHC4 E-i HH9C) 4PGui�au;a wwL�Hx- U OW� �O] Fa�a]U�U]�H] HHWH�]!x�07��]V.F�]�Wp[J�I, �W]H�H]O [�7 �AUHMHHiWXWwjOWi- IWHHUrpU), FY4< -Qc UApap4zwx<prX44HHUWU. -QM Wt-1017 WUMWX14- � HHOHH04XPXPOPNNNNWH �+ � W U) NOMwOowc) 000mmm000000< 0000000000000i '-,:rr-OHOMMO00oo00, --1oo' 4J WDOOV' Mr- M0000VL O1N000C �IZ00000000ooL n10opoOrir- ir- mwoo,- AMoOMMOC)0'. 0 1-J'' �riNd' NNNd '0101610101m61mL�u]O.-ilO0Jr- 11--1,- I1- - 1,-11-1 ODri,- I1-- Iry 'NNNN010101Nmd'NI�010101r -IM' HozW1-lr�riC �[ �l�l�L�l�I�L�L�1-i100101 '�C/�NNNmd' 0001,- INNmM' c1 'Cl'd'V'V'V'V�cM61000,-- 1,--I, --L1- -1 rim m' rlW�ri,-Iv dVdd * IV I;T IV wwIOIOWnZHHr- l,- i,-L HHNNNNNN41 mmmmmmm11 V 'VV'11vvV*vlzri C�wpW,' m m m m m m m m m m m m M M M 1-1 � a M M M M m In Lo U) M MM MM(1O p W W W W W W W W IO W lO W W W W lO{ MLn� 'f7 it .1c -)< v' NNlOO M MM ri L.0 rI COQ O N 00 O1-[- Ln ri MU)10 [- OI- O n� A 612 co v tb L\l co v' L4 v' O r-I N N l0 vL v' O M N .-i lfl lO c\] • N r-i .--I ri .--I I I I OOu ")OOOOI-OI- IOOOOOOOIOOlI0000N 001`') O Ln 00 OU O N O 00000('10061000010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C M001-001 -O U) O O O O O OC O O 00 O U) 0010 CDC 10x- IM0000[-OOOOOr- 1100000vV CDC N MLnI- vLm mcDC00.- 1U100000DMOt.f)MN[ -U')N NMI NOU�v�r -I CO N10U1�.- it -INc-i Nv' r-I I 0 I 00 0 m 0 m Tor- f04 0000CID 0M 0 OI OOtln00001- O ONO V v O1001000000OMM v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OC:,) CMO00Ol00Ln4COLnL. () L�OM00000NLn61 v' LO 0610000610 N M OVLl- O Ln O ri 0 O O 010 N O L- M r-iNV•Cr- mLC)r--1v' [- O.- 1MU1NOMLr)Lo OVV 61Nt4 m N L. N M 1010 U') NcrOO M .-i Or-i I- w O ri0r -I0 10 NL` NwLn01M10 0061 rn ri C�U7 Ln0 r-1 N OlD ri w O vLO MO N L -10 Ln Ln NMvL10 0061 Ol v' 100N0 N Ln OU-) 10 14 O 1ON010 1A OLD 441 NLn00 O N 4 v� CO 10 6110 O d> L- 01 M ri N Lf) O r-I O W N 1fl v' Ln N I- v 61 v' M I- r-I O 1001001 H O NvL 10 I- 01 M OOII -I- l4 �wO NW zvr r- vLo r-I 10 L- 1n U) Ln v' M O N M O .-i Ln M10 O O1 OO O OMO vL m LL) rL[) O 61 dl 00 00 v' O I- 00 O O lfl O O N H L- L,[) Ol O v' L. 01 ri O N Ln O O LD 01 v I� 40D r-I 44 O 6l LT H 14 0) O 61 L.C) O O 00 m M r- 10 Ln N O 10 M 1fl O 0) U) H N L- O I- 01 M N Ln Ln v M M M O .-i 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 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLnL.[)v ,- :r m0001- 00000.-Im(DLoLn000NN0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LnMMNtnritnt .()r- IV�MNIOt.c)v�MNNr -I MN O 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 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 0 L Ln) Vv00000L- 00000. --LO (Z) LO Ln 00 ONNO LnMMNtn r-L L1�LC�r -i v�M NlO Ln vMNNri MN O ri ri N r-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0161 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rh[- NNLnON10LnNV 'Ln.- i O VL O Ln 0(D 1- Ln Ln OVL w r- -I ri ri M[-LnM N - 7Lr)Lr lO w 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 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 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 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N NLn 0 N10 L0 VrLo riO VV O U7 O O L- Ln L.C)O zvIO L - Ln Ln .--I ML-LnM N vL N Ln vv r-i O Ori N N ri ri ri r-i r-i r-1 ri Ln L0 0 Z7 )0HMP�MP 0PH040WXHP4 Pi H44FIH lL zw W gHaH.7ow -ff "� � WH ww y-L pCz z Wawa x W as zwwHx ZNP HU)UN jj Ulp ul w a+U' z U)OUH H E-1 El 0Hu2W W WW Upy1�]r[ HUi�71HN W 7U� z HHH LLH H tIi UQ Zi`ti OL�WH ul UN HFLWU)� L1 Lti�U2W��U1 A z '�'r QaH�W WHH Ei0U� U)0y� H U17UGv foppq WWHW C) OOU?iU'ChWULa Ha � WOOO zRCWzUHU] wC7U Wtx a WUUU� WOW HzzaaH(iaUL (Yia O�7 WWz�HHW, ULOZZ�f1+WOOHHzpi E-1 HW pCHHxH z HU P'zWW H H w H Wz HH'ZLOx a+ W W zWHHx uIHHC7HU OYPC4.L wzWHzuHRSxx0 W fy fzHHHCn n',> O m WWHHU) WLaaHazUUW WaW�NMH4wzW ww0QwH}10HHu�AHa4wHOUWUUz"4w �Ix0pa UNHMHX �fZ�aHPMa nDUN"wy�� Ca*a[>;iW�000WO t/ �HNUOOUHUOaGOWN�71oAH [��PF4p�o��Ca- +H;.7H Z GaW�' 'TLOWWWWC qE:) y'0 10 L70000000riMWr- 00Q) OOONOOOOOOOOOU )OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHN0I00 01 c:) 1` ONOOriWrlri.- ir- IririNMcl' Lnrir- iri[ ��- i10[ �OriMMdlrlrir- Iri('1 V�rlri6lriNrld 'O10)6)01r-Ir�IOF(,'0 01. ' ZV" T LINririIDMMMMMM'd'WWkOWWWr -rir- 1000010) 1 qr- Ir- 1rlr- INMd' L!) [�010)0)01010)riN('10)'. .[YIc7'd'VLU)1n 1010101010 l0 IO U) CO IO IO l0 l0 lO lO lDL-WCA 01010)O)�ri r-I riNN N N N N N N NN N N N N dV �V';T H Mep VL', ,Cp cP cP d'dL VL�VL V�d'd'��cM��M dL dL VL'd'VL VL tr�Cr dL dL C7'd�Cr In In Ln In in Ln Lf)tn Ln Ln Lf)ln U)Ln In Ln In Lll Ln rn a)4 lO CO i�lOIOIOIOCOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOCOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIDIOtOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOCD tOIOIOIOIOIOIOWIOry'l L�l 'c� . lD IDNNLn IONML.DNol -hl- v dl lD 0) U') m v1 ri 000. -i JD4 J-2., A7/D dL v'I - I - W mNm WLn IDNh Ln -i Ln vVIT r- Cl) v1 v' LnL)LnW Ln to 061 r-IMN MIS M0:tS1 ri H z U � I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 ,--, IWWIOMNV'IOOItoO10610610NWO1W LnOL- Ln Ln IO [�OOOMWO00 OOWNOOID 6I,- -ZOOID UO �NMMv'� r-i MNIO MOO.- IM,- I�OM[-,- IN000,�N V'[ -OID l- H0(D 0U- )10000 OOr-I f- I- O L-NOMOLn 0000 'Ln WN zl, ('')Ln MOOWV�MO[� v�M M Ln O N N W IO W C Ln NV�W O N N O 00 OOLn Ln 010 M,- 161NOrl W 00 co 6161 M N 61�[- OW10061 r-I I- (Y) --IM 00 M 6l Lr) O �i �,-, ID O N O CO N O M 61000 vOr -U-) 000NNN00 H� l- nL()l0 NODLnNIONOr --I- Nv mwwN61NM(\J mmcOmmM100Lnmu-)0 r- 1LnWlOMLr)v v r-iI - N C7 cN C t` l� m Ln Ln I0 M Ln ri I'D r1 vl N r-1 Ln v Ln O Ln -i v' O rl O N O Ln r-1 r-1 N I r z N N r-1 r V m H I0 m 00 'IT IV r-i r-I r-i Ln 61 r-I A N a ri 0 O v C7 N v� N Ln CD M M N NV� M N IOV� O M O O W r10010NOOr- INLnO[ -Ln Ln(- I'D V'r- 000 -1NOO C) Lr) NNO vV IDHOI�r -i \ "O 00WWLnv�r -iWr -4 v, 1D CD CD -♦WM COMl- I - L-- r -i CD r -v,(- MNrCD C)CD 1000 cD OD Nr-I OI�r -IN v'N Cl) OH ID Ifl Ln Ln 400 N Ln 1 11 v HOC r Ln(y), r-I IONOC [1-: IO NHNV'OD OO N c; O Or-i cr v�0 lO V�61[-NLn -I-i O o 00 L9 N m Ln N 01H M 061 W N 1-1 '--1 m r-i ID w Ln c) 00 31 MI,OWWOLn 0100 ON Nv�OD r-1WNI -1-01 :." OI OI NNM Oun NNMN 0000 [�v r- 10101 -01 v�MN OD N 0) M M IO N Ln 0) W IOM ri l� (V V� V�Ip a) a) a) H • rl z m m r-i r-i 61 M v� M r-I lD .--I Lr) H v Ln W N 61 N 00 O r-♦ Ln N O t` 00 N Ln M b •ri 0 U In Ln 0161 M N N W v' v� v' N r-i Ln m r-I 61 N M AHU L Ir -IMMN LnNr -1 N O U W H - C7 0101 w Ln Ln M M z m Ln Ln m W (� OW L9 W a ww w M M NO O Ln W ID ID U 0161 c r-I H N 0 00 O 13 +1 d-i W '� m i4 V) a) r� a xro w- O H O a zH O WI III IIIIIIIII I b UA cDIDOOO Ooo000OOO o IDOOO o 000 0000 000000000000 000 N �o mWOOO 000000000 o W000 0 000 oOOO 0 0000000000O OOo 10 Id•rl OHH 06lo0o 000000000 O 61ov'0 O 06L-r` Wl000 000000000000 000 -H N MUZ Ill l�[-000 000000000 O I-OI00 O IDMOD 101-00 000000000000 Oo0 r{A IdUZ p1 mM 00000 Mv1W Lno 00 N lO O r-i 101-0 I` M1-0 01 f-N� Wr�OIDO n0v v n[-� NW n N 0 D 1~ O Ui • ri �.y' $," a) 0161 00 W 61 W O 0) cr N N v' I` ID Ln co co r` r-1 v O co O r--I (n v r-i r� Ln 1` 0) r-1 N N Ln co W rIU �XX04 NNMmI- N N i Nv WNOO I- -1NN O I- N M,*, lfl WCQ 000 k LOLnLnLnCIA r1 (D LnN r-1 �r HUUW .yi O H W W T7 r-i 4.) W Id H H r, 0 N •ri C7 C7 O M .r, a) U ¢L Wzz 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I •riF -IW1,, 00000 oOOOOOOOO o oOOO o ooO 0000 00000000(D 000 000 N O +J A A 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O 000 a)U maa > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ri +i00 a) 00.000 000000000 0 oo4o o a;l�l-: IOIOOO 000000000000 000 H 00000 000000000 O 00-90 O L.OMW IDL -00 000000000000 000 U NN OD 000 Mv'W Ln 000 NI0 O oL.DhO I- mrlo O1r-Nm W ri O H O Ln O V�v� Ln r` W N00 LO C-) ri r-i W W 61 W O 61 v' N N v' L9 Ln O 00 t` r-I v; O 0O O r-I M 01 r-1 r-I to m 01 ,--I N N Ln W ID m M M M I- N N r-I N v I- N OD N O W N r-i r Ip 4 LO LO Ln Ln (N r-I O Lr) N r-i 'IT r-I O 4 a) �• H �, C t7�Hu) WH W m N(n W C) F4 11�' OHUW AWWUWW O. W u)OOHWOUZW zzWZ OW t>7H zWA; LaUpCu]4rn aUa51H C7 U C� >i aLzfjrn OCYOHH �ti� N OOUHavn O U�4E-iC7ufPxpwr 0a�H�0 H N oWHLT.LU H H%pG W Hrwwz z U H �z Zx4 Pr 0 H H HL7%O UH qqO >1HH;00 P4 H cn >GHtn WU�LDHHOH ao f� U 41 }L 0r -IE-+ U HHLa-� HWHUrnCQr, �-�W(� Wu� � H zv�ua aUUHW WO OIZWH ; O otz Ortf q�(�] HHd,d rnaHt) H OroU t`q HLl�•�] (�L� xHrYZ , WaW C7a x ]4&aW +1 rI u 0C4 C SG0C 'If� H U] a(YiR lYi H Ln PriHHP4 WaiLaH WH�UHa�ua ay f1;N N Q Hx N U OW O$~at�UUH HHPgElx'07;»(a�WfL' WHHOaW CUAUHMHW,Xw OWaWHHUu) 00O('MLnD UHHO WaWHUNWR'i "., �zLZ+ OWHU ]E- +WWU'Q;�SHWWUW]OWHa�FW4C[�I >CHHNE-1 Ua Haaatnulw L� N r�riu�x x f=L�� I,UA�SLLFCf NNE19HHUa Q MWHOOOEWW( vF4a :�HHOHHOFgX -VHUHNWW�; A� r-1 Ul H 00 WoolDOOOOmLna00000co <000000000000b ",;Ir`or- iomm0000000r -loo p. 4J WD00- iLMr�M000O�NO)Noo W'ZOOOOOOOOOOOWOE -000 -1r-I1- 01IDOOr-IM00MM00' U al O Oz�- 1N�7 'NNNV'610161�61m61m[�.r/]t7, --I ID CO ri,--{,-. 1r-i, �r {ppHr{,- {�NNNN016101NMd�Nr�O161 O1 r-im �i 41 HOzWc-i ri ri[`t�l�t�[�[�['�I�[�rI 100101Zr�NNNm'd'�01 .- INNmmcl� d'cl"cl'd'_ vmo00ri ri ri �-I rimm H Fi r- IW�r- ir1� 1'c)•VLd'd'dL��1LCPVLIpIpIDwO --1 - Ir-{ r- 1r. lrir- iriNNNNNNWmmMmmmmd '[MdL[M[M'cM[T�'c7Lt7L H ro v� o mmmmmmmmmmmmmc�mma wLnLnLnLnLnLriLnLnLnLnLr�ln, nacololDloloIDCDIDIOIDIOID�D���� �I 5+ G N a N�� >Cp O w a1 � C7 I Id 0 U• ri 4J v it W 0- ri'd'0q d d -x z uWpr. 0 r. 0 Id •ria)00N0 1 G, r1. r,. r., r i r n r- t 'r 00 NNIOO M MM OlN k.0 CO Ln O N Ln Ln t(') CDN N�IO [S ON 14 71 A of � CO � Ln !` CO � l0 lO � O ri M � lO C V� O M M .-i lfl O N ri eM N ri r-.I r-I � --I I I I a 0uo00001- Or 00000H IOOMOLnOOODONOOOOOOMOOOlO000Ln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O10 M001 -001 O U) OO OO O N lO 000O 0 u) 0001 v OlOH M00001- 00000 L() I�w 0(D 00 IV 00 Lo (Y) Ln r-,;v m m c)mcD H u)000Ot.f')OOU7Moor -LnN NMI NOU��r -IN NIOU�Cr- Ir -iNr-I N� r-I I I I 1 I I OOr- 10000000r -IOr -I C.O r- -10r -I 000000OD 10000 OOU) 00001 -OON000.�TOWOlO000000MMC)--;v O OCR O O O O 1O O Ln N O 4 L7 O 1` O L(70 0 0 O O I� 61004 Lo O w 000(D 610 N1-OLn 1- 0 Lf) O ri O O O O IO N r-1 r- tlo of r4NNLnr-61u)r -I-v I�OIOMU)NOwtnun(DVv 61[- r-1tom NMrir -I ri NNMM 01NNNN� oLr)r-iN M l0 lfl; L- NMOO M .-i0 C) c41 Ln O r-I O 610 r -10 N N61 611OLOMMM OON Co N ODIOU)O ri NO 0 k 1- O LC) O COMO N (-l0 r -IU)Nm v i OO�w V� 1 O 10 u7NO to Ln lo c) N (n Ln U) OM OD L. 0l O u)N OlO I� O01 u74 ONL71O ONC c>' N lD ri CD m I-1- 00 (`') ,v Ln V, 110 u7 u) L) Mmolo M Io IO d'N 1` -W 4>I` M1-01 01 r-1 H 1f) [- O N M M N N 1- L- lO Vv 0 1-10 w k.0 I` W 00 lO C' r-I M O N N r-I ri O ri .--I ri N r-I M N ri ri rIi N ri of O M 1- 00 M O .-i O O O M O O N O Ln I� M O O O N O O O lO O O N r-1 I-- u) O O tO � O110 lON L(') N O O O W 01 lO S OD ri � of 0 00 M d' O 00 lO O O 1O01M l0 l0 U) N OM M 110 r-I H h O N 1- 0) M N Ln Ln -,, L, kl ri M O ri M N ri rIi ri 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD LOLO,- .N 000[- O0 OOOr- 1000Lo tnCOONNO �MMNCnr- i�nu)r- I�MNlOU7C+MNNr -I MOD O N 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ou) LO 'czv-00 0000.- iODOU7Lo NONNO LnMMNU). -i t!')tn ri v�MNlO to vMNN. -i MOD 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 1010 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ; c . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ot-[- NNLnONWLnN w Ln -4 O cW (D u) O O I- Ln Lr) OC 101- r-I. -i ririrl t.0w 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 0 00000000000000000000000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 0 0 O O O N NNON%.O u)N vu7 ri CD IV CD U-) O O1-Ln Ln O Cv ko r- Ln Ln r-I (YI-LnfM N ririri ri r-I' -i Lo Lo OZ �F1U) WH C7HHN "O FS) i .- W HGaaHi7 "r`eC [�7'ZW i/21�I1 F1'a G+ Xi wH �WU) >1 z z waa(n x w as w z Hx(pQ�ZaH PWUa4 u,a U)(na+C7z U)OUH HHH OHU)NW WN U �]r�HU;7Ha Q�Z zHx NH H UrQ', � ZZ O`�DNF -1 , Ul{YUa H WU]� a Cp H NH�W P4 W Z WHH HOU::) U)C9.�j H U)QUw �q U)WHE4 QOU>(0owua HN WOOt7 zF((OZiUHW 4400aww N NUUC��aq �a HWw aHH HWt7 fY,RC OWW t1:WzaHHW ' C9Ozz�CNW � O OHHzz,a2LEi z HU 124 N H H U) H W''z HHZOW 14C4H �cCC R+ w WQA WHHx (�HHCHU t P(X U)zWHC4UH(Y,xxO wUp;11Y,HHHU) p >,RmP4, HzzU NO HaHUUW WNHH�Wzw wr4o wH510HHU)Qpa-IWHOUWUUZa4U)W< ON tL'lZaHNMMW4, 44 Eai�fa�f14N OQOPP4i0 WO UOOUZUaaO� oQ~aHawowmnaDH,+ o � U w�'�x�x�owwawQO�H�o 000000001-1 lnlOr- MM000N0000000001nO00000000000000OHNMOOO ;1000; 0[�ONOOri00rir- 111111- IriNMd' Lf) ri.- irll�rilOhOriMMOlririririM 'd'rir- 1011- INri�l'6)016)01rir- ilO�Or.i01. d' r- I101OriNrAHMMMMMMM' c!' c1" cTU) h01 61rir- 1'- 10(D 06) 0) riN0lri"H NMVL1 .C)L- m0161(710)0)riN(9F,riri0) tl'-zrIn Lo (D w w w w w w w w w l0 w w w w w r,mw 010161010),4 ri H N N N N N N N N NNNNNNV'V�'d�H d'V'd'd'dLC"V'�P to Ln LC)ln to tnlntl'ILnL(1 t17 u7 Lt7 In to Ln Ln Ln to tfl0. lO tO lOi 101OIOCOCOlO( OIOtDlOIOIO101OIOIOCOIOIOIOIO( Dl0l01010LO1010l0lO. lO( DIOCOlOIOIOIOIOCOIOtDl0l000kDtDtOIO� [�[�[�! iU t i 1612 Fund Detail Proforma Summary Grouped By Fund Center Collier County Government A7 Fiscal Year 2013 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Adopted Actual Adopted Amended Forecast Current Expanded Budget % Change 130 Golden Gate Community Center Expenditures 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community 960,914 1,070,000 1,068,180 1,053,600 1,012,300 0 1,012,300 -5.39 Center Revenues 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community 527,884 538,800 538,800 537,700 530,100 0 530,100 -1.61 Center Fund Total Expenditure: 960,914 1,070,000 1,068,180 1,053,600 1,012,300 0 1,012,300 -5.39 Fund Total Revenue: 527,884 538,800 538,800 537,700 530,100 0 530,100 -1.61 Fund Balance: - 433,030 - 531,200 - 529,380 - 515,900 - 482,200 0 - 482,200 -9.22 GovMax V5 1 4124/2012 1612 A7 Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 130 Golden Gate Community Center 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 50 Personal Services 2,593 0 2,600 0 0 0 0.00 512100 Regular Salaries 233,532 287,764 289,700 287,764 0 287,764 0.00 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 1,002 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 512700 Cell Phone Allowance 35 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 512800 Taxable Deposit 25 -30 6,811 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 57,724 74,700 74,700 51,700 0 51,700 -30.79 514100 Overtime 1,663 0 100 0 0 0 0.00 518100 Termination Pay 482 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 518200 Voluntary Separation Incentive Prog 2,583 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 0 10,368 0 1,157 0 1,157 -88.84 521100 Social Security Matching 22,021 28,737 27,600 26,234 0 26,234 -8.71 522100 Retirement Regular 25,951 20,087 17,000 22,410 0 22,410 11.56 522800 Allowable Taxable Deposit 25 -30 -6,811 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 523150 Health Insurance 90,960 101,968 102,000 106,184 0 106,184 4.13 523151 Health Insurance - Vsip 1,900 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 523160 Life Insurance Short - Long Term 790 776 800 751 0 751 -3.22 524100 Workers Compensation Regular 5,100 3,200 3,200 6,700 0 6,700 109.38 527200 Allowance For Cell Phone -35 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 50 Personal Services 443,709 528,600 516,100 503,900 0 503,900 -4.67 60 Operating Expense 634204 It Direct Client Support 2,593 0 2,600 0 0 0 0.00 634207 IT Capital Allocation 600 1,800 1,800 700 0 700 -61.11 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation 22,643 21,100 21,100 18,700 0 18,700 -11.37 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation 4,700 5,000 5,000 3,800 0 3,800 -24.00 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 90,600 113,100 97,600 94,300 0 94,300 -16.62 634999 Other Contractual Services 54,016 49,000 49,000 49,100 0 49,100 0.20 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies 0 500 500 500 0 500 0.00 640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular 865 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 643 2,400 2,400 3,000 0 3,000 25.00 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge 58 400 400 200 0 200 -50.00 641230 Telephone Access Charges 0 2,500 2,500 2,000 0 2,000 -20.00 641300 Telephone Installations 56 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 641700 Cellular Telephone 432 700 700 700 0 700 0.00 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation 4,075 5,800 5,800 5,800 0 5,800 0.00 641950 Postage Freight And Ups 115 0 100 0 0 0 0.00 641951 Postage 0 200 200 500 0 500 150.00 643100 Electricity 64,488 68,800 68,800 68,800 0 68,800 0.00 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal 6,301 6,500 6,500 6,500 0 6,500 0.00 643400 Water And Sewer 14,689 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 15,000 0.00 644170 Rent Temporary Storage 0 3,500 3,500 0 0 0 - 100.00 644600 Rent Equipment 3,525 13,500 13,500 13,200 0 13,200 -2.22 644620 Lease Equipment 1,981 2,400 2,400 3,500 0 3,500 45.83 645100 Insurance General 5,600 5,400 5,400 5,800 0 5,800 7.41 645200 Property Insurance 24,200 21,800 21,800 24,500 0 24,500 12.39 645260 Auto Insurance 0 0 0 100 0 100 100.00 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors 6,189 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings 11,959 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 593 4,700 13,000 6,200 0 6,200 31.91 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 0 3,000 3,000 2,000 0 2,000 -33.33 646317 Fencing Maintenance 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 646318 Mulch 7,540 6,000 6,000 6,000 0 6,000 0.00 646319 Tree Trimming 7,640 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0.00 GovMax V5 1 4/24/2012 1612 A7 + Expenditure Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2013_ FY 2012 15,343 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 130 Golden Gate Community Center 0.00 70 Capital Outlay 89,158 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 11,100 40,000 0 40,000 -22.33 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Operating Expense 1,070,000 1,053,600 1,012,300 0 1,012,300 -5.39 646320 Landscape Materials 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 0.00 646410 Autos /Trucks Rm Outside Vendors 0 0 0 100 0 100 100.00 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead 2,196 3,100 3,100 5,200 0 5,200 67.74 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 3,955 2,800 2,800 3,300 0 3,300 17.86 646445 Fleet Non Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 102 0 0 100 0 100 100.00 646452 Playground Equip Maintenance 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 0.00 646710 Office Equipment R And M 345 500 800 500 0 500 0.00 646910 Data Processing Equip R And M 0 800 800 800 0 800 0.00 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 3,000 0.00 647110 Printing Binding Outside Vendors 8,200 8,200 8,200 6,500 0 6,500 -20.73 648160 Other Ads 27 200 200 200 0 200 0.00 648170 Marketing And Promotional 7,981 10,000 10,000 8,200 0 8,200 -18.00 649010 Licenses And Permits 1,725 1,200 1,400 1,500 0 1,500 25.00 649035 Judgements /Fines And Costs 0 200 200 200 0 200 0.00 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee 3,203 3,500 3,500 3,500 0 3,500 0.00 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 2,873 7,000 7,000 4,100 0 4,100 -41.43 651110 Office Supplies General 3,721 5,200 5,200 3,900 0 3,900 -25.00 651210 Copying Charges 335 3,600 3,600 0 0 0 - 100.00 651910 Minor Office Equipment 294 500 500 3,000 0 3,000 500.00 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 478 2,200 2,200 2,800 0 2,800 27.27 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental 0 400 400 800 0 800 100.00 652140 Personal Safety Equipment 510 500 500 500 0 500 0.00 652210 Food Operating Supplies 1,011 4,100 4,100 3,600 0 3,600 -12.20 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings 3,563 5,400 5,400 5,000 0 5,000 -7.41 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies 2,356 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 4,000 0.00 652720 Medical Supplies 48 1,500 1,500 700 0 700 -53.33 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 16,451 10,000 10,000 7,700 0 7,700 -23.00 652940 Merchandise Resale 10,444 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0.00 652990 Other Operating Supplies 16,834 11,700 52,100 21,600 0 21,600 84.62 652991 Electrical Supplier 0 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 0.00 652992 Electrical Contractors 138 2,500 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 0.00 652999 Painting Supplies 0 1,000 1,000 500 0 500 -50.00 654110 Books Publ & Subscriptions 2,332 400 400 400 0 400 0.00 654210 Dues And Memberships 570 600 700 600 0 600 0.00 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 255 1,700 1,700 1,700 0 1,700 0.00 60 Operating Expense 428,047 489,900 526,400 468,400 0 468,400 -4.39 70 Capital Outlay 763100 Improvements General 15,343 51,500 11,100 40,000 0 40,000 -22.33 763501 LOCKED - Lighting Poles 73,815 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 70 Capital Outlay 89,158 51,500 11,100 40,000 0 40,000 -22.33 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 960,914 1,070,000 1,053,600 1,012,300 0 1,012,300 -5.39 130 Golden Gate Community Center 960,914 1,070,000 1,053,600 1,012,300 0 1,012,300 -5.39 Report Total 960,914 1,070,000 1,053,600 1,012,300 0 1,012,300 -5.39 GovMax V5 2 4/24/2012 1612 A7 o-4 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier Count Government Fiscal Year 2013 50 Personal Services 1 177 0 0 50001564 - PPA2 - ORTA ROGELIO 1 147 157710 -130 512100 Regular Salaries 50001740 - PPA1 - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 117 0 0 50001741 - PPA1 - ZAPATA RAFAELA 1 50001347 - Salary - WILSON VICKIE 1 64,694 0 0 0 0 50001564 - Salary - ORTA ROGELIO 1 28,406 0 0 0 0 50001735 - Salary - REYES JACQUELINE 1 10,658 0 0 0 0 50001740 - Salary - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 23,504 0 0 0 0 50001741 - Salary - ZAPATA RAFAELA 1 23,504 0 0 0 0 50001743 - Salary - ALLEN JULIE 1 43,645 0 0 0 0 50001744 - Salary - TORRES GREGORY 1 30,300 0 0 0 0 50001745 - Salary - VIDAURRI EVELYN 1 30,300 0 0 0 0 50001746 - Salary - CORIANO RAMON 1 32,753 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512100 Regular Salaries 287,764 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 1 478 0 0 0 0 1 4,000 50001347 - DC50 - WILSON VICKIE 1 500 0 0 0 0 50001743 - DC50 - ALLEN JULIE 1 500 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages Frontier Days 8x $9.77 x 10hours 1 800 0 0 0 800 Holiday Camp - 2 x $9.77x 4 days x 11 hours(347290) 1 900 0 0 0 900 Tropical Fest 8 x$9.77 x 8 hours 1 700 0 0 0 700 VPK 2nd Instructor- 1 x $10.38 x 540 hours(347990) 1 5,600 0 0 0 5,600 VPK lead teacher 1 x$14.57x 790 hours 1 11,500 0 0 0 11,500 Wheels - 1 x $11.30 x 30hr x 50wks 1 17,000 0 0 0 17,000 Wheels 2nd staff 1x $9.77 x 30 hrs x 52 weeks 1 15,200 0 0 0 15,200 157710 -130 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 51,700 0 0 0 51,700 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 50001347 - PPA3 - WILSON VICKIE 1 177 0 0 50001564 - PPA2 - ORTA ROGELIO 1 147 0 0 50001740 - PPA1 - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 117 0 0 50001741 - PPA1 - ZAPATA RAFAELA 1 117 0 0 50001743 - PPA2 - ALLEN JULIE 1 147 0 0 50001744 - PPA2 - TORRES GREGORY 1 147 0 0 50001745 - PPA2 - VIDAURRI EVELYN 1 147 0 0 50001746 - PPA2 - CORIANO RAMON 1 147 0 0 Rounding 1 11 0 0 157710 -130 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 1.157 0 0 157710 -130 521100 Social Security Matching 50001347 - FICA - WILSON VICKIE 50001347 - MEDI - WILSON VICKIE 50001564 - FICA - ORTA ROGELIO 50001564 - MEDI - ORTA ROGELIO 50001735 - FICA - REYES JACQUELINE 50001735 - MEDI - REYES JACQUELINE 50001740 - FICA - HENDRY ZACHARY 50001740 - MEDI - HENDRY ZACHARY 50001741 - FICA - ZAPATA RAFAELA 50001741 - MEDI - ZAPATA RAFAELA 50001743 - FICA - ALLEN JULIE 50001743 - MEDI - ALLEN JULIE 50001744 - FICA - TORRES GREGORY 50001744 - MEDI - TORRES GREGORY 50001745 - FICA - VIDAURRI EVELYN 50001745 - MEDI - VIDAURRI EVELYN 50001746 - FICA - CORIANO RAMON 50001746 - MEDI - CORIANO RAMON Addtl FICA on Other Sal per Schedule Notes: Year round Job Bank Employees 157710 -130 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4,064 0 0 0 0 1 950 0 0 0 0 1 1,775 0 0 0 0 1 415 0 0 0 0 1 661 0 0 0 0 1 155 0 0 0 0 1 1,468 0 0 0 0 1 343 0 0 0 0 1 1,468 0 0 0 0 1 343 0 0 0 0 1 2,753 0 0 0 0 1 644 0 0 0 0 1 1,893 0 0 0 0 1 443 0 0 0 0 1 1,893 0 0 0 0 1 443 0 0 0 0 1 2,045 0 0 0 0 1 478 0 0 0 0 1 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 521100 Social Security Matching 26,234 4,000 1612 A7 + Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier CountX Govemment Fiscal Year 2013 50 Personal Services 1 175 0 0 0 0 50001564 - LIFE - ORTA ROGELIO 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 77 0 0 0 0 50001740 - LIFE - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 50001347 - HA - WILSON VICKIE 1 4,269 0 0 0 0 50001564 - PA - ORTA ROGELIO 1 1,879 0 0 0 0 50001735 - HA - REYES JACQUELINE 1 701 0 0 0 0 50001740 - HA - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 1,554 0 0 0 0 50001741 - HA - ZAPATA RAFAELA 1 1,554 0 0 0 0 50001743 - HA - ALLEN JULIE 1 2,882 0 0 0 0 50001744 - PA - TORRES GREGORY 1 2,003 0 0 0 0 50001745 - HA - VIDAURRI EVELYN 1 2,003 0 0 0 0 50001746 - HA - CORIANO RAMON 1 2,165 0 0 0 0 Addtl Retirement on Other Wages 1 3,400 0 0 0 3,400 Futsal 157710 -130 522100 Retirement Regular 22,410 0 0 0 3,400 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 50001347 - HLTHaII - WILSON VICKIE 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001564 - HLTHaII - ORTA ROGELIO 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001740 - HLTHaII - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001741 - HLTHall - ZAPATA RAFAELA 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001743 - HLTHaII - ALLEN JULIE 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001744 - HLTHaII - TORRES GREGORY 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001745 - HLTHall - VIDAURRI EVELYN 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 50001746 - HLTHaII - CORIANO RAMON 1 13,273 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523150 Health Insurance 106,184 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short - Long Term 50001347 - LIFE - WILSON VICKIE 1 175 0 0 0 0 50001564 - LIFE - ORTA ROGELIO 1 77 0 0 0 0 50001740 - LIFE - HENDRY ZACHARY 1 64 0 0 0 0 50001741 - LIFE - ZAPATA RAFAELA 1 64 0 0 0 0 50001743 - LIFE - ALLEN JULIE 1 118 0 0 0 0 50001744 - LIFE - TORRES GREGORY 1 82 0 0 0 0 50001745 - LIFE - VIDAURRI EVELYN 1 82 0 0 0 0 50001746 - LIFE - CORIANO RAMON 1 89 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 523160 Life Insurance Short -Long Term 751 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 524100 Workers Compensation Regular Workers Comp 1 6,700 0 0 0 0 50 Personal Services 503,900 0 0 0 69,100 60 Operating Expense 157710- 130 634207 IT Capital Allocation Capital replacement charge 1 700 0 0 0 0 157710- 130 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation IT Automation Allocation 1 18,700 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634211 IT Billing Hours Allocation IT Billing Hours Allocation 1 3,800 0 0 0 0 157710 - 130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement Indirect Service Charge 1 94,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 634999 Other Contractual Services Excercise classes (347990) 1 6,500 0 0 0 6,500 Cheerleading (347990) 1 8,500 0 0 0 8,500 Entertainment Skate/BMX events (DJ, bands, etc) (347990) 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Family Special events 1 500 0 0 0 500 Futsal 1 9,500 0 0 0 9,500 Marcia Galle Dance Class (347990) 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 Martial Arts (347990) 1 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 Notes: Adding Judo Class Pee Wee Sports (347990) 1 800 0 0 0 800 Referees 1 1,800 0 0 0 1,800 Security for events 1 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 i 1612 A7 � Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier Count Govemment Fiscal Year 2013 60 Operatina Expense 157710 -130 634999 Other Contractual Services Tropical Fest 1 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 1577I0 -130 634994 Other Contractual Services 49,100 0 0 0 49,100 157710 -130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplies Locksmiths Services and Supplies 1 500 0 0 0 500 157710 -130 640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular Mileage 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel FRPA Conference 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 NBL BMX Conference 1 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 Other OOC Training 1 500 0 0 0 500 157710 -130 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Devel 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 157710 -130 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge Vehicle Loaner /Rental 1 200 0 0 0 200 157710 -130 641230 Telephone Access Charges Telephone Access Charge 1 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 641700 Cellular Telephone Supervisor - $57 /mth x 12 1 700 0 0 0 700 157710 -130 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocation Per budget instructions 1 5,800 0 0 0 5,800 157710 -130 641951 Postage Postage for letters/Packages 1 500 0 0 0 500 Notes: Mailing of Advisory Board Packets 157710 -130 643100 Electricity GGCC Electricity 1 68,800 0 0 0 68,800 157710 -130 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal GGCC Trash Pick ups 1 6,500 0 0 0 6,500 157710 -130 643400 Water And Sewer Water and Sewer 1 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 157710 -130 644600 Rent Equipment Blue Grass Festival 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 BMX Qualifier (347400) 1 2,900 0 0 0 2,900 Movie Nights 1 800 0 0 0 800 Senior Expo (347400) 1 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 Sound System $2000 (347400) 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Tropical Festival ( sound systernJents & generators) 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 (347400) 157710 -I30 644600 Rent Equipment 13,200 0 0 0 13,200 157710 -130 644620 Lease Equipment Copier Lease agreement 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 Notes: Overage charges 157710 -130 645100 Insurance General Insurance General 1 5,800 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 645200 Property Insurance Property Ins 1 24,500 0 0 0 0 157710 - 130 645260 Auto Insurance Auto Ins 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors Facility Painting 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 157710 -130 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings 161L A7 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2013 157710 -130 646317 Fencing Maintenance Fence repairs and maintenance 157710 -130 646318 Mulch Playground mulch Red Mulch 157710 -130 646319 Tree Trimming 1 2,000 0 0 1 4,000 0 0 1 2,000 0 0 157710 -130 646318 Mulch 6,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 4,000 0 2,000 0 6,000 Tree Trimming 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 157710 -130 646320 Landscape Materials 60 Operating Expense Flowers, plants and ground covering 157710 -130 646180 Building R And M Isf Billings 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 157710 -130 646410 Autos/Trucks Rm Outside Vendors Special service repairs on skate park /BMX track 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 157710 -130 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead Sprinkler Maintenance 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 5,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet Basketball goals annunal maintenance 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Notes: Annunal maintenance and repair 3,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646445 Fleet Non Maint ISF Parts and Sublet Clay for BMX track 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 Gym Floor Reseal 1 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 Topsoil 1 1,700 0 0 0 1,700 157710 -130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 6,200 0 0 0 6,200 157710 -130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc benches 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 Picnic Tables 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 157710 -130 6463I6 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Etc 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 157710 -130 646317 Fencing Maintenance Fence repairs and maintenance 157710 -130 646318 Mulch Playground mulch Red Mulch 157710 -130 646319 Tree Trimming 1 2,000 0 0 1 4,000 0 0 1 2,000 0 0 157710 -130 646318 Mulch 6,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 4,000 0 2,000 0 6,000 Tree Trimming 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 157710 -130 646320 Landscape Materials Flowers, plants and ground covering 1 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 157710 -130 646410 Autos/Trucks Rm Outside Vendors Vehicle Loaner /Rental 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead Fleet Maintenance ISF 1 5,200 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet Fleet Maintenance Parts 1 3,300 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646445 Fleet Non Maint ISF Parts and Sublet Fleet Non - Maintenance 1 100 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 646452 Playground Equip Maintenance Playground parts 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 157710 -130 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors BMX starter gate repairs 1 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 157710 -130 646710 Office Equipment R And M Copier Maintenance 1 500 0 0 0 500 157710 -130 646910 Data Processing Equip RAnd M Flex care and Child Care Station 1 800 0 0 0 800 157710 -130 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance Security Cameras R &M 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 157710 -130 647110 Printing Binding Outside Vendors Printing and or Binding Outside Vendors 1 6,500 0 0 0 6,500 157710 -130 648160 Other Ads Yard sales advertising 1 200 0 0 0 200 157710 -130 648170 Marketing And Promotional Tropical Fest and seasonal events 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Marketing 1 6,200 0 0 0 6,200 60 Operating Expense 157710 -130 648170 Marketing And Promotional 8,200 0 0 0 8,200 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Permits 1 200 0 0 0 200 DCF License (347990) 1 100 0 0 0 100 Frontier days (347400) 1 400 0 0 0 400 Right of Way for special events (347400) 1 200 0 0 0 200 Special events (347400) 1 800 0 0 0 800 157710 -130 649010 Licenses And Permits 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 157710 -130 649035 Judgements/Fines And Costs 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Safety Boots - 3 x $160 1 False Alarms 1 200 0 0 0 200 157710 -130 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee 0 0 2,800 157710 -130 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals Credit Card Fees 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 157710 -130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 2,000 157710 -130 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings Movie privileges for outdoor movies (347400) 1 400 0 0 0 400 NBL Insurance/Memberships 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 Race Report Fees (347230) 1 200 0 0 0 200 157710 -130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 4,100 0 0 0 4,100 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General ASA 1 200 0 0 0 200 Misc. Programs 1 1,700 0 0 0 1,700 Office supplies 1 1,800 0 0 0 1,800 VPK 1 200 0 0 0 200 0 157710 -130 651110 Office Supplies General 3,900 0 0 0 3,900 157710 -130 651910 Minor Office Equipment Scanner /Printer 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 Notes: Replacing equipment 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 500 0 0 0 500 Athletic program shirts 1 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 ASA counselors shirts - 2 x $5 x 10 1 100 0 0 0 100 Nametags -15 staff x 1 nametag x $12 1 200 0 0 0 200 Pre School Shirts - 100 x $5 1 500 0 0 0 500 Notes: Added afternoon class 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Safety Boots - 3 x $160 1 500 0 0 0 500 157710 -130 652110 Clothing And Uniform Purchases 2,800 0 0 0 2,800 157710 -130 652130 Clothing And Uniform Rental Maintenance Uniforms - 3 x 260 1 800 0 0 0 800 157710 -130 652140 Personal Safety Equipment Personal Safety Equipment 1 500 0 0 0 500 157710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 5th Grade Dances - 3 x $400 (347400) 1 1,200 0 0 0 1,200 ASA Food 1 100 0 0 0 100 Preschool (347990) 1 300 0 0 0 300 Programs and Special Events Food (347400) 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Notes: Breakfast with santa, movie nights and senior expo I57710 -130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 3,600 0 0 0 3,600 157710 -130 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals Fertilizer for common grounds 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 157710 -130 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings Fuel and Lub ISF 1 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710 -130 652510 Household & Institutnmal Supplies Paper & Cleaning Supplies 1 3,900 0 0 0 3,900 VPK 1 100 0 0 0 100 �86YWdWflY0Efe0mM 1 2,700 0 0 0 2,700 60 Operating Expense 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 157710 -130 652510 Household & Institutional Supplies 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 7,700 0 0 0 7,700 First Aid Kits 1 300 0 0 0 300 First aid re -stock 1 300 0 0 0 300 VPK 1 100 0 0 0 100 157710 -130 157710 -130 652720 Medical Supplies 700 0 0 0 700 157710 -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment Audio equipment 1 2,700 0 0 0 2,700 Equipment for programs 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 Tables & chairs 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 157710 -130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 7,700 0 0 0 7,700 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 1 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 BMX Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 Skate Merchandise (347903) 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 157710 -130 157710 -130 652940 Merchandise Resale 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies Art and craft Supplies (347990) 1 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 ASA (347990) 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 BMX/Skate (347400) 1 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 Game room ,sports and program equipment 1 3,000 0 0 0 3,000 Lumber, building ,fencing, tools etc... 1 6,000 0 0 0 6,000 Preschool supplies (347990) 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 Seniorexpo 1 2,100 0 0 0 2,100 157710 -130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 21,600 0 0 0 21,600 157710 -130 652991 Electrical Supplier Repair and replacement of electrical parts 1 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 157710 -130 652992 Electrical Contractors Electrical Contractors 1 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 157710 -130 652999 Painting Supplies Painting Supplies 1 500 0 0 0 500 157710 -130 654110 Books Pohl & Subscriptions CPR books 1 400 0 0 0 400 157710 -130 654210 Dues And Memberships FRPA - 3 x $200 1 600 0 0 0 600 157710 -130 654360 Other Training Ed Exp ASA training 1 200 0 0 0 200 CPRP certifications 1 1,100 0 0 0 1,100 DCF mandated 40 -hr training and in- service trainings 1 200 0 0 0 200 VPK 1 200 0 0 0 200 157710 -130 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 1,700 0 0 0 1,700 60 Operating Expense 468,400 0 0 0 304,800 70 Capital Outlay 157710 -130 763100 Improvements General Playground Shade 1 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 70 Capital Outlay 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 1,012,300 0 0 0 403,900 130 Golden Gate Community Center 1,012,300 0 0 0 403,900 i 16 1 A7 j. Revenue Service Level Analysis grouped by Fund, Fund Center �r Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2013_ FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Adopted Object Code and Account Name Actual Adopted Annualized Current Expanded Total % Change 130 Golden Gate Community Center 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 30 Revenues 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes 295,538 279,000 276,900 276,900 0 276,900 -0.75 311200 Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes 162 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 341446 Sales Of Xerox Copies - Taxable 87 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 347230 Permit Membership Sales Parks And Rec 4,423 8,300 8,300 5,800 0 5,800 -30.12 347270 Athletic Programs Parks And Rec 24,846 20,400 20,400 24,700 0 24,700 21.08 347290 Recreation Camps Parks And Rec 3,754 9,800 9,800 7,000 0 7,000 -2857 347400 Special Events 20,902 24,500 24,500 26,000 0 26,000 6.12 347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable 10,841 12,000 12,000 12,000 0 12,000 0.00 347905 Admission 1,531 2,000 2,000 1,800 0 1,800 -10.00 347908 Concession Fees 10,694 4,000 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 25.00 347909 Permit Membership Sales 215 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 347911 Facility Rentals Taxable 19 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 347940 Facility Rentals Culture Rec 37,668 27,200 27,200 39,200 0 39,200 44.12 347990 Instructional Services Culture Rec 112,620 146,600 146,600 131,700 0 131,700 -10.16 361320 Interest Tax Collector 33 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 366900 Contributions Private Source 5,521 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 - 100.00 369700 Cash Over Under -969 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 30 Revenues 527,884 538,800 537,700 530,100 0 530,100 -1.61 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 527,884 538,800 537,700 530,100 0 530,100 -1.61 130 Golden Gate Community Center 527,884 538,800 537,700 530,100 0 530,100 -1.61 Report Total 527,884 538,800 537,700 530,100 0 530,100 -1.61 GovMax V5 1 4124/2012 i 1612A7 130 Golden Gate Community Center 4 Account Major Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2013 Service FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 130 Golden Gate Community Center 1157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 30 Revenues 157710 -130 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes Millage Neutral Ad Valorem 1 276,900 0 0 0 276,900 157710 -130 347230 Pen-nit Membership Sales Parks And Rec Adult Wheels Memberships - 50 x 25 1 1,300 0 0 0 1,300 Notes: Adult Memberships have gone down. Wheels Youth - 450 x $10 1 4,500 0 0 0 4,500 Notes: Don't collect race memberships anymore 157710 -130 347230 5,800 0 0 0 5,800 157710 -130 347270 Athletic Programs Parks And Ree Futsal Camp 60 players x $125 1 7,500 0 0 0 7,500 Notes: New program Adult Volleyball Tournament- 8 teams x $100 1 800 0 0 0 B00 Notes: New Program Futsal soccer 350 players x $40 1 14,000 0 0 0 14,000 Notes: More Players Judo 18 students x $65 1 1,200 0 0 0 1,200 Notes: New Program Volleyball play - $1 /player x 50players x 6wks x 4 sessions 1 1,200 0 0 0 1,200 157710 -130 347270 24,700 0 0 0 24,700 157710 -130 347290 Recreation Camps Parks And Rec BMX/ Camps - 10 campers x 2 wks x $110 1 2,200 0 0 0 2,200 Holiday Camp - 25kids x $65 1 1,600 0 0 0 1,600 No School Camps - 20 kids x $15 x 2 days 1 600 0 0 0 600 Notes: Split camps between parks Spring Camp - 30 campers x $85 =$3000 1 2,600 0 0 0 2,600 157710 -130 347290 7,000 0 0 0 7,000 157710 -130 347400 Special Events Community Yard Sales 1 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 5th Grade Dances 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 BMX races - 23 x 26 racers x $8 1 4,800 0 0 0 4,800 Notes: Drop in race price due to NBL switch Breakfast with Santa - 100 x $2 1 200 0 0 0 200 Notes: New program Farmers Market $500 x 10 months 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 Frontier Days 1 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 Senior Expo 1 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Notes: Decrease in Sponsor Booths Spring Programs 1 3,500 0 0 0 3,500 Tropical Fest 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 Notes: Decrease in attendance 157710 -130 347400 26,000 0 0 0 26,000 157710 -130 347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable Wheels resale merchandise - $10,000 + 20% mark up 1 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 Notes: Decrease in sales 157710 -130 347905 Admission Daily Admission to Wheels- 350 walkins x $5 1 1,800 0 0 0 1,800 157710 -130 347908 Concession Fees Vending Machines 1 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 157710 -130 347940 Facility Rentals Culture Rec Facility Rental 1 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Senior Food Program $350 x 12 months 1 4,200 0 0 0 4,200 157710 -130 347940 39,200 35,000 35,000 35,000 39,200 GovMax V5 1 4/2412012 1612 Account Major Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Fund, Fund Center Collier County Government A7 Fiscal Year 2013 Service FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 130 Golden Gate Community Center 30 Revenues 157710 -130 347990 Instructional Services Culture Rec ASA - 15 x $500 x 2 sessions 1 15,000 0 0 0 15,000 Notes: Decrease in registration Report Grand Total 530,100 119,500 Ballet and Tap Dance 9 sessions x 12 participants x $40 1 4,300 0 0 0 4,300 Notes: New programs BMX clinics 16 sessions x 10 participants x $5 1 800 0 0 0 800 Cheerleading 12 sessions x 25 participants x $40 1 12,000 0 0 0 12,000 Notes: Drop in attendance Karate 12 sessions x 25 participants x $45 1 13,500 0 0 0 13,500 Pee Wee Sports- 3 sessions x 15 participants x $36 1 1,600 0 0 0 1,600 VPK- $2710 x 26 1 70,500 70,500 70,500 70,500 70,500 Yoga /Aerobics /Zumba -100 sessions x 20 participants x $7 1 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 157710 -130 347990 131,700 84,500 84,500 84,500 131,700 30 Revenues 530,100 119,500 119,500 119,500 530,100 157710 -130 Golden Gate Community Center 530,100 119,500 119,500 119,500 530,100 130 Golden Gate Community Center 530,100 119,500 119,500 119,500 530,100 Report Grand Total 530,100 119,500 119,500 119,500 530,100 GovMax V5 2 4/24/2012 WilsonVickie I From: PryorCheryl Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:11 PM To: WilliamsBarry; Washbumllonka; AlvarezAnnie; WilsonVickie Cc: CamellSteve Subject: GGCC Good Afternoon, As usual, I am having trouble balancing this fund. I have prepared two options to balance: Option 1 1. Remove $40,000 in FY13 proposed capital 2. Reduce operating costs by $14,900 3. Do not put a reserve for contingencies in FY 13 $23,000 (not recommended) 4. Keep reserve for roof & a/c flat with FY 12 — saves $6,900 Option 2 (recommended) 1. There is a vacancy right now — a program leader. Do not fill this year which will increase carryforward by $15,200 2. Do not fill or fund this position for FY 13 saves $48,100 3. Reduce proposed capital by $19,800 Please note that both options provide for an increased transfer from 111 of $1,700 instead of the budget guidance of a decrease of 5% or ($18,100). 1 feel we can do this because the indirect cost allocated to 130 went down from last year and thus the 111 side decreased as well. Also, both options include a millage neutral budget as well as a balanced 40/60 split. Keep in mind that the taxable values will be released on June 1 and the ad valorem revenue may change. We are currently estimating a 5% decrease in taxable values. Please let me know what you want me to do by Tuesday AM so I can put this together in GovMax. I recommend the option 2 but do not know the needs of the park as far as the vacancy is concerned. Thanks, Sherry 252 -8578 GGCC - FY 13 Budget.xlsx A -n Public Services Division Parks & Recreation Department Golden Gate Community Center (130) Mission Statement To benefit the well -being of the people, community, and environment of Collier County. Program Budgetary Cost Summary FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Program Summary Total FTE Budget Revenues Net Cost Golden Gate Community Center 7.00 771,453 429,400 342,053 The Golden Gate Community Center serves as a meeting place for (4.7%) Operating Expense 337,447 community groups and provides structured programming for all ages via 417,200 374,100 - 374,100 classes, activities, and special events and offers informal gathering Indirect Cost Reimburs 90,600 113,100 opportunities through open game room and drop -in recreation programs. 94,300 94,300 (16.6 %) Childcare/Preschool, Afterschool, No School, Vacation Camp 0.50 46,475 92,500 -46,025 Strive to meet family needs by providing a safe and supervised 40,000 (22.3 %) Net Operating Budget environment for all children to attend throughout the year. Provide 1,070,000 1,028,500 1,012,300 - recreational and enrichment experiences for self - esteem, self- reliance, (5.4 0/6) Trans to Property Appraiser 2,909 learning, pleasure, health and well being_ 2,600 3,000 - 3,000 Community Center Maintenance 1.00 197,372 - 197,372 Protect resources, provide a pleasant, clean, safe and enjoyable 5,300 - 5,300 (5.4 %) environment for community center visitors to allow quality passive and - 25,900 - organized recreational experiences by the public. - (100,0%) Reserves For Capital Reserves/Transfers - 36,400 529,800 -493,400 Current Level of Service Budget (63.8 %) Total Budget 969,818 8.50 1,051,700 1,051,700 - 1,051,700 (11.7 %) Total FTE 8.50 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Program Performance Measures Actual Budget Forecast Budget Increase Fee Based Facility Rentals by 2% 650 663 663 663 Increase Fee Based Program Registrations by 2% 2,400 2,448 2,448 2,448 Program Budgetary Cost Summary FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Adopted FY 2012 Forecast FY 2013 FY 2013 Current Expanded FY 2013 Requested FY 2013 Change Personal Services 443,709 528,600 508,700 503,900 - 503,900 (4.7%) Operating Expense 337,447 376,800 417,200 374,100 - 374,100 (0.7 %) Indirect Cost Reimburs 90,600 113,100 97,600 94,300 94,300 (16.6 %) Capital Outlay 89,158 51,500 5,000 40,000 40,000 (22.3 %) Net Operating Budget 960,914 1,070,000 1,028,500 1,012,300 - 1,012,300 (5.4 0/6) Trans to Property Appraiser 2,909 3,000 2,600 3,000 - 3,000 0.0% Trans to Tax Collector 5,995 5,600 5,600 5,300 - 5,300 (5.4 %) Reserves For Contingencies - 25,900 - - - - (100,0%) Reserves For Capital - 86,000 - 31,100 - 31,100 (63.8 %) Total Budget 969,818 1,190,500 1,036,700 1,051,700 - 1,051,700 (11.7 %) Total FTE 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 - 8.50 0.0% Fiscal Year 2013 1 Public Services Division ■ Forecast FY 2012: Personal services are below the FY 2012 adopted budget due to a vacancy during the year Capital outlay was decreased by $40,400 and operating expenses were increased by the same amount. Part of the playground renovations were completed and were deemed repair and maintenance and not truly a capital item, thus the reclassification. Current FY 2013: Personal services decrease due to a decrease in salaries for temporary employees. These savings were off -set somewhat by increases in the retirement rates, health and workers compensation insurances. Capital expenditure of $40,000 is for the continuation of the playground replacement at the Community Center. There are no reserves for contingencies and the reserves for capital funding set aside for the purchase of a roof and a new air conditioning system was reduced to $31,100. Planned current FY 2013 totals would be $92,900 which would represents $45,100 for the air conditioning system and $47,800 for the roof_ Revenues: The budgeted ad valorem tax revenue of $265,100 represents a tax levy of 0.1990 mills based on current year estimated taxable value of $1,332,138,825 (estimated 5.0% decrease from prior year final). The tax levy represents a millage neutral rate and equates to $19.90 per $100,000 of taxable value. The indirect cost reimbursement process was changed to reflect just the Golden Gate Community Center direct portion of this fee and the portion that is funded by the MSTD General Fund (111) is paid at a top -level and the transfer from the MSTD General Fund (111) is reduced accordingly. The same methodology was utilized during the current fiscal year. The transfer from the MSTD General Fund (111) increased $1,700 as the indirect cost was lower than in the prior year. The total of the transfer and the MSTD General Fund portion of indirect cost together represent a 5% decrease per adopted budget policy. Fiscal Year 2013 2 Public Services Division i A 7 Collier • Government Fiscal Year 2013 Requested Budget Public Services Division Parks & Recreation Department Golden Gate Community Center (130) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 FY 2013 Program Funding Sources Actual Adopted Forecast Current Expanded Requested Change Ad Valorem Taxes 295,538 279,000 276,900 265,100 265,100 (5.0 %) Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes 162 - - - - na Charges For Services 227,598 254,800 255,800 253,200 - 253,200 (0.6 %) Miscellaneous Revenues 4,552 5,000 5,000 - - - (100.0 %) Interest/Misc 3,737 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 3,600 0.0% Trans frm Property Appraiser 435 _ _ _ _ _ na Trans frm Tax Collector. 2,470 - - - - - na Trans fm 111 MSTD Gen Fd 373,100 362,000 362,000 363,700 363,700 0.5% Carry Forward 400,000 313,100 325,500 192,100 192,100 (38.6 %) Less 5% Required By Law - (27,000) - (26,000) (26,000) (3.7 %) Total Funding 1,307,593 1,190,500 1,228,800 1,051,700 - 1,051,700 (11.7%) Forecast FY 2012: Personal services are below the FY 2012 adopted budget due to a vacancy during the year Capital outlay was decreased by $40,400 and operating expenses were increased by the same amount. Part of the playground renovations were completed and were deemed repair and maintenance and not truly a capital item, thus the reclassification. Current FY 2013: Personal services decrease due to a decrease in salaries for temporary employees. These savings were off -set somewhat by increases in the retirement rates, health and workers compensation insurances. Capital expenditure of $40,000 is for the continuation of the playground replacement at the Community Center. There are no reserves for contingencies and the reserves for capital funding set aside for the purchase of a roof and a new air conditioning system was reduced to $31,100. Planned current FY 2013 totals would be $92,900 which would represents $45,100 for the air conditioning system and $47,800 for the roof_ Revenues: The budgeted ad valorem tax revenue of $265,100 represents a tax levy of 0.1990 mills based on current year estimated taxable value of $1,332,138,825 (estimated 5.0% decrease from prior year final). The tax levy represents a millage neutral rate and equates to $19.90 per $100,000 of taxable value. The indirect cost reimbursement process was changed to reflect just the Golden Gate Community Center direct portion of this fee and the portion that is funded by the MSTD General Fund (111) is paid at a top -level and the transfer from the MSTD General Fund (111) is reduced accordingly. The same methodology was utilized during the current fiscal year. The transfer from the MSTD General Fund (111) increased $1,700 as the indirect cost was lower than in the prior year. The total of the transfer and the MSTD General Fund portion of indirect cost together represent a 5% decrease per adopted budget policy. Fiscal Year 2013 2 Public Services Division 0 w v 0 N a N O_ N V O CWJ O N N O fTw OD OCOT CNT N_ Vm1 "O :� 3 3No @ m T O^ CL 01- m n o N `@ @ @ m Q CD @ m 3 @ m N O N 3 y m N F D m a Q m v 3 m Q c m n m @ D Am N m m < m m ? m Ora �pIA O O gNCO O D O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w N N G 0 N 7 G 6 N U t [T Nm�O m w 88" @ X m $ O 00 O O 00000 M w A W (li W N W 0 N N CO W W O V A m 41 c0 N Q) N O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _o` o 000 0 000000 m m a y m 0 m O O O O O O D O � OT CWT N� O A m [ADpO O O a @ m 3 m D a m 0 m 3 N CD W CD O m D N N @ ID O 0 0 co C, m 0 000 @ If d 1 TD 0 n 1 CL N 0 y n � z m m O C m @ n m OTm a a Ep !C n O fJ O � A o m o_ N N 12A7 ji mmmm�mmna� x n 'n d � d� o r 0C) v� z gym° m wZ ")T(7 'Kn_00„� m m W m m X n -q n FR = 3 3 m C cp _Z{ m G Z NCT T (p AN .Np�NO 7 M m A N Z tDN OACT W S d °000 0000000000000 z m w 4 m O N X y3 7 CT 2 wow w 0 000000o 000) w a N N 40 Cq W V O (J N W O nn A W 0 fTAw w00 O c w oo °o °o °00 °00000 °00 r O a y 0 y Z a Q� Q C Q o y D 'o D n 'o � n � 2 A y d Q q O 3 0 3 Fn to o_ m CT (b N W fNSJ CIppD 0 0 0 O O O O D p �.0 p N O T7 O H o 0 O T O m C 0 CD N m O m O cnaw�r.�m � T ^m m m m N O N N N r n W am N,Ua m m ➢i �x m � N 0 0 ci e<i d N m n < U, o m a 1O �.Cy.. (D 00 3 d @ mpg 3 p1 m <��n m (D v m @ m @ c -m 33 m (/� N � d ➢1 y m S y @ N m @ @v @m m ' ° a 0 Oc m a w m o< O 0 N N N x O O m @ N � S m B O ID m C O, m 0000 COO O O O ON O Qj O O O (A 3 ° CD n m a oo 3i @ 0- m m 0 m m C m @ N p m CD O Q 0 3 m c m CL D7 a < y O 0 d V O CWJ O N N O fTw OD OCOT CNT N_ Vm1 "O :� 3 3No @ m T O^ CL 01- m n o N `@ @ @ m Q CD @ m 3 @ m N O N 3 y m N F D m a Q m v 3 m Q c m n m @ D Am N m m < m m ? m Ora �pIA O O gNCO O D O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w N N G 0 N 7 G 6 N U t [T Nm�O m w 88" @ X m $ O 00 O O 00000 M w A W (li W N W 0 N N CO W W O V A m 41 c0 N Q) N O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _o` o 000 0 000000 m m a y m 0 m O O O O O O D O � OT CWT N� O A m [ADpO O O a @ m 3 m D a m 0 m 3 N CD W CD O m D N N @ ID O 0 0 co C, m 0 000 @ If d 1 TD 0 n 1 CL N 0 y n � z m m O C m @ n m OTm a a Ep !C n O fJ O � A o m o_ N N 12A7 ji mmmm�mmna� x n 'n d � d� o r 0C) v� z gym° m wZ ")T(7 'Kn_00„� m m W m m X n -q n FR = 3 3 m C cp _Z{ m G Z NCT T (p AN .Np�NO 7 M m A N Z tDN OACT W S d °000 0000000000000 z m w 4 m O N X y3 7 CT 2 wow w 0 000000o 000) w a N N 40 Cq W V O (J N W O nn A W 0 fTAw w00 O c w oo °o °o °00 °00000 °00 r O a y 0 y Z a Q� Q C Q o y D 'o D n 'o � n � 2 A y d Q q O 3 0 3 Fn to o_ m CT (b N W fNSJ CIppD 0 0 0 O O O O D p �.0 p N O T7 O H o 0 O T O m C 0 CD N m O m O �1 cJ N �L) 4 i I '` 1612 A7 O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O0. _ ,p O 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 O O Cl O 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O O O O - O t0 N p - L . H4 f9 64 fR fH (A d4 N9 f9 N4 d4: Ki. 69 O O 00 0 0. Q - «4 - 00 -- -__- _ - -- O — r,j 00 °O 00 p p O - -- --- -- NQ n . LO] N 00 _ GO Op O 0 C) Ct O °O N i 0 a n aNi c c a m d N o m d o o. c m n a O m c.. R �. �. o awi c �� -J -J axi o: . 3 W;v. �. d n o W c � v E; U Z' rn c O A U� N C C. U m d U F- -� O 3 L N, O:a m' .m.. E m O)'U �. c, �; °� v a: `o rn s -O m 4) (n X v c i (n o °: U m o E -`5 m `m J N 3 U c m m o o �° 4! d!L �'� d !� m o rn a c— d N n m d a a c c R— a �.V o o a o� mU,c-Y v °a U a iii > > y m o ma >.c Nto a m ti c4 o m m d N CL m o m E L N O L d o m p N N' m f�D 0 3 Q n y �. N.0 LL.Ir d CA Ir m 2' �_a fA >. �. v. ami m: m' o. o O LL oi; ai m o m s° °o m.V U aaaa'aa'a'aaaaa UUUU UU Um N s o o i- ►-' o u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 U U U U U U a' = C9 C9 (9: C7 (9 0 (9 0 (9 (9 C9 C9 (9 (9 (9 (9 °' (9 (9 c_ a a a U a U E a a Y s s O7 x x (9 C9 (7 C9 09(9(9(90 (9(9(9 (9(9(9(9F -U' C9 UUU UfnUvJ m E N N JJJ �, � w c a 12 A7 � BMX STATE QUALIFIER �'Sv Jan. 13 -15 2012 EXPENSE /REVENUE BREAKDOWN Supervisor: $500 Track Director /Program Leader: $750 Program Leader: $150 (cleanup) Program Assistant: $100 (Cleanup) Port o Pots: $1610.00 Supplies: $100 Tent Rentals: $1306.55 Expenses: $4517.00 Sports Council /TDC Head &Bed: $645.00 (215 rooms x $3.00) SSA State Cup Qualifying Riders: $5236.00 SSA State Cup Vendors: $1175.00 Camping: $600.00 $7656.00 ow 16 12 A7 LI/ RESOIXYHON NO. 2008-154 V i A RESOL'UTION OF THE BOARD OF COLTINTY CO-NINIISSIONERS OF COLLLER. COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVfNG THE REUSED GUIDE1,114ES AND RULCS OF THE GOLDEN GATE CONkIMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, on February 4, 2008, the Golden Gale Community Center Advisory Cortunittee voted unanimously to approve revisions to IN,- guid,lines and rules of its Board; and 0 WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to those guidelines and rules include ebanging the name from !he Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee to the Golden Gate Cormnunity Center Advisory Board, exN;-nding the terms of its membership, and adding an alternate. member position; and WHERE —AS, on,'vlay 27, 2008, at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, paragraphs awnberad 2 and 5 of the Section entitled "Ad-�Asory Board Appointm, -vts, Terms of Office, Etc." lof thy, Revi.ser-d Guidelines and Rules of the Golden Gate- Counnunity Center Advisory Board were revised to remove wasideratioa of an alternate member posiften to the Board and to amend to the attendance requirtments to conform to Section Eight of Coltier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, as amended. NOW, 11HEREFORE, BE 11T RESOLVED BY THE BOARrj OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER. COi TY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approves, as modified, the avached Revised Guidelines and Rules of the Golden Gate Corm nut ity Center Advisory Committee, now knoN m- as the Golden Grate Community Center .And visory Bmd. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same this 27t" day of Mwy, 2003. A 1 LS C' ay C, t 44". to N i r, w0tv Uut, viqnwbr�i 0a M. P- rvvkf!�-d Lo V '4 IC j-, . t 11 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, C01--l"IER I T y F ft I 1111 f lol2p7 I Golden Gate Community �ente[A _� dyisqjyRoard Revised Guidpl in{ s ' u,,d iZuleS May -27., 2009 C) rations: L The operation of the Center will be under Cho direct CC)DITOI and responsibility of the Center's Supervisor, wbo will be an cmployce of Collier G-.)unty and a resident of the MSTD within six inonths from the date of hirifkg and administ,mfively responsibit to the County Managt-r or his dvsib a e, nerd will be governed by the Personnel Rules aiid Policies ol"Collier County. 2. All rules for the operation and inainwriance of the Cenk r Shall reqq'il-0 tile approval of the Board of County ConirnissiolicrS. 3, The budget and VCSU1t1Dg f-Apenditures of ffi-� Center will be established .in accordance with the laws, and regulatigns of the State of Florida and Collier County and within the confines of the legal millage established for the taxing district and other revenues of the taxing district derived from th.c- operation of the Center or other sources. Advisoa Board: 1. it is the responsibility and obligation of the Gofdcrn Gate Conin-lunity ce-ii.tar AdvisoTy Board to serve the interests of the taxpayors and residents of the district as defined by Ordinance- 75-4, as amended. Pursuant thereto, the Advisory Board shall: A. Annually review the proposed budget for the corning fiscal ycar. as prepared by the Center's SiketrAsor and reviewed by County Commissioners within the millage limits eastablishtyd 1'or the district. B. Make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on matters relating to proposed budgetary adjustments darling the fliscal year. C. Review unbudgded expenditures exceeding $1000 and all budget amendments requiring BCC approval. D. Recoramend changes In the rules governhig The uso of the building to the Board of County Commissioner S. E. Recommend the employinent of the Center Supervisor as deteardned by a selection committee composed of Lhe Advisory Board Chain-man, a represc-ntativc (rorn Parks and Recreation and a mpr�s(-,ntative flroni th(e Collier Count- -Ffuman Dcix;rimieo,,i-. Thu seleGt;ao ,vi fl 16 12 A7 4 presented to tho ball advisory Board for approvad prior to rcconunsnd2t;on to the 13cc, F. The MvIzovy Bcnn-d will have; th-, discxettion to advisd 'h,.� Director of Parks and Recreation, in vnifing, on the contents and proposed changes of the job descriptions for those Cen -teT I Stf employees authorized in fic t di �ct i budget. G. Receive and re-view monthly reports (and special reports as requested) prepared by the Center's Supervisor, on the actual and p1mrred activitics of the Center and its employees, the status of budgeted expenditures and revenues, the status of special. projects and programs, and similar matters of concarn in carrying out the daies of the Advisory Board. 1-1. Thf-, Center Supejwisor iii-id staff, shall schedule buildbig use. Any orgaaizatio�-.i wishing to reserve a room on a yearly basis must submit an ar-pticatioii, 'nic application will be reviewed by the Advisovj Board at the discretion of the Center SUp�MSQI`. L. Regular -meetings of the Advisory Board shall be held monthly and annotinced in advance complyhig with the current County policy. Special meetings may be called if approved by the majority vote of the Adviswy Board members in attendance at tli(-, regular scheduled meeting, and by posting notice of such called special raecting, Identifying such meeting as "Special" wall I-V such poAng to be made at least (24) hours prior to th-- meeting. Emergency r y a majonty of the members meetings may be called by the chairman or b provided a (24) Hour notice is posted and given as provided a...bove for special Meetings. Official Meeting minutes and other necessary records will bl- kept. All meetings will be op�-,n to the public and will be held in the Community Center building. 'I'lie Advisory Board shall be comprised of three (3) to five (5) Inembe'rs, who will appoint from within the group, amivally, by majority vote, a Chairman anti a. Vicc-ChaiTmn. Rules governing the responsibilities of the officers of the Advisory Board may be established by the Advisory Board consistent with these guidelines, subject to approval by the Board. of County Comulissioners. 2. 'fli,; Advisory Bu-,zd rnembrxs will be appointed by the Board of County Comn-tissioncrs for staggered three (3) year terms of office to commence on the V, 'day of January. See attached ordinance 2001-55 as referenced. The Boa-rd of County Comrn-issioiiers shall make the final decision. on appointments mkiRg; into consideration the recornmendation ftom the Advisory Board. See attached rv;oInflon 2006-83 is refe-rence, k 1612 A7 A 3. .t§_ MaiOrlty Of Oa% ?:Ot-i I M its -Ibt rs I •.tip of the Aclvisony Bcx-,rd -4. wCol-631ce "Vi 1 h S cccion Ei Jga of OfEli wu,N,;" i'ai3. '2GO -1 -JS, Copies of the r1li'mit,jS wiH be m?&,- w;ailabl(.- w f,--acll nl.cw-t,,bf;r of tllz= Advi,--or� sular , County Nfanagcr 01 his designe"'., nved Bo rd ol:* Couvav be filled W-tih the Clerk- to flulf; 13cC �-fad tccpy v�lili lbf,; ava-DaIllic ad fft-, c2te CofrimuiCity C�ru,�-r. Rcspicmsibllilies of thf,- wil I b- IhC,Se irl ',hU I-ICISI tIC"JIS job dixcliptixi, ii-I sdid'Alon to 1:4c fo'Howinfz: A. Prepare, ibe, artnual t,,udget and to tb{-. Acdvisccy -t!c-,u-d for recommendation to tit,' BCC, accorciiiog to Jic, Colli-(,.� CGunty BiW&3t POI-Gies alld G" - C peraM wilhin 0",-; %III10al 4di4c,.( in caul-luv� budgetzuv policics, w C. Provide a writt(nl -M 37t oti -uh�; -,laid cpxl-Mbn- Sf&L-us of the Cl%;ntQi7 to the Advisory Board, Effective- Dares: 'Viiese guidclim�s shall supersede all. i-m--vmusly in cEfect -tlacl sholl 'ce.�-vinc effective, oji t'he date they are approvf-'d b-,,, Boanl of Ccu.Lnty Apm-oved by -die Adviscry 'E3o,,3xd -App�-Ovcd by dw &zlzard of Couply Conw-mAssionmrs l i A Ilk. i l � 1612 A7 COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 75 4 WHEREAS, the public welfare requires certain municipal E facilities and services within the Golden Gate Area of Collier County, Florida and Section 125.01. (q) of the Florida Statutes grants authority for the Board of County Commissioners -to establish such a district. — NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SECTION ONE: D 1. Creation of the Golden Gate Municipal Services District. The "Golden Gate Municipal Services District'is hereby created, with the boundaries described as .follows: (ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A ") 2. Governinq Board; Powers and Duties. a. The governing board of the district shall be the Board of County Conunissioners of Collier County, Florida with the po:aer and duty to conduct the affairs of the district with the powers prescribed by Florida Statutes Section 125.01 (q) including, but riot limited to the power to equip, operate and maintain facilities and equipment- within the district; to buy, lease, sell, exchange, or otherwise acquire, hold and dispose of equipment: and other personal or real property ar_d to (-�raploy and discharge employees; to prom..ulgatc �:u1cs and regulations to admini.sLe.r_ the dirt --rict and t-o protect persons and property within the district. b. `.1`he Board shell appoint a con>rnittee of thr_eo (3) to J.l'c, (5) c?jo.ci;oro— rc iclznn ­ Lhe Cl1 strl.cL to so -3''F3 ` t ugeroCi 0 _ _. A14 OP,DINANCE TO CREATE THE GOLDEN GATE MUNICIPAL SERVICES SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT WITH POGE-�R TO LEVY NINE - TENTHS, (9/10). OF ONE (1) M• L OF AD VALOREM TAXES UNDER SECTIOi1 1.25.01 (q) OF THE FLORIDA STATU'T'ES; ESTABLISHING THE BOARD OF cr, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS TIPS, GOVERNING BOARD WITH AN ADVISORY COUNCIL; PROVIDING POWER TO FINANCE, CONSTRUCT, OPERA'T'E AND MAINTAIN A CONLMU�IITY _? CENTER AND PERFORM THOSE FUNCTIONS ENU24ERATED BY SECTION 1.25.01 (q) "OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES; L-" RECEIVE, PURCHASE, OPERATE, I•'IAINTAIN AND DISPOSE OF PROPERTY, Er•lPLOY PERSONNEL; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the public welfare requires certain municipal E facilities and services within the Golden Gate Area of Collier County, Florida and Section 125.01. (q) of the Florida Statutes grants authority for the Board of County Commissioners -to establish such a district. — NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SECTION ONE: D 1. Creation of the Golden Gate Municipal Services District. The "Golden Gate Municipal Services District'is hereby created, with the boundaries described as .follows: (ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A ") 2. Governinq Board; Powers and Duties. a. The governing board of the district shall be the Board of County Conunissioners of Collier County, Florida with the po:aer and duty to conduct the affairs of the district with the powers prescribed by Florida Statutes Section 125.01 (q) including, but riot limited to the power to equip, operate and maintain facilities and equipment- within the district; to buy, lease, sell, exchange, or otherwise acquire, hold and dispose of equipment: and other personal or real property ar_d to (-�raploy and discharge employees; to prom..ulgatc �:u1cs and regulations to admini.sLe.r_ the dirt --rict and t-o protect persons and property within the district. b. `.1`he Board shell appoint a con>rnittee of thr_eo (3) to J.l'c, (5) c?jo.ci;oro— rc iclznn ­ Lhe Cl1 strl.cL to so -3''F3 ` t ugeroCi 0 _ _. lb I'2 A7 of two (2) years each to hold meetings at such times and places as it shall determine for the purposes of advising the Board regarding the affairs of the district. C. The Advisory Committee shall annually prepare a district budget and estimate the funds, their purpose and the ad valorem taxes necessary'-to carry the provisions of this Ordinance for the following fiscal year as prescribed by Chapter 1-29 of the Florida Statutes. d, Upon-adoption of the district budget by -the Board it shall cause the budget to be recorded in the Board minutes and shall cause to be levied on all property within the district a millage sufficient to fund the budget not exceeding nine tenths (9/10) of one (1) mill in any one year -to be assessed and collected as though County, taxes, e° The Treasurer of -the Board shall: 1) Issue all warrants for services, equipment materials and other expenses incurred by the district and approved for payment by the governing board. 2) on or before the end of each fiscal year prepare an annual report to the receipts and expenditures of the district to the governing board as required by Section 218 °20.et seq of the Florida Statutes. 3° A special referendum election is hereby ordered and called to be. held can March 25, 1975 in the area of the proposed district described in Attachmerit "A" hereof to submit to th6 qualified electors residing therein the question if the district shall be created'to comprise the area described. 4. The ballots to be used for this election shall be in - substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT . ° GOLDEN GATE MUNICIPAL SERVICES SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT CREATION Shall there be created a Special Tax Municipal Services District to be known as the "Golden Gate Municipal Services Special Taxing District" with ;power to levy name tenths (9/10) of one (1) mill of Ad Valorem .taxes and issue General Ob•li•- gation,Bonds and otherwise as described in the 3 PAGE a 16 1 A7 ordinance enacted by the Collier County. Board of County commissioners on February 18, 1975? SECTION TWO: FOR /-7 AGAINST L This ordinance shall- be liberally construed to effectuate its public purpose. 2® If any portion, phrase or word of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall not be affected. 3. Waiver of Notice. The Board of County Commissioners hereby waives notice requirement by a four fifths (4/5) vote declaring that an emergency exists necessitating the immediate enactment of this Ordinan I ce. The Clerk to the Board shall file a•certified copy of this ordinance in the D&partment of State as soon after its enactment as is practicable by registered, special delivery mail. 4, Effective Date. This ordinance shall not become effective until after adoption, filing with the Secretary of State, and upon receipt of official acknowledgment from the- Secretary of State of the certification by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County and it'. s Clerk that this Ordinance was approved by referendum election, ENACTED By THE BOARD OF COUNTY COYIMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THIS 18th DAY PF FEBRUARY, 1975. ATTEST: MARGARET T. SCOTT Cle k of Circu_"t Court L L Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY C01TMISSIONER COLLIER CO FLORIDA By: COLLIER Thomas F> Archer, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Davin Emerson Bruner Collier County Attorney V ......... .. BOARD OF COUNTY C01TMISSIONER COLLIER CO FLORIDA By: COLLIER Thomas F> Archer, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Davin Emerson Bruner Collier County Attorney - -- BON PAGE 63 — b 16 12 �•v7.�_a.c3: Uc,lL.i-LLY, L °1.u�.:.�ic:9 (1 C, c): cl gPGolc1cm Cato X111.0. ° e 9 lat Tjoo � a 73-7/1 ' 26 27 7 17 -18 28 • 7 - 19 --2.0 32 . 7 21-•22 ,. 34 . 7 •° 2 3 ' and Golden Gate x]17 Y: -it 'Foo,C pa 'C 1_ • 9 100-101 °. 60 -6 /1 2 Q 9 11G -1iE� ' 2 ° 2 7 60-67. 2 3' 7 69--70 ; 2 - 65°-77 3 11 9.110 A ° 3 ° 5 97• -105 4 a 5 • 1.07•-1.16 ° S 117 --12 - -- BON PAGE 63 — b A7. �_@��'._�.�!ed -P. ...a' .��4•�. �••m,•j r -'t. �.... ._ ... .�. "s •...e..ser...i . ✓..,. ..�+•. -...J ...rte o-�.•e'.�,,:.��4�'�A` .,• .e. _.�•... _n. -•, .- ......•...... \' /�.. •. ` ' 4 •� -t 4B.q t1 �•. ° r^ Che r - -�� D ^�) —I �0� ��e� ja'6• o•Y /e l d e • � IL� .D. as 1. ° �•� 6. o OK, B � i� �. 4. o-- •..-- --"�'° �tri Vic• � y° a ° �l1 b 1. 1. 9 •B� -p7 !- • `"p 124-134 • 5 7-35°-146 .5 147-151 8 ° • • , 107h --112 0 • • ,aid a ,. _ B .. .. nit Unit 2., �s record,eci ill plat Book 7 � I'age 54: Cate 7_li t}lc �.b7_ic = , • dill alb0'egG' Play books ,and pages �cco�decl �loaada) Records ill Colliei: Count }➢, - ���- • Township aa'd 1%2 ®�- Sect�_oil 35, `' P jF9 `South, • sections 33, . P,,inge 26 East; ` Maxi: of Scc9.�o11 3, lyi_nC, 1"0) tlz atz� j'esL o _. a chat Sect on 4 and c 1 I'>oau Ala j -n Tov-11S)19.T) 50 Soutll 26 Eac.t° Sta to 0 PACE • • 4 II 16 12 �,� n (�E�fiMf�fnl Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee D Gulf American Corporation (GAQ A J U 1 0 ;3 01 Monday, January 23, 2012 6:30 p.m. BY........................ Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District - Administration Office 13250 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida Karen Acquard - Chairman Fiala p � Jeff Curl - Vice- Chairman Hiller Pat Humphries — Member Henning W. James Flanagan III — Member (teleconference) Coletta Vacant - Member Toni Mott, Manager, Real Property Management Misc. Corres: Michael Dowling, Sr. Property Management Specialist, Real Property Management David Chalick, Collier County Libraries Date: Cl/I I 111 -2- Distribution: Minutes — November 9, 2011, Regular Meeting Item $:.. Ln'r 2 i4 $ Treasurer's Report Copies to: Proposed GGE Library Sign information Call to Order: The meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Karen Acquard at 6:30 p.m. Approval of Agenda — A motion was called by Karen Acquard, Jeff Curl made a motion to approve and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries, all were in favor. There was no further discussion and the Agenda was approved unanimously. II. Approval of Minutes: Karen Acquard requested a change on Page 3 of the minutes where the names of Pat and Karen were incorrectly referenced. A motion was called by Karen Acquard to approve the Minutes with the revision on Page 3, Jeff Curl a motion to approve the minutes as amended and a second to the motion was made by W. James Flannigan, all were in favor. III. Treasurer's Report: Michael read the treasurer's report and Jeff Curl suggested that the report be revised to show the Max Hasse Park Commitment as a `correction' from October 11, 2011 treasurer's report. Karen called for a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report with the change suggested by Jeff Curl, Jeff made the motion and Jim Flanagan seconded the motion, and all were in favor. IV. GGE Library Funding Request:. David Chalick introduced himself to the Committee, gave a brief history behind the location and 16 year operation of the Golden Gate Estates Library as well as future programs that may be offered. Mr. Chalick said that use at the library has decreased and usually the library would publicize offerings through mailing brochures to the public. However, due to budget cuts, the library may limit mailing advertisements of events and programs at the library. The library would like to erect a monument- styled sign advertising events at the library on Golden Gate Boulevard and 13a' Street Southwest, which will measure approximately six feet by eleven feet. Mr. Chalick said the sign would be illuminated and will also provide commuters with library offerings. Mr. Chalick passed out a handout which showed the concept and style of the sign, as well as the estimated price of $7,000, as well as the cost of the lighting fixture and wiring for $5,000. 1612 Ag , Page Two Karen Acquard questioned the location of the sign and Mr. Chalick said the sign would be a one -sided sign and be placed kitty comer at Golden Gate Boulevard and 13ths Street,'Southwest. Mr. Chalick also said they could move several palm trees to place the sign in another location. Karen was concerned with the placement of the sign and that the sign should be placed further back from the corner. Jeff Curl said that the County's code requirements will determine the location of the sign. Karen Acquard also questioned the six inch size of the lettering and that the numbers for the building on the sign were larger. Jeff Curl questioned the colors of the sign and the design in that the sign is arched and the building is angular. Jeff felt the colors were not appropriate;, as a complement to the building or the neighborhood. Jim Flannigan commented on the size of th4 sign and if it would be easily visible by approaching vehicles. Jeff Curl explained that the sign ;ompany would have to provide a site plan for the County's permitting review. Jim Flannigan questioned whether a six foot wide sign would be sufficient to read and Mr. Chalick advised that the sign is, eleven feet wide and six feet high. The Committee commented on the colors and the style of the sign again and Jeff Curl stated that the sign Lykins Sign provided was `right off the shelf.' Karen Acquard restated that the sign should be easy to read and should be positioned properly to avoid traffic problems. Jeff Curl. said that if you're at the light, you'd be able to read it clearly. Pat Humphries suggested that Mr. Chalick come_ back with alternative designs, colors, and lettering. James Flanagan asked if the County had a standard sign that has been used that would allow people to recognize the sign as a library. Mr. Chalick said that this sign would be the first type of sign to advertise events at any library. James Flanagan asked if the sign would be back front lit and if LED lights would be used. Mr. Chalick advised it would be front lit and LED lights are not allowed in Collier County; Jeff Curl said he would prefer front lit. Pat Humphries asked'" if there were any library signs similar to the presented design to see as an example, and Mr. Chalick said the sign would be similar to the school signs. Karen Acquard asked if the sign was needed by a certain date. Karen said she'd like to see the options of other sign designs, a site plan, how the sign will be lit and would like maze information and letter options so the Committee could provide more input on the sign. Jeff Curl stated that the Committee would like to be recognized on the sign as donating the sign. Karen Acquard asked Toni Mott what . wording has been used in the past and Toni said, `Funded by the GAC Land Trust Committee or Funding provided by the GAC Land Trust.' Karen said it doesn't have to be large lettering but should be on the sign so that the community can see that the GAC Land Trust Committee is active in the community. Karen also asked for an idea of the cost of the electric usage for lighting the sign, and if the County would have that budgeted so that the lights could stay on for a portion of the night and not be turned off early. Karen would like assurance from management, Marilyn Matthes and Marla Ramsey, that the sign could be lit until ten or eleven o'clock at night. Jest Curl said that the sign should be tied into the parking lot lights and the cost of installing the lights shouldn't be as expensive as was quoted. Toni said that the vendor must be on the County's list of apprgved vendors so that they can be reimbursed according to County purchasing policy. Karen asked Mr. Chalick to come back to the Committee with options in the next few months that include more detail Jeff suggested that Mr. Chalick contact the Parks Department, Tony Ruberto, for help with the sign.; Jeff also stated that the swale will have to be considered as well as the County's sign setback regulations. Mr. Chalick said that he would go through the Facilities Management Department for the sign 'and Toni stated that Troy is the contact person and maybe the sign companies would respond if Troy were to get involved. Karen Acquard said that the people in the Estates enjoy the services provided to the community and like the Max Hasse Park, which is widely used; the library may enjoy that traffic as well. 1612A8 Page Three Jeff said the last thing he wants to see is a sign like that at the Max Hasse Park and would like the sign to reflect the architecture of the library. V. Reserved List to the Board of County Commissioners: Toni Mott stated that she and Michael were finalizing the reconciliation of the acreage on the Reserved List (List). Toni stated that the List should be taken to the Board in the next few months. Toni provided an option for the Committee to conduct a special meeting, or for the Committee to approve the concept tonight an4 then later provide the Executive Summary to the members in its final format by email so that the Committee members can agree or deny the draft. James Flannagan asked if the issue was the Reserved List. Toni stated that the List reflects the properties that were being held in reserve, future sales and those sold. Toni stated that she and Michael are going through each transaction after thirty years to: reconcile the acreage so that going forward the Committee and our successors will have a real number to work with. James Flannagan asked if staff would go back to the Property Appraiser's Office at some point. Toni said that the twenty page report, containing at least fifty entries per page, is being closely reviewed and if there is a point in time that the acreage is unable to be reconciled, staff, may recommend to the Committee that due to time and multiple staff members involved in the project and the changes in the Property Appraiser's records, the acreage may have to be adjusted. Toni stated that the List usually goes to the Board every five years. Karen asked Toni what is being asked of the Committee and Toni restated for the Committee to either conceptually approve the concept with a follow -up email forwarding the Executive Summary to the members, or to call a special meeting to discuss. Pat Humphries asked that a special meeting be held to discuss the acreage. Pat questioned one of the reports in -hand. Toni explained that the Treasurer's Report shows that the value of those reserved properties last updated in 2006, was $7,794,670 and that the recent valuation'is $1,189,580. Toni said those numbers will change on the next Treasurer's Report but the numbers reflected in the report presented serves as a response to a tasker from the Committee. The Committee discussed a date for a special meeting and March 21 at 6:30 p.m. Karen asked why some of the properties on the list showed as `N /A' and `O' acreage and wanted to know what those entries meant. Toni said that some of the properties were not purchased with GAC funds and were part of the properties in question while reconciling the acreage. VI. Max Hasse Park Expansion Update: Toni stated that the Parks Departmerit was scheduled to go to the Board of February 14, 2012, to award the contract in the amount of $40,533, which is slightly less than what they anticipated the cost would be. Toni said that sixty percent of that is $270,199.80 and that is without change orders. Toni said that one of the items in the Coirimittee's package was to confirm the motion and tape from a previous meeting regarding the Committee's funding to the project. Toni also said that staff confirmed that the property for the Max Hasse Park was not purchased with GAC Land Trust funds but the property used for the entrance was purchased with GAC Land Trust funds. James Flanagan asked if the Committee has a policy in place for how funds are awarded or if there is a limit to the amount of funds awarded. Karen said there is no policy and the awards depend on the request and the need at the time and that the Committee tries to work with all agencies to work with each to fulfill their needs. Jeff stated that the pie chart staff provided will be beneficial in showing how the funding has been granted to the various agencies. Karen asked That staff have the chart available at future meetings for reference purposes. Page Four 1612 A8 ' VIII. Parks and Recreation Funding Request: Toni advised that Barry ;said that Parks will be attending the Land Trust meeting in May or June. Karen asked what the request will be. Toni stated that it may involve the Big Corkscrew Regional Park and the original plan was that when the water and wastewater plants were built, the park would be located on Site; the recycling center would also be located there. However, with the slowdown in development and decrease in projected population, staff is expecting a fifteen year delay in some of those projects and the regional park would be one of those projects. IX. Public Comments and Other Discussion: Toni explained that the handout entitled, `Estimated Values as of the Below Mentioned Dates' which was property conveyed to Parks and Recreation and the School Board via donation. Toni advised that the School Board has also purchased land from the Trust in the past though the normal purchasing process. Karen asked if the value on the handout is the value today or the amount of when it was valued. Toni said it was valued at the time of purchase. Karen asked to explain the December 6t' letter. Toni said that Jeff has suggested for staff to contact the Fire Districts to see if they had any future funding needs. Toni contacted Chief Greenburg and Chief Metzger and Chief Greenburg provided two items; electronic message boards to be used around the Estates and Big Corkscrew to advise the public of weather concerns when they exist, and a pole barn structure to raise a fire apparatus on a lift for maintenance and repairs. Chief Greenburg advised that these two items were from a brainstorming session of the Fire Chiefs and both items are on the forefront, but there may be other things in the future. Karen said she had a conversation with Chief Ginson and advised that it may behoove Golden Gate and Corkscrew to expand their boundaries for volunteers rather than exclusively within the district in that this would assist the trainees in obtaining experience needed. The Fire Chief said there would be a `gear problem' for the volunteers so Karen suggested that he contact the land trust for funding so that there will be more hands on a situation and in turn better protect the residence of the Estates. Pat Humphries said the Committee doesn't often hear from the Sheriff's Office. Karen said that the Sheriff s budget is also being reduced, and though they are pretty self - sufficient, Karen feels that the population of the Estates has grown since the time that EMS established a station in the Estates, and even though development is slowing, EMS and the Sheriff may be requirgd to establish additional stations in the area in the near future in order to provide services to the existing residents. Toni said that staff had requested an opinion from the County Attorney's Office regarding the fire breaks and if that request would be eligible. The County Attorney's Office :said that it would not be eligible for GAC Land Trust funds and Jeff asked if the opinion was verbal or in writing, Toni stated it is in writing. Toni stated that the item was previously heard by,. the Board of County Commissioners presented by Dan Summers. X. Next Proposed Meeting Date: Special Meeting February 21, 2012, Regular Meeting March 26, 2012. XI. Adjournment: With no further business to discuss, Karen Acquard called for a motion for adjournment which was made by Jeff Curl and seconded by James Flanagan, all were in favor. 161L A8 Page Five The meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was officially adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Attested: Reprinted with revisions per the Committee's direction: June 1, 2012 1612 A9, 24, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, May 24, 2012 R-qWWRI ,fLii LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3rd floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Manuel Gonzalez Fiala ►- fillet' Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Tatiana Gust, Staff Liaison Marlene Serrano, Staff Liaison 1 Ileana Ramos Zetty Y. Rivera Valaree D. Maxwell Albert Batista misc. Corres: Date: 9 1 1 1'L. Item #J U-�E -- Copies to: 1612 A9 May 24, 2012 I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Manny Gonzalez at 6: l Opm and a quorum was established. II. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Manny moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Zetty. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. III. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of January 26, 2012: Manny motioned to approve the minutes, Zetty seconded. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Old Business: A. Select new Vice- Chair: (liana motioned to select Valaree, Albert seconded. Approved 4 -0. V. Public Speakers: (None) A suggestion was made to allow CCSO representatives to make their presentation before other business was conducted. VI. New Business A. Cmdr. Mike Williams- CCSO Brief introduction to the CCSO partnership with ICE and other agencies like DEA and FBI. He explained the role of the CCSO Gang Unit deputies in relation to Jose E. Lopez Melgar issues of concerns brought up by Mr. Victor Valdes during the last HAAB meeting. He stated the following: • ICE had a list of people to arrest for gang related issues in Collier County • The Gang Unit was called to assist with ICE Cmdr. William brought several members of the Gang unit that were present the day of the incident (Sgt. R. Byington and Det. John Pedraza) • The arrest was made by ICE and not the CCSO Dept. CCSO only provided the jail. Board members stated that the Naples Daily News misreported the news. Members also asked if the CCSO have a PIO that handles the media. 2 1612 A May 24, 2012 Cmdr. Williams responded that the PIO gives out the information to the media, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the article will have the correct information. Also there is certain data that is confidential by Florida Statute and is only available by a Public Records Request. Board members asked Mr. Aguilar if he had any questions on behalf of Mr. Valdes for Cmdr. Williams. Mr. Aguilar- It was reported that he was mishandled while he was in custody. Sgt. Byington- CCSO Gang Unit Stated that he was there the day of the incident and he pulled the individuals files for review. He stated that Mr. Lopez Melgar was documented as a gang member. He also stated that he went to the facility where he was being held and spoke with him and he never reported any type of abuse to him, there was no visible bruising or bleeding. Mr. Aguilar didn't have any questions, but he stated that he only knows what was stated in the newspaper article. It was reported that the family members didn't have access to Mr. Melgar. Sgt. Byington stated that family members don't have access during the intake process. Chairman asked if it would be ok for Mr. Valdes to contact Sgt. Byington directly. Sgt. Byington agreed and offered his business card. Lt. Dolan- CCSO Traffic Unit Explained how the CCSO uses resources to ensure traffic safety and establishes traffic safety points in areas based on crime, traffic crash data and other information. The CCSO uses the radio to forecast these events and encourage the community to debate and exchange ideas. Traffic Safety Points: • North Naples • East Naples • G. Gate Estates • Immokalee During the traffic safety points, officers request driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. It approximately takes 3 -5 minutes per vehicle at the check point. Officers also check for wipers, headlights, horn, and brakes. If everything works they hand out an education pamphlet to the driver. N 112 I 1Vra Y 24 2012 Questions: Does G. Gate area seems to have more traffic stops; do you show more incidents in that area? Lt. Dolan- Based on district commanders' studies and trends, they study areas and yes there are more traffic stops in G. Gate City. This is one of the highest areas in crime in the county. The CCSO identifies the career criminals, people on probation, sex crimes, gangs and they check them all the time. Albert spoke about the good work the CCSO does in low income communities, where community members don't have vehicles. Lt. Gonzalez from the CCSO spoke about the work he does in the Immokalee area. He has safety tips that the gives out to different groups. He stated that the CCSO is not concerned if residents are illegal if they are victims of a crime. Valaree mentioned the Naples Hispanic Chamber will be meeting on June 14th at loam. B. Determine summer recess: Board agree to have a meeting on June 28th, take July off. VII. Public Comments: Mr. Aguilar- Spoke about the FCAT Results. Thirty five recommendations were made to the Superintendent and no response was received. There is a meeting tomorrow in Tampa with the Superintendent of the State of Florida. Valaree- Stated that she doesn't like the FCAT because the level is too low and students are graduating high school at 9th grade level. She stated that her school is looking for volunteers for tutoring sessions on Saturdays after the school year from elementary to college levels. The cost will be a donation to pay for utilities. She is working on a press release. VIII. Adjourn Manny motioned to adjourn, Iliana seconded. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. Meeting adj ourned at 8:10 pm. Next Meeting: June 28, 2012. Chairman Date 4 1612 COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Sign -In /Attendance Sheet For 06/28/2012 ME Albert Batista Manuel Gonz: Valaree D. Mi Ileana Ramos 1 • Zetty Y. Rivera_ Marlene Serrano 5 -x rvS PUBLIC AND GUESTS (Please Print) 1. SC 2. 4 Q 60A 'l �" 5 C C,50 5--�7 3. 4. 5. 77 PUBLIC AND GUESTS (Please Print Continuation) 7. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE I The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepa% red by: 3 f Penny P Ilippi, Exeq4tfve Director lninioUlce Comnntnity Redevelopment Agency 1612 p10 WORRVRD� JUN 2012 BY........................ Approved by: Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minutes for the May 16, 2012, CRA Advisory BoardXZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on June 20, 2012 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held July 18, 2012 at 8:30A.M. at the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency office located at 1320 North 15t11 Street, Immokalee, F134142. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Inunokalce and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Inunokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 -867 -4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: BZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may conic before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Fiala Hiller ✓ Henning \ Coyle Colette Misc. Corres: Date: 9h 1 1 12, Item #: l U-1-- 21.4 16 Copies to: Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency A �. O IMMC7KAI.EE BRA 161 Enclosure 1 i The piece to Coll Home ! S MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency — May 16, 2012 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 9:45 a.m. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Present: Michael Facundo, Floyd Crews, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Jeffrey Randall, Carrie Williams, Julio Estremera, and Ski Olesky. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent/Excused: James Wall, Daniel Rosario, Robert Halman, and Angel Madera. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Chris Curry, Ana Russell, Diane Flagg, Christina Perez, Pam Brown, Magda Ayalya, and Gabriel Acosta. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Jeffrey Nagle. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting — May 16, 2012 Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Old Business. F. New Business. G. Citizen Comments. H. Next Meeting. I. Adjournment. June 20, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m. 1 CRA Board ' Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller State Enterprise Zone Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency M ALE fir RA i The Place to Colt Home! EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency Southwest Florida Works 750 South Fifth Street Immokalee, FL 34142 (239) 658 -3300 June 20, 2012 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Development AEency Board (EZDA) Michael Facundo Chairman A. Call to Order. Edward "Ski" Olesky B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Jeffrey Randall C. Adoption of Agenda. Robert Halman D. Consent Agenda. Ex- officio a. Approval of Minutes. Julio Estremera i. EZDA Meeting — May 16, 2012 (Enclosure 1) Floyd crews E. Old Business. James Wall Eva Deyo F. New Business. Carrie Williams G. Citizen Comments. Daniel Rosario H. Next Meeting, July 18, 2012 at 9:30 A.M. Angel Madera 1. Adjournment. CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel CRA Project Manager MSTU Project Manager Jeffrey Nagle Marie Capita IBDC Manager Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Assistant Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 1 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency M KALE i The Place to Coll Home 1 Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepared by: 2 2 Penny P) llippi, Exe ve Director hnmokA ee Community Redevelopment Agency 16 12' All 110 Approved by: Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minutes for the May 16, 2012, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on June 20, 2012 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held July 18, 2012 at 8:30A.M. at the Itmokalce Community Redevelopment Agency office located at 1320 North 15111 Street, Immokalce, F134142. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5t" Street in Immokalce and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the lmmokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Inforniation Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239 -867 -4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American Nvitli Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, lnnnokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may conic before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. V F1ela Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date:9111 I ('Z, Items: I L PT-2- 1411 Copies to: Collier Counly Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA 16 12 All 1 The Place to Coll Home! Enclosure 1 MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency May 16, 2012 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo, Chair at 8:40 a.m. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Present: Michael Facundo, Floyd Crews, Julio Estremera, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Jeffrey Randall, Carrie Williams, and Ski Olesky. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: James Wall, Dan Rosario, Robert Halman, and Angel Madera. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Steve Hart, Chris Curry, Ana Russell, Diane Flagg, Christina Perez, Pam Brown, Bill McDaniels, Magda Ayala, and Gabriel Acosta. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Jeffrey Nagle. C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. D. Announcements. E. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to accept the Agenda, Mr. Randall seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices and various news articles. F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes for the April 18, 2012 CRA Advisory Board meeting. Action: Mr. Randall made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the motion was seconded by Mr. Olesky and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. IAMP i. Public Meetings — Ms. Phillippi stated that the public meetings were proceeding as planned and invited all Committee members to attend if possible. ii. Public Petition — Ms. Phillippi stated that Pam Brown has filed a public petition requesting that the IAMP be sent back to the CCPC. The Petition will be heard by the BCC on May 22, 2012. She further stated that she had requested of the County Manager that the CRA Agenda Item be heard immediately following the public petition. She encouraged all committee members to attend if possible. b. MSTU Update Ms. Phillippi introduced the new Project Manager for the MSTU, Mr. Jeff Nagle but asked Brad Muckel to provide the MSTU report because Jeff has only been on staff for two weeks. Mr. Muckel informed the group about the Carson Road Sidewalk Project and the Main Street Sight Line Project status. 1b -12 All Enclosure 1 C. Downtown Immokalee Stormwater Project Mr. Muckel, CRA Project Manager, provided an update on the downtown stormwater project and informed the Committee that there has been considerable concern in the community and with the elementary school principal regarding the safety of allowing children to play near the retention pond. Although the Committee preferred to create an amenity, the consensus was that a fence should be constructed as soon as possible. d. IBDC Manager Report Marie Capita, IBDC Manager, reported on the activities of the IBDC stating that the QuickBooks workshop has been the most popular by far and that several more of those workshops will be required to accommodate the demand. e. First Street Plaza Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that the Request for Proposals for the design of the plaza has been completed and is under review by various departments. It is hoped the RFP will be released next month. H. New Business. a. Code Enforcement Highlights Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director provided a PowerPoint presentation about Code Enforcement Activities County wide; a brief summary of foreclosure properties status; and a discussion of upcoming mobile home park draft LDRs. She introduced Ms. Cristina Perez who will be replacing Kitchell Snow as the Supervisor of Code Enforcement in Immokalee. Mr. Snow stated his pleasure at having worked with the Immokalee Community and the CRA. He is transferred to the East Naples District. b. 2013 Budget Ms. Phillippi provided a PowerPoint presentation of the first draft of the 2013 Budget for the CRA to include all grants and the MSTU. She stated she will bring the final budget back to the Advisory Committee in June for approval. J. Citizen Comments.. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 20, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. 0J A O I2 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency , IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Coll Horne Regular Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee CRA Board Southwest Florida Works Commissioner 750 South Fifth Street Donna Fiala Chair Immokalee FL 34142 (239) 658 -3300 Commissioner Tom Henning June 20, 2012 - 8:30 A.M. Commissioner James N. Coletta A. Call to Order. Commissioner B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Fred W. Coyle C. Introductions. Commissioner D. Announcements. Georgia Hiller a. IBDC /CDBG Grant E. Adoption of A eg nda. CRA Advisory Board F. Communications. a. Public Notices Michael Facundo b• Articles Chairman G. Consent Agenda. Edward "Ski" olesky a. Approval of Minutes. Jeffrey Randall i. CRA Advisory Committee Meeting May 16, 2012 (Enclosure 1) H. Old Business. Robert Halman a. IAMP Ex- officio i. Public Meetings — Update Julio Estremera ii. IAMP Straw Ballot (Enclosure 2) Floyd Crews b. MSTU — Update c. Downtown Immokalee Stormwater Project — Update James Wall i. Fence — Update Eva Deyo ii. Section 3 Contractor iii. Easement Increase (Enclosure 3) Carrie Williams d. IBDC Manager Report Daniel Rosario i. May Report (Enclosure 4) ii. IBDC /CDBG Extension Change Order (Enclosure 5) Angel Madera e. First Street Plaza Project — Update CRA staff I. New Business. a. Budget FY 2013 (Enclosure 6) Penny Phillippi Executive Director b. IAMP — Advisory Committee Limitations J. Citizen Comments. Bradley Muckel K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting July 18, 2012 at 8:30 A.M. CRA Project Manager L. Adjournment. Jeffrey Nagle MSTU Project Manager Marie Capita IBDC Manager * The next Advisory Board /EZDA Board meeting will be held July 18, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South Fifth Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Assistant Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.867.4121 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to Rosemary Dillon participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48 hours before the meeting. The IBDC Administrative Assistant public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA and the Immokalee Fire Commission. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. 1612 A 1 May 14, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 14, 2012 13 MR 9 W 13 i U LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Conservation Collier Land Acqui'sif: ow........ °"""" °° Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. 1 Misc. Corres: Date: G l 11 112, Item #:I Ls =2114 12 Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Clarence Tears (Excused) Fiala Tony Pires (Excused) HeHen Jeffrey Curl ning Henning Coyle ✓ Jeremy Sterk Co►etta Lauren Gibson John Burton, II Todd Allen Tracy Dewrell ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. 1 Misc. Corres: Date: G l 11 112, Item #:I Ls =2114 12 Copies to: 1612 Al2 May 14, 2012 I. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Mr. Allen was introduced as a new member of the Committee. Mr. Curl moved to allow Mr. Pires to participate in the meeting via telephone due to extraordinary circumstances. Second by Mr. Burton. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. (Mr. Pires was unable to join the meeting). Mrs. Gibson arrived at 9: OSam II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Burton. Carried unanimously 7 -0. III. Approval of April 9, 2012 minutes Mr. Curl moved to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2012 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 4, paragraph 2, line 2 from "Mr. Pires and Mr. Curl voted "no." to Mr. Pires and Mr. Sterk voted "no. ". • Page 4, paragraph 9, line 4 from "...Hapahatchee..." to "Happehatchee -..." Second by Mr. Dewrell. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management Update Alex Sulecki reported Staff anticipates the process to acquire the Tripplett /Kania parcel via donation will be completed by the fall of 2012. B. Gordon River Greenway Project Update Alex Sulecki submitted the document "Gordon River Greenway /Project Update" dated May 14, 2012 for information purposes. She and Barry Williams provided an update on recent events associated with the project. Sneakers Bob Krasowski addressed the Committee noting he would like to see the issue of the plans for the "zoo pond" addressed by this committee and properly vetted by the public and Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Curl and Mr. Poteet clarified the pond issue is not a Committee issue as it relates to lands within the project owned by parties other than Conservation Collier. The item is a concern to the Committee as it may affect the timeline /costs of the Conservation Collier portion of the project. Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust reported there are 6 options proposed for consideration in relation to the zoo ponds. Most options include retaining 2 I2 Al2 1 May 14 2012 Y portions of the ponds, especially in areas adjacent to the roadway in an effort to retain the current visual appearance of the area. C. Pepper Ranch Lodge Area Improvements Update Melissa Hennig presented the Slideshow "Pepper Ranch Proposed Improvements " which outlined the plans for camping areas and restroom facilities on the property. V. New Business A. Update on I -75 Interchange Status Alex Sulecki presented the Slideshow "I - -75 Interchange "and provided an update on the status of a proposed interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard in relation to a group of properties in the "B" category of the most recent (2011) Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List, which include the 198 -acre "Gore Parcels." The proposed interchange project is still in the planning stages and is the subject of opposition of various parties due to environmental concerns. Speaker Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation expressed concern about the proposed interchange project due to potential damaging of environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife habitat. Many parties express similar concerns and are opposed to the project. The project is a long term project and stressed the area in question needs to be addressed in the short term to ensure any environmentally sensitive lands are preserved. Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society agreed with Ms. Payton and noted that the US Army Corps of Engineers had raised concerns in the Environmental Impact Statement as part of the original permit for construction of I -75, and had restricted the number of interchanges to 4 locations with the area in question not being one of them. B. Happehatchee Center Interest in the Gore Parcel — Bobbie Lee Gruninger Mitch Jacobs and Bobbie Lee Gruninger of Resource Based Communities addressed the Committee outlining their concept for developing the "Gore Parcels" north of I -75 including a Nature Preserve Area and Eco- Spirituality Center. Speaker Bob Krasowski addressed the Committee and expressed concern on the concept of the Program partnering with private parties for acquisition of properties. He noted Ms. Gruninger is not associated with the Happehatchee Center and cannot speak on their behalf. Ms. Gruninger stated she was previously associated with the Happehatchee Center; however neither the project, nor she is currently affiliated with the Happahatchee Center. Alex Sulecki reported the item was identified on the Agenda in error based on Ms. Gruninger's previous affiliation. 3 j 1612 Al2 May 14, 2012 Chairman Poteet reported the "Gore Parcels" have been identified for potential acquisition by the Program and placed on the `B- List." The presentation was for information purposes so the Committee may make informed decision on perspective land purchases in this region. The Program does not partner with outside, private parties when acquiring parcels. C. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki: • Submitted an updated Committee Member contact list. • Submitted an updated list of Subcommittee members. • Reported Lost Groves Mines was recommended for denial by the Collier County Planning Commission. VI. Sub - Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair Mr. Curl reported the Subcommittee met on May 10, 2012 and discussed a proposed brochure for the Program and the Gordon River Greenway Donor Recognition Program. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Lauren Gibson - Vice Chair None C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Bill Poteet, Chair None VII. Chair Committee Member Comments Mr. Curl thanked Ms. Sulecki for her work on the Gordon River Greenway project. IX. Public General Comments None X. Staff Comments None XI. Next Meeting /Adjourn Mr. Poteet reported the next meeting will be held in July. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:15 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee LI 6 12 Al2 �Vlay 14 2012 Bill Poteet, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 5 G X 1612 OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON APRIL 10, 2012 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District Ronald Gilbert Chairman, Port of the Islands James Simmons, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Charles Frank Hawkins, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Tony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Macbeth Collins, Advisory Board Member Everglades City– Absent The meeting came to order at 4PM then roll call of attendees. Approval of minutes for February 13, 2012: A13 1 BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning _:�L _ Coyle ✓ Coletta- The minutes of February 13, 2012 were approved and signed by the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Chairman Ronald Gilbert. Chief McLaughlin – Asked if there were any questions regarding the monthly report. Frank Hawkins – Asked if the Chief had any concerns regarding the report. Chief McLaughlin – He wanted to discuss a few things in the report. He mentioned that there were 488 hours of training for the month of March. He mentioned the administration pager containing the budgetary breakdown with nothing outstanding there we are half way through the year. We are using some of our operating monies to put the new water tender in service and repairing some minor items but other than that we are right on target. No significant purchases. The Water Tender was deliver 4 -2 -12 it will be paid in the 2013 fiscal budget and it was at Fleet Management being checked out now it is back at Station 60 being readied to place into service. Everyone is happy with it and he offered to have it driven out to Port of the Islands the next meeting so they could get a look at it. He is real happy with the manufacturer and the vender. We had two minor corrections that they took care of in Ocala which were an add on and they didn't charge us for it. The new cabinets for Station 60 were delivered this morning installation will begin on Friday then after that is done the counter tops will be done. The old cabinets were 25 years old it was time for them to be replaced. The security doors and windows will be installed in April, 2012. It has nothing to do with the Isles of Capri issues. We put bars in Ochopee after the break in we are also going to put in cameras to monitor the station 66. Page 1 Misc. Corres: Date: 9111 1 12, Item #:I L.oT 2 V�l►'a, Copies to: I 16121 R13 Chief McLaughlin — We are replacing the two wood bay doors and making them metal. We are replacing the glass door and making it a fire proof glass door. We are also putting punch code locks on all the building doors. All the ground floor windows will be changed to impact glass. Jim Simmons —You spent that money for hurricane protection. Chief McLaughlin — In 1998 FEMA came out with a directive for police stations, fire stations and EMS stations and that was how to secure them. In 2004 under the Bush administration they took that 1998 FEMA and upgraded it as part of the Homeland Security. The critical infrastructures became police stations, fire stations and EMS stations they wanted them secured. There are some qualifications as to securing these buildings one of them was locked entry ways, vestibules, and cameras. Not allowing the general public access to work areas but instead bring them into a reception area. Another thing was to protect the ground floor because another thing that was happening in the City when the employees left thieves would break into the building and rob them blind and then they had a couple of instances where some firefighters were shot. The glass on the ground floor windows was being broken to gain entry into the buildings. The idea behind securing the ground floor is so that people can't shatter the windows and enter the building when the employees have gone home for the day. When the guys go to a call that is 40 miles away anything can happen. It is an obligation to the District just to make sure personal items are safe. Ron Gilbert — He asked if there were any instances of this occurring in Everglades City. Chief McLaughlin — We have had a couple of items stolen we don't know how they got in but it wouldn't be that difficult. The doors now have key pads on the outside and doors in the bay should be metal not wood he is going to upgrade those. The windows in the administration office can be easily broken to gain entry to the building and there is an access window in the front room of the station that is vulnerable as well so the three windows will be replaced. He is doing the same thing at Isles of Capri. One of our personnel, Juan Flores has been dismissed as of April 2, 2012 he is no longer employed by Ochopee Fire Control District. It was the third incident of assault involving alcohol. It was progressive discipline he was given plenty of chances to correct that the last time we did not apply disciplinary action because the court ordered him to take some action so we felt that was enough. This last incident was witnessed by Police Officers and there was eye witness accounts so we didn't even do an investigation we just took administrative action. He did come back after he spoke to his lawyer and asked if he could resign so we allowed him to do so his resigned in good standing. We currently have a Position advertised internally as of last Friday. Job positions that become available have to be open to internal applicants first and we have four at this time. So hopefully in two or three weeks we will have a new employee then we will be fully staffed again. Page 2 1612;x.13 + Chief McLaughlin - No policy changes or procedure changes. Dan Summers has made it mandatory that all of the mid management staff are to take the three Human Resources courses in the near future; Resolving Conflicts, Creating a Civil Work Place and Using Emotional Intelligence in the Work Place. Dan Summers is trying to get some of the personnel at Isles of Capri back on track. We are in the first level of the budget hearings and the budget was inputted into Gov Max. We have our first meeting with the County Manager on May 29, 2012. We will find out more at that point. Frank Hawkins — He asked how the budget is monitored on an ongoing basis. l see numbers but don't see current year to date expenses or variance type of reporting. Chief McLaughlin — We usually don't provide all that for the board it is just basically an overview of the budget. He will bring a copy of what has been inputted in Gov Max. As you know this year we will be about $430,000 in the hole they have taken another look at the federal funding that we used to get for years there has been a lot questions and public interest in that money being re- applied to the District as is was for almost 20 years. So he is assuming that will offset a lot of our costs. The County is the most solvent entity out there far above the independent and other municipalities accept for the City of Naples which is not far behind. He is confident in any budget crisis the County will come up with a creative way of keeping us afloat. The County Commissioners have been very forward about maintaining emergency services at all costs. Frank Hawkins — I realize these are two different things I can also see a scenario through our efforts to try and get some money from the County to fund the permanent station here. He wants to make sure that nothing causes a problem where we are not able to attain the funding we need for the permanent station at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — County funds expended in a special district or an MSTU have to be repaid because you can't cross those spots. The Pilt fund was always put in a special fund labeled Pilt when it came into our budget but in 1990 Mike McNeese requested that the Pilt Fund be placed in the general fund and so from that day forward when the funds came into the Ochopee budget they were labeled general fund but it was Pilt money. This had to be explained to a City of Naples Councilman who objected to general fund money going into Ochopee's budget. So the County has to be really careful if we are to fund a Fire Station here in Ochopee Fire Control District the first complaint is going to come from a resident of one of the other areas so those monies have to be replaced. So your letter went to the Board saying we are looking at some type of referendum vote for an assessment fee and pay it back over 4 or 5 years but we could take out a general loan immediately so that we can get this project done and then pay it off. Right now unless there is some magic money out there we don't know about this is the only way it is going to get done. He spoke to Jean Kungle and explained to her that we are already a third of a million dollars in the hole in our operating budget and that is being funded out of the Pilt monies the well is only so deep those monies also fund other areas of the County. Page 3 1612 A13 Jim Simmons — whose a million dollars in the hole. Chief McLaughlin — No we are a third of a million in the hole. Jim Simmons — Ochopee Fire Control District? Chief McLaughlin — Yes sir. Jim Simmons — This is the first I've heard of it. Chief McLaughlin — We've lost 42% of our budget. Jim Simmons — I knew that. Tony Davis — Why can't we move the Firefighters here? Chief McLaughlin — Code won't allow us to do it. Tony Davis — You can't work around it. Chief McLaughlin —This building is not set up for that not until it has been re- established. It has been permitted and re -zoned for that but construction has to be done to bring it up to code. He feels as some point they are going to have to go before the Board of County Commissioners to get this done. You need to push for the referendum vote because the commissioners won't do anything until the taxpayers vote on it and we need to have it on the ballot by the next election. According to our ordinance they could declare an emergency situation and just declare a special assessment but he doesn't think they will do that until they have a 50% plus vote. Frank Hawkins — I thought that we were in the process of getting money out of general fund as a loan to start this project then we would pay it back. Chief McLaughlin — That isn't going to happen until you get before the board and they direct the County staff to do that. Ron Gilbert — There is a special tax district for Ochopee Fire District for Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — You go before the board stating you have not heard back regarding the letter you sent them and state that you want the station built what are they going to do about it. They are going to have to say to their staff make this happen and then it gets on the ballot they find the money we get a loan and the process starts. This is going to float along unless you speak up. Page 4 1612 A13 Frank Hawkins — What does is the process to speak before the Board? Chief McLaughlin — Sign up to speak. Frank Hawkins — Get on the Commissioners Agenda. Chief McLaughlin — You will need a spokesman there anybody can speak on the issue. Ron Gilbert — Asked Chief McLaughlin to get them a date as to the next Board of County Commissioners Meeting. Chief McLaughlin — You just need to present the issue and then it is in their hands. Frank Hawkins — Should we let our Commissioner know prior to the meeting? Chief McLaughlin — You could and anybody else who supports this issue could send her an e -mail. Tony Davis — What if we get some petitions up? Chief McLaughlin —You could. Ron Gilbert — What do you think of me approaching the CID Board and getting a letter of support from them. Frank Hawkins — He doesn't feel they should show too much support from Port of the Islands because it could look like this is a Port of the Islands issue when it benefits the whole District and should look more like a District project we need equal representation from the whole District. Chief McLaughlin -- He agreed with him we need to include Everglades City and everyone else. Frank Hawkins — We need to have equal representation and equal balance from groups throughout the District. Ron Gilbert — What percent is Port of the Islands of the District. Chief McLaughlin — Of the whole District Port of the Islands is 26% or 27 %. Ron Gilbert —That is in residencies. Page 5 1812 A13 Chief McLaughlin — Yes, in residencies. Remember we have people scattered all over and we have some people in Lee Cypress, Copeland and we probably have as many people in Chokoloskee as we have in Everglades City. We have about 400 to 500 people in Everglades City and there is that or more in Chokoloskee. Frank Hawkins — Again as we discussed before we need to use that as talking points as to why it is beneficial to people outside the Port. Chief McLaughlin — Number one 42% of the operating budget comes from Port of the Islands there has never been enough operating budget to build a station. The existing stations were donated, however, everyone that is coming from the eastern portion of the District are driving towards Naples and we are running an ALS Engine out of Port of the Islands this is a benefit having this facility 4 or 5 miles away instead of 15 or 20 miles away in the event of an accident. The availability is here to do this if the people are willing to pay for it. It will benefit the whole District. Tony Davis — Bob Miller from Everglades City would be a good person to talk too because he has so much property and he is on a lot of committees and boards. He would understand the benefit. Chief McLaughlin — I think Mayor Sam Hamilton would also be for it he drives US 41 every day. Frank Hawkins — Maybe we should have two forums before we go before the County Commission maybe we should go before the Everglades City Council Meeting and present our case there. Chief McLaughlin — Their meeting is on Monday nights. Frank Hawkins — At least hit the two big governmental entities. Frank Hawkins — If we can't get District wide support there is still the option to just do it with in the Port it will cost more but it's an option. Chief McLaughlin — He is a firm believer that is should be a District wide action because everyone is benefiting. We don't have a fire department for Everglades City; we don't have a fire department for Chokoloskee. Ochopee Fire Control District in a whole is outside of District one is 840 square miles with the addition it is 1180 we are responsible for it and everybody drive through it. This is just an extension of it people coming and driving through our District. You always build in the most populated areas and this is our second most populated area they provide 42% of the budget they have the right to be protected by it. James Simmons — Have your people been tied up with the brush fire. Page 6 1612 A13 Chief McLaughlin — No, that is in state and federal land Golden Gate Fire District has been assisting them. It is in their District one area. There has been very limited involvement from the Districts side it has been pretty much a state and federal brush fire. They start from cigarettes thrown out the window. Frank Hawkins — Is there anything going on at the water plant. Chief McLaughlin — There have been inspections there. We just did the rough inspection for the alarm system. He has been through the building a couple of times. We did the pre -final on their sprinkler system and the fire walls. The plant looks really nice they did a good job. Just is walking through it looks like a state of the art facility the money has been well spent. The final is coming up at the end of this month so we are really close in getting the system on line. Ron Gilbert — He has a question regarding the ethics training. Are we supposed to go to a session at the Government center again? Chief McLaughlin — Only if you have never been to one then you have to go. If you have been to one they just want you to review the documentation that was sent out. Frank Hawkins — He got a DVD. Chief McLaughlin — Everyone got a DVD so you can just look at it then+ listen to the questions and answers. Every new advisory board member has to attend one session then after that you can look at the DVD just as a review. Frank Hawkins — How is that scheduled. Chief McLaughlin — When they have the live session meeting the notice goes out and we let the board members know when it will take place. They usually give us an advance notice. Frank Hawkins — He read through the documents and the links that were sent out. He could have used a lawyer to decipher the information. Chief McLaughlin — That's why it's good to go to the sessions. James Simmons — Is there anything new with 1 -75? Page 7 1612 A13 Chief McLaughlin —We are moving ahead. The 1 -75 project manager, Dan Summers, Hank Jones from County Facilities Department who is heading this up, and myself have been speaking with several of the bidders almost daily regarding questions pertaining to the new station. There is definitely some serious forward movement with this. So it is well underway we expect completion of the bids sometime in May or June and construction will probably begin 9 to 10 months after that then a final the year after so we are looking at an actual opening date of hopefully summer of 2014. He said he would bring in the approved spread sheet showing how the funding will be drawn. We have asked for personnel costs up front to ease some of the burden on the District but the funding will be in draws not all personnel will be hired immediately and we will also be using our current apparatus until the new vehicle is purchased. The idea is to get all personnel on board and trained six months prior to the opening of the station. We have asked for the apparatus costs and they will be sequentially added in for some units a year some a year and a half because the one unit it will take six months to a year of engineering before the vehicle is constructed. One vehicle has already been done it is similar to the vehicle here. Some of these draws are going to be next January some after that. Some of draws for the vehicles are large one is $700,000, another at $300,000 and the other is about $80,000 plus the equipment for those vehicles also come out of the draws which could run from $150,000 to $200,000. Tony Davis — The CID has been going back and forth with the hotel on the north side of Port of the Islands what affect will that have on the fire district whichever way it turns out. He's not paying his taxes. Chief McLaughlin — We are not getting any revenue from him anyway he is not paying his taxes. Tony Davis — Do you have a foothold on that money. Chief McLaughlin —Yes. Tony Davis — The CID said if it goes their way they get the entire pass due money. Chief McLaughlin — No that money will come to us some way because someone has to pay that off and when that happens we do get a portion of that back into the District. Ron Gilbert — In a foreclosure the bank is obligated a year in a rears not the whole thing or 1% of the mortgage whichever is less. Frank Hawkins — A tax lien does not go away even if they are in a foreclosure. Chief McLaughlin — If we get it we just have to wait for it. Page 8 1612 A13 Frank Hawkins — In a foreclosure the bank has to extinguish the tax lien or the lien can become a tax deed then goes to sale. Ron Gilbert — Withdrew his previous statement regarding the tax lien. Tony Davis — How much would it be if all the back taxes were paid? Chief McLaughlin — You would just take the assessed value x 4 mils that would give you an idea as to what he would have to pay. If you pulled up all the years he didn't pay and times each year's assessment by 4 mils that would give you the amount he would have to pay if it was all collected. Frank Hawkins — It's lay out in your tax bill all the millage rates are listed. Tony Davis — Yes but you have to know how long he has not paid his taxes. Chief McLaughlin — He can have someone look into that. Frank Hawkins — It is only two years the tax lien was sold two years ago so whoever owns that can request the County to transfer it to a tax deed so it can be sold but the deed will not be issued until the owner satisfies the subsequent taxes owed. Chief McLaughlin — We just need to find out who owns it. Ron Gilbert — What does the CID think is going to happen that would be good. Tony Davis — The end results was if it goes their way meaning if he is pushed into foreclosure they have first dibs on any money and they get all of the tax assessments that have not been paid by him. Ron Gilbert -- If it goes into foreclosure where is the money going to come from. Tony Davis —That is the part that they messed up in my thinking at the last meeting it threw me off kilter. If it goes their way if they push him out like they expect to the CID gets first dibs and 100% of the money in a rears. Chief McLaughlin — The Tax Appraiser is going to decide that. Tony Davis — They are expecting to get all the money. Chief McLaughlin — They won't get the Fire District's money and they won't get the school board money. Page 9 r 1612 A13 1 Tony Davis — No, they will get all the money that he owes the CID Board. Chief McLaughlin — I don't see how that is going to set up. Ron Gilbert — All I see is there is no buyer. When the RV Park was purchased the buyer paid all the fines and back taxes. Chief McLaughlin — We were told at one point that they were going to donate that to us for two months of training then bulldoze it but it never happened. Frank Hawkins — The whole purpose of a tax lien is so that the government entity doesn't have to do that. If I don't pay the property taxes then they do a tax lien i go in and buy the tax lien for the amount of the taxes so the County has their money that's why they do the tax lien. When you say he isn't paying the taxes that maybe but somebody did. The person that is short is the person who bought the tax liens he's the person that has to be paid back. He is going to come up short if there is no buyer at the tax deed sale he would be out the money but he would become the owner of the property. It would be great structure fire training. Chief McLaughlin- Because is has sprinklers you could do months of training in that building by burning a room at a time and never have to worry about losing the structure. Frank Hawkins — The arson folks in the community have petitioned some of the conservation organizations to purchase the property as a training /education center. Chief McLaughlin — You can't use the building it is going to cost them a million dollars to fix it up so they can use it. Ron Gilbert — That building has been looked at by assisted living groups and once they see it they don't come back. Chief McLaughlin — The owner wanted to do that and he told him it would never qualify as an assisted living facility with today's codes. The cost to retrofit the building is too great it would be cheaper to build a new one. He is going to ask at the County about the hotel. Ron Gilbert — He asked when they needed to go before I don't want to do it too soon before the vote. Chief McLaughlin — He said now would be a good time to do this because the budget will be printed before June. Page 10 1612p13 Ron Gilbert — I would like the whole Advisory Board to go before the CID Meeting to give them a copy of the letter for the purpose of obtaining a letter of support from them addressed to the Commissioners. Tony Davis — He suggested they send the chairman a note before the meeting so they don't have any problems with it being on the agenda. Ron Gilbert — He would contact him to see if they are on the agenda. Tony Davis — We could attend either this CID meeting or the next one. Ron Gilbert — I would like for the whole board to go to the CID Meeting, the Commissioner Meeting and the Everglades City Government meeting. Frank Hawkins — Agreed to that. Jim Simmons —We need something definite. Ron Gilbert — He is going to try and do that. Jim Simmons — Also agreed with the idea. Ron Gilbert — He will work on it. Frank Hawkins — We need to put something together just bullets with some historical information. Chief McLaughlin — He can do some of those. Frank Hawkins — Where we stand activities we've taken that has led to this action. Chief McLaughlin — He can pull that out because this has been going on before I arrived. Frank Hawkins — The financial cost across the board. Chief McLaughlin — We don't even know what that is until the budget office can supply us with that we have to find out how many taxable units we have. I do have that from the tax office I needed the information for something else. Ron Gilbert — I will correspond with the people here. Page 11 161 A13 Frank Hawkins — We threw some numbers around three or four meetings ago about $50. Was that an annual for a number of years or a total cost? Chief McLaughlin — It was annual for four years. Ron Gilbert — $200 total the $50 was for four years. Frank Hawkins — It was $200 for just Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — No $200 if we did the whole District. Ron Gilbert — We need to generate $200 for every residence in the District. Chief McLaughlin — I have that taxable property information. I will go back and review that. He doesn't remember the numbers off the top of his head. We took the taxable properties and divided that by the dollars we needed and split that over four years. Ron Gilbert — If someone owns more than one property then their name will show up more than on time on the tax roll. Chief McLaughlin — That is the problem separating that out. Ron Gilbert — Voting they only get one vote. Chief McLaughlin — If you have multiple properties then you have multiple protection. Frank Hawkins — If we are collecting $400,000 and its $200 per taxable property you are looking at 2,000 taxable parcels. Chief McLaughlin — That's about right, I think we actually had 3200 taxable properties in the District. Frank Hawkins — So if you did $200 times 2000 parcels that would $400,000 that would be a onetime deal if you did it over four years that would be $50 a year times 2000 parcels. Chief McLaughlin — I would be willing to pay $200 because if you lose the station your insurance goes to $3000 a year. Frank Hawkins — Is there flexibility as to how many years you can spread it out. Chief McLaughlin — Yes we could spread it out two years, three years or four years. We have to consider the impact because some people in the District are living on their daily wages. Page 12 1612 A13 Frank Hawkins — Or do they do it like when we had our special assessment with the CID ok this is what you have to pay every year for the next ten years or you can pay it all up front and some people got struck because they paid it all up front. Chief McLaughlin — In theory let's just say if the Port of the Islands area decided they were going to do this then when the other stations need to be replaced they wouldn't have to contribute it would be up to the people in those areas of the District that's what it comes to so it goes both ways. He thinks its better District wise because it will be less costly to the taxpayers and these other buildings in the District will have to be replaced in the future the station in Everglades City is almost 30 years old. The impact will be less if all property owners participate if you draw it over time four or five years. Tony Davis — Can it be set up as an option to pay up front or over four years. Chief McLaughlin — I don't know this is also new to me. We probably need someone from the budget office and the tax appraiser's office. Frank Hawkins — Yes that is usually how they do it you get a letter stating you have four years to pay it but you can pay it up front. Chief McLaughlin — A lot of people would probably. Frank Hawkins — If there is a discount to pay up front then some people would do that. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting and was passed the meeting ended. X'"i Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Page 13 k . OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON MAY 14, 2012 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District Caleb Morris, Captain, Ochopee Fire Control District Ronald Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member James Simmons, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Tony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member McBeth Collins, Everglades City Advisory Board Member Frank Hawkins, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member 1612 A13 r0 BY....................... The meeting came to order at 4 :04PM then roll call of attendees. Fiala ✓ _ Hiller Old Business: Henning Coyle ,I 2013 Budget, Manager's Meeting 5 -17 -12 Coletta Chief McLaughlin — He apologized that the minutes were not ready and will be submitted for approval at the next meeting. The budget meeting with the County Manager will be Thursday so far we look like we are going to be flat this year. He will have more information for the next meeting and if there is any direction from the County Manager regarding the budget. It looks like we will need pilt money again this year in the amount of $480,000 there was depreciation again this year so until we see a turnaround we are going to be living in this situation. Kitchen Cabinets & Counter Top installed at Station 60 The kitchen cabinets and counter tops have been installed in Station 60 this is a project we have been working on for two years. When the cabinets were removed there was a lot of damage due to rodents eating at the wood and the walls. New flooring was also installed and the remodel actually came in $1,000 under budget. Ochopee Personnel did a lot of the installation work themselves so that saved a lot of money. James Simmons — Station 60 is in Everglades City. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, as far as I know that was the original kitchen that was put in the building when it was constructed in 1977. Page 1 Misc. Comes: Date: 6d 1 1 1 1.Z Item #: I U T2-)"A 13 Copies to: 1612A13' ' Water Tender 60 Outfitted Chief McLaughlin — The New Water Tender is being outfitted this week and we hope to put it in service next week. Ochopee Personnel have done a lot of the modifications and installing shelves which saved the Department thousands of dollars. Windows and Doors Installed Chief McLaughlin — The new windows and doors have been installed at Station 60. Also all the ground floor windows were upgraded to impact windows so we don't have to worry about breaking and entering issues. The doors are now all key code lock including the ones in the bay area they have been replaced by steel doors with fire windows and the glass window in the bay has been replaced with a fire window. We actually came in a little under budget regarding these replacements and repairs. This was a pretty expensive project it wasn't cheap. But we are meeting code now. New Business: New Firefighter Hired as of 5 -6 -12 Chief McLaughlin — We dismissed a Firefighter he was terminated under his resignation. We have since then gone through the interview process and have hired one of our Job Bankers of four years. We had five applicants that met the testing criteria and we interviewed all five. Two were Job Bankers, one from Isles of Capri, two from EMS. James Simmons — Where does he live? Chief McLaughlin — He lives in Naples. He actually was a Job Banker with Isles of Capri and then started working as a Job Banker at Ochopee three years ago. He is familiar with everybody and the system there was no start up time with him he just went from part time to full time. McBeth Collins —The Job Bankers are part time. Chief McLaughlin — Are Job Bankers are part time Firefighters but they are fully qualified and certified they do not have any benefits except for retirement. The reason we use them it keeps our overtime budget down we save approximately $40,000 by using them instead of paying overtime. They get 60 to 70 hours of training before the work a shift and they have to go through all the orientation as well like a full time employee. We have shared job bankers with Isles of Capri as well. The job bankers are paid out of the cost center they are working under. This arrangement works out really well especially since I am overseeing both Departments. Page 2 Ron Gilbert — Do you see an end to that any time soon. 1612 A13 Chief McLaughlin — Not in the near future but we have made some proposals to the Advisory Board at Isles of Capri that we are going to talk about Thursday and the information has been sent to the County Manager. We are hoping in October that we can move forward with something. Received funds from insurance company to replace portable radio in the amount of $2665.28: We received funds from the insurance company for a portable radio that was damaged the radio could not be repaired they can no longer get parts for them because they are over 20 years old. But the insurance covered the cost of $2600 it costs $3,000 to purchase a new radio. That money is in the process of coming back into the budget once that happens we will add a few dollars to it and replace the radio. We were fortunate to get $2600 from the insurance company for that radio. Chief McLaughlin — Some painting has been done by personnel at Station 60. Station 63: Chief McLaughlin — We are still moving along with Station 63 on Alligator Alley. The bids are to be awarded in August 2012. He is getting phone calls weekly about the bidders and contractors calling about different items and we are answering there questions. The State has their first quarter in July that will be the beginning of their fiscal year. We have requested that in this upcoming fiscal year that we start the process of the delivery of funds for man power and other things in phases. We have twelve people scheduled out of that. We've have a grid as to how this all works out until completion of this project he will have it printed out for the board. The County Attorney have been working on just how those monies are going to handled from the State to the County and into our funding source. This has been one of the most complicated aspects and they have finally found a way of doing so. We have asked for immediately relief regarding coverage of 1 -75 so the hiring of three personnel will take place in the first quarter once the monies are received and continue on each quarter until all 12 personnel are hired for the 1 -75 Station. Once we've at least hired six personnel three of our current Firefighters will be promoted to Lieutenant and Station 66 will be opened up. Then either the attack truck or the pumper will be placed out there and we will start operating out of station 66. Station 66 has recently been remodeled to prepare for its reopening. Personnel will occupy the station 24/7 and respond to the alley keeping personnel and vehicles in Everglades City, Chokoloskee Island and the surrounding area. So the burden of covering 1 -75 doesn't strip our District and the tax payers of the resources which has been our big complaint. So he is trying to attain some relief a year ahead of station 63 is opening. We figured it would be 8 to 10 months of engineering on this project. Page 3 1612 A13 Chief McLaughlin — They are building a new water plant a whole new north and south side the fire station is slated to go up early it is part of the first phase of the project. We won't be in there until September or October of 2014. We've asked for the apparatus money starting January because it will take a year to build the rescue vehicle, pumper and tanker. We've done about three months of engineering and design on those vehicles. There will be $180,000 of lose equipment that will go on those vehicles. There is a time element involved regarding purchasing those items and mounting them on the vehicles so we are probably looking at an 18 month lead time just to have the trucks built, equipped and train personnel regarding the usage of the new apparatus and equipment before we can put the apparatus in service at station 63. The last three personnel that come out of our cost center will be hired in the second year. We will bring them on six months before the opening of station 63. The three medics will come in under EMS funding because they are going to hire the medics not us. It will be a total of twelve personnel so nine will be under our cost center and three will be under the EMS cost center. Jim Simmons — One medic per shift? Chief McLaughlin — One medic per shift. Jim Simmons — What equipment is going to be out there? Chief McLaughlin — We will have an ALS heavy rescue specially designed, a tanker similar to the one we just bought but it will be scaled down more simplified but it bigger it will be 3,000 gallons and there will be a quick attack truck like the one we have but not quite the same size more like a 450 or 350 range. It will be more like a transport vehicle for equipment because we are 18 to 20 miles out so the EMS supply people can meet at the 1 -75 exchange. The Captain can go up and one person can come in so he doesn't have to drive 40 miles instead it would only be 20 miles to the exchange. The EMS personnel can meet to do supply and paperwork exchanges and still be available for calls. Jim Simmons — Is there going to be an ambulance out there? Chief McLaughlin — No. Ron Gilbert — Is there a medic here now? Chief McLaughlin — Yes, there's one here and one in Everglades City. There is an ambulance in Everglades City and the unit at Port of the Islands is an ALS Engine so there is a medic stationed on the unit and actually they are Firefighter Medics. We get the benefit of adding two more Firefighters that we don't pay for because the medics have to be cross trained certified Firefighters and that helps with ISO. Page 4 C lblz Consolidation Chief McLaughlin — There was a big meeting two weeks ago in North Naples the County had a work shop regarding consolidation. There was nothing new discussed regarding the topic. It is the same players same concepts a lot of politics in both municipalities and the other Fire Districts. It's been going on for almost 30 years. The bottom line is the Board of County Commissioners has asked the Districts for the last five years to do something. Two years ago there was a straw vote asking tax payers if they wanted consolidation of the Fire Districts and 60% of the votes said yes. Then the County asked the Fire Districts to figure out how to attain the consolidation. The County has come to the conclusion if the Fire Districts are not going to figure out how to consolidate the Districts then the County will take care of it. So the County is going to put it to a vote to have the Districts placed under the Collier County Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff would only do it if all the Districts were to consolidate under his department not a half system. The Chief feels all the Districts would be interested in doing that except for possibly North Naples. From a taxpayers point of view it would be the best thing that could happen. Ron Gilbert — Does is boil down to turf battles? Chief McLaughlin — It always does but also it's who is going to be in charge and how are we going to do it. The Independent Districts don't want to go under the County. Not that the County wants to run it but everywhere else in the State of Florida the Fire Districts are run by the County. The problem with the independent Districts each one has a board with paid pensions then you have the accountability and a lot of the taxpayers don't like that you are going to have a 60 million dollar budget with some private enterprises that are hired that maybe a member of the board that is overseeing the funding that is not accountable to an independent office like the clerk of courts. He has more accountability because he comes under the clerk more than any of the Independent Districts all though they are all accountable as well. That is a lot of money to give to an independent board and where is the assurances that the money is going to be used properly as a tax payer I would be happier if the clerk of courts was overseeing the funds but they are never going to do that. The sheriff is independent but the clerk does over see his budget so for the taxpayers having the funds within that realm would be a good thing but it is an ongoing battle. Tony Davis — As a board position do we take no comment or do we state our position? Chief McLaughlin — You can state your position unless it's a benefit. One of the speakers felt that going under the Sheriff's Department could save money. If there is no benefit then there is no reason to change. Some of the Districts are having a lot of problems. Page 5 A13 c 1612 A13 Chief McLaughlin — We've offered a plan to the Capri Board and have presented it to the County Manager it is functional consolidation administration. The Districts will remain the same separate MSTUs and the board members will remain the same. What we did was split the cost of the salary of the Fire Chief and created two Division Chief's. Caleb would be promoted to Division Chief and we would create a Division Chief for Isles of Capri they will be the operational Chiefs for the Districts. Chief McLaughlin will supervise the Division Chiefs and the budgets of both the current Captain at Isles of Capri's salary would be split 50/50 between both Departments and become a logistics Captain which the Departments need for standardizing our purchases and maintenance of equipment plus there is a cost saving by purchasing in volume. By doing this we add an additional person plus there is a cost savings to Ochopee Fire Control District of $1600 and a cost savings to Isles of Capri Fire District of $2600. We will have four personnel in the command level where now we have two and save money. Frank Hawkins — Who or how is the loaning, placing or swapping of the equipment control going to work? Chief McLaughlin -- There is no equipment change personnel only we are splitting salaries between cost centers. Under the BES umbrella we are all functional. The EMS Chief is over EMS and his logistics Chiefs. The Fire Chief is over the Fire Departments and his logistics Chief. Frank Hawkins — He has been involved with geographical consolidations before and equipment wasn't involved however when something would happen the equipment would be somewhere else so that was his concern. Chief McLaughlin — No equipment transfer at all everything stays where it is at. We can't actually do that unless the board dissolved the MSTU's and combined them into one District. The MSTUs, the dollars, and the assets stay intact. It's totally administrative. Frank Hawkins —There is nothing wrong with that. There was a motion made to adjourn it was passed and the meeting ended. A��s Z - J4J Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Page 6 1612 A141 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary i =IVE I R� BY: ....................... Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc. Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Ralph B. Jimison, Certified Arborist Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Senior Vice President, Tindale - Oliver & Associates, ITiala "Y Approximately 50 attendees Hiller REVISED AGENDA Henning 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle -' 2. Roll Call Coletta- 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 16, 2012 Budget Subcommittee 5. Budget Subcommittee recommendation that full Board review; and vote to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Levy) 6. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks Misc. Codes: i. Uniform Traffic Standards ii. Bateman Contract Update Date: 911 1 1 12 D. Pathways i. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation Item #: L9Z ii. County's plans to "overlay" Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Copies to: 214 1 `-71 Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended: 1) Move item "...vote to approve Proposed FY 2013 Budget (Levy) " to follow approval of meeting minutes; 2) add North Pointe crossing (Chandler) to crosswalks discussion; and 3) add New Business "Potential Community Survey (Chandler)': The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was 8550 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 Y g May 2, 2012 APPROVAL OF APRIL 11, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES A14 Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the April 11 Regular Session minutes as amended. 1) Page 8546: identify San Marino and North Tram station crossings; and 2) Page 8549: "...berm... erosion observed along east and west sides...': The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was D assed. APPROVAL OF APRIL 16, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES L n Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the April 16 Budget meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROP OSED FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET (LEVY) Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the Budget Subcommittee's recommendation to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget as presented by Budget Subcommittee Chairman Levy. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CROSSWALKS BATEMAN CONTRACT UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported the County Attorney initially opined that the Bateman contract would need Board of County Commissioners authorization before moving forward with the two additional crosswalk projects planned for this summer on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive and Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. Upon realization that the original Bateman contract approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011 included these additional locations, the County Attorney determined that no further authorization was necessary UNIFORM TRAFFIC STANDARDS Mr. Dorrill introduced two engineers invited to speak about uniform traffic standards and address residents' concerns about safety and noise that resonated from vehicles driving over cobblestones at the San Marino and North Tram station mid -block crossings. Mr. James Carr, P.E. explained the crosswalks constructed along Pelican Bay Boulevard were designed by Wilson Miller. All mid -block crossings have three feet wide cobblestone bands on each side that was intended to create a "rumble" sound and have a tactile feel effect. After the initial installation, following complaints that the cobblestones were uneven and created a tripping hazard, the edges were adjusted to form a more level surface and it had the added effect of reducing noise. Traffic engineering expert, Mr. Bill Oliver, P.E. explained at pedestrian crossings, key issues for safety are speed and advance warning and methods currently in use to alert drivers did not appear to be working. If the intention of the cobblestones was to cause vehicles to slow down, it was clear the cobblestones were installed too close to the crossing. If the sound and tactile feel of driving over cobblestones was intended to change drivers' behavior, by the time the rumble is heard, it is too late to stop. The mid -block crossings include standard signs and pavement markings required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The question was whether the methods being 8551 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 16 1 '2 A May 2, 2012 used to get drivers' attention were producing the intended effect. The answer was no. The solution would be one that reaches out and grabs drivers' attention. Mr. Oliver recommended progressing to a higher level of driver awareness that could be achieved by installing a pedestrian- activated flashing beacon light timed to continue flashing until the pedestrian crossed the intersection. Mr. Oliver explained the County uses MUTCD standards to determine signage, signals, and pavement markings; and agreed that installing additional signage that is considered "supplemental" to MUTCD standards could cause confusion. Regarding the flashing yellow lights in the roadway on Ridgewood that outline a crossing to the Phil, Mr. Oliver reasoned the design was likely "emerging technology" that was later determined to be ineffectual. Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek) presented a video he made showing problems faced by pedestrians attempting to cross at the North Tram station mid -block crossing and at other locations within Pelican Bay. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Iaizzo suggested removing the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to recommend to the Foundation Board to remove cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Gibson said he supported removing the cobblestones, but the motion should include replacing cobblestones with fire -red clay brick pavers. Ms. Womble stressed the importance of uniformity and consistency as a theme established by the Community Improvement Plan. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Ms. Kathy Mahoney (San Marino), Dr. Ted Raia (St. Raphael), Mr. Dave Cook (Crescent), Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek) and another Pebble Creek resident supported increased traffic enforcement to control speeders, and supported removing cobblestones at the San Marino crossing or at all mid -block crossings; and agreed that resolving safety issues should not require consulting with the Foundation first and also be completed promptly. Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) suggested installing speed bumps, but Mr. Dorrill explained that speed bumps were not appropriate for Pelican Bay Boulevard, an arterial roadway. Mr. Jerry Moffatt (L'Ambiance) said the Foundation paid for the construction, but the road is owned by the County, and Mr. Dorrill added the Services Division permitted the project and is therefore responsible for maintenance. Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater) did not agree with Mr. Gibson's idea to replace cobblestones with fire -red clay brick pavers; and Ms. Mary McLean Johnson (St. Marissa) suggested amending the motion to include replacing cobblestones with appropriate alternatives that increase visibility and consistency. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to make a recommendation to the Foundation Board that they remove the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. The Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, laizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and Gibson) and 1 opposed Dallas and the motion was passed. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to make a recommendation to the Foundation Board that they remove the cobblestones from all mid -block crosswalk locations. The Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and Gibson ) and I opposed Dallas and the motion was passed 8552 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 16 1 L A 14 Mav 2.2012 Ms. O'Brien made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to not install cobblestones at the North Pointe Drive crossing that is planned to be done this summer. The Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and Gibson) and I opposed (Dallas) and the motion was passed. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to install pedestrian- activated flashing lights that is identical to the crossing on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, at the North Tram station and San Marino mid - block crossings. The total estimated cost to install a pedestrian- activated light at one location including solar power and bollards with sensors is $26,000. Mr. Chandler suggested obtaining pedestrian count data. Dr. Trecker suggested installing the pedestrian- activated light at the North Tram station crossing first to test efficacy. Mr. Tim Corcoran (Pebble Creek) agreed the North Tram station crossing would be the best location to test how effective a pedestrian- activated light is. Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek), and Ms. Mary Jane Culligan (Pebble Creek) supported installation at both the North Tram and San Marino locations. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to install pedestrian- actiLtieand ng lights at both the North Tram station and San Marino mid -block crossings similar to thon Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted S in favor (Dallas, Gibson, Cravennd Womble) and S opposed (Trecker, Levy, O'Brien, Chandler, and Iaizzo) and resulted in he motion was not passed. Vice Chair man Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to install a pedestrian- activated flashing light at the North Tram station mid -block crossing similar to the crossing on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. Mr. Carr and Mr. Oliver said the bollards with the sensors would be installed as specified by the MUTCD. A short recess was taken then the Board reconvened. NORTH POINTE DRIVE CROSSING (CHANDLER) Mr. Chandler suggested reconfiguring the North Pointe Drive crossing to improve pedestrian safety. Mr. Carr explained there most likely is a reason the existing crosswalk is located to the west of North Pointe and recommended prior to making any changes to the design that a traffic -count study is performed and subsequent changes would require a new permit. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens that when installing the new brick crosswalk at North Pointe Drive across Pelican Bay Boulevard that the crossing be located to align with the eastern sidewalk of North Pointe Drive. The Board voted 3 in favor (Cravens, Trecker, and Chandler) and 6 opposed (Gibson, Dallas, Womble, Levy, O'Brien, and Iaizzo and the motion ailed. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill said at the April 11 meeting, the Board affirmed constructing 8 -feet wide pathways and directed staff to obtain a second opinion from an independent certified arborist to determine the impact to existing trees. Certified arborist, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison visited the site to evaluate the route of the proposed pathways project. Mr. Jimison concluded it was necessary to remove approximately 5 trees and outlined his recommendations to accomplish root pruning without causing damage. However Mr. Jimison's findings appeared to contradict with Signature Tree 8553 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 161-2 A14 Mav 2.2012 Care's arborist reports that were provided by Mr. Galli (St. Maarten) that alleged the pathways widening project would cause damage to more than 30 trees. Mr. Dorrill reminded the Board that staff was previously authorized to move forward with the 8 -foot pathways widening project through the bid phase and would continue unless directed differently. COUNTY'S PLANS TO "OVERLAY" PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported the County is planning to overlay pathways along the east and west sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard by the end of July. However it is unclear whether the County plans to install root barriers or just apply a layer of asphalt to the existing path. He suggested the Board proceed with the 8 -feet wide pathways project and cost share with the County what the value per linear foot is. Then, as long as the County's plans include addressing the roots problem with root barriers the Board could inform the County to move forward; or if the plans do not include root barriers, the Board could request the project suspended until further plans are developed that do address the root problem. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Iaizzo suggested obtaining a third arborist report. However the majority of the Board did not agree. Dr. Trecker was concerned about root pruning and root barrier measurements referenced by the arborists' reports and engineer's plans. The majority of the Board agreed due - diligence was done, but the majority of the audience did not agree that the pathways project was properly vetted. The Board did agree the pathways were in need of repair. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Rick Galli (St. Maarten) did not agree that Mr. Jimison's recommendations to accomplish root pruning would not damage trees; and requested the arborist's qualifications and full report. Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) supported Mr. Galli. Ms. Elaine Daravingas (Montenero) cited Mr. Doug Caldwell of the Institute for Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) University of Florida (UFL) who she said recommended installation of gravel root barriers and she would provide the documentation. Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) said reducing the tree canopy would diminish shade and tranquility, and suggested additional vetting before moving the project forward. Dr. Ted Raia (St. Raphael) supported having a third arborist report done. CERTIFIED ARBORIST MR. RALPH B. JIMISON'S COMMENTS Regarding the impact to trees of the pathways widening project, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison, a local, certified practicing arborist for more than 30 years was asked for his professional opinion as to whether root pruning could be done without damaging live Oak trees. After surveying the trees along the project's site route, he concluded root pruning could be done without damaging the trees under certain conditions. Regarding Signature Tree Care's arborist report provided by Mr. Galli, Mr. Jimison said both reports come to similar conclusions: root pruning can be done effectively without damaging a tree when done concurrently with tree canopy reduction. Reducing one -third of the tree canopy's biomass compensates for root loss. The visual impact is barely noticeable. Both the roots and tree canopy would regenerate. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to proceed with the 8-feet pathways widening project subject to the recommendations made by the certified arborist, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison. The Board voted 3 in favor (Dallas, Womble, and Levy) and 6 opposed (Gibson, Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien, Iaizzo, and Chandler ) and the motion fiailed. 8554 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Session Minutes y g 1612 A 1 4 May 2, 2012 Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Mice Chairman Cravens to limit the pathways width to 6-feet. The Board voted S in favor (Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien, laizzo, and Clrandler) and 4 opposed (Gibson, Dallas, Womble, and Lev and the motion was passed. As the Board directed, Mr. Dorrill would follow up with the County regarding their plans to "overlay" the pathways, discuss cost - sharing, and request the "overlay" project be suspended until the Services Division's engineer has an opportunity to complete new design plans for 6 -feet wide pathways along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram station. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, the motion was passerd, and the meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m. 1 JI // V Keit allas I hairman 8555 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/14/2012 9:48:37 AM L tot {. �7 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 6 12 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 10 k Stakeholder Videoconference May 11, 2011 STRATEGY PRESENTATIONS: ENGINEERING Fiala Date: Hiller '- Henning Item #: Coyle Coletta V!�— Copies to: A14 p igII�l� JUL_ 6 cUi� 0 BY: ..... t........... ....... As speed increases, driver focuses less on surroundings As speed increases, driver focuses less on surroundings (mph) 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session /, 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards ��,"`/{ 4 Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- verb Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 10 40 mph 30 mph 85% death 15% injured 45% death 50% injured 55 uninjured 20 mph 5% death 65% injured 10% uninjured 0 100ft 200ft 300ft 400ft 500ft May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 ' A 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards 1 14 Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & ssociates, Inc. Page 4 of 10 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6 112 I A 14 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Page 5 of 10 1� May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session �6 A 14 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Page 6 of 10 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1612 A 14 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Page 7 of 10 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 12 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Page 8 of 10 A14 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessi A 14 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standar s Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, T' al6ivel A2ciates, Inc. Page 9 of 10 May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ses1 6 ' 2 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Uniform Traffic Standards • 14 Presentation by Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Sr. Vice President, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Page 10 of 10 ' 1612 A14 i 111 �, i lI f L PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BY: •• Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2012 THE CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET ON MONDAY, JUNE 4TH AT 3:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Clam Bay Monitoring 3. Dredging Permit Application 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjourn Fiala f Hiller Henning _ Coyle Coletta _:IL Misc. Corres: Date: 1 1 1 ( 12 Item #: I Cp T 2 i9 14 Copies to: ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 5/31/2012 3:15:04 PM .L c A w June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay SenA Ds4Board� Comments by Mary McLean Johnson, Pelican Bay Foundation Boar of Directors Page 1 of 1 (18 unread) - djtrecker - Yahool Mail 5/24/12 10:55 AM Re: Clam Bay PBSD Sub - committee Meeting FROM: mlmassocaicp @aol.com TO: djtrecker @yahoo.com Hide Details Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6 53 PM Dave, I have retumed north for the summer. My request to the PBSD would be to continue the monitoring being done by Tim Hall and Humiston and Moore and to take steps to liave PBSD data entered into STORET and to be put on the distribution list to receive the CAC's annual water quality monitoring reports, as I mentioned in my prior email. Mary Mary McLean Johnson 6573 Marissa Loop #1501_ _ .... ............................... !saO s. FL 34108 (239) 5664515 — Original Message From: david trecker <ditreckerna vahoo.com> To: Marcia Cravens <goldandrose @mac.com >; Ted Raia <tedraia @gmail.com >; mlmassocaicp <min1assocaico@aol.com> Sent: Wed, May 23, 2012 12:22 pm Subject: Clam Bay PBSD Sub - committee Meeting Marcia, Ted, Mary - A PBSD Clam Bay Sub - committee meeting to take input on new data and/or new issues pertaining to Clam Bay is scheduled for June 4, 3:00 p.m. at the Community center. If you have any new information to convey to the PBSD or if you seek PBSD action on any Clam Bay issues, please plan to attend and make your case. The meeting will be relatively brief (1.5 hours tops), so please plan to make your presentationsirequests brief and specific. Thanks, Dave http : / /us.mg5.maii.yahoo.com /neo /launch Page 1 of 1 f June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay interior channel maintenance permit water quality testing requirements r Page 1 of 1 16 1 -A ResnickLisa From: david trecker [djtrecker @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:29 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: Clam Bay Permit Info Thanks. From: ResnickLisa <LResnick c@colliergov.net> To: "Dave Trecker (ditreckera-yahoo.com)" <ditreckerayahoo.com> Cc: LukaszKyle <KvleLukasza-colliergov.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: FW: Clam Bay Permit Info Dr. Trecker, please see Kyle's email below re: Clam Bay Restoration permit. Thanks, Lisa From: LukaszKyle Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:00 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Clam Bay Permit Info Lisa, Information Dr. Trecker was looking for. The Clam Bay Restoration permit had a one year extension, after the initial ten year period and the one year extension the permit expired with no further action. We continue to perform WQ testing for Clam Bay as part of the new permit obtained for the interior channel maintenance. I asked Tim about the fecal coliform testing and he believes that CZM is performing some of these tests in Clam Bay but there is no requirement in our permits for this testing. For the last two or three years of WQ data we either have the last three WQ summaries that Tim prepared for the annual report or the full excel document, which I'm trying to get the updated version or we have the one on the H drive. Kyle ResnickLisa June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Status of Chairman Trecker's Clam Bay data requests Page 1 of 2 16 12A14 Subject: 6/4 at 3 Clam Bay Subcommittee (Status of Dr. Trecker's Clam Bay Data Requests) From: david trecker Lmai Ito: ditrecker(a)yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:18 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: FYI - Update on your requests re: Clam Bay Data Thanks, Lisa. From: ResnickLisa <LResnick(S-colliergov.net> To: "Dave Trecker (ditrecker (cDvahoo.com)" <ditrecker(@vahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:43 PM Subject: FYI - Update on your requests re: Clam Bay Data Dr. Trecker: FYI — See below RE: STORET to Kyle (awaiting further response from Tim Hall); and RE: request for Clam Bay data to Leo Ochs (Leo sent your request to Gary McAlpin; we are awaiting Gary's response). Will keep you posted. Thanks, Lisa From: LukaszKyle Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:25 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Tim Hail Subject: RE: Clam Bay It has not been uploaded to Storet. I'll check with Tim to see when this could be loaded. Kyle From: david trecker Cmai Ito: djtrecker(a)yahoo.coml Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:39 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Clam Bay Lisa - Could you confirm with Kyle that PBSD's Clam Bay monitoring data has been entered into STORET? If not, when will it be done? Thanks, Dave June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Bourd Status of Chairman Trecker's Clam Bay data requests Page 2 of 2 From: OchsLeo ` Sent: Tuesday, May Q% 2012 $:50 AM To: McAlpinGary Cc: CarnellSteve; ResnickLisa 1612 14 Subject: FW: Clam Bay Data FYA please From: david trecker rmai Ito: ditrecker(a)vahoo.coml Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:35 PM To: OchsLeo Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Clam Bay Data Leo - Would you arrange to have sent to me, via the Pelican Bay Services Division office (Iresnickgcollier ovg .ne_t) the county's Clam Bay water - quality monitoring data, including fecal coliform, for the last three years? The PBSD has permitted responsibility for mangrove maintenance. As such, it would be useful to have a copy of the CZM water - quality data from Clam Bay. Many thanks, Dave June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 1 of 11 1612 A14 ResnickLisa From: david trecker [djtrecker @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:40 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fw: follow up to discussion of items for the PBSD Clam Bay Committee meeting next week Attachments: Technical note.pdf Lisa - Please include this as part of the package to be distributed to the Clam Bay Sub - committee members prior to Monday's meeting. Thx, Dave - - - -- Forwarded Message - - - -- From: MARCIA CRAVENS <goldandrose @mac.com> To: Dave Trecker <djtrecker @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:22 PM Subject: follow up to discussion of items for the PBSD Clam Bay Committee meeting next week Dave, Thank you for the coffee break meeting yesterday. I'm just following up on what we had discussed -- to identify them and include information for agenda prior to any deadline. Is today the deadline for giving materials to the PBSD office ? Please let me know if I need to send this email to Lisa or if you want to edit it before sending it to Lisa. If it's ok with you I can provide Lisa with a compressed email attachment or CD of the Clam Bay Benthic Study as fyi material. Recap of items I'm requesting to be included on the agenda: 1). WQ sampling results by Collier County identified fecal coliform pollution in the Clam Bay waterbodies for consideration of PBSD follow -up source tests. 2). Adopt the Conservancy of SWF Clam Bay Benthic Study as a benthic baseline and PBSD consider building on it with additional biologic surveys. Background Information on item 1 is excerpts of highlights from the main points in the Atkins Technical Note (dated March 9,2012): Fecal Coliform Data Analysis Fecal coliform bacteria data from Clam Bay were compared to two criteria. The first criteria evaluated was to test if sufficient samples exceeded 43 CFU /100 mL based on the sample size (N =132). A minimum of 19 samples are required to not meet the fecal coliform bacteria criteria in order for Clam Bay to be placed on the verified list. Sixty -eight of the 132 data points 52 %) exceeded Class II standard of 43 CFU /100mL. Based on this comparison alone, Clain Bay is impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The second criteria compared the median fecal coliform value for each station to 14 CFU /100 mL (Table 1). Sufficient data points are not currently available to complete a station by station comparison with the 14 CFU /100mL criteria required for the verified list. However, only ten samples are required by station for inclusion on the planning period list. All nine water quality stations had median fecal coliform bacteria values above 14 CFU /100mL. Source identification studies are recommended to determine whether anthropogenic factors cause of the elevated bacteria concentrations prior to developing recommendations for remediation (Bernhard and Field 2000). In an effort to better identify the potential fecal coliform bacteria sources to Clam Bay, Collier County pursued a microbial source tracking (MST) effort for Clam Bay. Samples were collected in Clam Bay and analyzed for both the qualitative and quantitative evidence of both bacterial genes and viruses specific to humans, specifically the Bacteroidetes Human Gene Biomarker and Human Urine Viruses (Polyomavirus). While positive results would indicate a human source was present, negative results do not prove that human sources are not present. The portion of the watershed directly adiacent to the Clam Bay is connected to a sewer system for wastewater disposal. However, portions of the larger Clam Bay watershed appear to contain active OSTDS systems. Therefore, a human source of the fecal coliform levels in Clam Bay cannot be completely discounted at this time, but based on the research conducted, it is highly improbable that humans are a significant source. FYI I've added an attachment below of the complete Fecal coliform—technical note-3-09-2012 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 2 of 11 161c' Hip, This was reported to the Coastal Advisory Committee by staff at their May 2012 meeting but no action was recommended or taken on it. When I spoke to the CAC members on this agenda item -- I expressed concern that the technical note speculated with anecdotal data and conjecture that the fecal coliform was likely from birds, but the limited additional testing that Atkins did is not sufficient to rule out an anthropogenic source for fecal coliform. I commented to the CAC that our community has good reason to be concerned and that the PBSD should follow up on this issue. Mayor John Sorey, who chairs the CAC was supportive for me to bring this issue to the PBSD for the PBSD to take action to follow up on it. Since the Atkins Technical Note has very clearly included information and mapped quite a few potential sources ( septic tanks in the Pine Ridge development ) that are within the drainage area of the Clam Bay watershed basin AND the Technical Note asserts that Clam Bay WQ sampling results that are positive for fecal coliform meet the criteria of "impaired water" to the degree that this consultant asserts Clam Bay would be added to the State of Florida's impaired waters "planning list" AND the consultant firm's Technical Note failed to identify another potential site of the Seagate Subdivision ( due to originally being built with septic tanks ) ... My thoughts are that PBSD needs to be proactive on this issue because additional follow up testing may be able to definitively prove that the fecal coliform is not from an anthropogenic source OR if the additional testing indicates there is an anthropogenic source, then the PBSD is the proper entity to take the next steps of identifying the actual source site(s) and making recommendations to adequately address it. This issue should be very concerning to the PBSD because any anthropogenic source would be an uplands site and is within the scope of water management for our MSTBU and also because our people recreate in the Clam Bay waterbodies and the PBSD is responsible for the Surface and Storm Water Management within Pelican Bay boundaries that is supposed to prevent pollution of Clam Bay within our boundaries. When John Sorey expressed support for me to inform the PBSD of this report and recommend for the PBSD to do further WQ testing to investigate whether the fecal coliform was from anthropogenic sources -- we briefly discussed that it can be accomplished by WQ testing for occurrence of caffeine. I've attached an excerpt of SOW quotefrom a consultant to the city of Naples -- just for the portion of the SOW that's relevant to this particular issue..... NOTE that the PBSD would not expect to have all of the Administrative expense shown on this excerpt if this task was an added task to their existing consultant Turrell, Hall, and Assoc. for the work this consultant is already doing under their contract with the PBSD because it would only slightly increase Administrative services already being paid under their contract. Background Information on item 2 (the 2010 Clam Bay Benthic Study is too large to include as an attachment, but will be provided on CD ): The 2010 Clam Bay Benthic Study was obtained as a result of collaborative effort that I pursued to get this necessary benthic baseline done. The benthos is the lowest level of the biologic habitats and "bottom feeders" in a wetlands ecosystem. It was a necessary first step to an assessment of the health of the Clam Bay Conservation Area's Mangrove Ecosystem- - but a second and third step are needed to build upon it in order to achieve a comprehensive assessment of the Mangrove Ecosystem of Clam Bay. The second step is to do fish surveys as fish constitute a median level in the food web and the third step is to do bird surveys as birds constitute a higher level in the food web. These next step surveys need to be done in two phases - -one in summer months and one in winter months -- because there are different species that would occur during those different seasons. These surveys need to be done within a reasonable time after the benthic study was completed so as to have a connected biologic framework of comprehensive assessment. June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 3 of 11 1612 A14 4 The PBSD has been the steward that addresses monitoring the health of the Clam Bay Conservation Area Mangroves Ecosystem. The mangroves ecosystem is not just the mangroves trees... The mangroves are particularly important habitat to fishes and provides essential fishery habitat for many marine species that must complete some part of their life cycle in a mangroves estuary. The mangroves canopy is important habitat and food source for many bird species ( and our MSTBU property owners greatly enjoy the beautiful birds and their birdsongs as an aesthetic amenity in PB ). Adopting the Conservancy's Clam Bay Benthic Study and following it with the next steps of fish and bird surveys is an appropriate activity for the PBSD for 2012 -2013. Thank you for your consideration and service to our community and hopefully for your support to vote approval of these two actions. Marcia Cravens Technical note Project: Clam Bay NNC June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Boufd Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 4 of 11 1 "I ZU'L To: Gary McAlpin Subject: Fecal Coliform From: David Tomasko, PhD Date: March 2012 cc: Clam Bay --- May 1 VII -4 Staff Reports 1 of 8 %A Z 11619 A14 Clam Bay is an important natural feature in Collier County. The Clam Bay system consists of three tidally influenced lagoons: Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bays (Figure 1). Associated with the increased development of Collier County, there has been concern among the public that Clam Bay might have been adversely impacted by environmental pressures that typically accompany population growth. In its historical configuration, Clam Bay would have received fresh water discharges mostly via small tidal creeks and groundwater inflow. Watershed development most likely increased both the amount of freshwater discharged into Clam Bay due to an increase in stormwater runoff, as well as loads of total suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus (PBS &J, 2008). Figure 1. Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bay are all part of the Clam Bay system. Upper Clam Bay Inner Clam Bay Outer Clam Bay The Clam Bay system was impacted in the 1950s by the construction of two roads; Vanderbilt Beach Road to the north and Seagate Drive to the south. Historically, Clam Bay was connected to the Gulf of Mexico indirectly via Wiggins Pass to the north and Doctor's Pass to the south, as well as its direct connection via Clam Pass. Outer Clam Bay temporarily lost its historic connection to Moorings Bay (located to the south) in the 1950's when Seagate Drive was constructed. As it was originally configured, Seagate Drive cut off tidal connections to the south, and Clam Pass was left as the only connection to the Gulf of Mexico. In response to water quality concerns, culverts were placed under Seagate Drive in 1976 to allow for tidal exchange between Clam and Moorings Bays. Originally, the culverts were intended to allow flows only from Moorings Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable .a June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 5 of 11 l;Hl: May "I '1, ZU "IZ VII -4 Staff Reports 2 of 8 to X1 Iz4 Technical note 16 Bay into Clam Bay, but their construction was such that flows occurred in both directions (Collier County, 1997). In the 1980s, the tidal connection between Upper Clam Bay and Vanderbilt Lagoon (to the north) was severed due to development activities (Collier County, 1997). Although Clam Bay's watershed had been extensively developed, the shoreline of Clam Bay has remained in an almost entirely natural condition, with mangroves, rather than seawalls, as the dominant feature. Fecal coliform bacteria Microbiological indicators of fecal contamination, such as the fecal coliform group and its member Escherichia co/i (E. col►) and Enterococcus spp. (enterococci), found in the gastrointestinal tracts of humans, as well as those of warm - blooded and some coldblooded animals (APHA 1995, Harwood et al. 2000), have been used for over a century to warn of fecal contamination risk in water and food. These organisms, along with enteric pathogens, are shed in feces that can contaminate surface and ground water. Microorganisms from fecal sources that enter waters used by the public can pose a health threat, whether the water is used as a drinking water source, for recreational activities such as fishing or swimming, or for aquatic farming activities such as shellfish harvesting. In addition to public health risks, fecal contamination can result in adverse economic impacts due to the closure of recreational beaches and shellfish- harvesting areas. Fecal contamination results when untreated fecal material from humans, other warm - blooded animals, and some cold - blooded animals enters a waterbody. In many waterbodies, fecal coliform contamination stems from a combination of human, wildlife, and domestic animal sources. When there is no obvious probable source of fecal pollution, a more exhaustive search is required. The background information collected for an impaired waterbody should be supplemented with a thorough field examination. In some cases, the use of more advanced techniques (e.g., targeted sampling of suspected sources, investigation of existing infrastructure) may be appropriate as part of the field examination. Once combined, visual inspections, sampling results, and historical data generally suggest potential source(s) of fecal contamination. Probable sources may include the following: • Wastewater infrastructure; • Wildlife; and /or • Specific land uses (e.g., livestock, aquaculture, marinas, dog parks). FDEP Fecal Coliform Regulations Clam Bay is designated as a Class II, marine waterbody. Class II status indicates that the designated use of the waterbody is for shellfish propagation and harvesting. Clam Bay data provided by Collier County for the period of 2009 to 2011 were compared against the appropriate standard for fecal coliform bacteria. The FDEP IWR contains approved methods for evaluating water quality of lake, stream, and marine waterbodies. Fecal coliform bacteria standards are more stringent for Class II waterbodies compared to Class III (recreational use). The appropriate standard to evaluate fecal coliform bacteria impairment status in Clam Bay, based on the F.A.C. 62- 303.470 is stated as follows: Class lI waters shall be included on the verified list for coliform impairment if, following review of the available data as described in subsection 62- 303.460(2), F.A.C. (a) The number of samples above 43 counts per 100 mL meet the requirement in subsection 62- 303.420(6), F.A.C., with the exception that paragraph 62- 303.320(4)(a), FA. C., does not apply and samples collected on different days within any four day period will be assessed as daily samples, or (b) The water segment includes a sampling location that has a median fecal coliform MPN value that exceeds 14 counts per 100 ml for the verified period. To calculate a median value for a sampling location, there shall be at least 20 samples collected during the verified period. Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable Tech h' cal note Fecal Coliform Data Analysis June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Boaad i Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 6 of 11 �, uHu may -I t� 2. VII -4 Staff Rep s 3 of 8 to Z-. I" Fecal coliform bacteria data from Clam Bay were compared to two criteria. The first criteria evaluated was to test if sufficient samples exceeded 43 CFU /100 mL based on the sample size (N =132). A minimum of 19 samples are required to not meet the fecal coliform bacteria criteria in order for Clam Bay to be placed on the verified list. Sixty -eight of the 132 data points (52 %) exceeded Class II standard of 43 CFU /100mL. Based on this comparison alone, Clam Bay is impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The second criteria compared the median fecal coliform value for each station to 14 CFU /100 mL (Table 1). Sufficient data points are not currently available to complete a station by station comparison with the 14 CFU /100mL criteria required for the verified list. However, only ten samples are required by station for inclusion on the planning period list. All nine water quality stations had median fecal coliform bacteria values above 14 CFU /100mL. Table 1. Fecal coliform bacteria summary statistics (2009 -2011) Though values exceed the regulatory standard, it should be considered that fecal coliform bacteria may not be an appropriate indicator of pathogenic diseases in sub - tropical environments such as Florida. The specificity of the fecal coliform test is compromised by the more constant and warmer ambient water temperatures in Southwest Florida. The inability to specifically identify humans as a source of bacteria using traditional indicator testing protocols has been noted by Fujioka (200 1) and Fujioka et al. (1999) for various tropical locations. Source identification studies are recommended to determine whether anthropogenic factors cause of the elevated bacteria concentrations prior to developing recommendations for remediation (Bernhard and Field 2000). Source Identification Elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations have been attributed to wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals and birds (Levesque et al. 1993, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). In prior TMDLs, birds were estimated to produce 200 to 400 million fecal coliform bacteria per bird per day (humans about 2 billion per day; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). Using a low end estimate of 200 million fecal coliform bacteria per bird per day, one bird could cause 124,000 gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU / 100 mL. The total volume of Clam Bay is approximately 105 million gallons. Therefore, it is feasible to expect that 850 birds could produce enough bacteria — every day— to cause 105 million gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU /100 mL. Fecal coliform bacteria are susceptible to both die -off due to the saline environment and in- Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Pian Design Enable N Average Median Geometric Minimum Maximum Criteria Clam Bay 132 55 44 35 1 310 43 Station statistics CB1 11 109 94 89 28 310 14 C62 14 95 70 80 32 230 14 CB3 14 58 60 49 17 111 14 CB4 14 56 47 43 6 114 14 CB5 16 52 48 37 1 115 14 C136 16 28 16.5 18 3 88 14 CB7 16 24 22 16 3 54 14 CB8 16 54 27 32 4 290 14 CB9 15 42 28 23 1 153 14 Data from Collier County (2009 -2011) Though values exceed the regulatory standard, it should be considered that fecal coliform bacteria may not be an appropriate indicator of pathogenic diseases in sub - tropical environments such as Florida. The specificity of the fecal coliform test is compromised by the more constant and warmer ambient water temperatures in Southwest Florida. The inability to specifically identify humans as a source of bacteria using traditional indicator testing protocols has been noted by Fujioka (200 1) and Fujioka et al. (1999) for various tropical locations. Source identification studies are recommended to determine whether anthropogenic factors cause of the elevated bacteria concentrations prior to developing recommendations for remediation (Bernhard and Field 2000). Source Identification Elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations have been attributed to wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals and birds (Levesque et al. 1993, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). In prior TMDLs, birds were estimated to produce 200 to 400 million fecal coliform bacteria per bird per day (humans about 2 billion per day; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). Using a low end estimate of 200 million fecal coliform bacteria per bird per day, one bird could cause 124,000 gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU / 100 mL. The total volume of Clam Bay is approximately 105 million gallons. Therefore, it is feasible to expect that 850 birds could produce enough bacteria — every day— to cause 105 million gallons of water to exceed 43 CFU /100 mL. Fecal coliform bacteria are susceptible to both die -off due to the saline environment and in- Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Pian Design Enable June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 7 of 11 A14 M I "I,,,, ����yyy IY I VII -4 st Rs 4 of 8 Technical note C situ production. Regardless, it is within the realm of possibilities that birds are an important source of the bacteria in Clam Bay. The Audubon Society completes a one -day Christmas bird count annually nation -wide. In 2010, 7,057 mangrove - utilizing birds were counted in the Naples region (15 mile diameter circle) with an additional 8,188 birds counted which may utilize mangrove habitats during parts of their day or lifespan (Table 2). Based on these results, it is feasible that several dozen to several hundred birds could utilize the Clam Bay mangrove habitats on a daily basis. Table 2. Audubon Society Christmas 2010 Christmas Bird Count for Naples, Florida Common Name Number Mangrove Utilization Brown Pelican 270 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Double- crested Cormorant 690 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Great Blue Heron (Blue form) 60 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Great Egret 120 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Snowy Egret 80 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Little Blue Heron 90 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Tricolored Heron 85 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Reddish Egret 1 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Cattle Egret 50 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Green Heron 7 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Yellow- crowned Night -Heron 4 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder White Ibis 900 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Laughing Gull 4,700 Inhabits mangroves /possible breeder Subtotal 7,057 Common Name Number Mangrove Utilization Northern Harrier 2 May hunt in area during winter Wood Stork 65 Occasional user/ not breeder in mangroves Black Vulture 400 Occasional user/ not breeder in mangroves Turkey Vulture 1,800 Occasional user/ not breeder in mangroves Ring - billed Gull 1,900 Occasional user / not breeder in mangroves Herring Gull 45 Occasional user / not breeder in mangroves Lesser Black- backed Gull 1 Occasional user/ not breeder in mangroves Forster's Tern 23 Occasional user / not breeder in mangroves Royal Tern 160 Occasional user / not breeder in mangroves Sandwich Tern 18 Occasional user / not breeder in man roves Black Skimmer 480 Occasional user / not breeder in Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design enable r June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Boars r Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 8 of 11 - 4 May 1 'I, LU I V11- � a l VII -4 Staff Reports � 5 of 8 Technical note 46 In an effort to quantify the fecal coliform concentration of native wading bird populations in Clam Bay, bird guano samples were collected on two occasions from Clam Bay, August 25t and October 4th, 2011. Fresh bird guano samples were collect from resident wading birds (eg. predominantly white ibis). A collection of the complete guano samples was attempted but was successful in only two of the samples. Five samples were collected in August and two samples were collected in October. The samples were transported to the Collier County water quality lab for analysis. The range in fecal coliform concentrations associated with these single bird defecation "events" was highly variable ( <1 to 290,000 cfu /100mL). The two samples in which the entire defecation event was collected had fecal coliform bacteria values of 150,000 and 290,000 cfu1100 mL. Based on the results of these samples, the wading bird population in Clam Bay is likely a substantial source of bacteria to Clam Bay. In an effort to better identify the potential fecal coliform bacteria sources to Clam Bay, Collier County pursued a microbial source tracking (MST) effort for Clam Bay. Samples were collected in Clam Bay and analyzed for both the qualitative and quantitative evidence of both bacterial genes and viruses specific to humans, specifically the Bacteroidetes Human Gene Biomarker and Human Urine Viruses (Polyomavirus). While positive results would indicate a human source was present, negative results do not prove that human Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable mangroves Belted Kingfisher 30 Occasional user / not breeder in mangroves Fish Crow 280 Occasional user / not breeder in mangroves Osprey 70 Feeds / perches in mangrove area Bald Eagle 32 Feeds / perches in mangrove area Peregrine Falcon 1 Occasionally found in winter Prairie Warbler 7 Possible breeder in mangroves Red - winged Blackbird 27 Possible breeder in mangroves Lesser Scaup 65 Possibly found in bay during winter Common Loon - Possibly found in bay during winter Black- bellied Plover 50 Shorebird Semi - palmated Plover 2 Shorebird Killdeer 270 Shorebird Spotted Sandpiper 13 Shorebird Greater Yellowlegs 5 Shorebird Willet 100 Shorebird Lesser Yellowlegs 6 Shorebird Ruddy Turnstone 60 Shorebird Sanderling 230 Shorebird Western Sandpiper 21 Shorebird Least Sandpiper 140 Shorebird Dunlin 75 Shorebird Common Grackle 1,600 Uses area Boat - tailed Grackle 210 Uses area Subtotal 8,188 Total 15,245 In an effort to quantify the fecal coliform concentration of native wading bird populations in Clam Bay, bird guano samples were collected on two occasions from Clam Bay, August 25t and October 4th, 2011. Fresh bird guano samples were collect from resident wading birds (eg. predominantly white ibis). A collection of the complete guano samples was attempted but was successful in only two of the samples. Five samples were collected in August and two samples were collected in October. The samples were transported to the Collier County water quality lab for analysis. The range in fecal coliform concentrations associated with these single bird defecation "events" was highly variable ( <1 to 290,000 cfu /100mL). The two samples in which the entire defecation event was collected had fecal coliform bacteria values of 150,000 and 290,000 cfu1100 mL. Based on the results of these samples, the wading bird population in Clam Bay is likely a substantial source of bacteria to Clam Bay. In an effort to better identify the potential fecal coliform bacteria sources to Clam Bay, Collier County pursued a microbial source tracking (MST) effort for Clam Bay. Samples were collected in Clam Bay and analyzed for both the qualitative and quantitative evidence of both bacterial genes and viruses specific to humans, specifically the Bacteroidetes Human Gene Biomarker and Human Urine Viruses (Polyomavirus). While positive results would indicate a human source was present, negative results do not prove that human Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 9 of 11 l:Hl; May 1 "I, ZU "IZ VII -4 Staff Reports 6of8 LA Technical note 4 1,612 sources are not present. Water samples were collected at three locations (Upper Clam Bay (CB -1), Inner Clam Bay (CB -3) and Outer Clam Bay (CB -5)) on two occasions, August 25, 2011 and October 4, 2011. Samples were transported to Source Molecular for microbial source tracking as well as to the Collier County A 14 lab to quantify fecal coliform concentrations. The microbial source tracking results were negative for all three sites for both sampling events indicating that a human source was not detected for those samples. In addition, the results of the fecal coliform analysis indicated that elevated bacteria counts were observed in August ( >43 cfu /100mQ but not in October. Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure The sanitary sewer infrastructure in the Clam Bay watershed is comprised of a mixture of sewer and on -site sewage treatment and disposal systems ( OSTDS). The Seagate Community, located in the southern portion of the watershed, utilize a sewer system for wastewater disposal. In addition, the developments on the west side of US41 adjacent to Clam Bay do not appear to utilize an OSTDS system based on the best available data (provided by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH)) and are likely using a sewer system. While communities directly adjacent to the Clam Bay watershed utilize a sewer system, there are portions of the Clam Bay watershed east of US 41 which are connected to an OSTDS system. Approximately 130 active OSTDS systems are documented by FDOH in the Clam Bay watershed, which represents a minor portion of the households located in the watershed (Figure 2). While active OSTDS have been located within the watershed, a properly functioning OSTDS and associated drainfield is designed to effectively remove fecal coliform bacteria and viruses from wastewater. Prior studies which evaluated the fecal coliform and bacteria presence in soil samples within and below the infiltration zone of properly operating OSTDS have documented substantial reductions in the amount of fecal coliform bacteria and viruses within the OSTDS and their associated drainfield (Lewis and Stark 1993, Anderson et al. undated). Therefore the presence of OSTDS or sewer systems within the Clam Bay watershed would not necessarily indicate that they are a basis for concern regarding fecal coliform bacteria contamination, unless widespread instances of OSTDS failures are occurring. Conclusions Clam Bay has elevated bacteria concentrations; therefore, it is classified as an impaired waterbody for fecal coliform bacteria based on the Class II waterbody standards. The potential sources for fecal coliform bacteria include: wastewater infrastructure, wildlife, specific land uses. While Clam Bay is impaired, based on Class II standards, it should be considered that fecal coliform bacteria may not be an appropriate indicator of pathogenic diseases in sub - tropical environments such as Florida. The specificity of the fecal coliform test is compromised by the more constant and warmer ambient water temperatures in Southwest Florida. Bird populations have been documented as potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in prior TMDLs (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2002). Based on the results from the fecal coliform concentrations of bird guano from local birds, the wading bird population in Clam Bay is likely an important source of the bacteria concentrations in Clam Bay. Additionally, microbial source tracking efforts did not provide evidence of a human source, even when fecal coliform counts were high in the Bay. While the lack of a positive human marker does not exclude the possibility of human sources, it provides evidence that non -human sources could be the primary source of the elevated bacteria concentrations. The portion of the watershed directly adjacent to the Clam Bay is connected to a sewer system for wastewater disposal. However, portions of the larger Clam Bay watershed appear to contain active OSTDS systems. Therefore, a human source of the fecal coliform levels in Clam Bay cannot be completely discounted at this time, but based on the research conducted, it is highly improbable that humans are a significant source. Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Boas,ld Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club 612 Page 10 of 11 u/-\t_ may n, /u V11-4 VII 4 Staff Repo 7 of 8 to . z Technical note A 14 Literature Cited f Anderson, D. A. Lewis, and K. Sherman. undated. Unsaturated Zone Monitoring below subsurface wastewater systems serving individual homes in Florida. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF). 1995. In A. D. Eaton, L.S. Clesceri, and A. E. Greenberg (Eds.), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, Washington, D.C. Bernhard, A.E., and Field, K.G., 2000, A PCR assay to discriminate human and ruminant feces on the basis of host differences in Bacteroides- Prevotella genes encoding 16S rRNA: Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66(10): 4571 -4574. Collier County, 1997. Clam Bay Natural Resources Protection Area. Report. 85 pp Fujioka, R.S. 2001. Monitoring coastal marine waters for spore - forming bacteria of faecal and soil origin to determine point from non -point source pollution. Water Science and Technology. 44: 181 -188. Fujioka, R.S., Stan - Denton, C., Borja, M., Castro, J., and K. Morphew. 1999. Soil, the environmental source of Escherichia coli and enterococci in Guam's streams. Journal of Applied Microbiology. (Symposium supplement) 85: 83S -89S. Harwood, V. J., Whitlock, J., and Withington, V. 2000. Classification of antibiotic resistance patterns of indicator bacteria by discriminant analysis: use in predicting the source of fecal contamination in subtropical waters. Appl Environ Microbiol 66(9): 3698 -704. Lewis, A. and L. Stark. 1993. Florida OSDS Research Project: Viral Study Summary. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2002. Regional Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation of Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments in the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2002. PBS &J. 2008. Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Page 11 of 11 UAL; may 'n, ZUIZ VII-4 Staff Report 8of8 Technical note Q 14 Figure 2. Known active permitted OSTDS systems within the Clam Bay watershed (source: FDOH). Fecal coliform technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Summary of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Requests Page 1 of 1 PBSD CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16 I 2­ A14 SUMMARY OF REQUESTS TO PBSD (1) Have Clam Bay monitoring data entered into STORET. (Mary Johnson, PB Foundation) IN PROGRESS (2) Have county's annual water - quality monitoring reports sent to PBSD. (Mary Johnson, PB Foundation) REQUEST MADE TO COUNTY (3) Carry out fecal coliform testing as part of PBSD water - quality monitoring to determine if high fecal levels are from humans. If so, inland water testing may be in order to determine the source, e.g., nearby septic systems. (Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club) (4) Fund fish and bird surveys to supplement recent Conservancy benthic survey. Purpose is to establish a baseline for biological health of the estuary to complement hydrologic data. (Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club) (5) Send letters to the county and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern about the recent dredging permit application. Bases for concern: (a) New analyses show the permit application would allow more extensive dredging than allowed in 1998 permit and more extensive dredging than carried out in 2007. (b) There are no legally binding triggers for dredging in the current permit application. (Ted Raia and Linda Roth, MAG) ResnickLisa June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Submitted by Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group Page 1 of 4 A14 16 12 Subject: 6/4 at 3 Clam Bay Subcommittee (submitted by Linda Roth) From: david trecker [mailto:djtrecker @ yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:06 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fw: Request for Information: FDEP Permit 0296087 - 001 -JC (Clam Pass)wider. Lisa - Please include this in materials distributed to sub - committee members. Thx. Dave - - - -- Forwarded Message - - - -- From: "lor3lor3 @aol.com" <1or3lor3 @aol.com> To: djtrecker @yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:50 PM Subject: Re: Request for Information: FDEP Permit 0296087 - 001 -JC (Clam Pass)wider. Dave, See my response in red below. Linda - - - -- Original Message---- - From: david trecker <djtrecker @yahoo.com> To: lor3lor3 <1or3lor3 @aol.com> Cc: Ted Raia <tedraia @gmail.com> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 10:36 am Subject: Re: Fwd: Request for Information: FDEP Permit 0296087 - 001 -JC (Clam Pass) Linda - Several questions ... - Is the drawing from which you took the data under "Current Proposal" a part of the permit application as defined by Dr. Edwards? Yes - I thought the entry cut was limited to 80 ft. You report widths of 120 to 254 ft. These are dimensions for cuts in Section 2 of the pass, not the mouth. The maximum width for the mouth is 80 ft. The widths of the cuts in Section 2 & 3 of the pass are wider. - Was any trigger for dredging included in the 1998 permit? If not, why should there be one in the current permit application? There was no triggers in the 1998 permit. Gary and his consultant Atkins /PBSJ included the triggers in their response to the "Request for Additional Information (RAI)" to FDEP in the current permit application. They also sent them to all the other regulatory agencies (USAGE, FWC, USFWS). That was the reason I was very concerned. Now Dr. Edwards assured that only two documents attached to the Draft permit are part of the permit. The rest of the documents presented by the County in the application process are not part of the permit. This means FDEP will not enforce anything else that is not part of the permit. Linda From: "1or31or3@aol.com" <1or31or3 a,aol.com> To: djtrecker@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:23 AM Subject: Fwd: Request for Information: FDEP Permit 0296087 - 001 -JC (Clam Pass) Dave, June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee o I cala2rviceshis14d Submitted by Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group L. Page 2 of 4 Y' Thanks for allowing Ted (and me) to make a Power Point presentation at the next PBSD meeting. Please see the attachment. It is a simplified Comparison (discrepancies) Table I made as per your suggestion. I think Ted will be including it in the packet he is preparing for you to be delivered today. But I am not sure, so I am forwarding it to you. I have also made copies of it for the Clam Bay Subcommittee members. I am forwarding the email stream below for your information. Dr. Lainie Edwards clearly expressed that no documents other than the two (drawings & QAQC) attached to the Draft permit are part of the authorized permit. Therefore, the understanding made between Steve F. and Gary McAlpin shown on the regulatory agencies' RAIs is not part of the permit. The regulatory agencies will not enforce it. Read from bottom up. Linda - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Edwards, Lainie <Lainie.Edwards n,dep.state.fl.us> To: 'lor31or3 a,aol.com' <1or31or3(c�aol.com> Cc: Warden, Stan <Stan.Warden a,dep..state.fl.us> Stan Warden is the FDEP attorney, Office of General Council (OGC) Sent: Wed, May 30, 2012 10:35 am Subject: RE: Request for Information: FDEP Permit 0296087- 001 -JC (Clam Pass) Sorry for the delay in my response — I have been swamped for the last few days, and we are short staffed. Below are the further clarifications to your answers: 1. No. These were provided as part of the review process. All DEP requirements for the permit are included in the permit, and / or attachments. 2. No — all requirements for an authorized project are included in the permit 3. Yes. Hopefully this helps. Thanks, Lainie Edwards, Ph.D. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850- 414 -7796 (phone) / 850- 414 -7725 (fax) - - - -- Original Message---- - From: lor3lor3 <1or31or3kaol.com> To: Lainie.Edwards < Lainie.Edwardsp_dep.state.fl.us> Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 3:42 pm Subject: Additional Clarification Needed: FDEP Permit 0296087-00 1 -JC (Clam Pass) Dear Dr. Edwards, Thank you so much for your prompt response, and helpful information. I would be most grateful if you could provide further clarification to my questions below. Short simple answers or "Yes" or "No" will do. You stated: "These documents were provided in the application and RAI process, and can be located online under the "application" or "completeness review" tabs (http://bcs.dep.state.fl.us/env- prmt /collier /pending /0296087 %20Clam %20Pass /001 JC/ ). They are not required to be attached to the permit or intent. The only application items typically included with permit (as attachments) are project drawings, QA /QC plans, and June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee oft e n 131 2ces AIE4 Submitted by Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group Page 3 of 4 possibly physical monitoring plans or biological monitoring plans (if applicable). All other issues / requirements are addressed directly in the permit." 1. Am I to understand that besides the project drawings, and QAQC plans (attachments to the Draft permit), all other documents provided in the application and RAI process by Collier County Coastal Zone Management are not components or parts of the dredging permit authorized by FDEP? Therefore, the County's Narrative Response to RAI item 33, specifically, the proposed dredging "triggers ", and references to dredging of the inlet ebb shoal are not parts of the permit authorized by FDEP? 2. Are there any application items not required to be attached to or included in the Draft Permit that can be considered as parts of the authorized permit? If "Yes ", please indicate which ones. 3. Are the documents furnished by the County, other than the ones specified in the Draft Permit Authorization, just for assessment/evaluation of the permit application by FDEP? They are and will not be part of the authorized permit for dredging Clam Pass. I apologize for not expressing my query clearly earlier. Thank you for your kind patience. Sincerely, Linda Roth 7575 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, FL 34108 239 - 254 -8889 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Edwards, Lainie <Lainie.Edwards (@dep.state.fl.us> To: lor31or3 <lor31or36 aol.com> Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 12:49 pm Subject: RE: FDEP Permit 0296087 - 001 -JC (Clam Pass) Hi Linda, These documents were provided in the application and RAI process, and can be located online under the "application" or "completeness review" tabs 0=: //bcs.dep.state.fl.us/ env -prmt /collier /pendin00296087 %20Clam %20Pass /001_JC/ ). They are not required to be attached to the permit or intent. The only application items typically included with permit (as attachments) are project drawings, QA /QC plans, and possibly physical monitoring plans or biological monitoring plans (if applicable). All other issues / requirements are addressed directly in the permit. As far as each dredging event: Prior to each dredging event, according to the draft permit, the permittee has to provide topographic surveys of the area for Dept. review and approval for the event. Hopes this helps to answer your questions. Sincerely, Lainie Edwards, Ph.D. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850- 414 -7796 (phone) / 850- 414 -7725 (fax) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lor31or3aaol.com rmailto:lor3lor3aaol.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:02 PM June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Ji6ayier2ft Di jknlA A. Submitted by Linda Roth, Mangrove Action Group Page 4 of 4 To: Edwards, Lainie Subject: FDEP Permit 0296087 - 001 -JC (Clam Pass) Dear Dr. Edwards, As I read the DRAFT Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Land Authorization for Permit 0296087-00 1 -JC (Clam Pass), I noticed that the supporting materials (attachments) presented in the permit application as well as the Responses to the FDEP RAls are not included in the permit authorization. Does the absence of these documents mean that the applicant, Collier County Coastal Zone Management, is not authorized to perform activities according to the specifications detailed in the attachments to the permit? For example, the Narrative Response to Attachment Item 33A contains dredging triggers which define when dredging can occur. Attachments 33A.1, 33A.2, and 33B reference materials in respect to dredging of the inlet ebb shoal. I would appreciate it very much if you could respond to my query as soon as possible. For your convenience and reference, I have attached files "Final Order" (Draft permit authorization) and "Intent" (Intent to Issue Notice). Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Linda Roth 7575 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, FL 34108 239 - 254 -8889 0 i; 1612 A14 i 1 • • r 1612 A 14 rb tz R° N O N O O tmml CD Pt CD 0 A 14 rb tz R° N O N O O tmml CD Pt CD 0 1 i 1 mvp v>M» pm bvbc +at. ru p Z g m . O a— m »> m» b w m .� � 4 1612 L - 1 i 1 mvp v>M» pm bvbc +at. ru p Z g m . O a— m »> m» b w m .� A14 N CD CD 1111�1 r� F-1 • O L - � 1 x 1 .— ,•� 1 '9 I 1 _ - — SEC110N 1. -- �-av - � p t7 N m � ° 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mo m Om om _ US N N 4 m N m w� F my v m - _ so ° u�wu. ti m » > 4 as m0000mmo » �y^e om000° 0000aoommo... » »ti » »wppo °bm Ho E : - ^ v ?' W 0 - - i 00 n vmv ao� o y C !� L< Dnyi _ � t �nNj i t 0 0 ti A14 N CD CD 1111�1 r� F-1 • O 6 12 A14 N NN---� - ��-�-m A -H+ m m m m A 0 - T O 000004]410 4]41000000000 Om 00fJ000 mmmmmm mm mmmmmm mmmm m mm Jmmm mmmm mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm - .. NNma a mmm ma mm mm NmHtr GNm m to mmm�ma m mm-�m� a-•mm m mm_ 4 b4 mm�mw +N mmm 3 p ' :t ry miJAiv" is a'o,m as iommiumm' �o�u is mtn - ' O J m m G P m ? m m J 0 m J m a O m Or + O m � 3 m m mm m m mm m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mmm mID m m m m m q 4m Amb �Lgmmm m V Jmmm Jm� LLA4141NOOZ O O ' 4m Jmm m m pfNilm mONm AmmlmAmA m+1 W mOm�1 a =>w O mN NN mO m m m mmO mN•O+ION mOIAmm p —7— a Z'r fi 0 � OHm— ° 5 a W :.. az u gm; ua m N - .. -4 U - �m : :k Crq t Nm O >m mg, O �; oo - Yi m n ..- cn m0 Om DO It, to •t� m0 O des I Q fpy1 yGC , ZZ Q AO ty-i Qm m Or - tm .. F �° N yZ .Dtm -t 0 iq � Y ZZ mmmmJJ .. dt AmmNN ++ OOG o r, m "!p +++++ sera`'+''++° + + °88888'PYi +oSo"88m8�'8o82t833 Ow x zo r� o�8S88Pm2oSS8$Soma r 414141 41[il 41Lt 4141 (� A? i 03 m�tmum�ommm mm�mmomo ��mm mmm mml)m 0mmm 0mm m o of ��mm�ilmm mS) Q D D.1I m mmO mp Vs1 moOom VA] Oi Q�Q1 NNNQ mPmmm O��rn+ -Oml fmilN o O00 �p�p��m t'Jmpmp��> 7 t ;u r�0 1R yC) �m41m 3am�nm miG�N0U00iNP�m O ?ml�dNV Ot�i1�v10a 8 T 2!A O4000a OD Q 77 mZ 41... G + hl' L1 Ob t0 [J �1 j-141m 410 mA IALA W NNA �m10 mmm Jmmmmm Q O (] ,OOO OO OOpC�O00.0000 1 0 mOO�O,1O pO1 pO�pO�O OOO OOO 000000 �O m >Z. OOQ mmmm mmm o�m6lm mIDm Omm mmmmmm mmm mWmm mNfmll mIDmmmmmmlm31m07 )t.3� PO m mC v�•V mmm +m�� °m OC so J o�m me y C �mmanmm�nmm urm�l n°_1mmNmmhml lNmt rm�rmla • i V Nl0G m0 Py ��m JNJ N.I :�. :_.:_�.0. .. _. _. .�= ._"`.lri t9 c: t9� O 3 R — a .t — a m m A nl o m -r N j .: m 47 s a a y m.•; r�,n�� „tn��tm.n�•.ntn�.tnt�pir� n cn m u O�� m p 11 N'mOaam �1m 0.01.8"-+ ma +N —,1 1, PV } +mU10+ :tG ”. z O SOOOOOOOOOGDCocPaoPOOOOOPCOOOOaP1PPPPPPPO 'b'8 a Y r (p [il41(p HM 00 0 1 Doc G 00000000 mj mmmm mmm NNNnOf NNN NNN W m4Nl aNimm NtJ m[.10fJ 00G00p 0000 0000 NNNNNN Pmm mmmm 3. 1612 A14 *-how 16 12 , C� • Iwo (D r'1' e° © V1 CD CD CD CD � � � r • . Cl4 `O • IND cD p� • 00 i CD iuw 1612 A14 SC A�k err {. N . pn CDSi" tT Fr Z emk CL x nt Ole 16 12 A14 1 Maximum Velocity, misec CMD 0 (2. - --------- N C:, 0 ID C) -------------- ------- -4 -------- -- ---- (D , �CX 3 CI IDD 0 CO 46 ........ -------- ,..--- - - - --L -L 0 0 0 - --------- I --------- p -- ------ - --------- ---- ---- L - ------ I --------- - --------- ---------- -------- -------- --------- r --------- Equilibrium ;Gross Section; - ----------------- -------- -- ----------------------- . ......... ......... --------- ---- IS -- ---- --------- --------- 1612 A14 ,rbjI U15- A 14 1612 A141 C cn IMI 90 CI r+ 0 r+ (D C� Cf) C� C�7 V n O �w o � n 1-0 t r+- O O �D CD F-j • �f n � � O rD lot n � O .. rt- � � n � � O � O � � o �r Q d �D y I 1612 A14 4 P9 Aw- CD CD CD 9 r-L r+ O (D CJa N 8'*, O io 12 A14 i �. 4 10 CD 9 .n v �, 1612 CD CD CD Wo. O C� 1 � t C/1 -1 7 L � to �, �1 c 1612A14A TIDAL MANGE (FFET) Lo d 4. tSr. r m a�, 161E A14 1612 A14 19 February 2010 Molly Edson /Lainie Edwards Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Common Wealth Boulevard — Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 RE: Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Application for Clam Pass, Collier County Florida. Previous authorization FDEP #0128463 - 001 -JC Dear Ms. Edson & Ms.Edwards: Attached is the response your Request for Additional information (RAI) on the JCP application for the dredging of Clam Pass located in Collier County, Florida. Enclosed please find 1 original set, 2 hard copies and 1 electronic copy of the RAI response. We would just like to emphasize that this application is not asking to change the dredge template or configuration that was previously authorized under FDEP #0128463 - 001 -JC to station 18 +00. The dredging and maintenance of Clam Pass is a vital part of the overall management of the estuary and necessary to maintain adequate flushing for the health of the environmental resources. Total linear length is approximately 1800 feet (549 meters). Beach compatible sand will be placed along the Collier County Clam Pass Park Beaches located south of Clam Pass. Non -beach compatible sand will be disposed of at an approved upland location. Please feel free to callme directly at 800 - 477 -7275 if you have any questions or need any additional information. Than� Ou for all of your as ' a—nd expedience in processing this request. Sincerely leffreo.fabar, P.E. Project Director PBS &J Cc: Gary McAlpin, Collier County 5300 W. Cypress St., Suite 200, Tampa, Florida 33607, Phone: 800- 477 -7275, Fax: 813- 286 -1207 PWI Date: 6 November 2009 CAC November 12, 2009 VII -3 Staff Reports lo 1 4 i6,2A14 5300 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 Phone: (800) 477 -7275 Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Application Status Memo This memo summarizes the activities to date regarding the Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit Application. The JCP application was submitted to the regulatory agencies in June 2009. The activity requested within the a lication is the same vgl2Lauth o 'nation that was granted in the previous permit. The request b nsis s -d g a portion of Clam ass and Clam Bay to aid with flushing and improve environmental resources. Tidal flushing maintenance dredging will occur only when science dictates that the need for tidal flushing of Clam Pass and Clam Bay is necessary to assure the health and viability of the estuary. Dredging activity will be consistent with the previous authorization FDEP #0128463- 001 -JC to station 18 +00. Subsequently, requests for additional information (RAI) were received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Much of the information requested was unexpected based on previous correspondence and direction provided by regulatory agencies prior to submitting the application (based on the nature of the request to simply re- authorize the previous permit). This additional information is likely a result of the heightened level of local concern that has risen over the application and proposed dredging activity. A meeting was held with FDEP on August 18, 2009 to review the RAI and obtain clear guidance of the level and extent of information required to be submitted (see attached meeting minutes). As a result additional data collection was necessary to respond to the RAIs. This information includes: 1) Habitat Survey and Environmental Assessment 2) Geotechnical Investigation • Native Sediment Sampling and Testing • Sediment Core Boring Investigation • Beach Compatibility Analysis 3) Design Configuration and Analysis of Previous Monitoring Data The County provided approval of the above additional data collection tasks on September 10, 2009. Data collection was conducted throughout September and October, as well as previous survey data was obtained from others consultants to complete the design configuration analysis. The habitat survey and environmental assessment information was received on October 20, 2009 from Turrell, Hall and Associates and is under review. Results of the geotechnical investigation were received from the lab on November 1, 2009 and presently being analyzed. The survey data necessary to analysis the design configuration was received from Humiston &Moore, Inc. on September 28, 2009 and is under review. Based on the review and analysis of the above information, review from County staff and final response preparation we anticipate submitting a response to the regulatory agencies within 30 -45 days. P.E. 1 CLAM PASS ANNUAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN TIDAL ANALYSIS ELEMENT REPORT NO. 12 April 2012 1. Summary 1612 A14 Analysis of tidal data has previously been presented in annual monitoring reports that also included analysis of changes in the bathymetry of the waterway and the beach shoreline. Bathymetric changes in channel shoals and tidal analysis both provide information that is useful in determining when maintenance dredging of the inlet should be considered in order to maintain flushing. Beginning three years ago there was a change in county policy and this tidal analysis is now being provided as a separate report from the bathymetric and beach monitoring. For a history of the comprehensive bathymetric, beach, and tidal monitoring, see "Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Bathymetric Monitoring, Reports" #1 through #9, 2000 through 2008, prepared for the Pelican Bay Services District (PBSD) by Humiston & Moore Engineers (H &M). This is the third monitoring report that is limited to the tidal analysis only; for information on bathymetric monitoring refer to the separate County reports. The Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan was implemented in 1999 to improve flushing of the Clam Bay system and the surrounding 500 acre mangrove preserve. A part of the management plan was to dredge portions of the flood tidal shoal and some of the interior waterways to improve the hydraulic efficiency of the inlet and increase the tidal prism, which is the volume of water exchanged through the inlet on each half tidal cycle. The improved tidal prism means more water goes in and out of Clam Pass on each tidal cycle and this larger volume of water generates stronger currents in the inlet. Those stronger tidal currents are capable of scouring sand from the channel to help keep the inlet open and maintain the flushing improvements. Since the 1999 dredging, as shown in the annual Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Reports #1 through #9, implementation of the dredging element of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan has significantly improved tidal exchange throughout the bay system. The maintenance dredging of the flood shoals in January 2002 was shown to be beneficial in maintaining the improved tidal flushing. In order to maintain the improved tidal exchange, based in part on the results of the tidal monitoring, the 2006 monitoring report recommended dredging of the entrance of the pass, and a portion of the flood shoal. That dredging was completed during the winter of 2007. The county has submitted an application to dredge the pass in near future, and an intent to issue the permit has been issued by the state. The limits of the currently proposed dredging are the same as the limits dredged for the 2007 maintenance. The proposed placement of the dredged material, however differs from the 2007 project in two ways. The county is seeking to place fill on both the north and south side of the inlet, along with infilling of the meandering channel entrance on the north side of the entrance dredge cut. The tidal data indicate that some shoaling may have occurred, however, not yet to the extent that preceded the previous maintenance dredging events. If dredging were to take place this year, it would be 5 years since the previous dredging. This is consistent with previous maintenance intervals of 4 to 5 years, and indicates that slightly longer intervals may be feasible without serious potential for inlet closure, yet does not preclude scheduling L, i, ;;� �• - � {�• jib '- - � ✓!s ok s i I 1 i ., � - tllrri a•�~�� iii i 1 t i HIM rlrl #yes EMU �i(?< G�� z1 0�� t, rl rya .. • 1'j n�ooy� 1�I f f I j a 0 " CD m ' 0 O' —j N (D 0 " CD N (D •1 1 Z6 1 ?1rasG ; o C) S R N C 00 a � o � o n N a o • g 67 m a 2� 0 _ Q � -M> fp O m Z m � D Z jr �fi t• , t t �s i '• , �•t b t � I ■ i.c . tfa i a i 't r Q: i• 1612 q14 , mall", Yijfltl I itti a a stagg, 121181 Jl- -1 r f 1-1 flails, Fail f, 8, j LLL Is ZR . . . . . F , r C- C-N 14 }._ - mall", Yijfltl I itti a a stagg, 121181 Jl- -1 r f 1-1 flails, Fail f, 8, j LLL Is ZR . . . . . F , r C- C-N PA 0 d 16 12 A14- _. a 4o 4O- -- m 4 Q- ^n £ ;�-:Y •`..tom ��- v,�,.'a v j p o uID a 0 J s�mm In •• m P a V V 0Za4 Vaal UP.� p amrmm c y d it 00 @PO V NNUOVi0 -. @U 4!4 a GOO u o - _ -- O v u 0 - -• - - • 2 --•s'� 1'.z!� --:C . �i ZS': j i P -@ V t a V V U V a V i 0 is - O d �- ]+•fey- ri-�,{r�'+:�' e�y�� Y .c"�'` c' S ^a4a omfa]t VN ea �P a V vi >a.O..uNV O i - S'i.?�Z. 3 - - • u G. U s - v- w O a- pNSON P.rO ti. ,-� p 04iw 6i40 mN O� 1�a [PA 4 d N V O H 0 P s 0 "a FP d:s? c REF- J ',dE`'i.�i''. :i � ! � / •! ate' G� . ��•�.��•µ cip x 3 ;KMa . l =' ag qit k _ , W- tf- • �Fj _'' r ;l . ,C �'y1 h- `yYrvi,.,'iK.. -.•,z. ' < ?- >'tit :�t „"'' *.,• mot'” SECTIOW y C __ _ _ �.Crr -f�� }�,. •rt u °`.� ^ae� -r- .".wit; �� . i. -__ _ qJ _ - -- - _ _ ".'P- _ _ `+;i t: r.[� %: s r'Z "?-srr#'+• r'`:p •M£.,E -: _ • • u' - - PIDtAa i N OOID PP V ms N-^ - mQPO W O c y m f o° a O { O n.+ 4 o y o{ oa} ney oaa a 000o'Up ->a V Op mV 0-- w a F s a 0 O O p O O ID O. O O d 0 C --. � r' Zj PQm 00m ° uID`uti' >C%ID�OOa �m P'P O'0'a.m 0.0 Q0:P'IIOt'OOP Om by v v.»say.v.nr.v ;m -oo:oo dadmm - t Z1 �Z p. a m b - 4 -@ P O C w�a 4 U. G'N m �.: 6t%� :3f.tii k V'O.W. a •.'d a -O.f O Yt 0 2 2 � S� >d 4 V as OO.Yd p -0's psa 4ii� i:i300 "D �Cf VOQ W @O ON O .. D c 'a omc F Big! ° t 2- £ L O � t V- O - - 0 -- o a o P ° P v v v jr ui 2: a a g s „ Doy �E t A-C - v a o arcs X D = _ tttEEE a O z. Q Xm o - .s en f: • � O t 3 � � r t X FI i- 2 v i o q Dycm _ i ifl >4-m �nN i o icy o ' s E z vi o c,?s ° En 1612 A14 ------ ow m m Atu N O mrm m etil :� . m m ca m m e9 rs w [V LA fiD 4] 4i fO [V Cil m os m �•: r' h c.` :s _r -s -•: •: ::_,,: -.c_.. _. •�-•..:. ••.. _- m m m m m m m m m ID m m m m m m w :ter_.' •;.` :,•::: ;;.._ .:1:•; m m _a IDm IDm mm IDm�m co CD m `Y. _: _•..: ��'. C3 m m w f. _ a } '_....� -s..: �Z m m�m�msma�tm �mm Nm m o -.7 ,• ls:.��v.•,:_,o: m- m mNA tJ- fJ' mm mmmmCJ mm _ mm m m _ Y =•`: :'..'• %.; c'• ::. _ . O �1@ C3 C3 @ mAQ��3 �l tvmV m•J Omat Om ® - =`�:'�. _ _ } _ .- .y•ec::: m m m to co m m m @@ m m m m m mmm — q iii= xts "r: •_ r,',c-_,;; ' m mm @m® m m ® ®mtOmm mm m mmG m m m a Ga m o m m m m o m qp mm m m m m e Y- -4"•� -: -- Y'_:i: m A 1+ A (J m N td w ' -�_�tr -: "= -.. '<G• ;lt.•� - w m tog m tJ -; m a1 •� m ti m m m to a w rn n rn m m w m m m m o m y- - - -: �F'.•c',.:r ::. x;:;-;�``- ..::•-_,�.',:.:. -'..� ,.': .:'i's� s #::�: o" iu m'' o,is" S _ `.• ,�s:L'- :.:�::-::.�_ '� .'. ,•' o-.: i::. ae �' m m O� mN [DN and m az mm ID mN�e O N ma: Am a :_ =Q~ . -__.- .- %':•...: ={ _ s.-. !gam_ .k. as _ '' -- - •A _ is y. f:5'_ t=i` 'fit 'C�H; •• s_4�'4sY _ _ _% - - r - O_ _- � °n'"e y` f.� m � ':Z. :c•`_: � °-' a cb _ O: i3 i R- r:::s<.;,•-.y.yyy����..�� fi � � >•z C _ '" _ - s`'•3•_�4 '. �p � f "' Wiz, _ �I +apt�t�l _ _ • "ads s -_ _ _ _ _ _ - :'S i - O - 0= - - � O � - - e ja Y3 �,�zt O y Y {� •t �+'C]' - it WR V . - DSZ .',i`�� s. (a •� - i':Yt�•: "4t�+:'eK`•' 'r -i::3. -`. -, }- � -S. fl ` Z O - O - s f ® tnp D o - { r m - �p 6 �i -- "sif? t*l - " v � so -a _- ay �p td-tz w6f 0 Ct +m+ N� 000O f+ t- + + •t• + •t• + •�• + + ma o j + -�- + + Z 0 0 ot: m $''��'$mE'imp� x p ? oGoao - o amp m. p az a� �m� m�mmmUm w m m tv m rarnm w rilm MR m m a� m m m m ��` m y asZ y Dm mmmmmm mmmCD Wcommm mm��mm mmmmmm mac. - .G+t�vg:o �p D y mmm•+e+t co CD GTm mmNN — 000G9mmmampm >> K7 co •..• m Cf [il '-`.O N mat -+- Cil� -ANN za a Ql +m N�7N�2 N�f �_ []_m A +0 D m in0 °�mtu a>m mmmmoG�w mn)a _ mmm vmw�+co mmo 00 Oz D = N2 [a 3b. o.�i� "mois m ivy' mmmm- magi ai U3 i3 Si0 ®fO CO tDymIDinmm D A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O 0 0 0 0 O a O D 0 O a a 0 a a O o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 =13 0 0 D > mm mm mm mmm mm m iamdiaSd+a+65aiwma+Gae + csze HD I mmm� mmm mm�n mmmmmmRt --I �mrn mmm am mmmmmm mmmmm o�s�NIA t3 co w i caGi a GGS zi 'm v — m m �. N _ t th -*- v tD G7 ��Q m ]m�im3 al�� Nm W mh N as mfDm N�Gy m Ct tO mC3 q 000v OOaOOOoa oa] as o0 0 0o aaaaooa0000o�a'o� hox in§ 9 n Ly m Comm "M m mm NNN fil CO 1 Y•-1 p (.i m f7i CA C C)mmNNNN NTJ N NN N tAmm mGf fib N Cil4%rst�wc� oao voo oa a aao Z' a 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N Q m m m m m m 3 1612 A14 � Note: Stations 7 +10 to 13 +00 (14 stations) Depth increases from -4.0 ft. to -4.5 ft. Width varies as shown in representative stations above All depths are in NGVD Dredge Cut Expansion Progression 1999 Original - 2007 Dredge Current Proposal Station # Width Depth (ft.) Width Depth (ft.) Width Depth (ft.) 10 +10 120 -4.0 113 -4.0 167 -4.5 10 +19 150 -4.0 150 4.0 198 -4.5 12 +00 160 -4.0 140 -4.0 252 -4.5 12 +50 150 -4.0 (Not Dredged) 254 -4.5 Note: Stations 7 +10 to 13 +00 (14 stations) Depth increases from -4.0 ft. to -4.5 ft. Width varies as shown in representative stations above All depths are in NGVD 1b12 A14 7. Conclusions and Recommendations The initial dredging of the flood shoals in 1999 and maintenance of the flood shoal channel in 2002 has resulted in significant improvement to the stability of Clam Pass. These improvements to the hydraulic stability of the inlet from the April 1999 dredging have persisted, however, the inlet channel and flood shoal areas have accumulated enough sand so that conditions are similar to those that existed prior to the maintenance dredging completed in January, 2002. Based on the July 2006 survey, there are approximately 12,000 cubic yards of sand within the currently permitted dredging limits. There are approximately 9,400 cubic yards in Segments B and C which were dredged in January 2002. This sand is expected to be beach quality. It has been nearly 5 years since the previous maintenance dredging. Although the tidal data show that flows through the inlet are still significantly stronger than the pre -1999 conditions, and may be sufficient to maintain flushing to the bay for the time being, there are indications that the flow through the inlet has diminished somewhat since the 2002 dredging. In order to reduce the potential for tidal exchange becoming diminished to the point where flushing might be inadequate, a Notice To Proceed to conduct another maintenance dredging has been obtained and dredging is scheduled to be conducted during 2007. Because of erosion along portions of the Clam Pass Park beach south of the inlet, County staff has recently considered the feasibility of obtaining additional sand for nourishment by expanding the dredging to include the inlet ebb shoal. This approach would provide immediate relief to the erosion problem on the park beach, however, it may also potentially have longer term consequences that should be carefully considered. A common impact from dredging significant portions of inlet ebb shoals is increased erosion of adjacent beaches. This occurs for several reasons including; interruption of natural transport which relies on the presence of an ebb shoal to bypass the inlet, diminished protection from waves for areas close to the shoal, and the readjustment of dredge cut slopes to a natural repose angle as the shoal begins to reform by trapping sand from the littoral system. A more detailed discussion of this is included in Section 10 below. In response to concern over the serious impacts that are likely to occur to the beach adjacent to the inlet from removal of the ebb shoal, and at the same time to provide some additional sand for nourishment of the eroded park beach, the entrance to the inlet will be dredged to the 80 feet width which was originally permitted and excavated during earlier maintenance prior to the 1999 improvements. This wider cut was not dredged in 1999 or in 2002 because it has been determined that 80 fe.eils sig ificantly wider than the equilibrium channel width supported by tidal flow, and is therefore not necessary to achieve the improved flushing of Clam Bay -F6-ftthiarmore, the wider cut quickly shoaled in with sand from the beaches immediately adjacent to the inlet. This 80 feet wide cut, however, does not have the potential for the level of serious impacts to adjacent beaches that should be expected from dredging the entire flood shoal, yet it will provide approximately 3,500 additional cubic yards of sand for nourishment. Additionally, careful observation of how the adjacent beaches respond to this relatively small increase in dredging scope may provide useful data regarding potential impacts from more aggressive dredging of the flood shoal. 24 1612 p14 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Clam Pass: why, when and how much? Nature creates designs with curves that constantly change shape. Humans tend to prefer designs with straight lines that stay put. Understandably, these two forces can sometimes com- pete against each other, when they should work together. The constant changes to Clam Pass from shifting currents, wind, waves and storms contribute to the Pass filling in. Historically, Clam Pass moved around. It would close up in one area and blowout and create a new pass in another. Sand sometimes even built up enough to create islands (Figures 1 and 2). Today, attempts are made to cor- ral nature and keep Clam Pass in one place. However, nature doesn't always read the memo, so dredg- ing becomes necessary to keep the Pass open. The 1999 Clam Bay Restoration Permit that allowed Clam Pass to be dredged periodically has expired and Collier County has applied for a new permit. While everyone agrees the Pass needs to be kept open, disagreements have risen on the dredge cut design and when to dredge. Clam Pass contains multiple vvildlife and provides habitat for marine life. The County requested an 80 foot entrance cut, which makes little sense. The Pass will try to get back to its natural width of around 40 feet. Working with nature makes more sense - dredge a nar- rower template, such as performed in 2002, which worked just fine. Conservancy of Southwest Florida Science Co- Director Kathy Worley advises, "The objective of inlet maintenance should be to sustain and improve environmental resources." Worley continued, "Dredging removes bottom dwelling creatures, which are an important part of the food chain, along with the sand. While these popula- tions recover over time they will not reach their full potential - especially in areas like Clam Pass that are dredged repeatedly. Therefore, removal of the least amount of sand need- ed to keep the pass open is better for the overall health of the estuary not to mention our pocketbooks." According to the County's permit, the decision of when to dredge is vague and based on hydro- logic conditions. Dredging should occur when the water exchange between the Gulf and the Clam Bay system is reduced to the point where ,u iuylne u. dlr x lYx l'r l hill I :a} i Figure 1: Clam Pass area 1953. Note the positions of the items shown by the arrovis. Figure 2: Clam Pass area 1995. Note the changes that have occurred. the health of Clam Bay waterways and the mangrove forest are at risk of impairment. What we want to prevent Is a knee -jerk reaction to dredge based on changes in hydrol- ogy that nature could correct. Prior to dredging Clam Pass, ask the following questions: 1. Is dredging absolutely necessary to prevent further ecological damage within the estuary? 2. Do benefits of dredging outweigh detriments? Worley summarizes, "Think of three Ls: dredge the least amount of sand, the least number of times, for the least cost." 13 ,rz - ----------------- --------- --------- ca CO) ID to CD - -------------------- --------- L ---- - --------- (4:- -0 CD Ow 0) ;lr 4w -0 rJ) C3 - ------- -- I ..................... -------------------- ............ I --------- I --------- I --------- JL.-- - -------1-------- , -------- - -------- Ir -- ---- ------- A ----- Equilibrium ;Cross $ecfions ------------------- ------------ I-Rq :77!L, ET. 16 12 A14 1'612 H14 + from the ebb shoal to the beach south of the inlet in 2005 as evidence that natural bypass that was interrupted by the 1999 dredging has been restored, and the April 2007 shoreline at R-43 was only -6' landward of the 1998 pre -fill position. The monitoring therefore appears to indicate that minimizing the amount of dredging of the ebb shoal and dredge cut across the beach helps preserve natural bypass at the inlet and minimizes potential impacts to the park beach. The park beach width, however, was inadequate in 1998, and remains so today. To further evaluate the potential for using Clam Pass as a sand source for restoring the park beach, the 2007 dredge cut was expanded to the 1999 limits. This provided additional sand for placement on the park beach, and is providing another opportunity to observe beach response to the wider dredging limits. This approach of determining the optimum amount of material that can be obtained from Clam Pass for beach restoration should be evaluated very carefully because a common impact from extensive dredging of inlet ebb shoals, as well as the cumulative impact of regular maintenance dredging, is increased erosion of adjacent beaches. No u 2009 1612Ni4 Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan, Bathymetric Monitoring Report No. 9 Prepared by Humiston and Moore Engineers, November 2008 Selected Excerpts p.2 - " ... minimizing the amount of dredging of the ebb shoal and dredge cut across the beach helps preserve natural bypass at the inlet and minimizes potential impacts to the park beach." p.6 - " ... the inlet width was approximately forty feet wide in the pre - dredging condition of 1998 and 2007 ... a larger dredge cut is not sustainable as an equilibrium condition due to the limited volume of tidal prism flowing through this inlet." And "The purpose of the narrower cut in 2002 was to avoid post dredging readjustment that has a tendency to erode adjacent beaches." p. 8 - "The cut width was increased for the 2007 dredging in order to evaluate the potential of using Clam Pass as a source of additional sand for placement on the Clam Pass Park beach ... " p. 10 See discussion of equilibrium conditions p.13 Re 2002 dredging, which excluded seaward segment of inlet - "Approximately 11,500 cubic yards of sand were dredged .... The sand was used to mitigate beach erosion on the county park south of the inlet. To minimize impacts to adjacent beaches, Segment A was not dredged except for a small amount of dredging that was necessary to get the dredge in the inlet. p.14 "...Approximately 21,000 cubic yards of material were dredged from the Clam Pass between January 22, 2007 and April 26, 2007. The sand was placed on the beach south of the inlet. This maintenance dredging included a modification, by request of the county, to increase the width of the dredge cut ... It is anticipated that the increase of the dredge cut at the entrance will have little if any improvement to the tidal flushing of the Clam Pass tidal system, because the wider cut results in a cross section that is larger than the equilibrium section area, and it is therefore expected to fill in quickly. However, the additional sand removed from the pass did allow for more material to be placed on the county park beach just south of the pass, and monitoring of the effects of the wider cut on adjacent beaches may be used in planning future maintenance operations." p. 15 re Tidal Study "Pre - construction tidal data were collected for a full month to obtain average values representative of the general tidal characteristics for Clam Bay, and to establish baseline conditions against which improvements to tidal flow could be measured_" p. 20 re Shoreline Change - "Over the most recent monitoring interval, the beach stations north and south of the inlet experienced both accretion and erosion. The most serious erosion occurred at R-41 adjacent to the north side of the inlet which lost 45 feet of beach. The beach also eroded at all three monuments on the south side of the inlet but at lower rates ... The fact that erosion occurred adjacent to the inlet , and accretion occurred further from the inlet, is an indication that readjustment of the dredged channel back to the equilibrium cross - sectional area was the result of trapping sand from adjacent beaches." p. 26 " ... the dredge cut was increased from 30 feet to 80 feet for the 2007 dredging. r 1 1 t 1612 A14 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT LEGISLATIVE TITLE: Fish and Wildlife Conservation And Water Resource Developments- Coordination UNITED STATES CODE CITATION: 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. OTHER TITLES AND POPULAR NAMES.: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Coordination Act; FWCA SUMMARY: The purpose of the Act is to recognize the contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation, the increasing public interest and significance thereof due to expansion of our national economy and other factors, and to _provide that wildlife conservation receives equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water - resources development programs (16 U.S.C. 661). The terms "wildlife" and "wildlife resources ", as used in this Act, "include birds, fishes, mammals and all other classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent" (16 U.S.C. 666(b)). The Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is authorized to assist and cooperate with Federal, state and public or private agencies and organizations in the conservation and rehabilitation of wildlife. (The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides similar assistance and cooperation for wildlife species under the management responsibilities of the Department of Commerce). 16 U.S.C. 662(a) provides that whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened or otherwise controlled . or modified, the Corps shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F S), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as appropriate, and the agency administering the wildlife resources of the state. The consultation shall consider conservation of wildlife resources with the view of preventing loss of and damages to such resources as well as providing for development and improvement in connection with such water resources development. Any reports and recommendations of the wildlife agencies shall be included in authorization documents for construction or for modification of projects (16 U.S.C. 662(b)). The Corps shall give full consideration to the reports and recommendations of the wildlife agencies, and include such justifiable means and measures for wildlife mitigation or enhancement as the Corps finds should be adopted to obtain maximum overall project benefits. 1612 A14 RESOURCES COVERED: Fish and wildlife and their habitats; the birds, fishes, mammals, and all other classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent. (16 U.S.C. 666(b)). COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: The Corps and other Federal agencies involved in water resource are to consult with the FWS and with the agency exercising administration over wildlife resources of the particular state wherein the _proposed .project is to be constructed or action taken. Corps regulations require that the coordination begin with the initiation of the reconnaissance report phase and continue through feasibility and planning, engineering, and design phases of project development. The district must make the reports and recommendations of these entities an integral _part of any report presented to Congress or to any agency or person having authority or power (1) to authorize the construction of water resource development projects or (2) to approve a report on the modification or supplementation of .plans for _previously authorized _projects. Recommendations provided by the FWS in Coordination Act Reports must be specifically addressed in Corps feasibility reports. Specific guidance is provided in sections 7 -33 through 35, 7 -43, and 7 -44 of ER 1105 -2 -100, Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies. Regulatory program: The Corps will consult with the Regional Directors of the USFWS and the NMFS, and the head of the agency responsible for fish and wildlife for the state in which the work is to be performed, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by prevention of their direct or indirect loss and damage due to the activity proposed in a permit application. The District Engineer will give full consideration to these views in evaluating the application. Y 1612 p14 From: Ken Humiston Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:30 AM To: Victor Rios (vnrios(dmarcocable com) Cc: Gary McAlpin; Brett Moore; Tim Hall; ' tforcht (&cityofmarcoisland.com'; 'murrp2h and'; 'larryhideaway(&aol com'; 'therightaersow5msn.com; 'apires( wpl -Legal com'; 'soreysan(ftomcast net'; 'dj inla)1 a)aoI.com' subject: Clam Bay Flushing Data Mr. Rios, In response to your question at the April 9 CAC meeting regarding availability of data to determine when Clam Pass dredging is needed for flushing, this data is contained in the annual monitoring reports that have been prepared for the Pelican Bay Services District (PBSD) since implementation of the Restoration and Management Plan in 1999. Following is a summary, and I have attached the most recent monitoring report for your convenience. The data which can be used to determine if the inlet needs dredging for flushing are; tide range, tide phase lag, and channel cross section surveys. The 1999 dredging improvements to the inlet and interior channels resulted in an increase in the Outer Clam Bay tide range by more than 50% and smaller yet significant increases were recorded in the tide range of more remote bay areas. This increase in tide range means that a much greater volume of water flows through Clam Pass on each tide cycle, and the increase in tidal energy scours sand out of the inlet thereby reducing dredging requirements. A significant decrease in bay tide range would therefore be an indication that flow through the inlet was being obstructed by shoaling and maintenance dredging should be considered. Phase lag is the time lapse between the occurrence of high or low tide in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent occurrence of high or low tide in the bay. Prior to the 1999 dredging the low tide phase lag was approximately 2.5 hours. It may help to visualize the meaning of this by considering that for the first two and a half of hours of rising tide in the Gulf of Mexico, water was still flowing out of Clam Pass. Only when the failing water elevation in the bay equals the rising elevation in the Gulf does slack water occur in the inlet, then it begins flowing from the Gulf into the bay. The 1999 dredging reduced the low tide phase lag by more than 50% to a little more than one hour. The high tide phase lag was reduced by about 40 %, from more than 1.5 hours to about one hour. This asymmetric improvement in phase lag is because the dredging resulted in a more significant proportional change in channel cross section of flow near low tide than at high tide, particularly in the most severely shoaled channels, allowing the bay system to drain more completely on ebb tide. To a somewhat lesser extent it fills more completely on flood tide. Decreasing phase lag is another indicator of shoaling that may require dredging. If you look at the tide range and phase lag data, shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7 of the attached report, you will notice there is quite a bit of scatter. There are a number of explanations for this, the most significant of which is probably the relatively short time intervals over which the data were collected in comparison to the longer periodicity of the astronomical mixed tide along this coastline. However, with the existing data base from nine years of monitoring, the variability between short data recording intervals is of less significance when evaluating long term project performance. The short term data are shown in the report illustrations because they are valuable for interpreting changes that occur in response to individual maintenance dredging events and storms. The monitoring scope includes channel cross section surveys which have been used to measure shoaling both for tracking shoaling rates and quantifying the volume of sand for dredging, and beach surveys for evaluation of adjacent beach response to dredging and storms. 1612A14 The substance of the discussion following your question at the CAC meeting was that in the past Clam Pass has been dredged to maintain flushing and as a by product the dredged sand has been used for beach nourishment, and maintenance has been on a regular three year cycle because the county did not have a way to determine when dredging for flushing was necessary. The maintenance program and the permit are intended to maintain flushing, with sand placement on adjacent beaches as a necessary element of inlet management. However, I would like to clarify that although the interval between the 1999 dredging and the 2002 maintenance dredging was 3 years, the next maintenance interval to the 2007 dredging was 5 years. In both cases the dredging schedule was determined under consultation with county staff regarding consideration of both inlet flushing and the need to renourish Clam Pass Park Beach. The first three years of monitoring from 1999 to 2001 showed what appeared to be a trend of gradually increasing low tide phase lag (Fig 6 of the attached report) and decreasing tide range (Fig 7) in Outer Clam Bay. At the same time there was a need for renourishment of the Clam Pass Park Beach, and county staff scheduled the first maintenance dredging for January 2002. The Gulf entrance channel dredging scope was reduced for the 2002 maintenance to reduce potential impacts to sand bypass and potential impacts to the beach. What appeared to be a trend of reduced flushing efficiency in the first three years of monitoring was not as evident in the monitoring data collected following the 2002 maintenance dredging, and it appears as if a maintenance interval of 5 years or longer may be sufficient to maintain flushing. However, due to channel shoaling in amounts approaching those that were dredged in 2002, the 2005 monitoring report recommended initiation of planning for the next maintenance dredging which was scheduled by county staff for 2007. The 2007 dredging also coincided with a need for renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach, and as described in the monitoring report, the Gulf entrance channel dredging scope was expanded to the maximum existing permitted limits in order to obtain additional sand for beach nourishment. The most cost effective interval for maintenance dredging for flushing appears to be longer than has been the case for beach renourishment. Dredging on a more frequent basis to address beach nourishment needs is not counterproductive to maintaining flushing, however, more extensive or more frequent dredging of the inlet has potential for increasing beach impacts. Both flushing and beach impacts have appropriately been considered when scheduling maintenance dredging in the past, yet there is a limit to the amount of sand that is available from maintenance of this small inlet system. A considerable amount of time and investment has gone into compiling and analyzing nine years of monitoring data by the PBSD. This data is a valuable resource for the ongoing management of Clam Pass and adjacent beaches. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this or the attached report. It is a large file and I will send the report appendices in a separate transmittal. Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. Humiston & Moore Engineers 5679 Strand Court Naples Florida 34110 239 - 594 -2021 Email: mailto :kh(d)humistonandmoore.com Web Site: http://www.humistonandmoore.com 1612 A14 4030 Boy Scoutt Blvd.. Suite 7€ 0 Tampa, F£, 70001 Phone: 8()0.477.727 5 Date: 7 September 2010 Claus Pass Flushing Efficiency and Cross-Section Memorandum P BS&i performed volume change, cross sectional and differential contour analysis on Clan. Pass utilizing the bathymetr€c monitoring data collected. from 1998 to 2009 by Hurniston & Moore and ABB Surveying. The project area was broken into five segments for the analysis as shown in Figure 1 (north beach, south beach, Pass: A, B and Q. The analysis of the data indicates the beaches north and south of the pass showed s -mall reductions in volurne following dredging events and recovery to pre- dredge volu€r es within 1 -2 years. The tiradrame for the segments inside the pass to reach pre -dredgD volumes were as faLows: • Segment A (mounh of pass) fills in within a year, • Se -meat B (throat of pass) falls III wiffiiai 1 72 years • Segment C (flood shoal) fills hi witdain 3 -5 years_ In addit oi?, the ability to convey water to maintai!: a tie -quite flLsyl�'_? is severely dir_inlshed when any WE tree three segments have reached a e Kcal cross sectional threshold. Indicators or triaaers of these critical cross sectional. thresholds were determined to be for Segs eats A & B approximately 200 square feet and Sea ent C approximately 300 square feet. In summary, the zr=alyses demonstrated that Clam ?'ass can con-dinue. to be dredged at a similar frequency and template designated by ih�e previous permit. The beach compatible sand can be placed on the beacli south of the pass with mii- rnl irl.pacts -'to tfe stab• ; =y of the surrounding shorelines. -- j.OT i;. ubar, �.E. }'reject Director DATE: TO: FROM: 18 October 2010 Steve Feldhaus, Esquire Jim Hoppensteadt Erik J. Olsen, P.E. - lviEf ORANDLIM 1612 RE: Clam Pass — Future Channel Maintenance Dredging Triggers A14 olsen eissocintes, inc. For purposes of our next meeting scheduled for October 20th in Naples, I would like to re- summarize my opinions and recommendations regarding potential permit terms which would seek to address "triggers" for Clam Pass channel maintenance. Based upon the history of the Pass, prior maintenance projects and subsequent annual monitoring of the Clam Pass estuarine system, there would appear to be two (2) types of "trigger" or condition which could warrant the initiation of channel maintenance operations by the County. Theses would include the following: 1) Conditions documented by annual physical monitoring which depict a diminishing rate of flushing of the Clam Bay system as determined by reduced tidal range and/or increased tidal phase lag. The latter indicators have to date proven to be a reliable indicator of flushing efficiency, and 2) A documented reduction in the minimum equilibrium cross - sectional area of the Clam Pass inlet throat -- as appropriately defined for such a purpose. Pragmatically, one has every reason to believe that absent storm related impacts to the Pass, the above two (2) triggers should be directly related. Conversely, given a documented persistent shoaling of the Pass entrance due to the occurrence of a major storm event, the second trigger would constitute a more reactive measure for addressing rapid and apparent diminishment of estuarine flushing via a permitted channel maintenance program. olsen associates, inc. ( 2618 Herschel Street I Jacksonville, FL 32204 1 904387.6114 1 FAX 904.384 7368 7rww. olsen- associates. corn. ow 1612 A14 Monitoring — Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan The ongoing tidal analysis monitoring program ( Humiston & Moore, 2010, now in its eleventh year) clearly constitutes the best long -term benchmark for the characterization of flushing within the Clam Bay estuarine system. In my opinion it provides the best guide for potential routine scheduled maintenance of the Clam Pass inlet channel. Accordingly, the continued monitoring of this important characterization of the system flushing should be required as a JC Permit Condition. It is assumed that the related mangrove monitoring program should likewise be addressed by permit but I will leave the discussion and justification of such a recommendation to others. Inlet Cross - Sectional Evaluation Presently, the only potential trigger for the initiation of Clam Pass channel maintenance proffered by Collier County is that as described by a PBS &J Memorandum of 7 September 2010 prepared by Jeff Tabor, P.E. Philosophically, I have no objection to the use of the inlet cross - section as a potential indicator of a potential condition which could warrant a maintenance operation — particularly after some form of storm event which induces abnormal shoaling (or even closure) of the pass throat. If an inlet cross - section condition is to be codified by Permit terms as an appropriate trigger (as with tide range as described above) then it should be done in conformance with the accepted "science" related to same. The stability of a tidal inlet such as Clam Pass is dependent upon the existence of a critical minimum cross- sectional area within the inlet throat. The simple, yet amazingly reliable, empirical relationship between the minimum throat area of a tidal inlet and the resultant tidal prism within the bay, lagoon or other waterbody served by the inlet, was discovered by M.P. O'Brien in the 1930's. Based upon both theory and the monitoring work performed principally by Humiston and Moore, the critical cross - sectional area would occur within what is described by them as Channel Segment No. 2. More specifically the segment of inlet throat within which the empirical relationship would be expected to be valid would be from STA. 3 +65, to STA. 6 +10, mol. It would not apply to either Segment `A' (the ebb tidal platform) or Segment `C' (inner tidal channels) as proposed by PBS &J. 1 Humiston and Moore Engineers, "Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan, Tidal Analysis Report No. 11 ", September 2010 -2- ofscn associates, inc. 1612 A14 In my judgment and experience, only one channel segment should therefore be considered as a potential "trigger" for future maintenance dredging, i.e., Segment B (STA 3 +65 — STA 6 +10). It would not be appropriate to utilize either Segment A or C as a location for triggering such an event. Barring complete or effectively complete (say 50 %) closure of the inlet throat, it will need to be assured that if the permitted minimum cross - sectional area (of 200 -sf) is experienced within the channel segment of interest, it should be documented that the trigger condition exists for a minimum of 30 -days. This is due to the probability that the minimum cross - sectional area may be re- established naturally during a spring tide — after temporal shoaling to a value below its theoretical minimum "critical" area — probably by a storm event. Once a Notice -To- Proceed has been received (from the FDEP) to perform a maintenance dredging operation pursuant to the permitted design, the full- length of shoaled channel should (or can) be addressed. Since it was a topic of discussion at the meeting on 8 September 2010, I would note that the historical design dredge depths, as documented by H. &M. Monitoring Report No. 8 are as follows: Location Depth STA 0 — STA 3 +64.5 -5.5 ft NGVD29 STA 3 +65 — STA 6 +60 -4.5 ft NGVD29 STA 6 +65 — STA 35 +37 -4.0 ft NGVD29 In my judgment these depths continue to be reasonable based upon existing conditions in 2010 and the operational limitations of a small dredge to be used for the prescribed work. RECOMMENDATIONS -3- My recommendations for Permit Terms would include the following: • Tidal Range & Phase Lag — A viable planning tool for the justification of scheduled channel maintenance is the documentation of diminishment of tidal range and phase lag in accordance with the continuation of the long -term monitoring program performed for that express purpose over the last eleven (11) years. • Minimum Cross Sectional Area — Only the channel segment — STA 3 +65 through STA 6 +10 (as defined by the H. &M. baseline) should be considered for measurement olsen associate, iric. A -4- 1612 p14 ' as a potential trigger for initiating maintenance dredging on a reactive basis. The recommended minimum cross - sectional area of 200 -sf (NGVD29) appears reasonable, however, it should be documented that minor deviations below the critical area persist for a minimum of 30 -days (to include at least one spring tide event). • Channel Segments A and C (as suggested by PBS &J) should not be considered as potential candidates for triggering a maintenance dredging event. • The Permit drawings show varying cross- sections throughout the channel with side slopes of 1:1. I would strongly recommend that the contract specifications not allow the contractor to swing the cutterhead beyond the specified channel bottom dimensional width. This will preclude box - cutting beyond the channel cross - sectional required to achieve a side slope. The. latter could be impactive to mangrove. That is to say, the effective dredge width of swing should be tightly constrained. • I would strongly recommend that a "mitigation" element or Mitigation Plan be a Permit Condition for purposes of protecting buildings and infrastructure located on the abutting north shore of the Pass. Of concern would be sediment losses from that beach should a major storm event closely follow maintenance dredging. Infilling of the Pass after maintenance dredging will occur from sand mobilized from along the two (2) flanking gulf -front shorelines. Since the historical meander channel typically lies seaward of the northernmost property, the infilling process (and potential erosion) will be expected to be accentuated at that location. This will necessitate its identification as a potential fill site in the Joint Coastal Permit. • I concur with the proposed design dredging depths which vary between -5.5 ft NGVD29 and -4.0 ft NGVD29, depending upon location along the channel baseline. • Any modification of the Permit (as ultimately issued) should not be considered for any additional excavation of the ebb tidal shoal at this location beyond that presently under consideration. Such a proposition should necessitate a new application and separate permits from both the State and Federal regulatory agencies. olsen associates, inc. 1612 A14 OTHER • I would suggest that the Foundation be a part of the Notice -to- Proceed process which is expected to be codified as a permit condition by FDEP. If I can provide any further elaboration or clarification regarding these matters, please let me know. Thank you. - 5 - oisen associates, inc. June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence submitted by Linda Roth at meeting Page 1 of 11 1612 A14 Dear PBSD Clam Bay Subcommittee Members, The County repeatedly stated to the regulatory agencies that its proposed dredge template is identical to the previously authorized templates. (Please see the attached substantiating documents). The current Clam Pass dredging template proposed by the County is not identical to the previously authorized permits. (Please see the attached maps). The County's 2007 template is a combination of the 1998 FDEP authorized template, and the 1999 USACE authorized template. This expanded dredge template went unnoticed by the regulatory agencies in 2007, and seemed to have set a new precedence. Now the County is again trying to expand the 2007 dredge template by increasing the dimensions (width and depth) of a number of stations (locations). Please see the attached "Dredge Cut Expansion Progression" table). If this expansion is unnoticed by the regulatory agencies, another new precedence will be set. In the future, the County can again refer to the next dredge as just like the previously approved template, even if they make extensive enlargements. MAG as well as other concerned citizens is trying to stop the County from keep enlarging the dredge templates. Please also bear in mind that this is a long term 10 -year dredging permit. I hope you will continue to support the actions MAG is taking to improve the County's permit application. Thank you for your kind attention. Linda Roth 6/4/12 P.S. Regulatory agencies function on an "Honor System ". They do not have the staff or time to check every detail of all permits submitted to them for approval. June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence submitted by Linda Roth at meeting Page 2 of 11 1612 A14 19 February 2010 Molly Edson /Lainie Edwards Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Common Wealth Boulevard — Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 RE: Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) Application for Clam Pass, Collier County Florida. Previous authorization FDEP #10128463-001 -1C Dear Ms. Edson & Ms.Edwards: Attached is the response your Request for Additional information (RAI) on the JCP application for the dredging of Clam Pass located in Collier County, Florida. Enclosed please find 1 original set, 2 hard copies and 1 electronic copy of the RAI response. We would just like to emphasize that this application is iW asking to change the dredge template or configuration that was previously authorized under FD 28463- 001 -JC to station 18+00. The dredging and maintenance of Clam Pass is a vital part of the overall management of the estuary and necessary to maintain adequate flushing for the health of the environmental resources. Total linear length is approximately 1800 feet (S49 meters). Beach compab'ble sand will be placed along the Collier County Clam Pass Park Beaches located south of Clam Pass. Non -beach compatible sand will be disposed of at an approved upland location. Please feel free to call me directly at 800-477 -7275 if you have any questions or need any additional information_ Thank you for all of your assistance and expedience in processing this request. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E. Project Director PBS&J Cr Gary McAlpin, Collier County 5300 W. Cypress St., Suite 200, Tampa, Florida 33607, Phone: 800477 -7275, Fax: 813 - 286-1207 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence submitted by Linda Roth at meeting Page 3 of 11 1612 A 14 PBSJ Narrative Response to USACE RAI #2 (SAJ- 1996 - 02789) Following recent of this RAi a working group was developed between Collier County and Pelican Bay Foundation including technical, coastal policy and management professionals. The purpose of the working group was to provide an open forum to encourage dialog between the parties regarding the proposed dredging activity and JCP application. As a result several recommendations were agreed upon: • The purpose of the dredging through the pass is to allow for increased tidal flushing to enhance the health of the overall system. The proposed dredging is not intended for navigation. • 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 ft2 (2007, Humiston & Moore Monitoring Report). Tidal prism and phase lag will also be monitored and 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 proposed activity has been revised to include a northern fill area and filling of the old /existing pass channel. 1. By letter and /or email, 28 parties who identified themselves as residents of the Pelican Bay residential community and their attorney (Robert Diffenderfer of Lewis, Longman and Walker) provided comments as follows: a) 27 parties expressed concerns regarding impacts to aquatic resources associated with the dredging activities; b) 15 parties expressed concerns about increased motorboat access to Clam Pass /Clam Bay as a result of the dredging activities; c) 7 parties expressed concerns about policy aspects of the proposed work regarding the designated conservation area, and purported inconsistencies with respect to Collier County and the project purpose. a) A June 14, 2010 seagrass assessment by PBS &J. USACE, and Mark Sramek of the, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that no Thalas.sia teStudinuM occurs within the dredge template footprint as previously reported by Turrell Hall in 2009. There will be no direct impacts to seagrass within the dredge footprint. Additionally, Collier County will conduct a seagrass survey within the proposed dredge footprint prior to each future dredging event. b) Only 1,800 linear feet (total dredge footprint is 2.83 acres) of the entire 500+ acre Clam Bay estuary are being dredged. The purpose of the dredging through the pass is to allow for increased tidal flushing to enhance the health of the overall system. Currently, small boats can access Clam Bay at certain elevated stages of the tide, but local knowledge is required due the shallow nature of the system. Increased boat traffic is not expected as a result of dredging the pass. c) The dyed a tem late r�uested is identical to that,auttaorized under r=DEP Permit No. u ictu+o3- vui -A. and USAGE Permit No. iaeourtfsa lr -u(- . please see the attached rawings t i-at show dredge template control points used during the most recent 2007 dredging. These control points used by PBS &J were taken directly from the permit drawings authorized by FDEP and USACE (See PBS &J Sheet 01, and Humiston and Moore 2007 Project Site Plan). No additional dredge area is being requested outside of what was previously authorized and constructed. June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence submitted by Linda Roth at meeting Page 4 of 11 1612H14 1 PBSJ Narrative Response to FWC RAI #1 (File No. 11- 012846 -003) Following receipt of this RAI a working group was developed between Collier County and Pelican Bay Foundation including technical, coastal policy and management professionals. The purpose of the working group was to provide an open forum to encourage dialog between the parties regarding the proposed dredging activity and JCP application. As a result several recommendations were agreed upon: • The purpose of the dredging through the pass is to allow for increased tidal flushing to enhance the health of the overall system when found to be warranted. The proposed dredging is not intended for navigation. • 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 ft2 (2007, Humiston & Moore Monitoring Report). Tidal prism and phase lag will also be monitored and used as indicators of when dredging may be required in the future. Monitoring and maintenance of the pass will be initiated by cooperative agreement between Collier County and Pelican Bay. • The proposed activity has been revised to include a northern fill area and filling of the old /existing pass channel. 1. The plans provided were scanned in black and white rendering them illegible. Please have the applicant provide a color copy or a legible black and white copy of the plans to this office for review. The permit drawings have been included as an attachment in Item #1. Please note that al! elevations are referenced to NAVD 88. Please note that the dredge template is identical to .r.�l that authorized by FDEP for construction in 2007`. 2. Please provide this office with the most current version of the permit for review. A PDF has been included as an attachment in item #2. All of the previous permits and modifications issued by both FDEP (0128463 - 041 -JC) and USAGE (199602780- IP -CC) are included. 3. Are there existing or proposed pipes and/or culverts that are submerged or partially submerged, accessible to manatees during any tidal phase, and larger than 8 inches in diameter but smaller than 8 feet in diameter at the site? If so, are they retrofitted with manatee exclusion grating? There are no proposed pipes or culverts located within the project area 4. Will submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) be adversely impacted by the proposal? Provide information as to how this determination is made. This information should include a description of how presence /absence was determined, as well as a quantification of potential SAV loss (square footage). SAV reconnaissance and surveys should be non - destructive and consistent with the draft Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission survey protocols. Surveys should include a map depicting the location of SAV, transects, and percent coverage of all species. i� seagrass assessment was conducted by Turrell, Hall & Associates in August 2009 and is provided as an attachment in Item #4. In 2009, eight shoots of Turtle Grass, (Thatassia testudinum), (less than I% coverage) were identified within the dredge footprint. The inside of the pass was surveyed by snorkelers and quadrats used where resources were observed. A June 4,emu Clam Bay Subcommittee ov the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence submitted by Linda Roth at meeting Page om11 12 A 14 16 '! PBS&J Resoonse to USFWS RAI - June 15,2010 (Received by email from Linda EIHE'ott — USACEj Following receipt of this KA| u working group was between Collier County and Pelican Bay Foundation including technical, coastal mHicy and management professionals. The purpose of the working group was m provide an open forurn to encourage dialog between the parties regarding the proposed dredging activity, and ]CPapplication. Ayu result several recommendations were agreed upon: The purpose *[thcdredging through the pass isk`o|kxv for increased tidal flushing to enhance the health o[ the overall system when found to be warranted. The proposed dredging is not intended for navigation. Periodic dredging of Clam Pass is -triggered" to occur when the average crosssectional unuo'izhinthcucdvepmrtionofdmdgctemp|mei000ns/ntcnUybe|ox200Oz(2OO7. HumiSton& Moore Monitoring Report). Tidal prism and phase lag will also bc monitored and used as indicators n[ when dredging may be required in the future. Monitoring and maintenance of the pass will be initia�d by cooperative agreement between Collier CnontN and Pelican Bay. The proposed activity has been revised to include northern U}} area and fi||in8o[the old/ existing pass channel, U Provide a outlining the entire dredging template, pipeline corridor(s), stockpile cell, beach access shoreline fill template, placement wy silt fencing and turbidity curtains, etc. Please see provided permit draw ings in |tem#|. These are the dmv/ings provided K`FDEP through the ]CPapplication. 2) Provide u complete and detailed project including equipment, vehicles, methodology, etc. Will any equipment bu stored mo placed mm the shoreline? Will vehicles travel along any portion of the shoreline? «/ previously authorized permit drawings by FDEP and LJSACI---. (See sheets in Item 42). As with previous dredge events. a combination of mechanical and hydraulic dredging will he used. Hydraulic dredges must htwe 2*-3' of water in order to operate. Shoaled areas that are too shallow for hNdraulic dredging will be excavated b% mechanical means. During hydraulic dredging, the discharge pipeline will be confined to the area within the dredge template and the pipeline corridor as shown (in the attached dra-8% ings in Itern 9 1 Beach compatible dredge material will he used to fill in the existine channel outside the dredge template I)OUndar-� and remaining materials will be placed, based on local conditions and areas ot'greatest need. in the following areas: I ) north ofthe pass (in the beach from R-39+700 to R-41 north of the inlet and/or 2) placed south of the inlet rront R- 42 to R-444- 100, The most recent surveN, data wi 11 be used to indicate %% here nourishment is needed the most. Turbiditv curtains will be use(] around the barge when working. Silt fences will be constructed arounithe stockpile location and around the landward portion of the beach fill template. The length of construction is estimated to be approximately 3 - 6 months. Construction equipment v011 bestailed on the beach near the stockpile location and above the m O m c 0 0 N QI U .2 N T co m c O) U C a m a� E w f° wr ° o (D w ° E J O >, m 7 'O m E m � E c0 N U � N Q) — -° o c N d O CO CO 47 N N j O ca �0CL Qi LIJ 3 -f- d s 0 a J U: C1 rC.. Q LL- 6o S a! Q i02 A14 �t ;®Pe a c . N a m 0 m 0 _o y C D N U N T M v1 m a E O � N W L � N E c £O J �� C/) N m L .n� E N C) V � O C N a p� h ' y N N j O N U d N .y S ,y V1 0 LZ 0 2 v Z .ti T s a 1612 A14 00 N N U� 11 O � N .1 W m CO Q r v � U r- NtLNF- W e/\ to m W :3 rn2LLU) 0 in 0 0 U Z N U) a m c m c c a E E L f6 w L o N •£ a E J U L L 7 O U) U (4 D7 � E N M N U c) c N_ N r O C w N 0 O . V N co N N N j O N U Cl- %A S Gi p 7 L J --i- 3 C- d d w N o C) 1612 A14 Q O J S z$ go ri Q O J 'p co 0 co C: . 0 'n (D (D cu co C: 0) T M E W 7m -C� cu 02 E U) stir @ N C) C) C: N a) — -0 �: C: C\l CD 0'5 0-0) no co m aJ EJ r- 16 12 A14 I 2-A a a!- -5 l IM . 0........ . . . . . . . - - - — - - - - - - - - egg �-z R zz za Ig z t N -0i.133S Cm - — --- - - - A - - - - - - g;z -2 lu 0 co c 0 0 'n U) co Iz M c CU E cu E0 It, 0) C-4 (D � -D ; c C.4 0 0 C) 0 i A 1 2 A14 li Ra H MR W- st FOR FM -a 1.6 6 P-=! MaMMS28gN f c, - ij.i I OR S 83 03 1% 2 93 - - 03 7 .. ........ — — — — — — OH Es be + + IZ, a W P, t! - olg lei Z— s Ju =j co OQ 0 Q CD tr co PI La < C5 a CL w:E 9'9- az 0. Jr El ru 0 Q.A , > gig - i 1p oil CD 0 E- 0 zw IL w 0 Va 3:9 < bi fig June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence submitted by Linda Roth at meeting Page 11 of 11 1612 A14 Note: Stations 7 +10 to 13 +00 (14 stations) Depth increases from -4.0 ft. to -4.5 ft. Width varies as shown in representative stations above All depths are in NGVD Dredge Cut Expansion Progression 1999 Original 2007 Dredge Current Proposal Station # Width Depth (ft.) Width Depth (ft.) Width Depth (ft.) 10 +10 120 -4.0 113 -4.0 167 -4.5 10 +19 150 -4.0 150 -4.0 198 -4.5 12 +00 160 -4.0 140 -4.0 252 -4.5 12 +50 150 -4.0 (Not Dredged) 254 -4.5 Note: Stations 7 +10 to 13 +00 (14 stations) Depth increases from -4.0 ft. to -4.5 ft. Width varies as shown in representative stations above All depths are in NGVD c E a O -2o co U O Q m N C O > p O >_ C C @ N C Z m N N (0 a m N V � N a- a) O T w � O C O N C N O `� U a 7 E T N (6 0 CO Q) C C (B O) U 9) N_ 0 , O N N N (6 N E C (6 U c 1612.,14 E 16 70 0 c a O f6 U O Q m C p > O N m >_ C 0 co U U C �U N T d m (6 C '@ U � N � O T w � O � O N � � C E can) E O a U 7 E T N f6 (n p) E t6 Q1 U � N cl O U N cu V a N E C cu -3 U I„i2 A14+ c E 16 a m c 0 4) N WI a 0 CD c v o N 5 CO Q C N O p UI CY) > C 0 � N U C � N O T a f6 CO (6 C 'Fu N U � T O C O N � C E E N cA U a' 7 T N (0 � m 01 C (6 6 U � _N r) O N @ m E c � �U 1012 A14 E N cA ro 2 0 '2 2 c . m -6 0 < (D 0 > 2 U cc cli 0 0 w (D �5 'E E 04)) E 0 IL U) >, co M cn E m rn 04 04 M (L E S- a m I L) a_ 1612 A14 Z z 2aa: W 400 f O 151: WO Kw ............. A It iE g g t A A - - - - - - - - - - - - - do cn L 01103 - S ------- -- VLI rr 5E 4 X ..................... A ii E 16 a 0 c v o @ U CO Q C N O O C N C N 70 0 U N @a` m cli C (6 U N � a� O T O C O N � O C E au)) E N o a U 7 E T N (6 a m � E C f6 .� U � N � O U N m �a N E �U 1612 „14 r 1612 A14 E O RIM E R � 0 112 1. 2 2 F 9 r: ®R In mm CIL oq Iq oiiii 47 M nm- 2, Pill' Vm m i E. 0 -2 0 0000 7wm7—+m.m,+o+ . t 8 - - i T + 4 '00 < - - - - -- q v o. 121 10- R rn z� MA Eg> Ld z tj 4rm N° ern d t r) � i; OW D I El Ir ici CL Co Wei W Z_ m . 7a) -0 13- oo ow om > o. 4" b 0 0 41 CL 41 pa. (L La � CO tm x E G a C13 cn 'D CI4 C*4 U) 0 OR (D N E (D .K r_ 12 m :3 El L) a_ O IL w ng ug 119 cc z La 0 W cri Of td gID I"*- I w I Romm1m, a Sm C .8,.Fom il W mm b MEN HIM mm woww.. mm mmmmm fj qqqqq7tn q m cR w q IQ Ip q q IT q lo: cA 113 2 tz co mm o m w - - I - - - - - - - a-I i f -H 41- E 76 U) Q O a o O U [Si Q C N O_ > >_ C c m U U C i N N = co N T � CO C6 U ry UJ � d N N T O c O ±' C O U 7 T N (SS CO 0) C E U1 a U N O N N O (6 d I N C � � U I 1612 A14 E Q 0 � o � U O Q CO C O p > >_ C O N U N N � U U T d L0 � C cu 0 U N � � N N T L jn O C O N 7- N � C E Q) s N O U � E T O M 0 CO m C O1 U m N � O N N cu d N E C cp �i U 1612A14 a O O � 00 bC � � O � u � U � � H � v O r� VJ O V rn 4 bA O O di O 4 V bC cn v � can � N � � O v (D E (D 0- 0 CD c O -2 .2 co < C: a) 0 > C) O Cn U) CO (D LD (U E E 0 CO al E CU _0 0 a) N Z� �; C� U) U) m E C: m :3 CU I C) n 16 U2 A 14 0 - - - - - - - - - - I ---------- I ----------- ------------------------------------- SU01138$ ssojo,.' wnpoifinb3 ----- ------------- --------- - ---------- - . 1 -------- ......... ------- - < M 0 V -------- ---- --------- ------------------ 0 Q T- r--------r--- - ---- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- th C o9sp'43018A wnwlxEV4 C C) O N C rn W tl Q 0 C� O @ U O Q [b N c o @ U U C Z N N T CZ @ m cB c @ U � N � � w O T o c 0 w .7� E w E � o a U C E T O Co CO � c U a _ N !� N C, o @ a E a IUn 4w U Q A x Q Q a U .��2 A14 � Z F <O q m Xw Sw N 0O 0 w W aul a�o < < O wr - w N? Z } a 0 Z0 L.,waZ p wp00 O , , p W y o a p o I wUSU<F' W I wy i sn�0u) W <� a p00 maWwwaw F- F-W S O Z TLW W NSZF pLN �LLZ Zlw?w to cow =p < w u ~ ~y W'. wp u o< JN UI �Z JwFu ; ; wC9¢ ; NNp0 -D o toQQ m q¢? 4 O Z i 0 Vwi cnwwZSOw ; �Fz- W wz2w Wpcn2 1 I zzp _ g U ? LL I w o w= U W , F U w w J W aO < F- W } J }p i, W V) C 00 wgto }�Z~ a� <w ;ul> qO, --ZO¢ v zoa.`0w} pwa �w }�' <ro�a Z ziLw UN od<O} >0ZFS-< uF iQ�j2u) cc w 0 Z g S F ° W > W ' lllJtn U F- @aZ Cr L, p p J f _Uw I ZI-_U<LL :2 LU 0 J 0 w J ' ; m q � in 0 ; a a z ;I I I I , 1 I 0 N, w w a J Y ft I w 7 W i 0 a a¢ m 7 I O W I G Vl G V1 O V1 O n O h O Vj a V r11 M N N — O G a3iivnas 1FJN `ssH 'dJ s adaxs O N Q1 r v Q W a N � a a a O Q F U rn W In V) w x U W z m N O E 0 C O O U O Q Cf] C > O p >_ C 0 � N ' U C 2 N N U) U) T � m � C O U_ � N H O T O C O N � ± C E O E O U U E T N Co O U � N 0 O U) N U) V n- N E U 1612 A14 rn c a� E a) 0) a) a CL 0 C7 c a o c6 U O Q m C O p > N 0) >_ C m N U C Z ro N 'D N T � f6 m (0 U � N O T w � O C O N N C E � E O d U 7 E L T O @ d m O C_ (6 C1 U N_ O N N � N E C (6 �U I w �d ct Q W W V W V O v� ct ct a� ct v C7 O cG a a 0 H c� r� V O r� O 0 0 V C%) C!� O r-1 V O V 4.� Ew- 0 a� a O O V ct r-�-i 0 a� a� c� ,O U ct c E a O C -2.0 (6 U O Q m C a) O O N m �_ C 0 N C N N � U) N N T Q. m � U � N � O T OC O N � E U a -0 .� 7 E T N Co m rn E C (6 -Q U � N O m N U) f6 � � d . a� E C f6 M U f !n 12 A14 c E CL a 0 CD C a o O U O Q m C O p > >_ C � N N U C N � C/5 U) T4. t6 m C6 C (6 U N O T O C O N � +� C E N E � U 7 E T N m rn E �_0 U 9) CA O O N N N E C ca � U 1612 A14 E a) 0) a 0 0 c a o N 5 O Q CO C N O p C 8 @ cn 2 U C C/5 N (6 d CO N C 'm U � N ) d a) O T w � O C O O M d C E N E N U d 7 E T O f6 0- m CF) E C M U � N O N N a N E C � � U � I � 1612 A14 E 76 C N N ;N Q O O C a O � U m Q C N O p 7 C 0 cu U C O N � T � (6 CO N � O T O C O N � E O O � U m U T N � d m m E C U � N Q O O N cu V � N E C � 16 12 A14 1 E cn a) CL 0 -a o O U CIO .N o@ U G Z N N U N f6 13- CO C c •� U � O T w � O C O .OU. _ C E N E O U O E T N co n. M a, CU 70 U_ N N ON U) O Ea) 1612 A14 90Q1> oaz B BU161 aaa L NZ� 900 Lobe 0 _ 0 N W o N N 0 � N I— DO Ja Z OZ �m g U ° o N i d� rn ................ ...... CID 0) 0? ,YYHi! Imp UDAA ) 39Nd81 all E a) U) CL 3 O c� C a O O U O Q m N C O 0 >_ C m U U C N N N � N m @ U � N � N T �O C O N � C E N E O U 3 T N (6 m p� E C f6 CD U N O co N N N E C �U 1612 A14 c a O "O O N U O Q m C O > O U � >_ C 8 co C N � N f6 d m N d � O T O C O N � C E O U a O E T N f0 a m d7 C Co 'O U R) N O O N (06 .q7 0 N E C t6 � U i .,,i2 A14 16 4.2 A 14 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Kathy Worley comments regarding dredging submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 1 of 2 Selected Excerpts of Kathy Worley, Director of Environmental Science Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments Presented at the ACOE meeting April 2012 - ( provided to PBSD's Clam Bay Committee on 6/4/12 with emphasis added by Marcia Cravens ) All are aware that mangroves deserve special protection as they serve multiple ecological functions including an ecological role as habitat for many species that are threatened, endangered or of special concern. This is stated in numerous scientific papers including the Multi - species Recovery Plan for South Florida (copy provided to ACOE). This document includes lists of species that are found in and rely on mangrove systems which in the interest of time I did not comment on but can be found in the mangrove section of the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan does state that the two main human causes of damage to mangrove communities is coastal urbanization, which includes dredging and altered hydrology, which is also supported by numerous scientific articles. Clam Bay has seen damage from both of these human induced causes. The Conservancy performed a benthic stud throughout the Clam Bay system. A pdf of the entire study was provided to ACOE. The objectives of the study were to perform comprehensive mapping of benthic habitat distributions in Clam Bay; analyze benthic habitat compositions relative to the eg ographic location; and to perform a visual survey of any benthic species utilizing mangrove prop roots. Systematic benthic sampling was used to characterize sediments and biological assemblages and their distribution within the Clam Bay system. Maps showing the distributions of these assemblages are including in the report. In the summer of 2010, 872 benthic sample sites within Clam Bay were investigated. We know that substrate is one of the most important abiotic factors influencing the spatial and temporal distribution of estuarine benthic communities. Mud was the dominant substrate in the northern and southern portions of Clam Bay. We also know that flora components of an estuary that are important. Shoal grass was the most prevalent species found during this survey. Previous seagrass studies suggest that the spatial distribution seagrasses in Clam Bay has persisted over the last 30 years, albeit seagrass species and extent of coverage have changed throughout the years. Seagrasses are not static in location, type or extent over the years in Clam Bay. One thing that does concern me is the dredging template (in my opinion) comes to close to the known area of seagrass extent in the northeast sector of Lower Clam Bay. Given that seagrasses have declined in this system and that in all likelihood are stressed given the amount of epiphytic growth that has been documented on the blades, we should go out of our way to protect what is left. So it would be wise to reduce the dredge footprint near the seagrass beds in the northeast sector of Lower Clam Bay to avoid sedimentation on nearby beds. The currently proposed dredge design extends right up to the beds in this area, where a buffer zone should exist between the dredging template and the seagrasses in order to protect them from disturbance and stress. (,See maps of historical and current seagrass extent over the years Figs. 18 and 19 in the benthic report provided). We also know that the distribution of oyster reefs has decreased within the Clam Bay system, more than likely a result of dredging or clearing activities in the tributaries. We all know that dredging basically destroys the benthic community within the dredge template; after all you are removing this community when you dredge. Now these 1612 A14 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Kathy Worley comments regarding dredging submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 2 of 2 communities do rebound, but since the same area is being repeatedly dredged over the years the benthic community never truly recovers. Due to the importance of the benthic community it t only makes sense that we dredge the least amount necessary to keep the pass functional, while doing the least amount of damage to the flora and faunal communities. Since the pass naturally returns to — 40 ft wide why not make the cut less than 80ft as proposed and lessen the impact to other ecologically important components of the estuary. Using a smaller dredge the pass has been maintained at a width closer to 40 ft so it can be done. 2 A � June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcome0the lelican Bay Service Board Correspondence regarding fish survey data in 1995 submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 1 of 4 3. SUMMER FISH SAMPLING - AUGUST 1994 Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Silver jenny Eucinostromus spp. Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina Great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Leathedacket Oligoplites saurus Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens Blue crab Callinectis sapidus Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus Gulf killifish Fundulus grandis Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Snook Centropomus spp. Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis Permit Trachinotus falcatus Pigfish Orthopristus chrysoptera Grunt spp. Mullet spp. Mug# spp. Killifish spp. Fundulus spp. Spot Leiostomus xanthurus 4 -36 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence regarding fish survey data in 1995 submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 2 of 4 lu12 A14 4. WINTER FISH SAMPLING - DECEMBER 1994 Common Name Scientific Name Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon vadegatus Longnose killifish Fundu/us similis Gulf killifish Fundu/us grandis Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides Spotfin mojara Eucinostomus argenteus Silver jenny Eudnostomus gala Tidewater silverside Menidia beryl//na Snook Centropomus undedmalis Mutton snapper Lutjanus antis Mangrove snapper Lutjanus griseus Flounder Paralichthys albigutta Sea robin Prionotus scitulus Inshore lizardfish Synodus foetens Whiting Men6cirrhus littoralis Mullet Mug# spp. Sailfin molly Poedlia latipinna Barracuda Sphyraena barracuda Spotted seatrout Cynosdon nebulosus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Pipefish Syngnathus spp. Sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum Triggerfish Batistes cepriscus Scaled sardine Harengula pensacolee Puffer Sphoeroides parvus Cowfish Acanthostradon quaddcomis Needlefish Strongylura marina Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephal 4 -37 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence regarding fish survey data in 1995 submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 3 of 4 4 N 161 A". 1 0 2010 400 800 SCALE 1•- 400._0, = PELICAN BAY BOARDWALK MANGROVES 1 4j f�*T MANGROVES MANGROVES �. 1 t-� Ala* COLLIER COUNTY BOARDWALK CLA Y MANGROVES Turrell do Associates, Inc. Marine k Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B, Naples, FL 33942 CLAM PASS SLIMMER FISH SAMPLING STATIONS SUMMER FISH SAMPLING LOCATIONS ypNEp T.T.T. REVV40N DWG, NAME 9370skm DRAWN W.PAB. 7117195 SHEET 8 OF Q DATE s StdLE r . 40U Joe N0. 9370.5 SEC. TWP. RGE. 4 June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Correspondence regarding fish survey data in 1995 submitted by Marcia Cravens Page 4 of 4 N 6 Al 0 200 400 800 _ SCALE 1'°400' -0" VIM PELICAN BAY BOARDWALK Q MANGROVES Q ' MANGROVES -- MANGROVES LITE COLLIER COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY MANGROVES ANGROVES Turrell & Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3654 Exchange Ave. Suite B, Naples, n. 33942 CLAM PASS WINTER FISH SAMPLING STATIONS WINTER FISH DES*WD T T T IDWG. NAME 9370wN SAMPLING LOCATIONS DRAWN W .M.e. 7A7/" S1EET 9 OF L2 DATE 1125195 SCALE OS NO. 9370.5 SEC. TWP. GE. R 4 12 A14 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit i ll NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JO E -6, -2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 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 CONTACTTHE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 5/30/2012 4:00:47 PM AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: Fiala Hiller _ Henning 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle y/ 2. Roll Call Coletta Vic: 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Status of Cobblestones ii. Landscaping issues at North Tram station b. Pathways i. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) ii. County's plans to "overlay' Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways c. Berm L South berm restoration permitting ii. North berm maintenance d. Landscaping (Phase II) update e. Monthly financial report Misc. Comes: 6. Chairman's Report a. Board rules and procedures Date: CTI I i 11 b. Board summer schedule c. Board member terms Item #: d. Announcements 7. Committee Reports Copies to: 8. Old Business 9. New Business a. Conducting a joint survey with Foundation for feedback regarding bicycle lanes and accelerated paving on Pelican Bay Boulevard (Chandler) 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment 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 CONTACTTHE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 5/30/2012 4:00:47 PM 112 A14 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Ellin Goetz, Fellow, American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc. Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Ralph B. Jimison, Certified Arborist Bill Oliver, P.E., P.T.O.E., Senior Vice President, Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Approximately 50 attendees REVISED AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 16, 2012 Budget Subcommittee 5. Budget Subcommittee recommendation that full Board review; and vote to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Levy) 6. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Uniform Traffic Standards ii. Bateman Contract Update b. Pathways i. Arborist's second opinion report and recommendation ii. County's plans to "overlay" Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways 7. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to Vor amended. 1) Move item "...vote to approve Proposed FY2013 Budget (L o f f meeting minutes; 2) add North Pointe crossing (Chandler) to crosswalk New Business "Potential Community Survey (Chandler) ". The Board vo a the motion was 8550 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 16 A 14 Mav 2, 2012 APPROVAL OF APRIL 11, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mn Levy to approve the April 11 Regular Session minutes as amended: 1) Page 8546. identify San Marino and North Tram station crossings; and 2) Page 8549: "...berm... erosion observed along east and west sides...'. The Board voted unanimously in avor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF APRIL 16, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the April 16 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was assed. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET (LEVY) Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the Budget Subcommittee's recommendation to approve the Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget as presented by Budget Subcommittee Chairman Levy. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CROSSWALKS BATEMAN CONTRACT UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported the County Attorney initially opined that the Bateman contract would need Board of County Commissioners authorization before moving forward with the two additional crosswalk projects planned for this summer on Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive and Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. Upon realization that the original Bateman contract approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011 included these additional locations, the County Attorney determined that no further authorization was necessary UNIFORM TRAFFIC STANDARDS Mr. Dorrill introduced two engineers invited to speak about uniform traffic standards and address residents' concerns about safety and noise that resonated from vehicles driving over cobblestones at the San Marino and No Traffic engineering expert, Mr. Bill Oliver, P.E. explained at pedestrian crossin afety are J advance warning and methods currently in use to alert drivers did not to b I the intention bblestones was to cause vehicles to slow down, it was clear the co ere i d too close to the If the sound and tactile feel of driving over cobblestones was i vers' behavior, by the rumble is heard, it is too late to stop. The mid -block crossin de d signs and pavement markings by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M est as whether the methods being X 8551 Pelic n Bra Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 A 14 1 �. , Y b Mav 2, 2012 used to get drivers' attention were producing the intended effect. The answer was no. The solution would be one that reaches out and grabs drivers' attention. Mr. Oliver recommended progressing to a higher level of driver awareness that could be achieved by installing a pedestrian- activated flashing beacon light timed to continue flashing until the pedestrian crossed the intersection. Mr. Oliver explained the County uses MUTCD standards to determine signage, signals, and pavement markings; and agreed that installing additional signage that is considered "supplemental" to MUTCD standards could cause confusion. Regarding the flashing yellow lights in the roadway on Ridgewood that outline a crossing to the Phil, Mr. Oliver reasoned the design was likely "emerging technology" that was later determined to be ineffectual. Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek) presented a video he made showing problems faced by pedestrians attempting to cross at the North Tram station mid -block crossing and at other locations within Pelican Bay. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Iaizzo suggested removing the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to recommend to the Foundation Board to remove cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. Mr. Gibson said he supported removing the cobblestones, but the motion should include replacing cobblestones with fire -red clay brick pavers. Ms. Womble stressed the importance of uniformity and consistency as a theme established by the Community Improvement Plan. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Ms. Kathy Mahoney (San Marino), Dr. Ted Raia (St. Raphael), Mr. Dave Cook (Crescent), Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek) and another Pebble Creek resident supported increased traffic enforcement to control speeders, and supported removing cobblestones at the San Marino crossing or at all mid -block crossings; and agreed that resolving safety issues should not require consulting with the Foundation first and also be completed promptly. Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) suggested installing speed bumps, but Mr. Dorrill explained that speed bumps were not appropriate for Pelican Bay Boulevard, an arterial roadway. Mr. Jerry Moffatt (L'Ambiance) said the Foundation paid for the construction, but the road is owned by the County, and Mr. Dorrill added the Services Division permitted the project and is therefore responsible for maintenance. Mr. John Domenic (Breakwater) did not agree with Mr. Gibson's idea to replace cobblestones with clay brick pavers; and Ms. Mary McLean Johnson (St. Marissa) suggested amending the motion to inclu ci cobblestones with appropriate alternatives that increase visibility and consistency. Ak Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to make a recommendation to ation Board that they remove the cobblestones at the San Marino crossing. The Board vot avor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and and ed (Dallas) and the motion was Passed Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker,„( a re endation to the Foundation Board that they remove the cobblestones from a -bl ss locations. The Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, Iaizzo, O'Brien, Levy, ecker, Baron, and Gibson) and I opposed (Dallas) and the motion was passed. 8552 A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes Mav 2, 2012 1612: A 14� FLpas made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to not install cobblestones at the North Pointe g that is planned to be done this summer. The Board voted 9 in favor (Chandler, Iaizzo, , Womble, Cravens, Trecker, Baron, and Gibson) and 1 opposed (Dallas) and the motion Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, seco nd by Mr. Iaizzo to install pedestrian- activated flashing lights that is identical to the crossing on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, at the North Tram station and San Marino mid - block crossings. The total estimated cost to install a pedestrian- activated light at one location including solar power and bollards with sensors is $26,000. Mr. Chandler suggested obtaining pedestrian count data. Dr. Trecker suggested installing the pedestrian- activated light at the North Tram station crossing first to test efficacy. Mr. Tim Corcoran (Pebble Creek) agreed the North Tram station crossing would be the best location to test how effective a pedestrian- activated light is. Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino), Mr. Brendan Culligan (Pebble Creek), and Ms. Mary Jane Culligan (Pebble Creek) supported installation at both the North Tram and San Marino locations. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to install pedestrian - activated flashing lights at both the North Tram station and San Marino mid -block crossings similar to the crossing on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard The Board voted S in favor (Dallas, Gibson, Cravens, Baron, and Womble) and S opposed (Trecker, Levy, O'Brien, Chandler, and Iaizzo) and resulted in a tie, and the motion was not passed. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to install a pedestrian- activated flashing light at the North Tram station mid -block crossing similar to the crossing on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. Mr. Carr and Mr. Oliver said the bollards with the sensors would be installed as specified by the MUTCD. A short recess was taken then the Board reconvened. NORTH POINTE DRIVE CROSSING (CHANDLER) Mr. Chandler suggested reconfiguring the North Pointe Drive crossing to improve pedestrian safety. Mr. Carr explained there most likely is a reason the existing crosswalk is located to the west of North and recommended prior to making any changes to the design that a traffic -count study is performed and subs changes would require a new permit. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens that when installin tel, ick cro sswalk at North Pointe Drive across Pelican Bay Boulevard that the crossing b gn with the eastern sidewalk of North Pointe Drive. The Board voted 3 in favor (Craven , nd Chandler) and 6 onnosed (Gibson. Dallas. Womble, Levv. O'Brien, and Iaizzo) awUhe mot PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill said at the April 1 I meeting, the Board affirmed constructs t wi ays an( )btain a second opinion from an independent certified arborist t the i to exist arborist, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison visited the site to evaluate the ro athways pro concluded it was necessary to remove approximately 5 tree in commendations to ac ling without causing damage. However Mr. Jimison' - ng ed contradict with Signa 8553 �� A Pelican. Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 Mav 2,,2012 A14 Care's arborist reports that were provided by Mr. Galli (St. Maarten) that alleged the pathways widening project would cause damage to more than 30 trees. Mr. Dorrill reminded the Board that staff was previously authorized to move forward with the 8 -foot pathways widening project through the bid phase and would continue unless directed differently. COUNTY'S PLANS TO "OVERLAY" PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported the County is planning to overlay pathways along the east and west sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard by the end of July. However it is unclear whether the County plans to install root barriers or just apply a layer of asphalt to the existing path. He suggested the Board proceed with the 8 -feet wide pathways project and cost share with the County what the value per linear foot is. Then, as long as the County's plans include addressing the roots problem with root barriers the Board could inform the County to move forward; or if the plans do not include root barriers, the Board could request the project suspended until further plans are developed that do address the root problem. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Iaizzo suggested obtaining a third arborist report. However the majority of the Board did not agree. Dr. Trecker was concerned about root pruning and root barrier measurements referenced by the arborists' reports and engineer's plans. The majority of the Board agreed due - diligence was done, but the majority of the audience did not agree that the pathways project was properly vetted. The Board did agree the pathways were in need of repair. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Rick Galli (St. Maarten) did not agree that Mr. Jimison's recommendations to accomplish root pruning would not damage trees; and requested the arborist's qualifications and full report. Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) supported Mr. Galli. Ms. Elaine Daravingas (Montenero) cited Mr. Doug Caldwell of the Institute for Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) University of Florida (UFL) who she said recommended installation of gravel root barriers and she would provide the documentation. Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) said reducing the tree canopy would diminish shade and tranquility, and suggested additional vetting before moving the project forward. Dr. Ted Raia (St. Raphael) supported having a third arborist report done. CERTIFIED ARBORIST, MR. RALPH B. JIMISON'S COMMENTS Regarding the impact to trees of the pathways widening project, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison, practicing arborist for more than 30 years was asked for his professional opinion as to whether root I done without damaging live Oak trees. After surveying the trees along the project's site route, he pruning could be done without damaging the trees under certain conditions. Regarding Signature Tre report provided by Mr. Galli, Mr. Jimison said both reports come to similar conclusions: root p effectively without damaging a tree when done concurrently with tree canopy reduction. Reducing tree canopy's biomass compensates for root loss. The visual impact is barely noticea canopy would regenerate. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker t wit 8 feet pathways widening project subject to the recommendations made by the c ist, 1ph B. Jimison. The Board voted 3 in favor (Dallas, Womble, and Levy) an Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien, Iaizzo, and Chandler) and the motion failed. 8554 B s Pelican Bay Services 161 ces Division Board Regular Session Minutes � �' May 2, 2012 ' Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to limit the pathways width to 6-feet. The Board voted 5 in favor (Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien, Iaizzo, and Chandler) and 4 opposed (Gibson, Dallas, Womble, and Lev) and the motion was passed. As the Board directed, Mr. Dorrill would follow up with the County regarding their plans to "overlay" the pathways, discuss cost - sharing, and request the "overlay" project be suspended until the Services Division's engineer has an opportunity to complete new design plans for 6 -feet wide pathways along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram station. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in avor, the motion was passed, and the meeting ad'ourned at 5:01 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 5/14/2012 9:48:37 AM 8555 { ` June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Status of Cobblestones (Comments byReith fall A 14 Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa Subject: Dallas RE: Removing Cobblestones from Crosswalks - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 3:44 PM To: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Removing Cobbles from Crosswalks The Foundation discussed our request that they remove the cobbles from the 4 crosswalks, but made no motion. There was no interest for change. Assuming that the subject will come up again at our June 6 meeting, I'm wondering if there is some other action that we could take to reduce the "thump" noise short of removing these cobbles. Could we grind them down to a flat surface? Or cut them and use a flat side for the road surface? Something like that would preserve the basic look, provide a bit more tactile surface than pavement, but still eliminate the annoying noise. Anything we do would probably only for the one location, the San Marino, who are the only abutters complaining of the noise. This revised crosswalk would look enough alike to the 3 others that we could hopefully avoid modifying them also. Ronnie is thinking of reconvening the CIP group to go over some of these items so that the Foundation and the PBSD gets on the same page. We are all tired of the back and forth between the Boards. On another note, they did voice support of my suggestion that we rethink what should be done on pathways /adjoining trees. Keith • June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Status of Cobblestones (Comments by John Chandler) Page 1 of 1 From: John Chandler 16 12 A14 To: Resnickl isa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Cobblestones Date: Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:54:32 PM Lisa, Please forward this email to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication. For those of you who did not attend the Foundation's Board Meeting on Friday, the cobblestone issue was discussed. However, after some back and forth, no action was taken in response to the motions that we passed at our last meeting. Therefore, we now have three choices: do nothing, act unilaterally or convene "CIP II" (a one time meeting of all current PBSD Board members and all current Foundation Strategic Planning Committee members) to make recommendations that both Boards will accept. In fact, Noreen Murray mentioned the "reconvene the CIP" approach toward the end of the Foundation meeting. I took the liberty of contacting Ronnie Bellone after the Foundation's Board meeting to address this topic. She is supportive of the "reconvene the CIP" approach. John Chandler 1 _ June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Bateman Contracting Change Orders � Page 1 of 3 161'2 STREET AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION SITE PREPARATION CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date: June 4, 2012 To: Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz Phone: 438 -5239 e -mail: k Iyelukaszp_coiliergov.net t-ro eci: Kemovwr%e u2,U_= w-u- ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION GENERAL Remove and replace curb, including traffic control and bond LS 1.0 $6,940.00 $6,940.00 TOTAL $6,940.00 Le.&W. 23a&~#v LEO M. BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph (239) 482 -4826 Ft. Myers, FL 33916 Lic. CGC 1506291 fx (239) 482 -8177 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report. Crosswalks. Bateman Contracting Change Orders Page 2 of 3 , STREET AND ROAD CONS MUCI ION SITE PREPARATION 6 CHANGE ORDER REQUEST Date: June 4, 2012 To: Collier County BOCC Attention: Kyle Lukasz Phone: 438 -5239 e -mail: k)ielukasz _collierttov.net Proinct- Ronlace Cnhhlam with hric4 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENSION GENERAL Hammock Oak LS 1.0 $12,900.00 $12,900.00 North Tram Station LS 1.0 $12,250.00 $12,250.00 Beachwalk LS 1.0 $11,600.00 $11,600.00 Glenview LS 1.0 $9,650.00 $9,650.00 TOTAL i $46.400.00 Price includes removal of cobblers, replace with pavers (pavers furnished by Pelican Bay), maintenance of traffic and bond Le&Af. F3a wta*v LEO M. BATEMAN 3260 Cargo St WBE CERTIFIED ph (239) 482 -4826 Ft. Myers, FL 33916 Lic. CGC 1506291 fx (239) 482 -8177 mr !y N C o ~ o U U) c coU r , ` U F • igio ill, i aran ii 4 ; P @ co } t, s r ^a m r q w. m m�d • �� p 3 AL - gg x m a m _- �w of U ti � rx co _..,.. ,.��. ...w,... Lo - e , �•a r� 5, ~ • vu:'.r,.nwws' � K. � F'•- ���c.srvitC arr t 2_ ;,.,,,n.�w...�wd.' y, 6� ' J ♦♦ ry L L June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16.1a) L A 14 58ii. Admininstrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station & Pelican Bay Boulevard) from east to west side (PhotograpllS'by Page 1 of 4 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii. Admininstrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station & Pelican Bay Boulevard) from east to west side (Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 2 of 4 June 6, 20 inin Pelican Bay Services Division ndsc Regular Session i i ^ 5ai i. AtlmininsUator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station &Pelican Bay Boulevard) from east to west sitle (Phot rap by eith H 7 Page 3 of 14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii. Admininstrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station & Pelican Bay Boulevard) from east to west side (Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 4 of 4 June 6, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session l Sail . Admini mininslrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station &Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (Photograp by t alla Page 7 cl7 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii. Admininslrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station & Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 2 of 7 A14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session 5aii. AdmininsUator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping aping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station &Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (Ph6 ig,-PWAY Keith alias r Page 3 of 7 A14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii. Admininstrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station 6 Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 4 of 7 ;' June 6, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5aii. Atlmini mininsUator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station 8 Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (Phut rap eith Ilan) Page 5 o47 June 6.2D12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sail. Admininstrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station 8 Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (Photographs by Keith Dallas) Page 6 of 7 A 14 1 June 6, mini Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ' 2 A 1 4 Saii. Admininstrator's Report. Crosswalks. Landscaping issues at pedestrian crossing (North Tram station &Pelican Bay Boulevard) from west to east side (1-6 y Kei Dall Page 7 of 7 I 1612 A14 �Dm 0 3 N VqN d � y V 2 y4 n m' a A 3c F n v_ x 0 D m 3. N 4 N a m zN az F H ys am a� 3c F d y � v� x O 1612 A14 D m 3, N d � a m ZN Vz F m 'S 4 n <, c� a � g� £ m N �H x O D � 3 N 4 N B� v m x� £ m ys am a A gc m � vy x O 1612g14 D m 3 N � q N m � a m 3 � m 2 F m h4 em v A 3c v� �c 0 D m 3. N 4 N �A O m 3 y m n m °m v � 3c F m m � v� x O 161214 i 0 3 N v v a � a 2 £ N w � CI H' a p iF £ m O June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) Page 1 of 4 ResnickL From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @g mail .com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:03 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pause the Pathway Project Attachments: Pathways May 2012.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, Please pass this message on to Board members and include it as an agenda item for our June 6th Board meeting. After considerable thought, I think we should take a pause, take whatever time is necessary, and rethink how the pathways project should proceed. The 3 recent close votes on the desired width of the pathway indicates we have not reached consensus. Attached are my specific thoughts on how we might proceed. I hope other Board members will also give this some thought before the meeting so we can have an open and productive discussion on how we should proceed. Keith June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) Page 2 of 4 6 Foot Pathways - The Worst of all Possible Decision 6 12 A 14 I am unhappy for a number of reasons at where we concluded our May discussions regarding rebuilding our pathways. I suspect some of you may share that sentiment. Thus I propose for our June meeting that we pause, take several deep breaths and think about a non - confrontational process for developing a mutually agreeable approach for rebuilding our pathways. The fact that we have had three different close votes on the issue indicates we have not reached consensus. After some thought, I think the most recent PBSD decision to implement a 6 foot pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, from The Commons to North Tram Station, may be the worst of the options considered. It doesn't meet our original objectives, could cause as much damage to trees as an 8 foot pathway, and would be a waste of $250,000 to $300,000. The following is a summary of my reasoning: • Meeting CIP Objectives • Increase Capacity and Enhance Safety - The additional foot of pathway will only marginally meet these objectives. • Creating a Smooth Surface - The portion of pathway in question has fewer sections where the pavement is problematic than other areas along Pelican Bay Blvd. If increased capacity were to be abandoned as an objective, we should start in areas most affected by root intrusion. • Root Barriers and Root Trimming Still Required - Some residents are concerned that the trimming of roots and the building of 18 -inch deep root barriers will cause significant damage to adjoining trees. If this analysis is correct, even a 5 or new 6 foot pathway may cause similar tree damage. • Creating Smooth Surface Pathways - Most residents agree that the current condition of the surface of our pathways needs work. The County has offered to resurface all our pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard this summer (at no cost to Pelican Bay). Although the County project probably won't provide a long -term solution, short term it would provide smoother pathways. Our rebuilding the proposed segment to 6 feet would also produce a smooth surface, but at a very expensive price. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) Page 3 of 4 1612 p14 What Should We Do? Sometimes when consensus has not been reached, the best decision is no decision. I propose we not rebuild a 6 foot pathway this summer, take the opportunity to carefully study what we will and will not get with alternative approaches, discuss our analysis in public workshops early next season and make a decision later in the season for implementation in 2013. Further we should quickly explore the ramifications of allowing the County to resurface our Pelican Bay pathways this summer. If the County project is an overlay with no grinding, we could end up with an even less safe pathway. Specifically I propose: • Exploring 3 alternatives for the section of pathway in question: • A 6 foot pathway • An 8 foot pathway • A pathway varying from 8 foot down to 6 foot where necessary because of trees or driveways • Explore the ramifications of different types of root barrier construction. • The PBSD would hire an arborist, recommended jointly by Doug Caldwell (who was referenced by Mr. Galli's arborist and used by the Montenero) and Ralph Jimison (who was engaged by Ellin Goetz). The selected arborist would discuss the ramifications of alternative construction of root barriers, do an analysis of the impact of each alternative plan on the trees along that segment of pathway, detailing the probable impact tree by tree. (Once a plan is implemented, an arborist would also work with construction staff to make sure trees were actually impacted as anticipated). • The PBSD would at the same time work with the Foundation to include in next year's residents survey questions about their views on pathways and bicycle lanes in the street. • The results of the arborist's analysis would be presented at public workshop(s) as needed, with opportunity for public discussion. Our Board meetings have not resulted in consensus building. A workshop environment lends itself more to give and take conversations and an evolution of a consensus approach, as happened with the CIP. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) Page 4 of 4 1 A14 • The PB � ' SD would formalize the agreed upon approach, and communicate the details and rationale to the community through available sources including Pelican Bay Post. • The PBSD would make decisions later in the season for implementation in the summer of 2013. Currently staff is in the process of determining from County the specifics of their proposal to "overlay" our pathways on both sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard, including details on their intent to trim problematic roots and apply repairs, their intent to grind down the current surface, and the thickness of the proposed overlay. At our June meeting we can decide how we should have the County proceed. Conclusion This project has become much more complex and contentious than any of us ever imagined. However, I still believe it is better to take time to get the right decision than merely the politically convenient. The 6 foot pathway has mostly downsides, and not much upside. At our June meeting let us take a step back, and decide how we can carefully go forward. KID June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) Sample pathway motion Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa 145 Subject: 5bi. Administrator's Report: Pathways. Pause the Pathways Project (Dallas) Sample Pathway Motion From: Keith Dallas fmailto •keithidallas(a)amail.coml Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:49 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Sample Pathway Motion Lisa, Would you please include the attached sample of a pathway motion with the June 6th item 5.b.i., Pause the Pathway Project. I wrote this sample to illustrate the following: Any such project would be taken one step at a time. Initially we would just make the decision to pause the 6 foot project and outline the process for selecting an independent arborist. Subsequent meetings would then take additional steps as agreed by the Board to analyze alternatives and develop community consensus on how we should proceed maintaining and possibly widening pathways in the future. I see the process taking at least a year to complete, with initial work done by consultants to analyze the possibilities, and then public workshops in season to discuss the analysis, ask questions, get more answers and finally see if we can develop consensus, much like the CIP project. Of course we also will discuss at the June 6th meeting the possible County overlaying of the pathways this summer. Keith Motion Regarding Pathways for June 6, 2012 PBSD Meeting I make a motion to not rebuild the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard between the Commons and the North Tram Station this summer. The Board further directs staff to consult with arborists Doug Caldwell and Ralph Jimison to determine a mutually acceptable arborist to work with the PBSD over the next few months to develop a long -term plan for maintaining the health of trees and the viability of the pathways along both sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard. KJD June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project - Dallas (Comments by Dave Trecker) Page 1 of 1 From: dayod tree er 1612 A 14 To: Resnick isa Subject: Pathways Date: Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:03:54 PM Lisa - Please send this to the PBSD directors as a one -way communication. Thanks, Dave As we yet again discuss the pathways project, I urge that the following be considered: - Is there a single supportable reason for 8 -foot pathways? They are not dual -use; that requires 10 -12 feet. They will necessitate removal of trees and hedges -- how many depends on the width and depth of the cut, but certainly more than from a 6 -foot pathway. No data whatever has been given to support the need to accommodate more "capacity," apparently meaning more pedestrian traffic. To widen to 8 feet because a consultant said to do it is not very persuasive. Neither is the notion that it's an indispensable part of community improvement. - What we do in this project will influence what happens later when other pathways are repaired. A walk on other sidewalks bordering Pelican Bay Blvd. shows that widening to 8 feet will impact many trees and hedges. While widening to 8 feet between the Commons and North Tram Station doesn't necessarily mean other pathways will be widened to 8 feet, there will likely be a push for "uniformity." - Will starting over really teach us anything? Or will the same arguments pro /con remain after more "expert" input? Is there any likelihood we'll get ironclad readings on tree/hedge loss as a function of pathway width, or will we just get more disputable guidelines? These points are worth considering. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments /correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 1 of 76 16 12 A14 ResnickLisa Subject: FW: PBSD Pathway vote on May 2nd. From: Keith Dallas Lmai Ito: keithidallasCcb4mai1.coml Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:13 AM To: med5 comcast.ne_t Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle; ResnickLisa Subject: Re: PBSD Pathway vote on May 2nd. Elaine, Thanks for the information. I plan to have an in -depth discussion at our June 6th PBSD meeting of what and how we should proceed with this pathway project. I'm sure these materials will be part of that discussion. Keith On May 6, 2012, at 8:51 PM, med52comcast.net wrote: Dear Mr. Dallas, In light of the scientific information presented at the May 2nd PBSD meeting by Rick Galli of the St. Maarten and me ( Montenero), I am pleased that the PBSD Board reconsidered the detrimental effects of an 8 ft pathway to the natural treescape along the Pelican Bay Boulevard and returned to their previous decision of a 6 ft. pathway. Although the new 6 ft. pathway is a compromise width and will affect fair fewer trees, care must still be taken to use the root barrier and root pruning methods that will be the least harmful to the trees that still remain in its path. I have attached the information supplied to me by Dr. Doug Caldwell [University of Florida, Certified Arborist, Entomoligist, and Horticulturist] which includes a paper by Dr. Edward Gilman of the University of Florida, "Deflecting Roots near Sidewalks" and a power point presentation entitled "Solutions to Tree /Sidewalk Conflicts." In the power point presentation the benefits of a gravel barrier versus a solid root barrier is shown as well as root pruning cautionary requirements. It also stresses the instability danger of trees that have been pruned improperly. I have also attached a copy of Dr. Caldwell's report in collaboration with Fred Johnson which is Pelican Bay Pathway Project specific since it is my understanding that the Board did not receive a copy of this report prior to the meeting. Since Dr. Caldwell's service is a free county service, I would be wise if the PBSD would consider consulting with this local expert during the installation of the new pathway. I hope that the PBSD Board will remain true to their May vote which was based on the facts and the best interests of Pelican Bay. Thank you for your consideration Elaine Daravingas Montenero, Chair of the Grounds /Landscaping Committee June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments /correjne sL by P*elr4g a s); Page 2 of 76 14700 Immokalee Road Cor County Naples, FL 34120 Phone: (239) 353 -4244 Public Servkm Division FAX: (239) 353 -7127 University of F"a Extension April 30, 2012 Date of visit: March 29, 2012 Pelican Bay Project: Bicycle/ Pedestrian Path Widening Here's some comments by Fred Johnson: Proposal: to widen path 3' and install bio- barrier to depth of 18 =24" within 2 -3' of trunks Impacted plants include mature live oaks situated between curb and existing path Oaks selected were culls and have been subjected to an improper pruning regimen throughout their existence. Resulting trees are 30 -40 ft and planted on random centers, for the most part. In most cases, a visual survey indicates that the roots are close to the surface and the sandy soil present would logically support this observation. Branching is erratic, many with included bark in large branches, and stubs of pruned limbs. The overall condition of most is 'middle to poor.' Many are leaning toward the street due to stress from other large trees crowding the canopies. There are 30 oaks in the project area. The proposed project will impact all 30 trees to some extent. The installation of the root barrier will probably sever main roots. This will negatively impact nutrient uptake as well as stability in many cases. The planting bed varies from 6' to 10'on one axis with the trunks. The curb and road limit root growth as does the existing and proposed bike /ped path. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments /corresR nde e s mi by Elainarain) Page 3 of 76 2 1 Co per County Public Services Division University of Florida Extension Opinion: 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 Phone: (239) 353 -4244 FAX: (239) 353 -7127 April 30, 2012 • Some trees should be removed at the time of construction because they are in poor condition and will experience more trauma from the project and need replaced anyway. • Other trees will experience die -back due to trauma. This will probably be evident in the few years after the project is completed. It will occur on the side of the bio- barrier. • Some trees that are in poor condition now, will die because of the trauma. Main roots will be cut, and nutrient uptake will be cut off. The effects will start to be evident in the first year after the project. • In extreme cases, the stability of some trees will be undermined to the extent that they will fall during periods of heavy winds and rain. This could happen at any time. It cannot be ascertained how many of the trees in each of the above scenarios will be impacted. Optional Proposal: Remove the 30 trees during construction and replace with more appropriate genus /species graded at the Florida #1 standard. The entire project could be done cost - effectively during construction and, if the proposed material was specified at 4 -6" caliper, the visual impact to the neighborhood of the streetscape would be largely maintained. The potential for risk from hazard trees created by the project will be removed. Fred Johnson Doug's notes I'd not do the root barrier, especially since you are probably going to lose a significant number of trees due to the process. You could try the large gravel under the new surface per Dr. Gilman's research on a select number of trees that have the greatest chance of survival. Please call or a me if there is anything else we can do. Regards, 1�1 Doug Caldwell, T h.D. Commercial Landscape Horticulture; Certified Arborist and Florida Certified Horticulture Professional http: // collier. ifas. ufl. edu /CommHort/HomeCommHort.shtml June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 ' 2 1 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments /correspondence submitted by Elaine Daraving 1 Page 4 of 76 Urban Designs for Trees and People Dr. Ed Gilman Universitv of Florida M. AMW �f June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 5 of 76 Trees • Unique among living organisms and design components 1. they must grow to remain alive 2. they must grow well to become a permanent part of the design i l June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ^/"�)) 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/corron sub ad aine Darav' ) 14 Page 6 of 76 Sidewalk Solutions: Refurbishing Existing Walks ' RECREATIONAL t` �` '� �� . SKATEBOARDING y ± '-�" �_� �'� +,[ +. PROHIBITED WAC -478- 116-670 P" �.i ;Q VIOLATORS VIOLATORS SUBJECT AMIMP by TO CITATION Dr. Ed Gilman University of Florida- modified by Doug Caldwell June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 7 of 76 Americans with Disabilities Act • Americans with Disabilities Act (1991) guidelines state: • "surfaces must be stable, firm and slip- resistant." °4. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspon ce 6ed Ela ravingas) r Page 8 of 76 A14 Sustainability? June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 9 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report, Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/ iiiii po& slitt Elaine Daraving Page 10 of 76 A 14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 51bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 11 of 76 Bowline Dr., Naples June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentslcorrespondence su mittedOlainelaravvzs) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) r is June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 I 2 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/oorrespondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 14 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 15 of 76 Solutions to tree /sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: 1. remove trees and replace 2. fill, then re -pour 3. root prune and re -pour 4. root barriers 5. re -route sidewalk 6. alternative sub - base /reinforce 7. bridging 8. alternate surface materials 9. slab - jacking A141 r June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 1 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/corresenbmit� by ■ Daravingas) Page 16 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 17 of 76 3 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 ' 2 A 14 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentsicorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 18 of 76 Remove trees: The insanity solution June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 19 of 76 Solutions to tree sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: 2, fill, then re -pour June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session I /` ^J A 14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenubmiifed by'E13Ihe Daravingas) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 21 of 76 Reinforced sidewalk June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/corresp ond sued by�lainravingas) Page 22 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 51bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 23 of 76 Solutions to tree /sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: 7 en Fe—pew r�� fell, 3. root prune and re -pour June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session °i 6 I 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence a mitte46y Elaine Daravingas) A 1 Page 24 of 76 Cutting roots can lead to tree failure Step one Step two Step three June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 25 of 76 Cutting roots can lead to tree failure Step two Step one Step three 1612 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 26 of 76 Cutting roots can lead to tree failure Step one Step two Step three June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentslcorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 27 of 76 M - - J-- -. . JI_ I r . -- - •-- A14 . r Step two Step three June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentslcorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 27 of 76 M - - J-- -. . JI_ I r . -- - •-- A14 S A14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ljo�'a�J 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/colond�e sublitte sine Daravingas) Page 26 of 76 Soil type & rooting space along with previous cultural practices affect wind resistance. w June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 14 51bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 30 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 51bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 31 of 76 Root flare cut with a chain saw Root Flare • Large roots were cut at the base of the trunk to accommodate the sidewalk • It is difficult to imagine what is preventing these trees from falling over 161- June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 32 of 76 • Most of the roots were cut when the sidewalk was repaired • "You have to wonder where the people that performed this operation stored their brain during this proceedure." Ed Gilman June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 33 of 76 Gravity always wins Photo: Amy Sullivan X612 A14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/oorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Pao. 34 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 35 of 76 Do not cut roots over an inch or two in diameter! • Within 5 times the trunk diameter: Say trunk diameter is 15 inches; Then large roots could be cut if 75 inches away June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 12 A 14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 36 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 37 of 76 Solutions to tree /sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: 7 Fill , then re_peur- 3. FOOt r FUne and re_Perrr 4. root barriers June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session l 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/ po ce su mitts y Elaine D A ga Page 36 of 76 Root barriers can deflect roots l3arrter ulstallatmn A l r s d walk 1 • Barriers have been placed vertically in the soil to deflect roots away from hardscapes • Place the barriers sufficiently away from the structure (about six inches) to be protected so that as the roots grow wider they will not touch the curb or walk • Be sure the top of the barriers reaches above the top of the soil so roots do not grow over it June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 39 of 76 1 These trees were planted six years ago with a root barrier. Note that many roots were deflected under the barrier but grew back up toward the soil surface once they reached the other side of the barrier. Next photo shows a close -up view. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 40 of 76 Solutions to tree /sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: 1. Fen eye es 7 fill , then re pe ur 3. FGe PFUne and ro_Pr OF 4. renth;irropr 5. re -route sidewalk June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/oorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 41 of 76 Solutions Re- routing walk around tree - VV I IC11 ua111arcu .T fJ sidewalks are 1 repaired they can be re- routed around the tree trunks • This can eliminate the need to prune roots that caused the walk to lift., . 24r June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 1 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitte E16arav as) Page 42 of 76 Solutions Re- routing walk around tree . F • Re- routing walks around existing trees does not solve the problem if large (greater than one inch diameter) roots are cut and the tree dies June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 43 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 flai /J 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/corresponde�e s�ed Daravingas) 1: 4 vv ���� Page 44 of 76 i June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentstcorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 45 of 76 Solutions to tree /sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: Y: FemePe -tfees ' • full, theR - Fe-pew 3 Feet r Fune and re_peur- 4= ree+ harriers Fe F9IUA - CS rle-...a1L 6. alternative sub - base /reinforce June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 12 • • 14 1 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 46 of 76 Solutions Install alternate sub -base material }Roots stay well . because 0" fi not 9f Y Ex)stjrxg SO Gravel or rubble subbase Layer - Rubber chips - others? 3 1 ) �/ lradt;raraal Ex st)ng sw subbase layer June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 47 of 76 Solutions Install alternate sub -base material • Low density styrofoa m and reinforcing wire June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6 1 2 A14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 49 of 76 Solutions to tree sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: I. remove- tFees 2. fen, th e R Fe pouf 4= rent h;arr;prc 7. bridging June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/corresplenObmitted by Elaine D�Fa//((//AA � al 4 Page 50 of 76 f` June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 51bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 51 of 76 Solutions to tree sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: z. Fe+neve- tFees 7 Fill , +heR Fe -peur- Z : Feet reand Fe_peur- .7t 4. et h; TTepr7 S. Fe F9'-' u9alk ast n- ie crrh base /Feinferco ce%-r�r�rc�+�cr ✓c rrcr,t�rvrcc 7 Qriidg*-n r 8. Alternate surface materials June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments /correspondence Imitty Elaine Daraving Page 52 of 76 2A 14 Alternative surface materials • Materials other than concrete have been used as a sidewalk surface. These include: • crushed granite • asphalt • rock -dust • gravel • wood decking • brick -in -sand • rubber June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 53 of 76 Crushed granite surface June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session , A 14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspnce mitted by Elaine Daravingas)- Page 54 of 76 Asphalt over major roots { MW .�� �y June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 51bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Z A 14 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comment sp nce bmi y Elaine Daravingas) Page 56 of 76 Rock -dust as wearing surface June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentstoorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 57 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report, Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas Page 58 of 76 Spreading rock dust A 14 (Comments/correspond su d by lain avingas) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 2 A14 (�L /� 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/corres enc€ submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Gravel June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 61 of 76 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session lo 12, 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Dare ingas)� Page 62 of 76 Brick on sand June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 51bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) 14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenceitte Elaine Daravingas) A 14 Page 64 of 76 KBI Flexi -Pave- recycled tire matrix • Flexi -Pave HD2000 for sidewalk use ranges from $8.00- $9.00/ square foot. • Lasts longer than concrete when used over tree root zones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLZkW3nkAw June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 65 of 76 Solutions to tree /sidewalk conflicts Create a system that accommodates roots, yet, minimizes damage to tree: 1:Femeve- tFees 2. fw!ll, theR Fe -perm 3. -eet prune and Fe-peur- 5. Fe Mute dC ! v. alte, na eve sub base /reinfnree 7 Widginn g. alteFnate crrrfaee Material —s 9. slab - jacking June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (.� A14 ' Sbi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspo ce itte y El aravingas) Page 66 of 76 Slab- jacking (mudjacking) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Commentstcorrespondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 67 of 76 Slab- jacking June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspon s ed ElaiAt'D'aravi a 14 Page 68 of 76 What would you do? June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi. Administrators Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondenoe submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 69 of 76 Bonzai option ? — joking Smaller canopy; less aggressive roots? "Keeping trees reduced in size with regular reduction pruning should provide for a tree with less root intrusions." Ed Gilman June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 12 A14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project- Dallas (Comments/correspondence submitted by Elaine Daravingas) Page 70 of 76 Maintain a reduced canopy(16 -20 ft ?)- What's wrong with tree on right? �aar��op 7 �vo�rc�_,. w o ° `G o EL c n. �. o ° RE o 51 £ f ro " _R o ggl n" a o �oo a .5-4. I.p S G M 7 °• .�- V v S HK x v 3 E i612p14 ° w £ d v S E m o n o r'. �. a G. m oji u lf� aEl ° 3 3 �?a El .a aT�ti a n: o o°, S 0 5. ry o °J 0 m w n o' �? _ v 7 31_ O n a n o v a o :T to o 7 3v K G Ll a E o$ o 2 o o d.� o° o o'er S v 7 d P A � -55. n a 3 o :c oo ° o 7 o+w � ao` T� °•y a� .v'. n^o m°. -. n.v °�' � � w n o s o 3 x 7 OF o •iy m y b o N T E d o - rv❑ a- n w a v ® o 0 3 7 �. r^ '" o o'_ ° `E0 y 5 No m r a c 3 c< o ° °' N a H sAr• g �' v° wi y N — .. y •n a o `o 'o�° � _, v on '. C� c p£, ^ �r- o a � n .F S�9 o•oA. � °� H Fn d IF , �oa•'.n^ow.��7u'�. o.g�.. .°--a. ed wow w= a w =0 0 7 3 c o g o a 3 3n' a a � y0 1°� R. o5- a �= G •o %��_��TG 0 a3 ad `; ... o nom. �oGv v m r m Z GI X O 4 co m a X y v X r y '� ^ m 3 a a o n a o o a' �� ro'T m° R• o E n.N �F Q•a� o` c g y7 v o y o O b 9 o< 0° a cE+ x •o °° o o= `° o 0 b �• � W� K^ O w p C p rv� 9 S vxi A. y n 3 7 d 0 'L o: J 3 N a� a m N dz � o A � 3� a .So o' yn C 3, a 0 a 0 co ao = m w 9NN � 2 d N � °O n N rn ga F � w y N o� n 3 A Fi m 0 W E A E U D N n wW NO w w 2a m � m 2 a ab� � En 1612 A14 A _ o ¢` o CsJ ° ° oi� $rvN� vaov a.�so c o pO :.: ^ E G .v'. A ll a u U c= x °• � r' s � N. E E v o -E P .YCc N _ T� p0 ��Q'D�Q�S O O m�0� OQUvG� ° 71 T° s .o V E o= i R oTT v w U a° a❑ 5 -,=,i n -i u No, O� O72 y t C D\ a O�� o > v T G F 7 y U o Q e`qA ox o° J� n U U o o .N; -oL o`ag'm -° �.` ,� Tl°o� o o '3"YL.ti 'O S° N 3 3 o u o. -� t o c5 'D o °e 9° m 'n p 'O 'D o `o C a c 'v •o w. o m >, v v o_ L E L v °, v o o c c= $ •o o` s o x E 3 i e 3 n.. u H °> 3 3 ._ _ ms s E a ouTa'y O. � v � .o � .v .��. c i e`4 ❑ o •o E v v m co -o vO l7 v o E a �R o m �a R 'ug uo,s N w •° $ o z '9 RqOq � OmY rwi Oo< 5 - srvv 900'd 3m ..o�V O`v •C Lv' E O N �6 p p p p 1� � ry n M N� Q nw:w 0rn '3^ - mC]c n o ?a.•t '.' >.0 7 �v A a u Y L' ` 2o;, °, Cv o .c. v oo c v °` a -t s 'o n y y o N A r ;'__ ` � .= � a.� � p v •n p .a '° � w � m� N c� v� � m E e 9 � v O v O -o,9,2 vwi .' N o. O o pg v rv'i � a vii a w e A - 3333 u as $ � V O v u >` E° °o.2 a.A --- zvO -�N�N hr�t -= ? az�a ov �.? c o v $ 3 E �� CNO .. 3v >v .. o tea. c °' 9g � = "non E v o ° 1. °o i D C O O C N O 3 5 C C E ro T M m v wv A n d e �os> 3 ° 0 5CC 0;2 A O 00-2 ttttltltl O O y..d 3 p w� pov .A ON? rid ��� o o i `• - in °n V? ^C0 .v+b o y0 O y� aw � c ran vim, .0 zi � p oo�ao v v J X O O6 L o9 zo ov o b B p Doc � ' P.es d a 9 as n. B 2 4 E o e E o 0 3 E a _o-A R ' Q H11 � o od 3`vi A n°. vi AA 4�°ni W E A E U D N n wW NO w w 2a m � m 2 a ab� � En 1612 A14 A _ o ¢` o CsJ ° ° oi� $rvN� vaov a.�so c o pO :.: ^ E G .v'. A ll a u U c= x °• � r' s � N. E E v o -E P .YCc N _ T� p0 ��Q'D�Q�S O O m�0� OQUvG� ° 71 T° s .o V E o= i R oTT v w U a° a❑ 5 -,=,i n -i u No, O� O72 y t C D\ a O�� o > v T G F 7 y U o Q e`qA ox o° J� n U U o o .N; -oL o`ag'm -° �.` ,� Tl°o� o o '3"YL.ti 'O S° N 3 3 o u o. -� t o c5 'D o °e 9° m 'n p 'O 'D o `o C a c 'v •o w. o m >, v v o_ L E L v °, v o o c c= $ •o o` s o x E 3 i e 3 n.. u H °> 3 3 ._ _ ms s E a ouTa'y O. � v � .o � .v .��. c i e`4 ❑ o •o E v v m co -o vO l7 v o E a �R o m �a R 'ug uo,s N w •° $ o z '9 RqOq � OmY rwi Oo< 5 - srvv 900'd 3m ..o�V O`v •C .J 000 '7 L P. p p p p 1� � _ E a H'C., 'O � s = y 3 � •• C .0 00 �' > � O 6'L.. 3 3 3:' °o�.L °t nw:w 0rn '3^ - mC]c n o ?a.•t '.' >.0 7 �v a u Y L' ` 2o;, °, Cv o .c. v oo c v °` a -t s 'o n y y o N A r ;'__ ` � .= � a.� � p v •n p .a '° � w � m� N c� v� � m O v O -o,9,2 vwi .' N o. 3333 u as $ O v u >` E° °o.2 a.A --- zvO -�N�N hr�t -= ? az�a ov �.? c o v $ 3 E �� CNO .. 3v >v .. o tea. c °' 9g � = "non E v i D C O O C N O 3 5 C C E ro T M wv A n T T 0 - �a� O$' O�Ea>. �o0a ay,vwO e �os> 3 ° 0 5CC 0;2 O 00-2 ttttltltl O O y..d .-. � a ;o ; °man N u 3 o v o w - -� �a u o ._ >.E css' cs so..s o0 � c ro 3 o .A ON? rid ��� o o va 3 =e 7 o Iv,' � H vi o� 3 C A Cy, CO in ° v i. ` F,`O `• - in °n V? ^C0 .v+b o y0 O y� F p oo�ao v v J X O O6 L o9 sv8Y °a �2o.�v'? o��e 3 E $° vc o 3 0 0 .- � � a s ° >� � N_ 0 va .. E .�. u •° s c '° N C ro 3 0 3 w o o .9 0 a� E 3 v 3 3 3 3 3 ° E_ E �y c ° s v '3 o •u. E t_ = o c o y v .o v poQ °•v ° o I=s .. .u.-E 1612 A14 o_ . C O it °°� a 3.raovn�9.cwn� a�.a7 c go 3 ..q -08 i, - m E 5. c.o v A, o 7. o ° L? a i, � � N 310 _n d'"3aFYd w- `°rv.d 3��N 3c _ ? G' v` a o• a w c 3-- d 5 n 3< a c c° ? w A= = a °- $ ... m OG .'T W O b a 3 .0 0 .? o n 3 v^ .. p < � o y �a m ^. s£ a 'a �' S. w o o � � m n G w ] v C C o e p C N - n °; o_'n3ca�_-� �n d o_= v_ v a d ca z ^T d a 3 '51 Emi d = o o a o °i ` — Od N 2 d]] 351 C ONi u ^ d I O L. O 0 . y r O 2 A O O 6 V 'O r� v � ..gym y§3. ao ' n1 8, �a �.28� a a�.v,,8'v �°< ao ^n ti ^. ? � ^' :.. C7 C o a w o a d] s T 8 o d e ^ 7 � �� Q n ry o• .: �� o .. o n 3 w o O `° �. z 0 d R. n• h p p v •,y E m ny 7 N P. 2 o � v N ry G• W Q O O� �0p O O N R' ]J O `G � N� Oa0 Oo C o_ . C O it C 9 ? ° L? a z v a- °c _n d'"3aFYd w- `°rv.d 3��N 3c _ o• a w c 3-- d 5 n 3< a c c° ? w A= = a °- $ ... m _� c a] A `° a. O m p C N - n °; o_'n3ca�_-� �n d — _� �^��o. o_= v_ v a d ca z ^T d a 3 '51 Emi d = o o a o °i ` — Od d]] 351 3 Y < June 8, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 12 A14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project - Dallas (Comments by Joseph and Sandra Doyle) Page 1 of 2 ResnickLisa Subject: Audience Comments RE: "Pause the Pathway Project" (Joseph & Sandra Doyle) From: naplespatriots(olcomcast.net Imai Ito: naplespatriots(&comcast.netl Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:38 PM To: keithjdallasCalgmail.com Cc: ;fn 16799C1a naples.net; ibaronPwatersideshops.com; johnchandler219(algmail.com; josiegeoff(a)aol.com; iaizzo(alcomcast.net; mikeleyy4350kimail.com; naplessusanCalcomcast.net; djtrecker(a)yahoo.com; teeduol(a)aol.com; hunter hansen; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; CoyleFred; jimcolletta(ocolliergov.net; johnsusanboland(a)aol.com; ResnickLisa Subject: Pause the Pathway Project -- Audience Comment Mr. Dallas, While the PBSD Board reconsiders the rebuilding of the stretch of pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram station, we should let Collier County proceed with the resurfacing of the OTHER pathways in our community as planned for July 2012 since we cannot tolerate another year of delays for these much needed repairs. P.S. The bicycle lane issue on Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park was voted down by the residents 3 or 4 years ago with a resounding "NO" since there was little support to reduce the roadway from 4 car lanes to 2 car lanes with bike lanes. We would further add that the many elderly drivers in our community have diminished peripheral vision and a bicycle lane will not be useful -- bikers need to use a widened pathway to avoid being hit by a car. Joseph Doyle Sandra Doyle Laurel Oaks in Pelican Bay From: Keith Dallas fmailto:keithidallas @ gmail.com1 Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:03 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pause the Pathway Project Lisa, Please pass this message on to Board members and include it as an agenda item for our June 6th Board meeting. After considerable thought, I think we should take a pause, take whatever time is necessary, and rethink how the pathways project should proceed. The 3 recent close votes on the desired width of the pathway indicates we have not reached consensus. Below are my specific thoughts on how we might proceed. I hope other Board members will also give this some thought before the meeting so we can have an open and productive discussion on how we should proceed. Keith 6 Foot Pathways - The Worst of all Possible Decisions I am unhappy for a number of reasons at where we concluded our May discussions regarding rebuilding our pathways. I suspect some of you may share that sentiment. Thus I propose for our June meeting that we pause, take several deep breaths and think about a non - confrontational process for developing a mutually agreeable approach for rebuilding our pathways. The fact that we have had three different close votes on the issue indicates we have not reached consensus. After some thought, I think the most recent PBSD decision to implement a 6 foot pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, from The Commons to North Tram Station, may be the worst of the options considered. It doesn't meet our original objectives, could cause as much damage to trees as an 8 foot pathway, and would be a waste of $250,000 to $300,000. The following is a summary of my reasoning: • Meeting CIP Objectives June e 6 M2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Se Session 1 � 14- � Y 9 _` ' 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project - Dal}! (4ments by Joseph and Sandra Doyle) Page 2 of 2 • Increase Capacity and Enhance Safety - The additional foot of pathway will only marginally meet these objectives. • Creating a Smooth Surface - The portion of pathway in question has fewer sections where the pavement is problematic than other areas along Pelican Bay Blvd. If increased capacity were to be abandoned as an objective, we should start in areas most affected by root intrusion. Root Barriers and Root Trimming Still Required - Some residents are concerned that the trimming of roots and the building of 18 -inch deep root barriers will cause significant damage to adjoining trees. If this analysis is correct, even a 5 or new 6 foot pathway may cause similar tree damage. Creating Smooth Surface Pathways - Most residents agree that the current condition of the surface of our pathways needs work. The County has offered to resurface all our pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard this summer (at no cost to Pelican Bay). Although the County project probably won't provide a long -term solution, short term it would provide smoother pathways. Our rebuilding the proposed segment to 6 feet would also produce a smooth surface, but at a very expensive price. What Should We Do? Sometimes when consensus has not been reached, the best decision is no decision. I propose we not rebuild a 6 foot pathway this summer, take the opportunity to carefully study what we will and will not get with alternative approaches, discuss our analysis in public workshops early next season and make a decision later in the season for implementation in 2013. Further we should quickly explore the ramifications of allowing the County to resurface our Pelican Bay pathways this summer. If the County project is an overlay with no grinding, we could end up with an even less safe pathway. Specifically I propose: • Exploring 3 alternatives for the section of pathway in question: • A 6 foot pathway • An 8 foot pathway • A pathway varying from 8 foot down to 6 foot where necessary because of trees or driveways • Explore the ramifications of different types of root barrier construction. • The PBSD would hire an arborist, recommended jointly by Doug Caldwell (who was referenced by Mr. Galli's arborist and used by the Montenero) and Ralph Jimison (who was engaged by Ellin Goetz). The selected arborist would discuss the ramifications of alternative construction of root barriers, do an analysis of the impact of each alternative plan on the trees along that segment of pathway, detailing the probable impact tree by tree. (Once a plan is implemented, an arborist would also work with construction staff to make sure trees were actually impacted as anticipated). • The PBSD would at the same time work with the Foundation to include in next year's residents survey questions about their views on pathways and bicycle lanes in the street. • The results of the arborist's analysis would be presented at public workshop(s) as needed, with opportunity for public discussion. Our Board meetings have not resulted in consensus building. A workshop environment lends itself more to give and take conversations and an evolution of a consensus approach, as happened with the CIP. • The PBSD would formalize the agreed upon approach, and communicate the details and rationale to the community through available sources including Pelican Bay Post. • The PBSD would make decisions later in the season for implementation in the summer of 2013. Currently staff is in the process of determining from County the specifics of their proposal to "overlay" our pathways on both sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard, including details on their intent to trim problematic roots and apply repairs, their intent to grind down the current surface, and the thickness of the proposed overlay. At our June meeting we can decide how we should have the County proceed. Conclusion This project has become much more complex and contentious than any of us ever imagined. However, I still believe it is better to take time to get the right decision than merely the politically convenient. The 6 foot pathway has mostly downsides, and not much upside. At our June meeting let us take a step back, and decide how we can carefully go forward. KJD June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5bi.and 5bii. Admiminstrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project; and County's plans to "overlay" pathways A(onlntby Ted Raia) Page 1'of 1 . ResnickLisa Subject: Audience Comments (Ted Raia) RE: Pause the Pathway Project From: Ted Raia jmailto:tedraia @gmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:14 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: On behalf Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas... Pause the Pathway Project Lisa, Please distribute the following to the PBSD Board: I would like to suggest that we take advantage of the County's offer to pave all the pathways at the existing width. This is money we never counted on and never entered the discussions. If this does not include root repairs then the PBSD should absorb that cost. This will extend the life of the pathways and definitely improve the appearance of PB which was one of the objectives at little or no cost to the community. The improvement will benefit both the walkers and the bikers while buying time for the PBSD and the community to come together for the long range solution. To improve the safety of biking in the roadway I suggest the PBSD look into the placement of the painted biker with two chevrons on the travel lane to signify that the lane is shared by autos and bikes. The width of the lanes remain unchanged. The markers are used on Crayton Road in Naples. Ted Raia June 6 2012 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Sessio A 14 Y 9 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways proji i6mels Richard Galli Page 1 of 4 Jun. 5, 2012 5:17PM RVR No, 1$50 P. 1 W<O-* RIVER VALLEY RANCH 444 Rivery valley Ranch Drive Carbondale, CO $1623 (970) 963 -6300 - PHONE (970)963.6305 -FAX FAX Cover Sheet 'Z 2D 017 Date: f ( G-- To: � 1 j~ k V)1`1 From: g,�1 C K G4 L L j FAX #: ( 7o q (� S (0 Phone #: # of Pages: , TZ- G�9? - i�ki�Lrrje-- Tc, KU'(N 4 The Information In this FAX Ise CONFIDENTIAL. if you have mistakenly received this FAX, please contact the sender and discard this information, June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ` 14 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project. Comments fr_oAha G li lll� Page 2 of 4 Jon, . 2012 5:17PM RVR No. 1650 P, 2 June 5, 2012 CC: Ronnie Bellone, Chair, PB Foundation Board Mary Mclean Johnson, Chair SPC 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd. Unit 1205 Naples, FL 34108 MR. KEITH DALLAS, Chair PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK. DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 Dear Mr.Dallas, PATWAY PAUSE fit. OPTION RECONSIDERATION EXPLANATION & REC LIEST This letter expresses my appreciation for your committee work and intends to support, not criticize your deliberations so that you reach a sound conclusion that provides the best possible result for our community. It presents the following for your constructive use: A. Technical explanation of tree mechanics regarding walkway construction B. Arborist resource list and guidelines for preventing tree loss from adjacent root cutting C. Current community opinion on trees vs expanded walkways based Owner polling and D. Four requests for you to consider as community input in your recent proposal to reconsider the walkway project. A TREE MECHANICS, Figure 1 shows the relative scale of the root base for a typical deciduous tree which extends underground as far out as the canopy branches. The root base anchors the tree against overturning from wind acting on the canopy and is shallow only going down about 18 ". The proposed 17" deep construction cut for widening the pathway will completely cut thru almost the entire root base. Furthermore, when you apply the established Florida cut distance guideline of 5X the tree diameter, the no cut zone for a 20" diameter trunk tree is 100" or 8' — 4 ". In most locations there is not enough space to clear the tree roots. Cutting 2" or larger roots will structurally weaken the tree and compromise it's survival. This is the mechanics, science, multiple expert opinions and accepted practice of tree preservation in Florida. It further suggests that you to focus on Canopy Preservation as one of your P13SD objectives Figure 2 A shows that the adjacent sod is higher than the pavement in most of the pathway route, so a W overlay would actually make the walkway edge less of an ankle twisting hazard. In only 150' of the pathway does the pavement set higher than the soil and since this needs to be raised anyhow, it could be easily raised to fit the new surface. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1612 „f 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project. Comments from Richard Galli A 14 Page 3 of 4 ,Jun, 5. 2012 5:17PM RVR No. i 850 P. B) ARBORIST RESOURCES: The attached table lists all 11 of the Certified and Recognized "Expert" Arborists that have offered their experienced advice on our walkway situation. Ian Orlikoff provided 8 additional Arborists to support his position and Elaine Daravingas provided Dr. Edward Gilman of the University of Florida and our local FREE County Consultant Dr. Caldwell. In addition Charlie Marcus of the Florida Forrest Service recommended 3 additional local Arborists that you could use for another opinion. The fundamental conclusion is that no large root cuts should be done any closer than 5x the trunk diameter at it's base. C) CURRENT COMMUNITY OPINION: When faced with choosing between the choice between widening the pathway and loosing most Blvd. Trees or Saving the trees and abandoning the widening pathway, the majority of Pelican Bay Owners resoundingly choose to sale the trees, Your apparent driving cause to justify wider pathways is based on a questionable 4 year old survey. Our conclusion is based upon hundreds of owners, expressing their preference now, who did not recognize the threat the wide walkway project presents to our trees. D) FOUR REQUESTS: As you explore the 3 pathway alternatives you listed in your May 16 proposal to reconsider, I ask you recognize that your option list is incomplete because all of the three options will damage or destroy a large number of established canopy trees and this position assumes that a wider walkway is more important than collateral damage of lost trees. I suggest based not just on my opinion, but on the strongly held position of every owner I have talked to, that Owners value tree preservation over walkway expansion. We therefore ask you to consider at your June 6th meeting, the following four items as part of your "alternatives for the section of pathway in question" 1) UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OWNERS VALUE OUR EXISTING TREE CANOPY. The previous SPC recommendation for a wider pathway did not recognize that it is not compatible with preserving our existing trees along the Blvd, and is therefore invalid. 2) CONSIDER THE EXISTING 5' COUNTY RESURFACE AS A 4TH OPTION. Develop a complete cost for accepting the County Proposal- 3) 3) DETERMINE THE ADDITIONAL TREE LOSS THAT THE OTHER TWO PATHWAY SECTIONS WILL CAUSE BEFORE COMMITTING TO THE FIRST SECTION OF THE PROJECT. The tree loss on the south section will be much worse because of the winding path route. 4) IMPLEMENT THE SPC PRIORITY #3 TO PROVIDE A MASTER STREETSCAPE AS A WALKWAY PROJECT PRECURSER THAT WILL PROTECT OUR TREES. Hire an Arborist to inventory every tree, determine it's species, health asks you to recognize and consider all of the viable ,pathway options for the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd, Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, RICHARD GALLI June 6, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular session 5bi. Administrator's Report. Pathways. Pause the pathways project. CommIst Ri ar Ili Page 4 of 4 4 Jun. 5, 2012 7,17PM RVR No, 1$54 P. 4 two C z 01� 1- F161 ��>f- i ' )f," A to b p� �ft Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Improvements, Vehicles & Equipment Due from Property Appraiser Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 1,949,764.28 1,240,088.08 $ 3,189,852.36 $ 3,189,852.36 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 40,947.75 22,786.77 $ 63,734.52 1,292,615.54 1,833,503.00 3,126,118.54 $ 3,189,853.06 1612 A14 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 158,100.00 $ 152,622.43 $ 5,477.57 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Pelican Bay Services 86,800.00 $ 78,384.88 $ 8,415.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 8,000.00 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 4,700.00 812.65 Income Statement w/ Budget - May 31, 2012 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 9,715.75 1,584.25 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - (Unaudited) - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 700.00 286.42 413.58 Annual YTD 30,400.00 YTD (2,793.00) Telephone 500.00 Budget Budget 47.72 Actual 5,700.00 Variance Operating Revenues: 50.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 900.00 Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 666,300.00 636,316.50 Building Repairs & Mntc. 636,487.06 - 170.56 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,821,949.00 3,600.00 1,822,259.28 2,279.41 310.28 Insurance Co. Refund 5,900.00 1,838.35 4,061.65 298.00 30,000.00 298.00 Charges for Services 1,500.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 - 924.00 - Surplus Property Sales - 20,418.00 20,418.00 Miscellaneous 403.48 403.48 Interest 15,300.00 10,198.00 6,961.07 (3,236.93) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,590,763.50 $ 3,609,126.89 $ 18,363.39 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 27,100.00 $ 24,402.55 $ 2,697.45 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 300.00 300.00 IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 3,600.00 3,600.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 - Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 10,100.00 10,050.00 50.00 Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 17,900.00 18,582.00 (682.00) Telephone 3,900.00 2,600.00 2,007.80 592.20 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 8,500.00 8,037.78 462.22 Insurance - General 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 200.00 200.00 Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 1,300.00 349.61 950.39 Training and Education 1,100.00 700.00 85.00 615.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 158,100.00 $ 152,622.43 $ 5,477.57 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 86,800.00 $ 78,384.88 $ 8,415.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 8,000.00 4,017.50 3,982.50 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 4,700.00 812.65 3,887.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 11,300.00 9,715.75 1,584.25 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 700.00 286.42 413.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 30,400.00 33,193.00 (2,793.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 252.28 47.72 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 4,400.00 4,349.87 50.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 - Insurance - Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 - Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 3,600.00 1,320.59 2,279.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 5,900.00 1,838.35 4,061.65 Tree Triming 30,000.00 20,000.00 17,472.00 2,528.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 800.00 924.00 (124.00) Page 1 of 3 A14 1612. A14 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 1,423.60 (923.60) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 55,800.00 48,836.86 6,963.14 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,000.00 388.11 611.89 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 3,200.00 3,662.59 (462.59) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 239,300.00 $ 208,478.45 $ 30,821.55 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 9,304.27 2,500.00 1,700.00 1,141.52 Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 27,900.00 $ 25,140.79 $ 2,759.21 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 300.00 300.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 10,600.00 10,500.00 100.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 22,900.00 21,151.00 1,749.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,600.00 2,006.80 593.20 Postage 3,000.00 700.00 (92.28) 792.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 9,400.00 8,721.27 678.73 Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 33.00 167.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 1,700.00 561.78 1,138.22 Training and Education 1,500.00 1,000.00 135.00 865.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 77,950.00 $ 68,707.36 $ 9,242.64 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance and Repairs Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) Pest Control Landscape Incidentals Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Electricity Trash and Garbage Rent Equipment Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Repairs and Maintenance Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Licenses, Permits, Training Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Landscape Maintenance Mulch /Landscape Materials Pathway Repairs Sprinkler Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating Total Operating Expenditures $ 807,300.00 $ 527,900.00 $ 421,186.89 3,300.00 - - 89,900.00 59,000.00 57,669.96 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 2,500.00 1,700.00 560.60 29,500.00 22,300.00 20,758.00 190,100.00 167,400.00 178,838.98 3,200.00 2,100.00 1,562.74 3,400.00 2,300.00 1,336.51 17,000.00 11,500.00 9,304.27 2,500.00 1,700.00 1,141.52 300.00 200.00 76.93 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,700.00 700.00 - 25,100.00 20,200.00 20,592.50 67,300.00 40,900.00 24,706.45 800.00 500.00 101.94 63,600.00 60,700.00 60,715.50 9,400.00 4,100.00 4,065.24 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,576.60 62,000.00 47,100.00 44,321.85 46,000.00 42,700.00 42,411.60 53,100.00 37,200.00 28,857.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 - 30,000.00 14,700.00 5,222.53 800.00 500.00 28.66 3,000.00 2,000.00 542.75 3,000.00 2,000.00 2,595.89 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,145.63 $ 1,556,600.00 $ 1,095,800.00 $ 950,045.54 $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,571,150.00 $ 1,379,853.78 Page 2 of 3 $ 106,713.11 1,330.04 (3,325.00) 1,139.40 1,542.00 (11,438.98) 537.26 963.49 2,195.73 558.48 123.07 700.00 (392.50) 16,193.55 398.06 (15.50) 34.76 423.40 2,778.15 288.40 8,343.00 4,000.00 9,477.47 471.34 1,457.25 (595.89) 1,854.37 $ 145,754.46 $ 191,296.22 1612 A14 1 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ General Improvements - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,667,750.00 $ 1,476,391.78 $ 191,358.22 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 49,174.56 177.44 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,127,789.12 $ 1,777.88 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,797,317.00 $ 2,604,180.90 $ 193,136.10 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 793,446.50 $ 1,004,945.99 $ 211,499.49 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 31, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Improvements, Vehicles & Equipment Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 481,652.25 68,756.91 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 83.10 5,016.37 1612, $ 550,409.16 $ 550,409.16 $ 5,099.47 194,157.20 351,152.49 545, 309.69 $ 550,409.16 A14 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - May 31, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Ca rryfo rwa rd Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast 1612 A14 Variance $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - 436,800.00 417,144.00 417,615.89 $ 471.89 $ - 26,900.00 $ 18,633.33 18,582.00 $ 18,330.25 $ 18,330.25 4,500.00 1,485.00 1,167.38 $ (317.62) 598,900.00 576,229.00 594,713.52 $ 18,484.52 $ 41,400.00 $ 27,100.00 $ 24,402.44 $ 2,697.56 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 18,633.33 18,582.00 $ 51.33 3,900.00 $ 2,600.00 1,486.74 $ 1,113.26 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 12,100.00 $ 8,100.00 8,465.87 $ (365.87) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 500.00 15.36 $ 484.64 1,000.00 $ 600.00 - $ 600.00 93,700.00 (1,783.72) 63,283.33 58,510.10 4,773.23 62,500.00 40,900.00 37,448.91 3,451.09 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 400.00 300.00 263.59 36.41 44,200.00 29,500.00 22,391.15 7,108.85 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 2,900.00 2,796.73 103.27 1,200.00 800.00 324.65 475.35 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 4,900.00 3,899.00 1,001.00 12,400.00 7,400.00 9,183.72 (1,783.72) Page 1 of 2 Total Street Lighting Field Operating Total Field Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures Total Operating Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Future Construction Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) 1612 �g 146,800.00 88,450.00 77,222.15 11,227.85 240, 500.00 151, 733.33 135, 732.25 16,001.08 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241,500.00 151,933.33 135,732.25 16, 201.08 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,379.21 395.79 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 - 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - 22,000.00 - - 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,379.21 5,290.79 598,900.00 478,603.33 457,111.46 21,491.87 - 97,625.67 137,602.06 39,976.39 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Improvements, Vehicles & Equipment Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 31, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 392,550.24 299,426.02 1612' A14 691,976.26 $ 691,976.26 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 8,529.92 10,618.75 303,213.58 369,614.01 19,148.67 672,827.59 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 691,976.26 i h Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Miscellaneous Income Fund 111 Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Tree Trimming Other Equipment Repairs Aerial Photography Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem 1612 A14 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget -May 31, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - 127,100.00 119,474.00 121,387.39 1,913.39 302.26 70,151.60 1,414.45 1,414.45 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 - 700.00 700.00 1,366.80 666.80 $ 451,311.88 $ 443,685.88 $ 447,680.52 $ 3,994.64 $ 163,368.75 $ 39,800.00 $ 39,126.25 $ 673.75 302.26 70,151.60 29,300.00 28,866.87 433.13 29,000.00 Revenue Reserve 14,500.00 6,700.00 - 14,500.00 - 349.77 - - - - 7,500.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures - 29,100.00 - 20,448.00 588.01 19,810.11 - 637.89 - $ - $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - Net Profit /(Loss) - $ 271,958.13 $ 83,600.00 $ 67,993.12 $ 15,606.88 $ 7,253.75 $ 7,300.00 $ 15,418.50 $ (8,118.50) 143,000.00 1,200.00 250.00 950.00 $ 150,253.75 $ 8,500.00 $ 15,668.50 $ (7,168.50) Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 92,100.00 $ 83,661.62 $ 8,438.38 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,427.74 $ 302.26 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,818.00 1,482.37 335.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ 19,810.11 $ 637.89 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 112,548.00 $ 103,471.73 $ 9,076.27 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 331,137.88 $ 344,208.79 $ 13,070.91 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Improvements, Vehicles & Equipment Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets .1 ') p 2 $ 2,627,176.35 1,285,653.85 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 3,336.91 2,582,848.52 1,326,644.77 A14 I 3,912,830.20 $ 3,912,830.20 3,336.91 3,909,493.29 $ 3,912,830.20 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - May 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD Budget Budget Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Repairs Landscape material Permits Electrical Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103) Traffic Signs Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) 1612 YTD Actual Variance A14 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 3161964.50 316,939.94 (24.56) 2,453.47 2,453.47 19,500.00 12,998.00 9,703.16 (3,294.84) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,319,846.54 $ 3,372,467.61 $ 52,621.07 $ 131,654.37 $ 23,697.79 $ 21,146.60 $ 2,551.19 2,956,362.25 5611708.83 430,885.74 130,823.09 9,612.73 (9,612.73) 76,139.11 (76,139.11) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 22,770.14 (22,770.14) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 21,323.00 - - - 50,000.00 - - - 85,000.00 - - - 500.00 - - - 22,275.72 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 624,975.31 $ 600,107.92 $ 24,867.39 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,386.00 $ 6,338.92 $ 47.08 6,800.00 41216.00 3,896.51 319.49 17,500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,235.43 $ 366.57 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 635,577.31 $ 610,343.35 . $ 25,233.96 $ - $ 2,684,269.23 $ 2,762,124.26 $ 77,855.03 Page 1 of 1 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report. Board rules and procedures ' Page 1 of 6 1 1 2 i 14 ResnickLisa[`,�a] Subject: County Attorney Recommendation RE: Board Rules and Procedures From: ResnickLisa Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:23 PM To: 'Neil Dorrill'; 'Mary McCaughtry ( MaryMcCauahtry(&collieraov.net)' Cc: 'Jim Powers (iim(&dmofl.com)' Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS According to Collier County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 122, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE LXI., PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT, Sec. 122 -1665 (b) is relevant to member votes required to take action... Sec. 122 -1665 (c) reads the PBSD Board ...shall adopt rules of procedure but, as Mary already said, no rules of procedure were ever adopted. Sec. 122 -1665. - Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. (a) At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers' terms shall be for one year, with eligibility for re- election. (b) The presence of six or more members shall constitute a quorum of the PBSD Board necessary to take action and transact business. In addition an affirmative vote of a maiority of the members present shall be necessary in order to take action, except that an affirmative vote of seven or more members present shall be required to recommend the budget for the unit to the Board of County Commissioners. (c) The PBSD Board shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business of the PBSD Board and shall keep a detailed record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations. (Ord. No. 02 -27, § 11, 5- 28 -02; Ord. No. 2006 -05, § 8) From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:09 AM To: McCaughtryMary Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS Mary My recommendation is that the Advisory Board comply with the ordinance, and adopt by -laws to be approved by the BCC. As an aside, Robert's Rules on reconsideration really do not work well with advisory boards, which is probably why the BCC adopted their own rules on reconsideration. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252 -2614 From: McCaughtryMary Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:49 AM To: KlatzkowJeff Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS No, the board has not adopted any of its own by -laws. From: KlatzkowJeff Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:39 AM To: McCaughtryMary Cc: Neil Dorrill; Jim Powers (iim()dmgfl.com) Subject: RE: ADVISORY BOARDS Mary June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report. Board rules and procedures A Page 2 of 6 ' H Before I answer the question, the advisory board's ordinance provides as f6llows1 6 Sec. 2 -1150. - Officers; Quorum; Rules of Procedure.°f' At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the Committee shall elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among the members. Officers shall serve for a one year term with eligibility for reelection. The presence of five or more members shall constitute a quorum of the Committee necessary to take action and transact business. The Committee shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt by -laws for the scope and transaction of business to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Committee shall keep a written record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations. Copies of all Committee minutes, resolutions, reports and exhibits shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners. (Ord. No. 2008 -48, § 5) Has the Advisory Board ever adopted any such bylaws? If so, please e -mail me a copy. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252 -2614 From: McCaughtryMary Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:32 AM To: KlatzkowJeff Cc: Neil Dorrill; Jim Powers (iim0dmgfl.com) Subject: ADVISORY BOARDS Mr. Klatzkow — at their regular monthly meeting the Pelican Bay Services Division voted on widening pathways, which was previously voted on in a prior meeting. One of the board members stated it was not a legal vote as the board did not follow "Robert's Rules ". Neil Dorrill, our Administrator, asked if advisory boards are required to follow Robert's Rules or if they can reconsider any vote at any time? Your help is much appreciated. ✓Y1cvu,t Atceaughtiul, (9petatiom anahpt Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Dr., Ste. 605 Naples, FL 34108 239 - 597 -1749 - phone 239 - 597 - 4502 -fax www .pelicanbayservicesdivision.net www.collierizov.net June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session rt 6a. Chairman's Report. Board rules and procedures A14 Page 3 of 6 1 � � 2 ResnickLisa 1 Subject: Dallas re rules and procedures and recent Board decisions From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithjdallas @gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:37 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; McCaughtryMary; LukaszKyle; Jim Powers (iim(a)dmgfl.com) Subject: Re: @ policies re recent pathways decisions Lisa, Since she brought it up, we will put on agenda, but toward the end of my section. Tell her we really to our knowledge have never formally adopted Roberts Rules, so any procedures really would need to be adopted at some future meeting, after study and discussion. I really don't want to spend a lot of this meeting hashing over procedures. I would rather spend it on more immediate issues and merely bring up the subject for future discussion. Assuming members agree with my recommendation to pause on the pathway project, what procedure we used to vote last time is moot. Keith June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report. Board rules and procedures Page 4 of 6 ResnickLisa 6 A14 Subject: O'Brien RE: recent Board decisions & rules and procedures From: Susan O'Brien fmai Ito: naplessusan @ comcast.netl Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:30 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: recent board decisions /policies /procedures Hi Lisa, Thanks for your suggestion. I would appreciate your forwarding this email to Neil. Susan Hi Neil, According to the Collier County Code of Ordinances Section 122 -1665 (C), "The PBSD Board shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business of the PBSD Board and shall keep a detailed record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations." PBSD Board meetings that I have either attended or participated in as a Board member appear to be following (more or less) Robert Rules of Order. Thus if we are going to revisit the 6 -foot pathway decision (again) I think we should protect the integrity of the Board by following the recommended procedure for reconsidering a past vote. (I'm not certain that the Board did this in its previous decisions on the pathways.) I am not opposed to the Board reconsidering its vote on the pathways. If it's done, it should be done via an acceptable procedural method so that it is not subject to criticism or appeal by one or more residents who do not like the decision made by the PBSD Board. I also do not oppose using a consensus method for the PBSD Board to make decisions. This method (including defining what consensus means) should be adopted by the PBSD Board per the above code. (I'm not sure that it is appropriate for past decisions made by majority vote to be reconsidered should consensus decision making be adopted going forward.) Susan O'Brien Begin forwarded message: - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan O'Brien j mailto:naplessusangcomcast.netl Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 2:15 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: recent board decisions /policies /procedures Hi Lisa, Thanks for the update. There may be some PB members who will be unhappy that the PBSD Board may be changing the decision it made on May 2 when it approved 6 foot pathways. Thus I think it is very June 6, Irma Pelican Bay Services Div o res ul�yOession �! 6a. Chairman's Report. Board rules and o res LL Page 5 of 6 important $lzat prior to the June 6th meeting someone sort out an acceptable and /or legal way for the PBSD Board to change course. Because the PBSD functions as an "arm" of Collier County, I think we should make sure any action the Board takes is consistent with the way the County expects the PBSD to conduct business. This could protect the PBSD from being found to be not in compliance for technical reasons by someone who disagrees with the content of a PBSD Board decision. If Collier County does not expect the PBSD to follow Robert Rules of Order, then is there another method of running a meeting that the County expects. If the County allows its Boards to change from majority vote to consensus, etc. I think it would be beneficial to sort that out before the June 6th meeting. It may also be a good idea for Keith to let Board members know that he decides what one -way communication from Board members to you will be sent to Board members. I incorrectly assumed that all Board members had the prerogative of sending one -way communications. Thanks very much. Susan O'Brien On May 18, 2012, at 9:24 AM, ResnickLisa wrote: - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan O'Brien [ mailto:naplessusan2comcast.net1 Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:35 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Pathways Hi Lisa, Please distribute to the PBSD Board members as a one -way communication. Thank you. Susan O'Brien I think our Board should clarify with legal counsel what options it has relative to the pathway issue before our meeting on June 6. Robert's Rules of Order has very specific requirements relative to votes to reconsider a previous action by a Board. We may or may not have met these requirements in our multiple motions on the pathways. (See attachment.) First, were the three motions that were approved at the February 1, March 7, and May 2 Board meetings legal and /or advisable given Collier County's expectations for the PBSD Board? Second, is taking action via consensus (versus majority vote) legal and /or advisable given Collier County's expectations for the PBSD Board? Third, how would legal counsel suggest we proceed on this issue to assure that our Board adheres to legal and /or acceptable practices for the PBSD Board? Susan June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report. Board rules and procedures Page 6 of 6 1642 PASSING MOTION [n,ce Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler "to make it a six foot path throe e west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to h tion) "with the conditions that were to Geors [Gibson] original motion" (where the, neer and /or ndscape architect determines It Is feasible): 1) If a tree Is taken out, for what is a last eJ o do so en the tree would be replaced somewhere in -kind dose by, and 2) to address safety iss '" ays, tJhat thways In no Instance be any closer to buildings Chairman Dallas requested a roll ca ' he Boars! ted S in favor (Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gibson, Mr. I Dr i " fir) and sect Chairman Dallas Mr. Lepy, and Ms O'Brien and the motion was Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen recommending Division Board move forward to widen the pathways to eight feet alai The Commons to the North Tram station with the following caveats .a3 or landscape architect): (1) that the removal of any trees due to un health of the tree be replaced in kind nearby, and (2) at drivew thi dose to Pelican Bay Boulevard as possible to Improve lines userx The Board voted seven (7) in favor, (Gibson, Barn „x Bay _§,.t---'because of t rbe positioned Ides and pathw Levy, Womble) i ° 1k A14- ' MOTION #7 (FAILED) Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to proceed with the 8-feet pathways widening project subject to the recommendations made by the certified arborist, Mr. Ralph B. Jimison. The Board voted 3 In favor (Dallas, Womble, and Levy) and 6 opposed (Gibson, Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien, laizzo, and Chandler) and the motion failed. MOTION #8 (PASSED) Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to limit the pathways width to 6-feet. The Board voted 5 in favor (Trecker, Cravens, O'Brien, laizzo, and Chandler) and 4 opposed (Gibson, Dallas, Womble, and Levy) and the motion was passed. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Chairman's Report. Board member terms Page 1 of 2 1612 A14 PBSD Board Member Terms The terms of the current 9 residential Board Members expire unevenly, 4 one year, 3 another, 2 another, and no one this last year. In a more ideal world, 2 slots would be up for election every year except every 4th year when 3 positions would be open. The purpose of this write up is to explore whether or not we should change our procedures, and if so, how. The current terms are as follows: Year Term Expires Current Incumbents 2013 Cravens, Dallas, Gibson, Womble 2014 Chandler, O'Brien 2015 Iaizzo, Levy, Trecker 2016 No one Why would it be better to have more even terms? More even terms would: • Produce more continuity with the Board. Having as many as 4 members change in a year could leave a Board with less understanding of prior decisions than would be desirable. • Make it easier to recruit Board members. The PBSD has had problems at times filling open positions (last year it took multiple tries to fill all open positions). The fewer positions open in a given year, the easier to fill them. If we wanted to change, how would we implement the change? At this writing I am not sure of actual mechanics. I've asked staff to look into how we could legally make such a change. I don't know if it would require change in our charter, or whether the BCC could merely appoint June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Chairman's Report. Board member t ms� Page 2 of 2 A I new members using new rules. That will have to be determined if the Board decides to explore the concept. The actual changes could logically happen in 2013. At that point if 2 members were appointed for 4 years and 2 members for 3 years, we would be on a 2/3/2/2 pattern. Assuming we decide to do this, the 2top vote getters could be appointed for 4 years, and the next 2 vote getters for 3 years. If 4 or less people ran for election, we could draw names randomly to decide terms. If we decide this is a good idea, we should explore the logistics and make the decisions this year before we know who is running in the 2013 election. It is a lot easier to make decisions in a vacuum, without knowing specific people that will be impacted. What next? I would like us to discuss this issue at our May 2nd meeting and decide if the Board wants to go forward to explore the concept. OLD M& June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report . P Page 1 of 3 � � I FtesnickLisa 1612 4 1 Subject: FW: Clam Bay Committee From: Keith Dallas [mai Ito: keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:01 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Clam Bay Committee Lisa, This will be discussed at June 6th meeting. Dave Trecker and MAG are writing the draft of a letter that will be considered for adoption of the PBSD. Please include this as background information to the Board and distribute before our meeting. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: James Hoppensteadt <limh(a)pelicanbay.org> Subject: RE: Clam Bay Committee Date: June 5, 2012 12:48:22 AM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithidallasg.gmail.com> Cc: "vbelinplsng.vahoo.com" <vbelinplsta)vahoo.com >, "sf(oWeldhauslaw.com" <sf(a)feldhauslaw.com >, "JohnSusanBolandOaol.com" <JohnSusan Boland Oaol.com >, Neil Dorrill <Neil0- dmgfl.com> Keith, What I find astounding is that the Clam Bay Subcommittee would make such a recommendation without consulting with the engineer who has been intimately involved with this site for over 13 years (Humiston & Moore). That at the PBSD's own Clam Bay Workshop held February 2012, Ken Humiston, is response to a direct question said "the channel should probably be dredged between 60 and 80 feet... probably not less than 60, and not more than 80 ". What is astounding is that the subcommittee is apparently more compelled by advocate laypeople than experienced licensed engineers. Specifically, in the Clam Pass Annual Restoration & Management Plan Tidal Analysis Element Report No. 12 issued April 2012, Humiston & Moore states "the county has submitted an application to dredge the pass in near future, and an intent to issue the permit has been issued by the state. The limits of the currently proposed dredging are the same as the limits dredged for the 2007 maintenance ". Humiston & Moore go on to say in this same report, "Overall, this indicates that the system is flushing better than it was prior to each of the two previous maintenance dredging events, indicating that maintenance dredging may not yet be needed to maintain efficient flushing... based on thirteen years of tidal flushing analysis alone, it may be feasible to extend the dredging interval beyond 5 years to further reduce long term maintenance ". These observations are consistent with Erik Olsen, the marine engineer independently retained by the Foundation, who in March 2011 made the following evaluation on the submitted dredging permit: The dredge cut is optimized to minimize frequency of future maintenance. The dredge represents the minimum reasonable dimensions necessary to ensure success. The dredge plan implementation will be highly regulated and the dimensions are appropriate for the results desired. This is also quite an improvement to Humiston & Moore's November 2002 assessment which stated, "Maintenance dredging of the inlet was completed in January 2002. This was almost three years after the 1999 channel improvements. In contrast, it had been necessary to dredge the inlet annually between 1995 and 1998, and several of those dredging operations reopened a closed inlet. Based on monitoring since the 1999 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report Page 2 of 3 A improvements it appears the inlet may need to be dredged at three or four year intervals." 1612 Humiston and Moore were exactly right. In their November 2005 report they state, It has been nearly 4 years since the previous maintenance dredging. Although the tidal data show that flows through the inlet are still significantly stronger than pre -1999 conditions, and may be sufficient to maintain flushing to the bay for the time being, there are indications that the flow through the inlet has diminished somewhat since the 2002 dredging. In order to reduce the potential for tidal exchange becoming diminished to the point where flushing might be inadequate, planning for the next maintenance dredging event is recommended ". (This was the start of the 2007 maintenance dredging.) Here are some relevant historical dredging dimensions: Dec. 1998 Permit Modification #1 Volume 32,000 cy Entrance Width 80'; Depth -5.5 NGVD 4 +10 Width 40'; Depth -4.5 NGVD Apr. 1999 Channel Improvements Volume 32,000 cy Entrance Width 30'; Depth -5.5 NGVD 4 +10 Width 140'; Depth -4.5 NGVD Jan. 2002 Maintenance Dredge 1 Volume 11,725 cy Entrance Width- Minimal Dredging 4 +10 Width 140% Depth -4.5 NGVD Apr. Apr. 2007 Maintenance Dredge 2 Volume 18,200 cy Entrance Width 80'; Depth -5.5 NGVD 4 +10 Width 140'; Depth -4.5 NGVD To compare dredging events /permits volume, width, and depths must all be considered. In Segment C, as Humiston & Moore points out in the November 2007 report, "The channel is wider in segment C, which may be considered the inner portion of the flood shoal, and current velocities are therefore lower in this segment. The lower current velocities allow shoaling to occur when sand is pulled into the inlet on flood tide...Segment C has the largest cross section and therefore the slowest currents, and sediment that reaches this interior part of the flood shoal therefore tends to accumulate there until it is dredged. Dredging that keeps C open helps to maintain the strong tidal currents that are capable of scouring sand out of A and B." It therefore makes sense that in a dredging event, dredging Segment C a little wider and a little deeper will help extend the necessary dredging intervals. Clearly, the evidence shows the 2007 dredge has been the best template for the system where the desire is to extend the intervals between dredging events. What is astounding is that somehow a compelling argument has been made that disregards the evidence, the evaluations of the experienced professionals, and offers no better approach. Sincerely, Jim Jim Hoppensteadt President Chief Operating Officer Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. 6251 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, Florida 34108 Tel: 239.260.8460 Cell: 239.398.7074 Fax: 239.597.6927 pelicanbay.org "A Guaranteed Quality Customer Experience" * * * ** The information transmitted is intended only for person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and /or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessi n 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report Page 3 of 3 or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. * * * * * A /, 4 - - - -- Original Message - - - -- 1 b 1 2 From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @gmail.com] Received: Monday, 04 Jun 2012, 5:37 pm To: James Hoppensteadt Uimh @pelicanbay.org] CC: Ronnie Bellone [vbellnpls @yahoo.com] Subject: Clam Bay Committee Jim, Clam Bay Committee of PBSD met this afternoon and will be drafting letter described in Item # 5 (below) for consideration at Wednesday PBSD meeting. Neil also asking County (Gary ?) if they want to attend. Hopefully we will see draft of proposed letter the morning of meeting. Keith (5) Send letters to the county and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern about the recent dredging permit application. Bases for concern: (a) New analyses show the permit application would allow more extensive dredging than allowed in 1998 permit and more extensive dredging than carried out in 2007. (b) There are no legally binding triggers for dredging in the current permit application. (Ted Raia and Linda Roth, MAG) June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a. New Business,. Conducting a joint survey with the Foundation for feedback re: bicycle lanes and accelerated paving on Pelican Bayoulgyar&(Chandler) Page 1 of 1 .��iljilj.. 44 ResnickLisa 1612 From: John Chandler Bohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:27 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Survey Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. Due to a lack of time this afternoon, we did not get to "New Business ". Under that category, I had wanted to mention that since one of the Foundation's key goals for the next 12 months is to conduct a member survey, I think it would be wise to contact the PBF and see if we could make it a joint survey. A couple of areas where I think it would be good for us to obtain resident feedback would be concerning a possible bike lane on PBB and a potential loan to the County to accelerate the repaving of PBB. John Chandler June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee. Purpose of June 4, 2012 meeting Page 1 of 1 4 A � J, 1612 PBSD CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE Purpose of Meeting — To take new input on Clam Bay and to consider specific requests for action in the form of recommendations to the PBSD board. Requests to PBSD (1) Have Clam Bay monitoring data entered into STORET. (Mary Johnson, PB Foundation) IN PROGRESS (2) Have county's annual water - quality monitoring reports sent to PBSD. (Mary Johnson, PB Foundation) DATA PROVIDED (3) Carry out fecal coliform testing as part of PBSD water - quality monitoring to determine if high fecal levels are from humans. If so, inland water testing may be in order to determine the source, e.g., nearby septic systems. (Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club) (4) Fund fish and bird surveys to supplement recent Conservancy benthic survey. Purpose is to establish a baseline for biological health of the estuary to complement hydrologic data. (Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club) (5) Send letters to the county and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressing concern about the recent dredging permit application. Bases for concern: (a) New analyses show the permit application would allow more extensive dredging than allowed in 1998 permit and more extensive dredging than carried out in 2007. (b) There are no legally binding triggers for dredging in the current permit application. (Ted Raia and Linda Roth, MAG) 16 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 801 Laurel Oak Drive - Suite Bay Bay A14 Bay Services Division ,es, Florida 34108 - (239) 597 -1749 - Fax (239) 597 -4502 2 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) V ee rvices Division (PBSD), an advisory arm of Collier County, has r managing the Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU) of Pelican charges of the MSTBU is to maintain the health of the mangroves in the Pelican Cation Area, a 570 -acre estuary that lies between the residential section of Pelican Gulf of Mexico. Because of this responsibility, the PBSD has a direct interest in any dredging activity in the area. Permit Application No. SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) deals with dredging Clam Pass, the entrance to the waterways of the Conservation Area. Such dredging directly affects the waterways and, in turn, the health of the estuary. The purpose of this letter is to report new information that has a direct bearing on the subject permit application. The new information is a result of detailed comparisons of dredge templates of this application, the previous permit [USACE 1996 -02789 (IP -CC)] and actual dredging activity. These comparisons show that the dredge template in the proposed permit [SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP- LAE)] is significantly different and more intrusive than the dredge template in the previous permit. More disturbing, the extent of dredging allowed by the new permit would be greater than was actually carried out in 2007, the most extensive dredging to date. See Attachments 1 -4. These concerns are relevant for two reasons: (1) The subject application claims to be based on dredging conditions specified in the previous permit (Attachment 5). It is not. The dredging allowed by the new permit would be more extensive and would pose a risk to the estuary. (2) The subject application claims its primary purpose is to foster the health of the estuary. In fact, the unprecedented dredging it would allow appears to be designed to maximize sand that could be mined to renourish the adjoining county beach. C-- 0 1 l L Y C 0 14 ►, t y Linda A. Elligott Permit Application No. SAJ- 1996 -02789 June 7, 2012 Page 2 The PBSD is continuing to an application. Until this analy Corps of Engineers, we urge It is no exaggeration damage from unprece Thank you Division Board 1612A14 OWnt of recommending revisions to the subject and all data are submitted to the U.S Army review of SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE). the Pelican Bay Conservation Area is at stake. The I be significant and irreversible. 1612 A14 ATTACHMENT 1 DREDGING TEMPLATES 1998 Permit* 2007 Dredge Current Proposal ** Station Width Depth Width Depth Width Depth 10 +10 120 4.0 113 4.0 167 4.5 10 +19 150 4.0 150 4.0 198 4.5 12 +00 160 4.0 140 4.0 252 4.5 12 +50 150 4.0 Not dredged 254 4.5 All widths and depths in feet * USACE 1996 -02789 (IP -CC) ** SAJ 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) In addition, the depth at 10 other stations in the current application was specified as 4.5 feet, in contrast to 4.0 feet previously permitted. sec. 199$ F D E p .Mo4i.fi'ca�-ion ( egmen wcis ��, c ef� eel . .Iry M e aw -ml.. uw • — artwr m wuarwn�ar. av�aaiwa�rrra++ aewaanrtee•naa d -• -•• r.awceam 'F PBWT # 8488 ; CLAM BAY RESTORATION DREDGING CUT #4 - SITE PLAN a� +m �1MroaMrrr►aR1 eats +'• +oo' m N d � Uq � CD b CD O 00 IV C9 r-. M �I Z % -� L� f! 3 p� %� �. A° c' t ct c" .4 t c eJ 4-86 rev 6 0 s I 1 �' Y GiGt"fhGr► L ,Pd_ p Q ('f't -t i4S I TEMPLATE CONTROL -TABLE 2 3 4 5 G 1 6 0 to ti 12 is 14 IS 15 17 16 10 10 21 22 23 2A 25 2G 27 28 3886228.00 8:6359,24 388311,91 686200,05 3:6358.35 689319.06 3x8382.06 080386.32 3BBA 21.,0 6:6421.90 398509.34 080406.37 1398547,87 680404,32 38:056.86 696576,09 �Je85a4,37 aa67s3.93 339693.95 656926,65 388718.83 60070'.16 369851,97 68668A.St 388988,57 680705,45 389175.65 088755166 368785,5A 686176.03 381752.59 G66915.68 388885.84 086951,02 398487.37 080823.20 388458.49 861b,A 389336.01 60 8657 23.. 62 398:98.30 610ae0.z9 38x446,40 69 6493.11 108350.29 616459,64 398759.96 666+17,00 305720.37 .96388,25 388101,77 666437A I 34716A.00 686434.06 a R+ Ydr a N ,... - J ELICAN SAY I � . _ I I I i GULF OF MEXICO \ 0 «RO ` \\ P D «W y- yE6 5,10 i i \ I S?A 'TA 3 +00 1 .. -.-BTA 3,37.6 �W 3480 I T4 1+70 1'x'9 - A H80 I A 1+38 I �STA 0+00 I W - J CONSTRUCTION STATION CONTROL -TABLE STATIONtASTINO NORTHIN6 A21MU,H 0.25 1!67890,8 68629S.2 0 -50 3679ts's 686295.4 C� E' SECTIgN-1 TYPICAL SECTION; A -A DREDGE CUT ELEV. -5.5 NOVD APPROXIMATELY 6,400 CUBIC YARDS _ { xOIIIu Ii _)19 • 1 •110 • CO •110 _..•16 • C) SECTION -2 TYPICAL SECTION; B -B DREDGE CUT ELEV, -4.5 NGVD APPROXIMATELY 4,400 CUBIC YARDS 4 {{�am • w�LtAY4 y Lam. _1 MDIIN -'1 tQO •170 -1):5 -is 6 ­76- aVT«NGt Moo t1)taRt Tttttl sf.zlo __j TYPICAL SECTION: C -C DREDGE CUT ELEV, -4.0 NOVO APPROXIMATELY 7,200 CUBIC YARDS i fOY txP.I f CL CIQ u CD v+ 0.75 307940,0 860295.7 SCALb i' N 100N l60' 1 -00 367065,6 666205.0 -2b 367990.7 6962D6.1 I I. COOA4INA116 AMACNCCO 10 $'Alt PLANt, rLORIO A CAST CONE, 1.50 388015,n 666296.3 1 -75 386039.9 066206.5 2 +00 386064,9 666200,5 I 2 +37.5 38510219 66620711 1 VCRTCAL DATUM (NOVO), 1130, 3 +00 l6tl IBA.9 566207,7 I DREDGE TEMPLATE 3•.4.5 18n229, 606298.2 1 (D 4.10 398277,5 656171.5 ,.s•MF..MI- �- ,_,_,J, 4 +60 !66,16.1 866389.3 A. 1,NAL Ott= TEUPLATE WILL It BAS(O 011 PAC - CONSTRUCTION S +10 !6531].2 6664()6.5 5.00 366420.3 686423.8 6 -10 300467.4 6eOA40,e c«tf VC 6 +60 388512.4 666157,2 ; 0. DREDGING OVINS SHOWN REPRESENT THE MAIIMUU OAEDOINO I'1T�3T9 �ICe^ - 10 t 1 0 eIMAMC nw OutuN[(Rtry 7.10 ,68553.6 '686486.1 DEPTH. 7•50 369546.4 656525.4 1 B +00 360541.9 606514.0 6 +5D Jtl653S.t 666624.5 CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT 9 +00 ,66575.5 60661 M1,i ; 0.50 366571.9 666771.6 A 10.00 36651 S. 69G7T3.S roR,,pauuR,DOUxn����_� 10.19 3165:2.6 666702.1 to «50 386536.6 656011.6 11.00 385575,2 080843.6 11.00 300613.7 666675.4 :2.00 360652.3 66,5707.3 11.50 ,11690,9 6661!01 CLAM PASS I3 -Od 18 :729,d 685910.,5 COUNTY PARK a -50 359765 657002.1 14+00 3664506.6 664 tO34,G ; 14.50 38 ,5845.1 611100.+ 15 -00 388714.3 666051.9 f 15 -60 386735.1 696000 f 16 +00 368769 58606x,6 t :6 -10 36876tl,5 666171.3 6 t 3 +00 ,66813.6 689777,1 17.50 381.!0.4 65673x.4 E 18 +00 3981163.3 RnoAol A C� E' SECTIgN-1 TYPICAL SECTION; A -A DREDGE CUT ELEV. -5.5 NOVD APPROXIMATELY 6,400 CUBIC YARDS _ { xOIIIu Ii _)19 • 1 •110 • CO •110 _..•16 • C) SECTION -2 TYPICAL SECTION; B -B DREDGE CUT ELEV, -4.5 NGVD APPROXIMATELY 4,400 CUBIC YARDS 4 {{�am • w�LtAY4 y Lam. _1 MDIIN -'1 tQO •170 -1):5 -is 6 ­76- aVT«NGt Moo t1)taRt Tttttl sf.zlo __j TYPICAL SECTION: C -C DREDGE CUT ELEV, -4.0 NOVO APPROXIMATELY 7,200 CUBIC YARDS i fOY txP.I f CL CIQ u CD v+ NOTES: IS t'. I. COOA4INA116 AMACNCCO 10 $'Alt PLANt, rLORIO A CAST CONE, Q else) ON THE ADRTN 4M(RICAN DATUM O( 1983 -'90, �J '! C. ALL ttrurnSts A6 6N0WN AA( 0( rimt0 TO NA110NAL 0(03(T;c CONSTRUCTION BASELINE VCRTCAL DATUM (NOVO), 1130, Nyu1_ C7 DREDGE TEMPLATE !. OOEODINO OONNACTOA SNALL PAONDE t=10481C POSIVONw0 AND g DOCUMENTATION AS RCOUTRED IT FLORIDA Off PERMIT NUMBER -) / '• •;' !ry (D D139)a- ool -ic. �., ,.s•MF..MI- �- ,_,_,J, Q A. 1,NAL Ott= TEUPLATE WILL It BAS(O 011 PAC - CONSTRUCTION (7Q SURVt1•, S. CURAENT OtS10N OVANT11T 0 A0PAO01vATELV 18,000 CY, c«tf VC 0. DREDGING OVINS SHOWN REPRESENT THE MAIIMUU OAEDOINO I'1T�3T9 �ICe^ - 10 t 1 0 eIMAMC nw OutuN[(Rtry DEPTH. f6 41NM0N 01 /51.30) upam IOOi0M4Tif, WE0 ON All 9Dt"v 0«1f0 AWAIT 3011 A { ,! CLAM PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT V` ('A PROJECT SITE PLAN A roR,,pauuR,DOUxn����_� ►AaroNSTA scwl r ■ma OATUHf NOVO I SNR140 r �►� CL.:rre: - "F rrePCse-x,( clE'ecic� e, Giis, -re-v7s t ons .4FC -F e-XCE C -Ct +k C '2C'0 -7 Ctrec�5 (.- 4 t" C +l•SI`C CIS GRAPHIC SCALE 160 300 600 1200 ( IN FEET ) 1 inoh o 300 ft. 1 +21 1 +75 / 2 +00 ►S Cir al"� i ►� IS �11�CCt.t`[���. 3 +o0B c+, 3 +64.6 tJ { c -f ©U 1 .+- t t 4 +60 5 +10 DREDGE 9 2 o o I Z -} 5`� 6 +10 TEMPLATE �-`► a t 6 +60 C wvG��r' 7 +10 �11�� 11 7 +60 a 1" E � r 5 T e ,'• : 0.• 9 +00 8 +60 wcoe 5E 6v'ol% 9 +00 387990.70 69011-101 0 388016.80 686241E 30 0 388039.90 6862ic 80 0 328064.90 68621; 80 0 388102,90 696 17.10 0 388164.90 696217,70 0 n 389229,40 686 .i „20 0 388277.50 6863"1 s0 336 388326,20 69821:,30 336 388373.20 6864(1 ?,60 336 Cjy 3984Z.30 6864:!5,60 036 Z 389467.0 6864,1.80 336 388$1 AO 68640,36 335 388563.80 686411;,.10 325 388548.40 686625.40 262 388541.80 686674,90 262 388535, 686654,80 2 388628, 0 606674,10 262 388521,90 W6723.60 262 "C a l L d [ rrnnt n 1 2 3 4 5 mascinq rvortnm p �P .9' 10 +00 388515.30 686773.20 262 (D dL7 ¢� 10+19 38851280 686792.10 520 - lo+t 10+60 388536.60 686811.80 �3 0 UI I @f / y�r J CLAM t +00 38 7 . 0 684 , �7 11 +60 303613,70 6136915.40 320 � �� eP' � .� 12 +00 38865230 686907.30 827 t 12 +50 388690.90 686939.10 320 1 0' 13+00 388729.40 686970.90 330 13+50 388768,00 607002.70 320 R -41 2+ 0 gg�T�p N 1 14 +00 388006.60 687034.60 32 PEl_1CiAN BAY a+ o -8.8 NAVD 118 t4 +BO 398848,10 607066.40 2 (� t +7o 16+00 388714.30 686951,40 60 t 15+50 388739.10 686908,00 6 16 +00 788754.00 6E'68$iI 60 6 MHW LINE ( +0,33 � NAVO 88) MHW LINE ( +0.33' 18 +80 388788.80 6E ?821.20 6 881 NAVO 88) 17+00 3.60 6F<'777.80 6 (*9 t 17 +60 388838.40 60:734,40 6 10 +00 798863.30 6Fic:691,00 6 NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, Y 1990 ADJUSTMENT (NAD 83/90) STATE PLANE, FLORIDA EAST ZONE. `CZ 10 2. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88) V 3. DREDGE ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT THE MAXIMUM DREDGE DEPTH. �' NO OVEROREDGE ALLOWED, 0 4, DREDGING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE GPS POSITIONING AND DOCUMENTATION (� AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA DEP PERMIT NUMBER 0128468- 001 -4 387864.89 888354 3882 8.80 8883 6e.24 38831 .81 888200.86 388358.36 088310,08 398382.0 8388.32 8 9 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 17 18 9 a 20 21 22 2 4 2B 28 --27- 28 88421,10 08842130 8880.4 80488,37 989647,8' 8 94.2 388 8.88 28, ff 388684.37 898763.93 388893.Bb 88928.86 390 8. 3 887 .1 38985T.-97 888864.61 388080,57' 888706.46 388876,85 888765,88 38878.4 688870.83 388762.6 8 8816,08 388E .84 MINI .62 388487.3 88 23,28 3884 8.48 88716,14 888623.8 3 8 880408.28 389449A0 696483.11 3883 ,29 88468.04 388268.80 088417,80 388228.37 88388.25 388101,77 37,1 987884,80 88034.88 A !m m ew "It m to w Ka to A% WA FL nm450 COLLIER CCU TY =49936;1 ►i3 lSl3it{d` tv=a mom Iffinswapalm _ e f "'°D` ' "••, �• CLAM PASS JCP PERMIT : •. ar �_ PLAN VIEW PROPOSED DREDGE TEMPLATE 1 OF 1 ji e t e a • J n t _. 1612 A14 ATTACHMENT 5 ALLEGATIONS OF EQUIVALENCY From letter to Molly Edson and Laine Edwards of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2/19/10) from Jeffrey R. Tabar, PBS &J, consultant to Collier County: "We would just like to emphasize that this application is not asking to change the dredge template or configuration that was previously authorized under FDEP #0128463 - 001 -JC to station 18 +00." From letter to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (6/15/10), received by Linda Ellicott of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from Jeffrey Tabar: "Dredging will occur within the previous dredge footprint authorized by the FDEP (Permit #0128463 - 001 -JC) and USACE [Permit #1996 -02789 (IP- CC)]." From letter to Linda Ellicott of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from Jeffrey Tabar: "The dredge template requested is identical to that authorized under FDEP Permit No. 0128463- 001 -JC and USACE Permit No. 1996 -02789 (IP -CC)." June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (comments submitted by Linda Roth) Page 1 of 2 16 12 A14 6/6/12 Dear PBSD Board Member, As you know, the County has submitted an application to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a 10 -year permit to dredge Clam Pass. I would like to share with you a brief summary of the dredge templates which were used for the dredging events in the past 12 years. All information provided is factual. All can be found in the County's current permit application. In July 1998, FDEP authorized the initial dredge template. The dredge width of the Mouth (ist segment), and the Throat (2nd segment) was 40 ft, and the depth for both was -4 ft; the dredge width of the Flood Shoal area (3rd segment) was 20 ft and the depth was -4 ft. This template was never used. In December 1998, the initial 1998 dredge template was modified by FDEP Modification #1. It authorized widening of the dredge width at the Mouth (1st segment) to 80 ft ( ?), as well as the Flood Shoal segment (3rd segment). Dredge dimensions for each location were specified in the permit drawings which are part of the authorized permit. Note, this FDEP Modification #1 did not authorize widening of the Throat (2nd segment). The width of the Throat remained at 40 ft as in the initial 1998 dredge template. This template was not used. In February 1999, the initial 1998 dredge template was modified by USACE Modification #1. It authorized widening of the Throat (2nd segment) and the Flood Shoal (3rd segment). The width of the Mouth (1st segment) remained unchanged at 40 ft' as in the initial 1998 dredge template. This dredge design was used in the 1999 dredge, and again in the 2002 dredge. However, in 2002, the Mouth was not dredged, and both the Throat, and the Flood Shoal area were dredged only -4 ft deep as specified in the authorized permit drawings. In 2006, the County submitted a dredge design which combined an 80 ft width at the Mouth (FDEP Modification #1) with the wider width at the Throat (USAGE Modification #1) to the regulatory agencies for approval. However, there was no record of an official modification to combine the FDEP Modification #1 with the USACE Modification #1. The regulatory agencies trusting the information presented by the applicant approved this extensive dredge design for the 2007 dredge, and a new precedence was set. As for the current dredge permit application, the County repeatedly stated in its permit application to the regulatory agencies that the current dredge template is identical to the previous templates authorized by the FDEP and the USACE. This is not true, as substantiated by the data shown in the Dredge Cut Comparison Table below. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boaj41a 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (comments s b 2Roth) Page 2 of 2 If this expanded dredge design were to go unnoticed by the regulatory agencies, another new precedence would again be set. Dredge Cut Comparison Table Station 1999 Original 2007 Dredge Proposal Width Depth Width Depth Width Depth 10 +10 120 -4.0 113 -4.0 167 -4.5 10 +19 150 -4.0 150 -4.0 198 -4.5 12 +00 160 -4.0 140 -4.0 252 -4.5 12 +50 150 -4.0 (Not Dredged) 254 -4.5 Note: Stations 7 +10 to 13 +00 (14 stations) • Depth increases from -4.0 ft to -4.5 ft • Width varies as shown in representative stations above 14 stations = approx. 600 linear ft = approx. one third of the total dredge length of 1800 linear ft • All depths are in NGVD After a dredge plan is approved by the regulatory agencies, the applicant's contractors are allowed to dredge less but not more than what is approved by the agencies. The Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QAQC) Plan of the FDEP permit states "The dredging depths on the plans represent the maximum dredging depth with a zero tolerance dredging beyond the design depth (i.e. plans and specifications)." I think it is in the best interests of P13, and the health of the mangrove ecosystem to prevent the County from continuously expanding the dredge templates. I have all the documents to substantiate what I have written, and I am more than happy to show them to you. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Linda Roth Montenero A14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 1 of 20 1612 A14 4030 Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 700 4 Tampa, FL 70001 Phone: 1100.477.7275 Date: 7 September 21310 i Clam Pass Flushing Efficiency and Cross- Section Memorandum PBS&1 performed volume change, cross sectional and differential contour analysis on Clam Pass utilizing the bathymetric monitoring data collected from 1998 to 2009 by Hurniston & Moore and ABE Surveying. The project area was broken into five segments for the analysis as shown in Figure 1 (north beach, south beacb, Pass: A, B and Q. The anal is of the data indicates the beaches north and south of the s showed small r etions in vo ume lowing dredging events and recovery to pre dredge volumes within 1- 2�ears. The timeframe for the segments inside the pass to reach pre-dredge volumes were as follows: • Segment A (mouth of pass) fills in within a year, • Segment B (throat of pass) fills in within 1-2 years • Segment C (flood shoal) fills in within 3-5 years- In addition, the ability to convey water to maintain adequate flushing is severei diminished en an o e ee segmenu have reached a critical cross sectional old. Indicators ar pgers se critic cross secti holds were C square approximately 300 square feet. In summary, the analyses demonstrated that Clam Pass can continue to be dredged at a similar frequency and templaw designated by the previous permit. The beach compatible sand can be placed on the beach south of the pw with minimal impacts to the stability of the surrounding shorelines. 7 Je iy R. Tabar, P> E. l�rojec:t Director 0 M 0 z C ic M z 8 CD June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 2 of 20 1612 '14 8 32jnoizi SHORELINE CHANGE (FT) & �j C) 0 C> 0 ........................................................................................................... CLAM PASS .................................................................................................................. L- C- Z- Z C- > > *r C C ', 0 C V =1 , , D -P 0M666666 X M M 0 0 ;0 M > z U) M En 0 0 (1) z :q --I 00 Z G) C) 0 ct+ Z7 o CLO rn Fn 0 z --4 0 (D June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting Noy 1) Page 4 of 20 1612 14 CLAM PASS ANNUAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN TIDAL ANALYSIS ELEMENT REPORT NO. 12 April 2012 1. Summary Analysis of tidal data has previously been presented in annual monitoring reports that also included analysis of changes in the bathymetry of the waterway and the beach shoreline. Bathymetric changes in channel shoals and tidal analysis both provide information that is useful in determining when maintenance dredging of the inlet should be considered in order to maintain flushing. Beginning three years ago there was a change in county policy and this tidal analysis is now being provided as a separate report from the bathymetric and beach monitoring. For a history of the comprehensive bathymetric, beach, and tidal monitoring, see "Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Bathymetric Monitoring, Reports" #1 through #9, 2000 through 2008, prepared for the Pelican Bay Services District (PBSD) by Humiston & Moore Engineers (H &M). This is the third monitoring report that is limited to the tidal analysis only, for information on bathymetric monitoring refer to the separate County reports. The Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan was implemented in 1999 to improve flushing of the Clam Bay system and the surrounding 500 acre mangrove preserve. A part of the management plan was to dredge portions of the flood tidal shoal and some of the interior waterways to improve the hydraulic efficiency of the inlet and increase the tidal prism, which is the volume of water exchanged through the inlet on each half tidal cycle. The improved tidal prism means more water goes in and out of Clam Pass on each tidal cycle and this larger volume of water generates stronger currents in the inlet. Those stronger tidal currents are capable of scouring sand from the channel to help keep the inlet open and maintain the flushing improvements. Since the 1999 dredging, as shown in the annual Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Reports #1 through #9, implementation of the dredging element of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan has significantly improved tidal exchange throughout the bay system. The maintenance dredging of the food shoals in January 2002 was shown to be beneficial in maintaining the improved tidal flushing. In order to maintain the improved tidal exchange, based in part on the results of the tidal monitoring, the 2006 monitoring re rt recommended dredging of the entrance of the pass, and a portion° ofie�ood shoal. Tfia F6Oging was completed during the winter of 2007. The county has submitted an application to dredge the pass in near future, and an intent to issue the permit has been issued by the state. The limits of the currently proposed dredg are the same as the limits dredged for the 2007 malnle�nartce. The proposed placement of the dredged material, however differs from the 2007 project in two ways. The county is seeking to place fill on both the north and south side of the inlet, along with infilling of the meandering channel entrance on the north side of the entrance dredge cut. The tidal data indicate that some shoaling may have occurred, however, not yet to the extent that preceded the previous maintenance dredging events. If dredging were to take place this year, it would be 5 years since the previous dredging. This is consistent with previous maintenance intervals of 4 to 5 years, and indicates that slightly longer intervals may be feasible without serious potential for inlet closure, yet does not preclude scheduling NA z \ �� gm T v, w Z a J a d ) O a, c] V Q m c 0 U0 U CL o N N m p U E M U c (� m � n d 0 z J m i w CO oW W m W W Z5 K UQO W W U J N z z 0 z W 0 co J W N ULL 0 O O J w Q !G W z 0 N w K O U dJ co m O C' a z _ J Q O z W O u� a a W 0 N O v, O r I I W Z 00 O F � W U U MWW D W Z W U- z W Q 0 U #0]W W��¢ 0LU zCl) r r U � ii w z Q W 2 0- 7U � W 7 LL /U W I I r 1612 A 1 CA��� N Y 0 OU�itz 00Za�OO VWjOUf�d W~ p m W Z 2= O w Z�zZWZV_, r W W�Q z_�WF -W Dui °zao`n �a�FaaQ _� K Z 2 2w Z ��t1O ? W §$h-7UX W W= W U W z w m L) CC m Q 0- gOt�wW z P W M w 0 r v W oWaf°� a� z O zU2�FOQ to W �Q�(pFm ►=-ozgX: Lu U1 Jro -Umz 00 JF- Zl-UQLL�Z.K I � ; I w w � a -- a a N O W a rn W h LL w W z H I � � I K I a0 w W [n to N N G3HVnas wing `SS9NJ S xv3as rn 00 h i v W oz � r d I N ¢Q I r O O �n a ^� O O � a -- a a N O W rn W h LL °° 1% U W z H I � h i v W oz � r d I N ¢Q I r O O �n a ^� O O June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessi1 6 I*p 7. Cla m Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting N A 14 Page 5 of 20 E xce,Kpi- -c l Gliz4v� � m 7. Conclusions and Recommendations The initial dredging of the flood shoals in 1999 and maintenance of the flood shoal channel in 2002 has resulted in significant improvement to the stability of Clam Pass. These improvements to the hydraulic stability of the inlet from the April 1999 dredging have persisted, however, the inlet channel and flood shoal areas have accumulated enough sand so that conditions are similar to those that existed prior to the maintenance dredging completed in January, 2002. Based on the July 2006 survey, there are approximately 12,000 cubic yards of sand within the currently penrfiffFed dredging limits. There are approximate y 9,400.gu-bic yards in Segmen and C whi in re January 2002. This sand is exr)ect6dTo_bd_beach quality. It has been nearly 5 years since the previous maintenance dredging. Although the tidal data show that flows through the inlet are still significantly stronger than the pre -1999 conditions, and may be sufficient o mai in ing to the a6Wy or the time being, there are indications that the flow through the inlet has dimini somewhat since the 2002 dredging. In order to reduce the potential for tidal exchange becoming diminished to the point where flushing might be inadequate, a Notice To Proceed t ct another maintenance dred ' as r , been obtained and d ing is schedu! to conducted during Because of erosion along portions of the Clam Pass Park beach south of the inlet, County staff has recently considered the feasibility of obtaining additional sand for nourishment by expanding the dredging to include the inlet ebb shoal. This approach would provide immediate relief to the erosion problem on the park beach, however, it may also potentially have longer term consequences that should be carefully considered. A common impact from dr_4ng_ significant portions of inlet ebb shoals is increased erosion scent —beaches. This occurs for several reasons including rn ecru pti on of natural transport which relies on the oresence of an ebb shoal to b ss the inlet diminished Drotection from waves for areas dose to the shoal, and the readjustment of d cut slopes to a natural repose angle as the shoal begins to reform by trapping sand from the littoral system. A more detailed discussion of this is included in Section 10 below. In response to concern over the serious impacts that are likelv to occur to the beach same time to provide some entrance to the inlet will be This 80 feettw� however, does not have the potential for the level of serious impacts tb a acent that should be expected from dredging the entire flood shoal, yet it will provide approximately 3,500 additional cubic yards of sand for nourishment. - Additionally, cdr—efUl o5eivation ofhow the adjacent beaches respond to this relatively small increase in dredging scope may provide useful data regarding potential impacts from more aggressive dredging of the flood shoal. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board R11hessidIIn 2 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meetinkl 4 Page 6 of 20 interval. 8. Recommendations for Ongoing Monitoring. The tidal ranges and phase lags are important indicators of how well tidal flow through the inlet is flushing the bay system. This data is presented in Figures 6, 7, and 8. While these figures illustrate the improvements that have resulted from implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plat, they also show that there is a significant amount of scatter in the data. As an extreme example, the most recent data shows the phase lag time at the Registry more than twice the average lag time over the time since the 1999 dredging. they have for the most part been reWitively sirriall in comparison to the overall flushing improvements. This random scatter ffvgtt be related to factors such as wind influence on tidal flow, or storm water outflow. However, the scatter makes it difficult to identify small changes that would occur in response to the gradual shoaling in the iniet and the atenor M ' -ti s 1 - • - - it. - ! �• i _ t - t•�. t..:I Y. ♦• �«Ii. • • •: _ • - - f _. ! -• t • ° c:.r � •- ter: •:� • t - .:• t • :. r• - ( - •c • 9- Previous R Reoorntywrxiations made in previous reports that are still considered relevant to k)ng te management are updated in this - «t. - WIN. • _•- - • t *7. _.: - 0t - r• y -• - • 4 • • i - .: i.. i - • '• • -•• • •. •-• t «r -Ai t • • • • • t •- «• • «-♦ • 6 01i June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No Page 7 of 20 16 12-�AA resulting in a wider but shallower channel, with little change in net flow cross section. There has, however, been a more significant reduction of cross section, in comparison to the post 1999 dredging data, on three stations near the south end of cut 4, on stations 31 +53 to 32 +62. These are the three stations closest to and on the north side of the Clam Pass Park boardwalk bridge. The data show shoaling on these three stations north of the bridge, with an average cross section reduction in cross sectional area of approximately 35 %. However, the cross sections at these stations remain approximately 175% greater than the pre -1999 dredging conditions. The recent shoaling in this area could therefore not be the cause of the recent large increase in phase lag measured at the Registry tide gage, and it must be concluded that the large increase in phase lag indicated for the Registry tide gage for 813/06 to 926/06 is erroneous. The shoaling on these stations has therefore not reached a condition that is critical to tidal flushing of outer Clam Bay, however, it is recommended that monitoring of the interior portions of cut 4 be continued on two year intervals. The tidal studies should be continued as an integral part of the annual monitoring because they will indicate when shoaling of the inlet and other channels has occurred to the extent where tidal circulation in the bay system is affected. (Recommendations regarding tidal studies are included in Section 8 above). Although dredging portions of the meandering channels between the four bays appears to have contributed to improving the flushing of Inner and Upper Clam Bay, the tidal exchange remains relatively low at the north end of the system. If biological studies indicate further enhancement to flushing of the remote northern portion of the bay system is necessary, that may be accomplished by straightening sections of the meandering channel which connect the bays. This approach would necessitate removing small areas of existing mangrove. Although this might be considered a negative impact to the mangrove community, this alternative could include restoration of mangroves within bypassed meandering sections of the channel, which in conjunction with the improved circulation to the mangrove wetland may constitute a net environmental benefit to the broader goal of managing the ecology of the overall bay system that would justify issuance of the required regulatory approvals. 10. Comments on Coastal Planning & Engineering independent analysis of Clam Pass Impacts. A report of an independent evaluation of dredging the Clam Pass ebb shoal was prepared in September 2006 by Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) for the County. That report recommends mining the ebb shoal to obtain material for nourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach. The report concludes that implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan in 1999 disrupted natural north to south sand bypass of the inlet, which resulted in accumulation of sand on the beach north of the inlet and in the ebb shoal, and increased erosion of the beach south of the inlet. The process discussed in the CPBE report is that the Restoration and Management Plan dredging successfully increased the tidal prism, and the greater tidal energy on ebb flow has pushed sand further offshore where it has accumulated in the outer reaches of ebb shoal. This resulted in growth of the shoal, and sand trapped in the growing ebb shoal is a measure of a reduction in sand supply to the park beach. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 14, 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens atA e Page 8 of 20 This process as described in the CP &E report is one that may occur at inlets that are maintained by dredging, if the dredging actually increases the tidal prism. Monitoring data show that the Clam Pass tidal prism was increased by the 1999 dredging. However, there are site specific characteristics of Clam Pass that should be taken in to consideration before concluding that dredging the pass and erosion of the beach south of the inlet represent a direct cause and effect relationship. The CP &E report uses an empirical relationship to estimate the volume of sand that might be expected to be trapped by the growing ebb shoal. However, the empirical relationship is based on some rather broad assumptions, and an estimate based on the survey from September 2006 indicates that the ebb shoal actually contains a much smaller quantity of sand than the shoal volume predicted by empirical formula. Furthermore, based on recent accretion that has occurred south of the inlet, it is apparent that a significant amount of sand is already bypassing the inlet, which is an indication that the shoal is probably close to an equilibrium condition with respect to the tidal prism. Furthermore, what this empirical relationship says is that mining of all the sand from the ebb shoal will result in a condition which is much further from equilibrium than what exists now. In order to restore itself after such a mining operation, the shoal will accumulate sand at a higher rate and for a longer period of time, which would very likely result in a chronic erosion problem on both sides of the inlet. Review of historical data from the DEP Shoreline Change Atlas, plus more recent DEP survey data, seem to indicate some level of inlet effects on the downdrift beach. However, it is not clear from the recent monitoring data that the 1999 dredging has resulted in any significant increase in those effects. What should be a more important consideration is; to whatever extent the 1999 dredging may have affected the downdrift beach by trapping sand, an extensive mining of the ebb shoal will have a much greater impact. Increasing the scope of the shoal dredging does not seem to be an appropriate way to address the erosion problem. Summary Although inlet processes potentially impact the beach south of the inlet, the �99� o�ftLL resent m_a�i_n_teen_ance plan for the inlet minimizes this potential b minimizing dredging of the I. The change s that occurred dunr�ie 2005 to 2006 interval indicate that natural bypass is occu' *ng. This does not necessarily mean that naturaFEypass is goi—fo be sufficient to entire v a ress a erosion em at the Coun ark beach. and additions as the sand source to work and to supplement that process with nourishment forr other sources as neeaeo. The CP &E report does not address the issue of impacts from the proposed ebb shoal mining. Because of the potential impacts, it is doubtful that permits could be obtained for this proposal. It is recommended that if plans are ultimately developed for dredging the ebb shoal, tho p ns s ou d include a contingency__ Ilan for addressing impacts that might occur from the dredging. it is likely that a contingency pan, including an approved sand source, would be a condition of the permit if such a permit is issued. It is not anticipated that dredging of the ebb shoal will have any adverse effect on the flushing of Clam Bay or on the mangrove communities in the Clam Bay system. r ..`a�rn. bra June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 9 of 20 16 1`2 A14 DEPARTMEW OF n1E ARMY TAMPA REGULATORY FM_D OFFICE, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGNEERS P. 0. SOX 19247 TAMPA, F LOFMA 33W6 -9247 REPLY TO ArIEN FioN OF Regulatory Division JUL 2 199 West Permits Branch Fort Myers Regulatory Office PUBLIC NOTICE Permit Application No. 199602789(IP -CC) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This District has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) as described below: APPLICANT: Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 WATERWAY & LOCATION: The proposed work is located in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4,5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude 26 014159 "N, Longitude 81 °49'21 11W. WORK & PURPOSE: Over the past several years, approximately fifty acres of mangroves located primarily in,Upper Clam Bay have died. Collier County created a Mangrove Task Force to investigate the die -off and to develop an action Plan. The proposed Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan is part of a program to'stop the expansion of the mangrove die -off areas and eventually reverse the process and restore the dead mangrove areas. The applicant proposes the following as principal elements and benefits of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan: 1. Installing a tidal flap gate system linking venetian Bay with Outer Clam Bay, thereby increasing the turnover of water in Outer Clam Bay. This is proposed to improve water quality for the benefit of the extensive seagrass habitat and its associated marine life, as well as provide enhanced scouring of Clam Pass as the surcharge of water that formerly oscillated between venetian Bay and Outer Clam-Bay will be forced to exit on the ebb tide through Clam Pass. 2. Deeping and widening Clam Pass to provide for a significantly enhanced tidal exchange for the-Clam Bay system,, as well as provide high quality sand for "beach renourishment" and the creation of upland islands of native tree flora, which is June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 10 of 20 proposed to contribute to the ecological diversity of the Clam Bay system. The dimensions of the proposed excavation cut*_ range, pending on the location, between 3 feet to _4 feet (MLW) in depth with a bottom width from 15 feet to 46 feet. 3.,Opening of the deteriorating network of interior tidal creeks and channels to both improve the tidal exchange capacity of the Clam Bay system, and contribute to enhanced water quality within tho system. The restoration of the tidal exchange dynamics is proposed to permit the ingress and egress of marine life utilizing the mangrove embayments, accelerate the recovery of the mangrove habitat and restore the desirable estuarine quality of the Clam Bay system. 4. The selective cutting of 50 to 75 percent of the dead mangrove trees is proposed to improve the aesthetic quality of the Clam Bay System, as well as permit the establishment of mangrove starter islands to help stimulate the recovery of the mangrove habitat. The proposed tree cutting will be accomplished with chain saws to cut the dead tree trunks at close to ground level and left on site. 5, The development and implementation of a revised freshwater /stormwater management s stem or the developed ubla 1 n ea—s --of ea-sf--of Clam Bay i ro osed to acute a reexaminati of the role of -fr-e-W water in the Clam BW -system, wit an antic' ated result being a significantly reduce evel of fres water ,_irri as _on for Pelican Ba and a modified an scape palette to�e 1777oduced�ov over time. " Total direct wetland impacts for the proposed works referenced above are approximatelx 11.36 acres. Total area withinn the Clam Bay project site comprises a roximatelY 443 acres of mangroves_ and 124 acres of open water ays-., Related Permitted Activities: DA Permit 199501027(LP -CC) issued on April 30, 1996 authorized the excavation of 9,200 cubic yards of shoaled sand from Clam Pass Inlet to restore flushing to Clam Bay. Permit 199601979 LP -CC) issued on 26 199 authoriz ma excavat on for the re- opening of 1312 linear feet of main tidal channels within Upper Clam Bay. VA Permit 199602789 -CC) issued on January 28, 1997, author— d the placement of two portable hydraulic dewatering pumps and associated piping for emergency dewatering of the Bay. MOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: The applicant has indicated a willingness to follow the manatee special conditions which outline standard manatee construction precautions and other manatee protection measures. In light of their willingness and the information available to the Corps of (7-3 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 11 of 20 1612 A14 Engineers, the determination has been made that the project is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian Manatee. If the FWS does not agree with this determination, formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act may be required. 'In addition, we have determined that the proposed work may effect the endangered sea turtle, and are initiating Section 7 consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service via this Public Notice. AUTHORIZATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: State Department of Environmental Protection: State permit /certification may be required. The State application number is 11- 304991 -9. A complete set of full size drawings is available in the Fort Myers Regulatory Office for review. Comments regarding the �( application should be submitted in writing to the District Engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fort Myers Regulatory Office; 2301 McGregor Blvd., Suite 300; Fort Myers, Florida 33901 within 30 days from the date of this notice. If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact Mr. Allison C. Clough III of this office, telephone ('941) 334-1975. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regu%psession A 14 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeiing No. S) Page 12 of 20 y�it7 C r respo &"Ce U-S AC GF Oki Gtd*h Fair District Engineer, Department of the Army &0 P WCA "� rCA:b t r� J '��y 1 f-�eC, Attn: Linda Elligott �• May 14, 2010 Page 2 without the Foundation's express, prior written approval. The Foundation has a legal obligation to its members to enforce the Covenants and to preserve and protect Clam Bay and Clam Pass area for the benefit of its members. The Foundation's governing documents provide that its general nature, purpose, and objects include enhancing the civic, social and recreational interests of its members and otherwise promoting the health, safety and general welfare of its members and their property. As such, the action being requested of the Corps to permit dredging within Clam Pass and Clam Bay is within the Foundation's general scope of interest and activity. I have enclosed for your reference a copy of a letter dated March 11, 2010 we provided to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP ") in aid of their review of the dredging application. Without going through it in detail here, there are three points that we made in our letter to DEP that we would like to emphasize. First, for the reasons set forth in the attached letter, by virtue of both the Covenants and its ownership of land abutting Clam Pass, the Foundation is a necessary party in any permitting process for dredging activities at Clam Pass. Please be advised that the Foundation has not f approved the dredging activities in the Clam Pass dredging application submitted to the Corps by Collier County. Second, as a riparian owner of land on the beach abutting Clam Pass, the Foundation has serious and legitimate concerns about the integrity of the inlet and the erosional effects which will occur from the proposed project. Over- excavation of the pass, without any demonstrated Ton e when dredged to a smaller cross section. Past extorts to renounsh the beach trom pass i dredging have proven largely uns FMRM =due accelerated erosion. Third, we continue to have concern over the lack of a demonstrated need for this project. When the project was first conceived and the application put to ether by the County, the stated purpose o the ro'ect was to provide beach corn alt a material for beach renournishment, as o e to a demonstrated nee to maintain flush in the s stem for a benefit Bay resources._ Attached as Exhibit 7 to our March 11 letter to the DEP is a copy of Question 333 on the DEP Application and Collier County's Answer, from a signed but unsu miffed permit ap Gp 'cation; which cle— ar y states that "The project is designed to nourish the beach of an eroded June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 13 of 20 1612 District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14, 2010 Pagc 3 shoreline.....In addition to the borrow being a Ugd source, the excavation of the old interior channel will improve the flu s g within the Clam Pass ecosystem. In response to criticisms --revised th— a acation to reflect a of the I do not believe that case ttas been made by the applicant, t ne monitoring reports prepared over time by Humiston & Moore do not suggest a need for dredging, sc►a y to the ep an wt t pr-2posed by the County , except to those rare cases when Clam Pass closes. Excavation of Clam • Pass without any demonstr_atcd need, and in particular over - excavation, will sim_Dly lea�,d to greater erosional effects on both sides and not provic a any siS scant enefit fo flushing. In addition to the matters set forth in our letter to DEP. the Foundation has serious concerns with the completeness and accuracy of the information submitted by the County in support of its application, compliance of the project with the Corps' Clean Water Act and NF.PA regulations and with the scope of the described activities as it relates to the project within the Corps' review. "Iltese will be addressed further below. At the outset the Public Notice recites that it is being issued "based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulation governing the regulatory program." We believe the information submitted, and reflected in the Public Notice, is in part both inaccurate and incomplete. The County has chosen to piecemeal their efforts in the Clam Pass/Clam Bay System and therefore the County's application, which contains simply a description of a `'maintenance dredge," is incomplete and does not present the full picture of the County's activities in the Clam Pass /Clam Bay system which are subject to Corps jurisdiction and which should be analyzed together. The County has also applied to emplace navigational markers in Clam Pass and through Clam Bay. Those two projects are in reality one project and therefore the y Project purpose and scope as articulated by the applicant and reflected in the Public Notice are inaccurate. The application for navigational markers makes no sense absent the dredging project (inasmuch as they appear to mark the proposed dredged channel in the outer reaches) and therefore rather than two separate projects, they are one interdependent project. _J conduct of the proposed work, the an exiTti-n—a and prior DEP and Coros permits for dr_ e`dgrin, in this area contained a limitation of dredging to 4' Mean Low Water. Unless the applicant has information which has not been A1� June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 14 of 20 District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14, 2010 Page 4 provided and of which we are not aware, there is no historical precedent to dredge greater than - 4'. This application thus does not qualify as an application for "maintenance dredging." In its discussion of avoidance and minimization in that the a scant on y pro se a "minimum amour c proiect feasible. e e applicant may have made that the Public Notice recites (fill that would make the premise, The a plicant has described the existing conditions of the Clam Pass/Clam Bay inlet as one ern which shoa mg in Clam Pass-and-within Clam Bay is constraining tidal flushing such at • water quality is adverse Ty affected and, that beach erosion at Clam Pass Park was evident as are concurrent aspects of shoreline retreat. We do not lieve that t e ounty's desc n ion of e existin conditions —is accurate and therefore that the stated for the protect (ecolo ig cal improvement) c u rt a nab or ff e—'ect. The ounty has not document an ,adverse water quality problem in Clam Bay or a causal relationship between shoaling in Clam +. Pass and water quality in Clam Bay. In its request for additional information ( "RAI ") to Collier County in connection with the County s aeration for pass dredging, the DEP observe functioning well ecologically and that a re Ong in the past has re iced sego *agg xtent an fp oduct vity. Tshort, DEP is questioning a necessi!Tfo an extens edging project. I�ie sewn hats not submitted evidence that demQ,nstrates a need for the proiect as proose�d. In fact, the available evidence, the monitoring reports for Clam Bay, suggests that the inlet is functionin^ g we om a d3a 1 exchange p2int of view and thus does not support the need for dredging at this t is time. _ ese ma_ena s support a e applicant has_failed to demonstrate need a for the project and has neither avoided nor minimized to the extent required by the Corps' regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 1 The applicant has also indicated that compensatory mitigation should not be required because there are no proposed impacts to wetlands or mangroves. This is clearly not accurate based upon review of just the dredging project (as the DEP has observed), but is even more suspect when the navigational markers are considered. The effects of the project need to be considered in total. The County has artificially segmented the project in an attempt to avoid a full consideration of its activities in Clam ass /Clam Bay by the Co s. The Corps' Clean Water • Act and NEPA regulations prevent that. According to 33 C.F.R. § 325.Ifd)(2) "All activities d which the applicant plans to undertake which are reasonably related to the same project and for ' W ,rai)A. Hermit wnu d be required should be included in the same permit application. — • District ellejueers should reiect—aLwcomlplete, any pqrrnit app uc ri his reequire ent." Moreover, the orps' NEPA regulation_ s provt t a permit is "merely one component of a larger project" the scope June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 15 of 20 16 12 A24 District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14, 2010 Page 5 should "address the impacts of the specific activity requiring the permit and those portions of the entire project over which the district engineer as su icient control an respon i i ` 33 -" C.F.R. Part 325, Appx. B, § 7(b). The project consists of edging and ' nTp emc-Un of navigational markers (none of which currently exist in the system) to facilitate boat passage through the Pass and through Outer Clam Bay. The effects of the ro'ect would necessarily have to consider the effects of increased boat usage, particular) y where there is current no actual channel and no a fined navrig onal chwir-fel across a very shallow Clam--Say. The system in its current state ' t capable o usage except b the shallowest of shallow draft vessel�� attac ed a series of photographs ocumenting the condition o e ass. • It is incomprehensible that the applicant has stated "the pr o.ect would not result in increased watercra aft usage..." inasmuch as it is opening a direct, marked, deep access to Clam Bay from the Gulf where none currently exists. Moreover, app icant is proposing to invite reateg r boat usage by emplacing a series of navigationa m rkerss not just�wit im the Pass but acro —ss C-1am -gay- .early the applicant contemplates increased water craft usage; t s e entire point of marking the system for navigation. The CorDs is not limited in its scope of i` analysis to the applicant's statement of the project. The attempt at segmentation in this case is similar to the segmentation attempt which was at issue in Florida Wildlife Federation v. Corps, a case arising in the South Atlantic Division, Jacksonville District involving the permitting of the Scripps biotechnology facility at Mecca Farms in Palm Beach County in 2004. The Court rejected the applicant's segmentation attempt and the claims of independent utility in that case and stated the Corps' responsibility as follows: • R resentations by the applicant alone, who clearly has an interest in obtaining the rr_mi�t and whose theo_ iy of `< independent utility" on a record such as this, can only -6e considered a post -hoc i possible, cannot be sufficient to in-- dependent evaluation by the a� basLs- the Court is unable to ade can the public have confidence in Not unlike the impropriety of seg _ a 2roiecct esign to conform to a the intention that a permit be ex NEPA. ization to secure a permit as rapidly as .h a project's independent utility, without ased on record evidence. Without such a review the agency's determination, nor ,ncy'ssdeter rmination. ion to avoid significant : m_nuipulatT i, on of it of independent utility, particularly with ., undermines t e underlying purposes of June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 16 of 20 16< District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14, 2010 Page 6 The Section 404 Guidelines under the Clean Water Act require the Corps to consider both individual and cumulative im acts of the ro sed roject. 4 C.F.R. § 10(a). Cumulative impact is defined as he impact on the environment which results from the mcrementa im a e action en a too r past, present, an reasonably foresee e future actions regardless of what agency a or non - -Federal) or_ person tin es such o e acho� u at I imwets can resu t from individual) minor but collective) si fi actions taking place over a period o' 1 e actual impacts o at usage o a mare navigation way across a shallow bay with no discernable channel are clearly "reasonably foreseeable" future actions in this case. As such those impacts must be considered. a The applicant has entirely failed to address those impacts and the Corps' review cannot be complete without such analysis. The Corps reviews permit applications seeking to dredge and fill in waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The proposed activity for which a permit is sought must comply with EPA's 404(b)(1) guidelines, 40 C.F.R. § 230. Further, the Corps may deny a permit where it finds the proposed activity to be contrary to the public interest. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4. a Co s conducts the ublic interest anal sis pursuant to regulations found at 33 C.F.R. § 320.4. These regulations provide that " t e decision whether to issue a peimit will a based on an eva uauon o o e impacts,_inc a ing cumulative impacts, of the propose(T—activity and its intended use on the public interest." 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(1). To this en3, t' e Co s is directed to engage in a case -by -case balancing of the "benefits which iggsivex ect o accrue from t eutcome of the balancin roceization of im octant resourcesnomics, aesthetics, genera environmental. concerns, wetlands, historic erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production_ mineral needs, considerations of property ownership an`�d. io sera —Tt e nee-lc s and welfare of the peonls _t 33C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(2) goes on to provide general criteria to be considered in reviewing permit applications. "[F]ull consideration and appropriate t weight will be given to all comments, including those of federal, state, and local agencies and other experts on matters within their expertise." 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(3). A permit that complies with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines will be granted "unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest." 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(1). onsideration of the Corps' public interest review ursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 320.4 compels either rejection of the app icatton or denial of the permit. The Corps is required to base this p14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 17 of 20 - � 1612 District Engineer, Department of the Army Attn: Linda Elligott May 14, 2010 Page 7 decision on an evaluation of all of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. As iscus the Corps is not limited tote app scans scnption o e top vi and where the app icant attempts a to improperly sus activities in o er to avoid Co s' ffthe o s may consi er o e ro activities together. ._.. Us case that would includdre dging mar ng o the channel notwi tan ing t the County has attempte to secure ose oug parate authorizations. The extent of the ublic or private need for the proposed work must be considered in ev a lication. 33 C.F.R. § 20.4(a s iscussed a ve, �e a icant's stated justification is factually sus ct and not su rted b the monitoring repo rtsr the Clam a s stem. Analysis -6f the public interest factors compel denial o t e ounty s proposed work. - The first factor articulated in the public interest review is conservation. An understanding, istonca context i i importan o consideration o this factor. The Clam Pass/Clam Ba stem is one of east remnants of e s flow water mangrove system which historical) existed alonp almost all of o ier ounty s coast ine. The effects of e aiiiuction of the system can be seen in Vanderbilt Beach, _ ap es Park, Seagate, enetian Bay, Moorings Bay and Doctors EZ as at the south end of ap es in Aqualane res and Port Royal. *-- When the Pelican Bay project was proposed in the late 1970's, one of the principal consi stations m e aoorova was a areservation an conservation of e Clam Pass/Clam ay system. The state and federal environmentaall erm�its as wets as the iocai government tans use approyals all re uirea maf"Ine s stem be rotect and conserved. The 1981 Corps permit is ex licit on s_u tect. To that en a owner conveyed the Clam Pass/Cl Bay system to Co ier County for conservation after imposing a series of significant conservation restrictions on the area. The purpose of this exercise was to preserve the ecological integrity of r the system and to preserve the system in its essentially natural state. A copy of the 1981 Corps permit, the conveyance to the County and the conservation restrictions (Exhibits 2 -4 to the 3/11/2010 letter to DEP) are enclosed. This conservation objective has large) been observed. A kayak and canoe launch facility has been oeate on Outer am ay. A series of canoe trail markers have been placed in the system. No alterations of the system have been made except as necessary to address environmental concerns. In its comprehensive future land use plan the County has identified the Clam Bay area as a Natural Resource Protection Area ( "NRPA "). In the 1990's, a series of flushiniz channels were constructed to address mangrove die off and to al ow ti a exchange to keen the pass open. a oun ation supported those —actions. _Other than that, however, there • have been no actions intended to change the character of the s stem. The County's current proposal to acilitate and introduce more and larger boat traffic through this system would A14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 18 of 20 1612A14 Selected Excerpts of Kathy Worley, Director of Environmental Science Conservancy of Southwest Florida Comments Presented at the ACOE meeting April 2012 - ( provided to PBSD's Clam Bay Committee on 6/4/12 with emphasis added by Marcia Cravens) All are aware that mangroves deserve special protection as they serve multi lt� a ecological functions including an ecological role as habitat for many species that are threatened, endangered or of special concern. This is stated in numerous scientificpers including the Multi - species Recovery Plan for South Florida (opy-provided to ACOE)_This document includes lists of species that are found in and rely on mangrove systems which in the interest of time I did not comment on but can be found in the mangrove section of the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan does state that the two main human causes of damagg to manerove communities is coastal urbanization, which includes dredging and altered hydrology, which is also supported by numerous scientific articles. Clam Bay has seen damage from both of these human induced causes. The Conservancy performed a benthic study throug,.hout the Clam Bay- s- stem, A pdf of the entire study was provided to ACOE. The 2b ectives of the were to perform comprehensive mapping of benthic habitat distributions in Clam Bay_; analyze benthic habitat compositions relative to the geographic location; and to perform a visual survey of @ny benthic species utilizing rg ove p Apr ots Systematic benthic sampling was used to characterize sediments and biological assemblages and their distribution within the Clam Bay system. Maps showing the distributions of these assemblages are including in the report. In the summer of 2010, 872 benthic sample sites within Clam Bay were investigated. We know that substrate is one of the most important abiotic factors influencing the spatial and temporal distribution of estuarine benthic communities. Mud was the dominant substrate in the northern and southern portions of Clam Bay. We also know that flora components of an estuary that are important. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 19 of 20 VO Shoal grass was the most prevalent species found during this survey. Previous seagrass studies suggest that the spatial distribution seagrasses in Clam Bay has persisted over the last 30 years, albeit seagrass species and extent of coverage have changed throughout the years. Sasses are not static in location„ ypg or extent over the years in Clam Bay, One thing.that does concern me is the dredgi template in m _ Qpinion) comes to close to the known area of seagrass extent in the northeast sector of Lower Clam Bay. Given that seagrasses have declined in this system and that in all likelihood are stressed given the amount of epiphytic growth that has been documented on the blades, we should go out of our way to protect what is left So it would be wise to reduce the dredge footprint near the seagrass beds in the northeast sector of Lower Clam Bay to avoid sedimentation on nearby beds. The currently_roposed dredge design extends right up to the beds in this area, where a buffer zone should exist between the dredging temp. late and the seagrasses in order to protect them from disturbance and stress (See maps of historical and current seagrass extent over the years Figs. 18 and 19 in the benthic report provided). We also know that the distribution of oyster reefs has decreased within the Clam BV ystem, more than likely a result of dredging or clearing activities in the tributaries. We all know that dLee ging� ias ca11v estro s the benthic community within the dredge em late; after all you are removing this community_ when you dredge Now these communities do rebound but since the same area is being repeatedly dredged over the years the benthic community never truly recovers. Due to the importance of the benth.ic community it only makes sense that we dredge the least amount necessary to keep the pass fumctional, while doing the least amount of damage to the flora and faunal communities. Since the pass naturally returns to — 40 ft wide why not make the cut less than 80ft as proposed and lessen the impact to other ecologically_ important components of the estuary. Using a smaller dred eg the amass has been maintained at a width closer to 40 ft so it can be done. Pa A14 + June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting No. 1) Page 20 of 20 A14 _� 4/10/12 COMMENTS OF CONCERN ON PROPOSED CLAM PASS DREDGING PERMITS by Marcia.Cravens for Sierra Club Calusa Group and Save Clam Bay - Keep It Natural Petitioners: (Please note that 20 pages of online petition comments are included with these comments) Background: 1970's Environmental Conservation Non - Government Organizations (NGOs) and general public advocacy to preserve and protect Clam Pass /Clam Bay natural resources resulted in the Corps requirement for the Coral Ridge- Collier Properties owner developers of Pelican Bay to agree to permit Special Conditions. The Department of Army (USACE) authorization to fill 78 acres of coastal mangrove wetlands was predicated upon its Special Conditions and primarily required the remaining 570+ acres of undeveloped coastal barrier natural resources within the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development / Development of Regional Impact boundaries to be set aside in a manner that restricted it to be retained as a Conservation/Preservation area in perpetuity for the benefit of the public. The Corps permit 79K -0282 issued on November 18,1981 required that the permit with its Special Conditions be recorded in the County's Official Records of the conveyance of the remaining 570+ undeveloped acres of Clam Pass/Clam Bay. Concerns: Degradation of resources by construction /excavation is inconsistent with prior State and Federal permit authorizations and inconsistent with the 1981 Corps permit Special Conditions because of direct loss of benthic substrate from dredging and secondary erosional impacts from combined enlargement of construction and excavation projects in the Clam Pass -Clam Bay Conservation and NRPA Preserve. Repetitive and expanded dredging events alter its natural characteristics and affect its functions of aquatic nursery, wetlands habitat, and natural beach /dune areas resulting in disturbances to wildlife uses and human passive recreation that constitutes unacceptable taking of established wildlife and human uses. The 2009 application to dredge Clam Pass and later modification to infill existing tidal channel doesn't conform to Corps and County requirements to retain natural conditions of the waters, creek - lagoon shorelines, beach and dune. 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. All prior permits authorized placement of sand on adjacent beaches as Incidental benefit but not as a main purpose of dredging. Summary_ The Clam Pass dredging application causes environmental conservation concerns because: It fails to report project area's special designations to protect coastal resource of wetlands / beach; It fails to provide official records that protect the area from development of construction /excavation; It misrepresents the modest authorized dredge template of the 1998 JC permit and improperly discredits the original engineer of record, David Tackney as not having provided specific modeling; It omits 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 avoid disturbance to them - which is inconsistent with the 1998 FDEP JC permits; It fails to ensure continued passive recreation that's compatible with habitat and wildlife uses; It fails to identify its current offshore assessment of live hardbottom differs significantly from that submitted for the 1998 JC permits - which indicates an apparent loss of approximately 200 to 250 ft of productive hard bottom seaward (offshore) of Clam Pass and adjacent beaches; It improperly asserts that a Statewide Programmatic Biologic Opinion appled to this project; EA /EIS or comprehensive data in lieu of an EA/EIS for environmental use impacts are unmet; Core logs analyses from 1990s are submitted for dredged tidal channel and aren't current; Recent cores analysis are mostly from beaches and may not meet dredge channel core criteria. Conclusion: The applicant's and applicant's consultants failed to reference and provide comprehensive reports on the project area's history and environmental characteristics which other researchers / consultants have referenced . This is likely to be largely responsible for a serious lack of understanding for the project area, deficiency of necessary information and practicable alternatives that minimize or avoid negative impacts to the project area and connected areas. This situation appears to risk insufficient reviews by Regulatory agencies. Concerns remain the proposed are inappropriate to the project site. Recommendation: Address NGO and public concerns to achieve the best environmental resource permit outcome. For Clam Pass dredging projects -it is clear to the NGOs and public that Less is Best. .......I June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 1 of 17 A 14 : 6I2 Table 6. Percent composition of secondary benthic substrates for components of the tubiculous polychaete assemblage in each portion of the Clam Bay complex. Unidentified Unidentified mud Shell- encrusted Pectinaria gouldi worm tubes tubes tubes (trumpet worm) Upper Clam Bay Mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandy mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muddy sand 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper Tributary Mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandy mud 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muddy sand 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Inner Clam Bay Mud 3.0 15.4 0.0 16.7 Sandy mud 52.3 69.2 0.0 83.3 Muddy sand 44.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower Tributary Mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sandy mud 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Muddy sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sand 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 Shell 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 Lower Clam Bay Mud 62.6 92.8 0.0 31.8 Sandy mud 12.6 7.2 37.5 9.1 Muddy sand 5.7 0.0 12.5 31.8 Sand 19.0 0.0 50.0 27.3 Shell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 lvi June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 2 of 17 161 Figure 2. Sampling Sites 1xv June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 3 of 17 612 A14 Figure 3. Habitat map of primary benthic substrates in the Clam Bay estuarine complex. lxvi 1 �+ June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 4 of 17 Figure 6. Distribution of shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei syn. Halodule wrightii), and paddle grass (Halophila decipiens) in the Clam Bay study area. lxx June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 5 of 17 16 12A 14 Figure 7. Distribution of filamentous green algae, Acetabularia crenulata, and Caulerpa sertularoides in the Clam Bay study area. lxxi June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 6 of 17 Figure 9. Distribution of unidentified polychaete worm tubes and mud tubes in the Clam Bay study area. lxxiii 14 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 7 of 17 1612 A14 Figure 10. Distribution of shell - encrusted polychaete tubes and trumpet worm (Pectinaria gouldi) tubes in the Clam Bay study area. lxxiv June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 8 of 17 16, 14i Figure 11. Distribution of American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), pointed venus clam (Anomalocardia auberiana) and stout razor clam (Tagelus plebeius) in the Clam Bay lxxv June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 9 of 17 16 A 14, Figure 12. Distribution of Florida crown conch (Melongena corona) and grass cerith (Bittiolum varium) in the Clam Bay study area. lxxvii June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 10 of 17 Figure 13. Distribution of heart urchin (Moira atropos) and brittlestar (Ophiophragmus . filograneus) in the Clam Bay study area. lxxviii 612 •A1 June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 11 of 17 12A14 Figure 14. Distribution of unidentified species of mussel and American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxix June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 12 of 17 161 A14 Figure 15. Distribution of mangrove periwinkle (Littoraria angulifera) on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. 1XXX June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 13 of 17 A14 Figure 16. Distribution of filamentous green algae and unidentified species of red algae on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxxi June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 14 of 17 A Figure 17. Distribution of unidentified species of barnacle and mangrove crab on mangrove prop roots in the Clam Bay study area. lxxxii June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session • 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 15 of 17 1612 A 14 Figure 19. Clam Bay Seagrass Mapping Over the Years 1992 -1999 'W'=_ lxxxiv June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Cravens at meeting; No. 2) Page 16 of 17 T -- —1 — I ---_---- - - _- _- _--- ^----- `I- - XT- - --- nnn� nnln CSWF 2010 Shoal grass PBSJ 2009 Shoal grass Observed Paddle grass Shoal grass Isolated PBSJ 2007 Shoal grass Sparse Paddle grass Shoal grass Present Turtle grass Shoal Grass Dense CSWF 2010 Paddle grass 1XXXV 612 A 14' June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessi&AC May 11, 2012 7. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report (submitted by Marcia Crave n"11E4i &d ficdora) Page 17 of 17 8 of 8 LA z Technical note Figure 2. Known active permitted OSTDS systems within the Clam Bay watershed (source: FDOH). 1612 Fecal coliform_ technical note-3-09-2012 Plan Design Enable A14 E C) E C� O .2 U C N N � O 7 O_ � N O O � O O m O O C O U) .- D = U O _ Q Z N O � � N T � (O 7' CO E C E O O U U N � a ) N T O @ N m O (E c U � ti 1612A14 0 t� Q H N c O V z Q J a w a 0 w z CID i 00 ccnr m w U w 0 O LLL 0 w z Q F- 00 O z O F- U W O U lb w 0 0 T O O r TOM Q F- a 0 ._ V z Q J a. H w a. 0 w z CD I 0o a� a� ti m w U w 0 m 0 w LL 13 w z Q m 0 z 0 U w 0 w U 1 w 0 06 c 0 2 a L i Q) N z .F3) W N O O O t� PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION D Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit BY: ...................... c NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012 THE AD -HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP AN APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS & TREES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, THURSDAY, JULY 5 AT 12:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion of developing an approach for studying pathways and trees a. Scope of project b. Selection of experts C. Project timeline 3. Audience Comments Fiala Hiller _ 4. Adjournment Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta 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 PELICAN BAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. Misc. orres: Date: 9 f I I I(-', Item #: 14 6/25/2012 11:13:59 AM Copies to: July 5, 2012 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Ideas for consideration on how to approach the pathway project (K.J. Dallas) Pagel of 3 From: Keith Dallas 1612 A 1 4 To: 13esnickLisa 1 Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Ideas For Pathway Ad Hoc Committee Consideration Date: Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:40:05 PM Attachments: 2012 Pathway Proiect.docc Lisa, Attached are my ideas on how the PBSD might approach the Pathway Project now being defined by our Ad Hoc Committee. Would you please distribute these materials to the Ad Hoc Committee (and the rest of the Board for their information) so this approach, along with their ideas, can be discussed at our July 5th meeting. The objectives of our committee are to define: • The scope of our project • The kind and selection process for our experts to guide us through this project • The way we see the entire project proceeding, along with potential time frames. I would hope that we could develop some consensus at our first meeting about most of these details, so that a draft of our proposal could be developed during the summer. We would then refine the approach at our September 24th meeting. The approach would then be presented at our October 3rd meeting (which I am unable to attend). Keith July 5, 2012 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Ideas for consideration on how to approach the pathway project (K.J. Dallas) Page 2 of 3 1612 PBSD Pathway Project A potential way to study the coordination of tree scape and pathways along Pelican Bay Boulevard would be to conduct a series of Town Hall meetings, analyzing the situation starting with very specifics and over time considering more general questions, as follows: • Root Barriers: o Look at alternative approaches to root barriers, including expert opinions on potential harm to be caused to nearby trees and recommended distancing of root barriers to adjacent roots of various sizes. o Using the preferred method, analyze the impact of such an approach if applied to existing pathways (without any widening) for at least two sections (the section from the Commons to North Tram Station and at least one other problematic section, maybe from North Tram to US41 on northwest side of Pelican Bay Boulevard). • Without indicating any preference, also analyze for same sections the probable impact to adjacent trees of building a 6 foot and alternatively an 8 foot pathway. • Analyze the pros and cons of alternative surface materials, specifically asphalt versus concrete surfaces, including costs to install and future maintenance costs. • Analyze the methodologies and ramifications of alternatively periodically merely resurfacing pathways. o Develop preliminary recommendations. • Uses and Preferred Width of Pathways • Review historical documents and Collier County laws regarding potential uses for pathways. • Survey residents regarding current usage of pathways, including frequency and types of usage, as well as frequency of use of Boulevard for bicycling. • Explore potential ways Boulevard could be modified to encourage more bicycle usage. • Educate and survey residents about alternatives for pathways and /or bicycle paths on Pelican Bay Boulevard. • Develop preliminary recommendations. A14 July 5, 2012 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Ideas for consideration on how to approach the pathway project (K.J. Dallas) Page 3 of 3 2 A14 16 • Tree Canopy o Develop overall plan for tree canopy for length of Pelican Bay Boulevard, including where canopy should be modified and enhanced. • Present Overall Conclusions to Community o Use all available venues for presenting final analysis and recommendations to community, including Pelican Bay Post, Email Blasts, and Town Hall Meetings. The first step in any such study would be to first define the scope of the project, the types of experts to be used in the analysis, and the method for selecting those experts. Upon selection, the experts should then develop with the PBSD the specific study steps to be taken. KJD 6/24/12 July 5, 2012 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees (J. Chandler) comments re: developing an approach to pathway project Page 1 of 1 16 ' l� ResnickLisa A 14 ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: John Chandler <johnchandler219(cr�,maiLcom> Date: Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 6:05 PM Subject: Pathway Widening To: Keith Dallas <keithdallasgcomcast.net >, Dave Trecker <ditrecker �ahoo.com >, teedup I gaol.com As part of the recommendation that you plan to give the full PBSD Board at its October 3 meeting, I suggest that you consider what the optimal width of this pathway should be, irrespective of trees, and then temper that by tree damage considerations. I suggest that you also estimate the total cost of widening the east and west pathways of Pelican Bay Boulevard from end to end and compare that to the number of residents who will actually benefit from this widening. My opinion is that the optimal width of the pathway is six feet. Reasons for this opinion are: -The present width is fine for walkers. If a bike needs to pass them, they can easily step off the pathway for a few seconds as the biker passes. Bear in mind, physical counts of walkers and bikers on the pathway between the Commons and the North Tram Station (taken during season and at various times of the day) show extremely low usage. The statistics show that the average pedestrian, walking one way, will encounter only two or three bikes as he /she traverses this 1.3 mile stretch. Mr or Mrs Average will also encounter only seven or eight walkers. -If we assume that there will always be some bike riders on this path, despite statistics showing that it's safer to ride on the boulevard, the present width makes it awkward when two bikes pass. The handlebars on bikes are two feet wide. Thus, when two bikes pass, each with its wheels one foot from the edge of the pathway, there is only one foot of clearance between the bikes' handlebars. For some riders, this is disturbingly close so they go off the pathway into the grass while passing. Given the length of the grass and the sandy soil that lies beneath it, some of these riders struggle to maintain momentum and to get back on the pathway. - Obviously, a pathway wider than six feet would give these few passing bikers even more space, however, I fear that a seven or eight foot wide pathway will cause some riders who currently use the boulevard to abandon it for the pathway. Safety experts (FDOT among them) warn against bikes riding on pathways where there are a significant number of crossings. In our case that's association driveways. In just the stretch from the Commons to the North Tram Station, there must be over a thousand vehicles exiting these associations during season (if we assume only one car per unit and only one car trip per day). John Chandler July 5, 2012 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways and Trees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Comments by Diane Lustig Page 1 of 1 16 1 2 A 14 From: I U= To: Womble, Mary Anne; office anoelicanbayservicesdivision .net; Dallas. Keith; Chandler. John; Trecker. Dave; Craven. Tom Subject: Input for 5 July Ad hoc committee on pathways & canopy Date: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:45:47 PM Greetings from Diane Lustig, Hyde Park resident - -but currently "AWOL" in Garmisch Germany. My sincere appreciation for the efforts you are all making to keep us informed and involved in the decisions you are making to address pathway widths and the health of the canopy. Your postings to the internet, etc, allow us to keep well- informed, even when thousands of miles away. 1. Mr. Chandler, I especially appreciate your drawing attention to the issue of addressing the linkage between bicyclists and pathway width. Pelican Bay is really at a strategic decision point regarding its encouragement of biking and its providing for the safety of the bikers. There has been much talk at the Strategic Planning Committee this past year to "looking to the future." Biking as a recreational activity among senior citizens, and biking as an alternative form of transportation is part of that future. I encourage the PBSD to think proactively and make decisions at this point that will insure that Pelican Bay has the pathways in -place that will meet the growing interests in biking. A bicycle lane should be included in Pelican Bay Blvd, regardless of the ultimate pathway width. As we have discussed at past PBSD meetings, the safest place for bicyclists is in the street. Since the primary objective of widening the paths was to address safety, then I whole - heartedly encourage the PBSD to simultaneously come to a decision on the "striping" of Pelican Bay Blvd to provide for a bicycle lane. This will provide significantly enhanced protection for the biker, and encourage more bikers onto the street, making the pathways safer for the pedestrian. You are correct when stating that bicyclists currently riding in the street will be encouraged to ride on the pathways- - if widened. I am one of those individuals who will do exactly that. 2. Keith, your email communication posted on the PBSD website similarly addresses the issue of biking, especially identifying the options regarding striping, etc. Again -- "Thank- you." As we have talked together in the past, I encourage PBSD to explore the feasibility of simply adding striping - -with a broken /dashed yellow line- -down the middle of the far right lanes on Pelican Bay Blvd. This allows cars to use both lanes when no bike is present, but will force a car to actually move to the left lane to "pass" any encountered bike. As a bicyclist, feeling "squeezed" into a narrow lane just increases my sense of instability, much like John Chandler described in his posted email. 3. 1 very much appreciate the attention that PBSD is giving to the health of the tree - canopy. A healthy, and full canopy is integral to the beauty of Pelican Bay. It is integral to the enjoyment and comfort of the walkers. It is a key factor in providing noise abatement from Route 41! Like bicycling, PBSD should address the canopy as a "strategic issue," because it is such a priceless asset, and it takes 20plus years to restore. The issue of pathway widening has called attention to the canopy's health and its "completeness." However, the issues associated with the canopy go well beyond just the width of the pathways. County codes regarding types of trees and spacing, introduction of disease /parasites by any one of the scores of landscapers employed within Pelican Bay, resistance to storm damage, replacement and proper placement of trees that have been removed /destroyed are just a sample of the issues that PBSO, along with the Foundation and the individual associations need to sit down together to explore, and work together to resolve. As you drive along Pelican Bay, you'll notice several areas where the canopy is now incomplete. Again, thank -you for your efforts to keep the Community informed, and to solicit input. Sincerely, Diane Lustig (Leaving Friday for 5 more days of biking on Italy's bike paths!! Why not have the Committee come over on a "research" trip ?) l 1612 R440 R"d EA.a A15' H-5-T.U. Ak:," N 299S S. Ham« lam, NAtlti, FL 34104 JUN Minutes March 7, 2012 BY-. .__- .................. I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:10 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Janice Bundy, Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Fiala III. Approval of Agenda Hiller Add: VIII. B. Cecil's (Invoice) Henning Coyle Coletta --::h- Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Agenda for arc 2 as amended. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 1, 2012 Meeting Change: III. Moved to approve the Agenda from February 2 to February 1, 2012 Sue Chapin moved to approve the February 1, 2012 Minutes as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated March 7, 2012. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Received - $125,555.76 • Operating Expense Available - $35,196.12 Misc. Misc. C ryes Misc. Comes: • Reserves Available - $131,900.00 Date: I12- ■ Purchase Orders Paid - $17,195.94 Dab: • Open Purchase Orders - $4,611.78 items: I Cn T Z,IA- IS Copies to: 1 1612 IA151 B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported the ROW Permit was issued on March 6, 2012 on Radio Road East MSTU Beautification. He distributed an updated on the Opinion of Probable Cost revision on the project. Staff planned to finalize the bid documents and put "Out to Bid" this Friday. The revised Contractor's requirements to bid this project include: ➢ 5 -years experience ➢ Completed 5- projects in excess of $200,000 ➢ Evidence of previous Control System experience Discussion was made on the method of checking Contractors references and it was decided Staff would check references and research and analysis bidder's current or previous construction sites. Darryl Richard received confirmation the bank solicitation on the project have gone out on the streets and due back on March 9th. The Finance Committee will review the results on March 23rd and planned to take the award to the BCC meeting in May. He will email those results to the Advisory Committee. Staff distributed and reviewed a proposal for Landscape Architectural Services from Urban Green Studios dated March 6, 2012. (See attached) The Scope of Services includes service for maintenance specifications. A Fee Schedule dated March S, 2012 was provided. (See attached) Sue Chapin moved to approve the professional services proposal from Urban Green Studio not to exceed $29,000. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported the ROW permit had been issued. It was noted the when the work on FDOT Radio /Davis project is completed the MSTU will be responsible for the last median. It is a 3 year project. VII. New Business A. Draft Letter to BCC on ROW Permit Fees The Committee reviewed and signed a letter addressed to the BCC for a request for exemption on ROW Lane Closure Fees. The project may begin construction during off season and contractors could utilize a turn lane without incurring additional expense. VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Sue Chapin will attend their next scheduled meeting March 19 at 2:00 pm. N 1612 p15 B. Cecil's (Invoice) Staff distributed an adjusted invoice presented by Cecil's Copy Express dated January 18 for the post card printing and mailing for informational purposes only. The invoice has been paid. Sue Chapin expressed disappointment on the minor adjustment made. IX. Public Comments The next meeting will be April 11, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. due to the deadline dates on construction bids. Staff will research the timing of the bid tabulation with Purchasing and email a confirmation to the Advisory Committee on the meeting date. Sue Chapin suggested Staff request a larger conference room for that meeting. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee P" �/� 4 174 *P9 Dale Johnson, Chair an These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting date is April 11, 2012 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 3 I 1612 A15 i cn J U cn O w H U w m ". CO X X w U) w X W LL ,, 0 �+ w Z O O w F- ~ z J Q< U U Z Z Q z w Z w U Z n z�OU ��pp 0 W �- EQ cw CD} Z Q� U) Ff Q LU wwZzU�OOQQwU� 2 °) -J U)X U)Q D cncnz zoU o�oop�Q�LLLL��W�w o a.��vww��cnQQ� �o QQ�w�w��Op��W U)C� �Q� Q�?wOOwIIw pww > >T- U)D LL LL � w �� �� D D- >J I—LL F- LL w>> LLJz 00 �o (nJ w cQ ��w0< Q w0 w w w >wry W��z -ww> Qa0< cD 5 �,a = 2�w a CL QQ 00Q ujU)wn Dw > w of of QQww0 z 0 a�.of- mow �Q Wcc »� www LL ZZ� F -�UUZ� H w- JJ0000 -U �I- mmE- Of r N M� O to h 00 Q1 O r N M� O O ti O W O r N M et � CC I� 00 O O O CD I� M O 00 O DO 0 0 0 O V o co 0�'CT 0 0 0 r CDI- rLf) CD LOOIn 000 LO0000 � 000d' 000 r– O N C3) 0 0 0 C3) CA 00 O O co O O r CA co 0 0 0 0 O co N co O LO O LO M N LO O r CO o LO (D O O O O r LO r.1 � O Lf) O C}) r O N M Lf) M r V r M CA O LO LO N m I– It O M - CO N r co C6 co — c CD CD m co co N co r O a O CD r ti� 0 0 M V d o 0 o CD CD O CO r �f CA O co o CD C) O o N co LO N N O N O i O CO O CO � d7 LO O O O co M O i 0 co N" CD w N LC) CD r CO O O O LC) 00 co M O O I` r N co N r LO LO CD 00 LO <C .. N C r r r N M o co M CO N N Q K w Eii EA 64 60 69 69 69- 63 64 69 Efl 69, V)- 69 EA C{} 6R of 6R efl EA CA <R 69 EA 69 Cf} 69 Cf} 69- U) N r O I– 00 G Q r CN O N ++ to N O M I� r- NN T" d r I- r O N r LL ❑ O Z E E LL O U C� 'p a E9 69 Cfl 6R Efl 69 e� 69 Efi 69 6q 69 69 Cf> 69 CR 6' 6' U 6 6 6R 6R 6R K9, 69 6q W, Ef3 6R 0 0 00000o ao 00o O C) co Oo OoO O0O o O oLOOLO w LOO O C) U') CD C) 000 Oo0 0 0 oaioM ci M0 0 C o0 000000 O 0 0 0 0 LO w LO O O O Lf) O O O o 0 0 0 0 CV Q) N N I� ti Lii 1� f� M O co M LC) Li) O O O r 00 d) 00 co N 0) I` N 0) r- I- 00 M r O O O CD 04 'IT LO N N N M — N r r Q 69 ER 69 EA Efl 613 613 603 Efl 69 E{} 09 to 6e+ ff} 69 H-? e!} Ef3 e9, K} K-} Efl K? K91, U)- CA Efl 6R 64 Cfl cn J U cn O w H U w m ". CO X X w U) w X W LL ,, 0 �+ w Z O O w F- ~ z J Q< U U Z Z Q z w Z w U Z n z�OU ��pp 0 W �- EQ cw CD} Z Q� U) Ff Q LU wwZzU�OOQQwU� 2 °) -J U)X U)Q D cncnz zoU o�oop�Q�LLLL��W�w o a.��vww��cnQQ� �o QQ�w�w��Op��W U)C� �Q� Q�?wOOwIIw pww > >T- U)D LL LL � w �� �� D D- >J I—LL F- LL w>> LLJz 00 �o (nJ w cQ ��w0< Q w0 w w w >wry W��z -ww> Qa0< cD 5 �,a = 2�w a CL QQ 00Q ujU)wn Dw > w of of QQww0 z 0 a�.of- mow �Q Wcc »� www LL ZZ� F -�UUZ� H w- JJ0000 -U �I- mmE- Of r N M� O to h 00 Q1 O r N M� O O ti O W O r N M et � CC I� 00 O O \ 0 0 a / j \ � � � 0 0 ■ a 1 A15-i C11 - / § $ - s o f n \ \ o § 9 (D m \ ) \ / \ -z' 7 / " � ■ t _7 \ \ \ o § \ e e e _ * E § S / L ° 2 §_ / �_ E / \ \ § _ U- _ 2 k oonoo ƒ\ E a) o ¥# & y q ° G a) \ cn k ' \R Boron E _ »_ » 2 E . \ \ � co Q / • CD &aw'aa' cu 2 E ! =LO . C6 CL ma a_ G_aaaaaa_a, o ,k, \ , G N (.0 &,,,,,,, 2 \ / ° E & � m__aaaa_aaaa_a. \ ?\% / Lo 0 co r- It /¥ / / / /N< o�������~ 0. C3 (D /� $ $ $ $ $ r .g § � «f \ b tm / % .g = .( / Boa©\» 2 E 7_£« = 5 f < / \ ¥ @ ® § LL E 2s 0 -3\ cr, \ / / m ( O k ( z cl o § & C) \ mcu \ \) ƒf =& \ ƒf.2 >02��2m2> � � 0 0 ■ a 1 A15-i C11 - / § $ - s o f n \ \ o § 9 (D m \ ) \ / \ -z' 7 / " � ■ t _7 \ \ \ o § \ e e e _ * E § S / L ° 2 §_ / �_ E / \ \ § _ U- _ 2 k & 2 a _ = CL ƒ\ E a) o c & y q ° G a) \ cn k / \R 2 E _ »_ » 2 E . \ \ � / Q / &/ 4) cu 2 E & 2 a _ = o - _ w _ a) 7 2 2 \ \ \ \ ® / 2 a) \ 0 o E \ 7 a o \R «- 0 2 ) < »_ » 2 E . \ \ \ / Q \ a) 7 /// 7 a ƒ \� � � Co 2 ! a) \ 0 o E \ ) z ( 2 0 2 ) < »_ » 2 E . \ \ 3 2 2 x / / § a 7 Q 1612 15.1 RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU Opinion of Probable Cost -100% Plans 15- Feb-12 S. LANDSCAPE PLANTING Specification Est. QtV Unit Unit Price Total Item No. Key Botanical Name Common Name Specification Est Unit Unit Price Total 386 TON $ 103.00 $ 39,758.00 25 Crushed Shell or approved equal. Shell to be raked smooth and TREES compacted to 3" finished depth. 26 Filter Fabric Roc -Kloth #RK WHT -4300, overlap fabric 12" at edges 16 -18' ht, 8 -10' spr, 6' CT, 6" cal, FG, single trunk, full SF $ 0.40 $ 28,292.40 27 Anchor Pins DeWitt #APBI 6" x 1" x 6 ", 11 gauge TBD by Contractor head, structurally sound branching habit. FL 52 EA $ 400.00 $ 20,800.00 1 BS Bursera simaruba Gumbo Limbo #1 grade does not apply. See more detailed specs on Mulch, Pro-Euc Mulch by Forestry Resources 2 CF bags, 3" min. watered -in depth, all planting bed 11,679 BAGS $ 3.50 $ 40,876.50 detail A4. 2 CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum 12 -14' ht, 6 -7' spr, 6' CT, 3" cal, FG, full head 30 EA $ 350.00 $ 10,500.00 3 CE Conocarpus erectus "sericeus" Silver Buttonwood 10 -12' ht, 6 -7' spr, multi -trk, min 5 trunks, full head 28 EA $ 150.00 $ 4,200.00 PALMS Red/Yellow /Charcoal) or equal, Soldier course. 4 CA Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm 25 gal, 3-4' ht, single trunk 24 EA $ 350.00 $ 8,400.00 5 PS Pseudophoenix sargentii Buccaneer Palm 25 gal, 6 -7' ht, heavy trunk, matching form 19 EA $ 500.00 $ 9,500.00 6 RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm 8 -10' gw, 22 -25' oa ht, heavy trunk, full head 34 EA $ 400.00 $ 13,600.00 7 TM Thrinax morrissii Key Thatch Palm 25 gal, 4-5' ht, double trunkfull 25 EA $ 250.00 $ 6,250.00 8 TR Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm 25 gal, 6 -7 ht, single trunk, full 35 EA $ 200.00 $ 7,000.00 36 ACCENTS Per County requirements 1 LS $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 9 BRA Bromeliad Aechmea Blanchettiana Orange Bromeliad 3 gal, 15 "45 ", spaced as shown 30 EA $ 20.00 $ 600.00 30 BRI Bromeliad Alcantarea Imperial Imperial Bromeliad 3 gal, 15 "45 ", spaced as shown 6 EA $ 50.00 $ 300.00 11 BRF Bromeliad Neoregelia 'Fireball' Fireball Bromeliad 1 gal, 9 "4", spaced as shown 92 EA $ 10.00 $ 920.00 12 BRI Bromeliad Neoregelia'Jill' Jill Bromeliad 1 gal, 9 "x9 ", spaced as shown 38 EA $ 10.00 $ 380.00 13 BRS Bromeliad Neoregelia'Super Fireball' Super Fireball Bromeliad 1 gal, 9"x9", spaced as shown 24 EA $ 8.00 $ 192.00 14 STR Strelilzia reginae Orange Bird of Paradise 3 gal, 18 "x18 ", as shown 16 EA $ 12.00 $ 192.00 SHRUBS 15 BHJ Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf Bougainvillea 3 gal, 14 "x14 ", 3 'oc 903 EA $ 9.00 $ 8,127.00 16 MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly Grass 3 gal, ANA", 4' oc 445 EA $ 8.00 $ 3,560.00 17 SAM Sabal minor Blue -stem Palmetto 15 gal, 3-4' ht, as shown 31 EA $ 150.00 $ 4,650.00 18 SRS Serenoa repens " sericeus" Silver Saw Palmetto 7 gal, 24"x24 ", full, 5' o.c. 149 EA $ 50.00 $ 7,450.00 19 ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coontie 3 gal, 15"x15 ", T oc 1204 EA $ 20.00 $ 24,080.00 GROUNDCOVER 20 ERL Ernodea littoralis Golden Creeper 1 gal, 9"x15", 30" oc 2831 EA $ 4.00 $ 11,324.00 21 HED Helianthus debilis "Dune Supreme" Beach Dune Sunflower 1 gal, 9"x15", 24" oc 2011 EA $ 4.00 $ 8,044.00 22 HYL Hymenocallis latifolia Spider Lily 3 gal, 15"x15", T oc 1916 EA $ 9.00 $ 17,244.00 23 MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa 1 gal, 4"x12", 30" oc 1144 EA $ 4.00 $ 4,576.00 24 TRA Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine 1 gal, 6 "x12 ", 24" oc 5132 EA $ 4.00 $ 20,528.00 Landscape Subtotal $ 192,417.00 S. MISCELLANEOUS Description Specification Est. QtV Unit Unit Price Total Crushed and washed, free of dust and sand, 1/2" minus, by Superior Stone or Florida Aggregate Source, 386 TON $ 103.00 $ 39,758.00 25 Crushed Shell or approved equal. Shell to be raked smooth and compacted to 3" finished depth. 26 Filter Fabric Roc -Kloth #RK WHT -4300, overlap fabric 12" at edges 70,731 SF $ 0.40 $ 28,292.40 27 Anchor Pins DeWitt #APBI 6" x 1" x 6 ", 11 gauge TBD by Contractor 28 Landscape Edging Model #95340 Master Mark Terrace Board 4,826 LF $ 1.25 $ 6,032.50 29 Mulch, Pro-Euc Mulch by Forestry Resources 2 CF bags, 3" min. watered -in depth, all planting bed 11,679 BAGS $ 3.50 $ 40,876.50 areas (23,358 cf) Feld: Tri- Circle Paver #671106 (Caramel /Antique Concrete Unit Pavers, added where not existing. Concrete roadway Red /Charcoal) or equal, Herringbone pattern at 45 849 SF $ 7.25 $ 6,155.25 30 pavers, 4" x 8" x 2 3/8" . degree angle. Border: Tri Circle #114606 (Antique Red/Yellow /Charcoal) or equal, Soldier course. Per details & specifications, roto-till or disc to 8 -10" 163,244 SF $ 0.10 $ 16,324.40 31 Site Preparation &Grading depth 32 Additional Topsoil 6" Median crown, provide topsoil per specifications 395 CY $ 20.00 $ 7,900.00 33 Mobilization Per FDOT guidelines 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 34 Maintenance of Traffic Per contract & FDOT guidelines 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 35 Performance & Payment Bond Per County requirements 1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 36 As- Built/Record Drawings Per County requirements 1 LS $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 Miscellaneous Subtotal $ 168,039.05 S. 116 112, 'A 15 BASE BID TOTAL $ 604,902.05 10% Contingency $ 60,490.21 BASE BID GRAND TOTAL $ 665,392.26 BID ALTERNATES Description /Specification Est Qty. Unit Unit Price Total 03 Irrigation System water source: 8" Irrigation well with (1) NEMW 15 HP VFD Submersible pump station. Refer to submersible 37 pump station detail for elements list. Include: (1) Bermad 910 -P 2" hydrometer valve & self flushing automated filter system 1 FA $ 33,500.00 $ 33,500.00 to be incorporated into pump station during manufacturing, by Irrigation Contractor. Irrigation System 3 phase power electrical service for pump station and adjacent controller. Service to be in accordance to 38 pump stations and controller manufacturers, as well as based on availability of service on site. Include all hardware and labor 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 required. By FPL. 39 Irrigation System electrical service connections for electric service to pump station and controller. By Irrigation Contractor's 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Electrician. Irrigation System AC Controller Adjacent To Pump Station, and Rain Sensor: Motorola AC M 24 stations controller with 40 Stainless steel pedestal & Hunter MWS Mini - Weather Station with rain, wind and freeze sensor, plus any hardware /software 1 $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 necessary to operate and communicate with the CCDOT central control system. Controller to be provided by Collier County Department of Transportation. Irrigation System DC Controller Away From Pump Station, and Rain Sensor: Motorola DC M 24 stations controller with 41 Stainless steel pedestal & Hunter MWS Mini - Weather Station with rain, wind and freeze sensor, deep cycle battery and solar 3 EA $ 7,500.00 $ 22,500.00 panel plus any hardware /software necessary to operate and communicate with the CCDOT central control system. Irrigation System Controllers installation. Provide materials and labor necessary to install controllers in accordance to the 42 manufacturer current specifications. To be provided by the Irrigation Contractor. Controller scheduling to be coordinated with 4 FA $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 Collier County Transportation staff. 43 3" 1120 -1220 Class 200 PVC gasket irrigation main line with Hardco DIP fittings, Pantone Purple 5220; Main line depth 36 ". 5,640 LF $ 8.00 $ 45,120.00 3" Class 150 SDR 11 Extra Molecular Strength HOPE casing. Directional Bore, to be used for electric service to pump station 245 LF $ 25.00 $ 6,125.00 from power service source to median crossings. Pull p g together in conjunction with adjacent bores. 45 2" Class 150 SDR 13.5 Extra Molecular Strength HOPE casing. Directional Bore. Pull together in conjunction with adjacent 175 LF $ 15.00 $ 2,625.00 bore. 46 6" 1120 -1220 SCH 80 PVC Solvent weld pipe for irrigation sleeve extension for main line sleeve. Assume on 20 +/- L.F. per end 180 LF $ 25.00 4,500.00 $ existing sleeve, per possible future red light crossings, and /or at new paver landings. 47 2" 1120 -1220 SCH 80 PVC Solvent weld pipe for irrigation sleeve extension for control wires sleeve. Assume on 20 +/- L.F. per 180 LF $ 10.00 $ 1,800.00 end existing sleeve, per possible future red light crossings, and /or at new paver landings. 48 AWG 12 Gauge solid copper insulated control wire suitable for direct burial applications. 11,400 LF $ 0.25 $ 2,850.00 49 AWG 14 Gauge solid copper insulated control wire suitable for direct burial applications. 108,000 LF $ 0.17 $ 18,360.00 50 3" Irrigation main double valve blow off unit; 3" flanged connection valve with 1.25 threaded connection valve, valve boxes 2 EA $ 650.00 $ 1,300.00 and all materials as illustrated per installation detail. 51 Irrigation main pressure -check points: 0 -100 PSI liquid filled pressure gauge with Schradder type air valve; with SCH 40 PVC 4 EA $ 125.00 $ 500.00 interconnecting fittings; connected to the valves cluster manifold line; installed within a 10 round valve box. Irrigation 3" main line isolation valve, Nibco M3619 -RW -SON. 619 Series 3" Irrigation epoxy coated isolation valve with non - 52 rising stem, square nut opening connection, flanged connections. Provide 10" plastic corrugated plastic sleeve and 10" round 4 EA $ 600.00 $ 2,400.00 valve box. 53 Waterman Irrigation 1.5" Pressure relief valve. Provide all materials and labor necessary to install in accordance to the 4 EA $ 750,00 $ 3,000.00 manufacturer specifications. Refer to the revised installation detail, by Irrigation Contractor. 54 Waterman, Irrigation 2" Air vacuum release valve. Provide all materials and labor necessary to install in accordance to the 4 EA $ 750.00 $ 3,000.00 manufacturer specifications. 55 Irrigation quick coupling valve, 1" valve with Acme threads and Pantone Purple 522C locking cover; connected to the valves 25 EA $ 150.00 $ 3,750.00 cluster manifold line; installed within a 10 round valve box. Include filter fabric and gravel. 56 Irrigation quick coupling valve key w/ swivel ell, to match quick coupling valve specified, by Irrigation Contractor. 8 EA $ 100.00 $ 800.00 Hunter ICY- 151- FS -AS, ICV Series plastic 1.50" Electric solenoid valve with: FS Filter Sentry self cleaning filter; Accu -Set dial 57 type pressure regulator; isolation Matco 514 Series 1.5" valve at ESV inlet; Christy ID- STD -Y3, Yellow, blank identification tag; 20 EA $ 350.00 $ 7,000.00 Christy ID- MAX -P2 -006, purple warning plastic tag; Scotchlock DBR wire connectors. Install within a Jumbo valve box with lockable purple lid Hunter ICV- 101- FS -AS, ICV Series plastic 1.0" Electric solenoid valve with: FS Filter Sentry self cleaning filter; Accu -Set dial 58 type pressure regulator; isolation Marco 514 Series 1.0" valve at ESV inlet; Christy ID- STD -YS, Yellow, blank identification tag; 00 51 FA $ 300. $ 15,300.00 Christy ID- MAX -P2 -006, purple warning plastic tag; Scotchlock DBR wire connectors. Install within a 12" Rectangular valve box with purple lid 59 Hunter 1-20 12P, I -20 Series 12" High pop -up body rotor head. Refer to plan for nozzle size & coverage pattern. 21 EA $ 90.00 $ 1,890.00 60 Hunter PROS- I2 -R -)(X, Pro -Spray Series 12" High pop -up body with purple cap and nozzle as specified per plan. Refer to plan 1,191 EA $ 38.00 $ 45,258.00 for nozzle size & coverage pattern 61 Toro 0 -2 GPM adjustable flow pressure compensating flood type bubbler nozzle for Tree /Palm supplemental hydration. Refer 61 EA $ 38.00 $ 2,318.00 to plan /bubbler designation chart for bubbler nozzle flow designation. (1) Bubblers per tree /palm. 62 Green color reflective pavement markers, as indicated per plan. (2) Units per zone control valve, one unit at each side of 00 142 EA $ 25. $ 3,550.00 median. Provide gel adhesive approved by Collier County Transportation Department. 63 Omni ball locator BASE BID TOTAL $ 604,902.05 10% Contingency $ 60,490.21 BASE BID GRAND TOTAL $ 665,392.26 BID ALTERNATES Description /Specification Est Qty. Unit Unit Price Total 03 `7• 1612 ALT 1 Additional Topsoil for 12" Median crown; provide topsoil per specifications 409 CY $ 20.00 $ 8,180.00 ALT 2 Remove rock, limerock or other deleterious material, if encountered during installation TBD CY $ - $ - If existing sleeves are not found, provide 3" Class 150 SDR 11 Extra Molecular Strength HDPE casing. Directional Bore, to be TBD LF $ - $ - ALT 3 used as 3" irrigation main for median to median crossings. Pull together in conjunction with adjacent bore. If existing sleeves are not found, provide 2" Class 150 SDR 13.5 Extra Molecular Strength HDPE casing. Directional Bore. Pull -BD LF $ $ ALT 4 together in conjunction with adjacent bore. If existing sleeves are not found, provide 3" HDPE to PVC Mechanical Joint coupling with transitional gaskets, or TBD EA $ $ ALT 5 interconnecting fittings for connecting Gass 150 SDR 11 HDPE to PVC. BID ALTERNATE TOTAL $ 613,082.05 10% Contingency $ 61,308.21 BID ALT GRAND TOTAL $ 674,390.26 NOTE: All soil amendments, fertilizer and staking to be included within the planting unit prices. `7• H L7�K.�L7 A Li 0 •; 16 I' 2 'A 1b PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL Radio Road East MSTU SUBMITTED TO: Ms. Pamela Lulich, RLA, Manager of Landscape Operations Mr. Darryl T. Richard, RLA, Landscape Project Manager Collier County Growth Management Division Alternative Transportation Modes Department PREPARED BY: DATE: SUBJECT: Ms. Dayna L. Fendrick, RLA, AICP Urban Green Studio, PLLC March 6, 2012 Proposal for Landscape Architectural Services Bidding Assistance, Site Observation and Maintenance Specifications 1.0 OVERVIEW & ASSUMPTIONS 1.1 The project is approximately 1.3 miles in length, and extends from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard. The subject medians range in width from 35' to 45'. Curbing and irrigation sleeving is in place. 1.2 The project is to be funded by the Radio Road East MSTU, which was created for the purpose of landscape and irrigation installation and maintenance. The Radio Road East MSTU Committee (Client) will be responsible for design review and decisions, with input from the Alternative Transportation Modes Department staff (ATM). 1.3 This contract will be administered under Collier County Contract # 08- 5060 "Fixed Term Landscape Architectural Services ". 1.4 The project team will include James Abney & Associates as a sub - consultant for irrigation design, and Signature Tree Care as an arborist. UGS will be the prime consultant, and will manage and coordinate the sub - consultants. a Radio Road East MSTU Proposal Bidding & Site Observation Services March 6, 2012 A151 1.5 This Bidding Assistance and Construction Services scope is based on implementing the 100% Landscape and Irrigation design plans prepared by UGS and approved by Collier County, per the established limit of work line. 1.6 Collier County Purchasing will be responsible for the preparation of "front end" documents, including General Conditions, instructions to bidders, etc. and for issuing the bids, addenda and preparing the bid tabulation. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 MONTHLY MSTU MEETINGS Attend monthly MSTU Committee meetings throughout the bidding and construction process. Twelve (12) meetings are allowed for in the proposed fee table. The fee schedule reflects attendance by one (1) UGS personnel, Ms. Fendrick or Ms. Binkowski, at the regularly scheduled meetings. Mr. Abney will attend every other monthly meeting. Attend utility coordination meetings with utility contacts identified through Sunshine One. 2.2 AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS Prepare AutoCADD Record Drawings based on redlined drawings and field information provided by the Contractor. UGS will provide one CD with electronic files (AutoCADD drawings) and one set of PDF's to Collier County ATM. 2.3 BIDDING ASSISTANCE & SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION UGS and Mr. Abney will provide the same services outlined below during bidding and construction, except as where noted. Provide bidding assistance, which will include: Outline bid items and alternates, provide bid quantities, attend one pre -bid conference, respond to bidders' questions, and assist with addenda as needed. Attend one pre - construction meeting. Provide design clarification, respond to RFI's from the Contractor, and review shop drawings and materials samples. Review pay requests, completed quantities and process change orders. K Radio Road East MSTU Proposal 16 V2 'A 15 1 Bidding & Site Observation Services March 6, 2012 Make recommendations for modification and adjustments of irrigation and /or plant materials in response to known utility conflicts. Apply for deviation (if necessary) using standard county procedures for deviation approval. Conduct up to two (2) nursery tagging trips along with the selected Contractor and the County Project Manager to field tag the specified Gumbo Limbo trees and Buccaneer Palms. It is assumed the trips will be made to the east coast of Florida, and the Contractor will provide transportation. If more than two (2) field trips are required to find acceptable plant materials, these trips will be performed as additional services at the established hourly rates. Mr, Abney will not attend field tagging trips Perform periodic site visits to observe the contractor's progress and general compliance with the plans and specifications. The construction time frame is assumed to be 150 days (21 weeks) to substantial completion and 180 days (26 weeks) to final acceptance. UGS staff will attend weekly field meetings during construction and prepare field progress reports every other week. Mr, Abney will attend field meetings and prepare field reports every other week during construction. If the construction time frame extends beyond the assumed schedule, additional services will be required to perform continued site observation. Perform one preliminary walk- through at substantial completion and prepare a punch list outlining corrective actions needed. Perform one final walk- through to verify corrections have been made, and prepare a final project report. Perform a walk- through one year after final acceptance to review the condition of plant materials and the irrigation system components. Identify any materials that are not in acceptable condition, which must be replaced under warranty. 2.4 MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS Review Collier County standard Maintenance Specifications and modify as necessary to address the Radio Road East design elements and specific plant materials. Modified items may include the following: ■ Fertilization recommendations, based on information to be provided by Collier County ATM regarding recent Collier County experience. • Arborist services/ pruning recommendations for Gumbo Limbo trees. • Recommendations for preparation for and /or treatment of plant materials after a frost event. • Crushed shell maintenance. • Maintenance bid items & quantities, based on record drawings. I O, Radio Road East MSTU Proposal Bidding & Site Observation Services March 6, 2012 1612 A15 j 3.0 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses for blue prints, reprographic services, color reprographics, overnight express delivery, and local courier delivery shall be reimbursable to UGS. 4.0 FEES Please see attached Exhibit A for the proposed Fee Schedule. 5.0 EXCLUDED SERVICES Survey services for field locates of underground utilities. Maintenance bidding process and ongoing maintenance site inspections. 4 11 , Q J —1 D O C) C14 m = Lr = U t X `n L. W W La W 0 D N Z W W Q: Z Q m D Z Ln W O F- Ln N N Q Z ac N O > � Z � Q U Z Lu Q ~ Ln Li W � U Q Q Q CC Z O a LU n D DC Q Ou O N 0 Z W QZ :5 co o 161:2 A15 � 2 1 tt O 00 F p a1 NV 00 N 4D LA m m m a�-I D N N t4 t4 co =) cc N cc \ p c x l0 l0 'I m ch w Q m W O 00 O L= S " eLoI LOI kDI N T-zt N W V N N N � w O' 4 IA O Z = O .x, N N `i l0 l0 Ln Q w n 2 V' n p[ N M LU x O O 0 N r-4 C14 lD LO l0 to lD N w i? u 0L 0 LA Q-- x l0 N N N LA Lu ♦\ w N c-I c-I {/} A4 L) cc cc S Q o = Z � L g t4 OC 00 Lo Lo CN « N l0 m W M w w V O Rt M l0 V ^ N H � w Lu "a F X 7 X x LLJ F- Z W LL LL 2 LL LL N = 4) LL ` = LL N = (L) LL N = M co F m f6 F = o v� to f0 fy0 f0 c a m E L10 G! 7 = O H v a p c 00 m .a x r✓ W N L�9 d 3 to p a r bo 0 p v c S n a n _ a, LL Y = O a= u } J W O! T N = N U0 = }' '� O U > C 'p 0 021 N U �• Y 6 = @ �+ m v :ta G a+ s Q 0 c£ m m 021 Y 2 m aa'i •, 3 ? .0 c=0 m 0C = o 0 u s' c a c y c v U Z n _ v Q = c m m c E` = 2 y M 'Fu co n to N p = v O v O N H �+ f0 '� £ v> 3 d H v v s m E o N a to c a w c m c a v Lu m c cu CL Q Y GJ N i= O Q d •O 3 Y 7 = G] C Q Z Ln Ln O M N - C W a. F- N H I N M N N N N 2 1 CD to o W 2 G g L § r'Z c 0 o ~ § c 0 0 � � % f N \ k � 8 0 00 N r, �Ln V). s � $ / % { ƒ ) LU / LU § LU § \ ■ § _ U. E LL a a � a § k k w j k k _§ �f }\ 7\ �R 2/ E� �2 \\ �/ \� ©0 � k / § \\ ®B _$ /ƒ \ k : m a£ §\ E § 0 %f r\ E ee k £ m /w \k § k L § \ \ = } 2 k / \k 7 \ 5 3 i 0w ƒ$7 CL '� 2 m b § m I § 2 § 2 E 2 0 0 m I t/ ©$f }j0 ��� 2 % e 7 k \\/ �C/ \ A 2 @ ® / \ �UW a bb c e / i -0 u 2 E o ± % e t = « 3 4v o 7 u —� (k f2 LL 2 Mt2 E \/ 0\-0 ek L a 2 = \ ƒ/ }k\ 2 \ {m //f k k k 2 ) » c 2 u < ± $ # ¥ 2 / j � -a3� \ k \ \ = J [I co u co _ M } ¥ = tA < / § < < § < \ { � \/$ § < m E § }\/ 7m % „ / < \ „0< § z a 5 c 1 2A,15 |1*3■1 1612A15 M S -7,u e^ � 2885 Soutls ;�orde�we Drive �, �Qorida 34104 Board of County Commissioners 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Subject: Request for exemption — ROW Lane Rental Fees Dear Commissioners: On January 31, 2012, 73% of the voters approved a ballot question for a loan to advance the construction of the beautification project on Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard. As a result of this overwhelming support, the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Board is now taking the necessary steps to complete the project as quickly as possible. At their February 1, 2012 the Advisory Board, staff, and District 3 Commissioner Tom Henning reviewed the project plans and discussed ways to lower the cost of the project to the taxpayers. During the review, it was noted that standard ROW Permit Fees will be assessed as a "per day" charge for lane rental/closure on Radio Road and could potentially result in significantly higher project cost to the residents. The lane rental/closure fees vary in cost from $300 to $1,000 per day depending on time of year that the permit is issued (see attached Exhibit A) and when the traffic lane is closed. The fees are higher during the tourist season and at peak traffic hours to discourage requests for lane closures. In order to minimize project costs, the Advisory Board request that the lane closure permit fees for the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd. beautification project be exempted or reduced to cover only the cost for the ROW Section personnel to process the permit and complete any required inspections. The MSTU Advisory Board strongly objects to its residents, who have chosen to assess themselves at a higher millage to pay for the project, paying penalty fees when they overwhelmingly support the expeditious completion of the project. Please accept this letter as the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard MSTU Advisory Board's request for the exemption from any lane closure fees associated with the upcoming beautification project. Sincerely, Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Board: 14-, Dale Johnson, Chairman Thomas Depouw, Board Member Janice Bundy, Board Member Suzanne Chapin, Vice Chairman Renato Fernandez, Board Member 1612A151 15. 5959 PINE RIDGE RD. NAPLES, FL 34119 Phone: 239-353-4285 Fax: 239-353-1775 BILL TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS FINANCE 3299 TAMIAMI TR E. STE 700 NAPLES, FL 34112 -5749 161 !2 'A 1 Invoice. DATE INVOICE # 1/18/2012 33051 SHIP TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS 3301 TAMIAMI TR. E. NAPLES, FL. 34112 i b. P.O. NUMBER TERMS REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. 4500134007 1/18/2012 QUANTITY ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT 1,700 PRINTING POST CARDS 1/1 RADIO ROAD EAST PROJECT 0.07353 125.00 VOTE REMINDER/ DARRYL 1,700 PRINTING ADDRESS AND BARCODE 0.04 68.00 1,700 MAILING POSTAGE 0.245 416.50 DISCOUNT DISCOUNT -68.00 -68.00 Total $541.50 Pay online at:: https:Hipn.intuit.com/9gj62jx6 i b. P 15 16 12. A . ■ U40 lz"44 M.S.T. U. Awl•.,.tcc 28$S S. Neu >�� �?���k►�i Nom, Fl 34104 Minutes April 13, 2012 911' I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 12:59 P.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Janice Bundy, Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. FY13 Budget Sue Chapin moved to approve the Agenda for April 13, 2012 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously S -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — March 7, 2012 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approve the March 7, 2012 Minutes as presented. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated April 13, 2012. (See attached) filler Ad Valorem Tax Received - $141,781.66 Etinning Operating Expense Available - $7,228.47 Coyle Reserves Available - $131,900.00 Ccletta �y Purchase Orders Paid - $19,734.29 mi. SS' ■ Open Purchase Orders - $30,396.82 ':2 1 (12 DOW B. Project Manager Report — Addressed after V. C. Item copies to: 1 VI. VII. 161 a15 C. FY13 Budget Staff distributed the draft Fund 166 Radio Road East MSTU Budget FY13 dated April 13, 2012. (See attached) He reviewed the Staff recommendations and received direction from the Advisory Committee. Forecast 12 ■ 643100 —Electricity $2,000 ■ 649010 — Licenses and Permits $2,000 Requested- Current 13 ■ 631403 — Engineering Fee $15,000 ■ 643100 —Electricity $500 ■ 646180 — Building RM $1,200 ■ 652310 — Fertilizer, Herbicides $5,000 Sue Chapin moved to approve the preliminary FY13 Budget Worksheet as modified. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The final budget will be provided to the Advisory Committee and approved in June when property taxable values are finalized. B. Project Manager Report Staff distributed and reviewed the Current Loan Schedule and Current Construction Schedule Projections for the Radio Road East MSTU Median Landscape & Irrigation Project. (See attached) (Shaded line items have been completed.) • May 8, 2012 - MSTU Loan with payment schedules will be presented to the BCC for approval. • May 8, 2012 — Approval of Ordinance modification removing 6 year sunset provision will be presented to the BCC for approval. • May 10, 2012 — Tentative loan closing date. • BB &T will be the lender. • Funds will be provided on a draw basis. Landscape Architect Consultant Report — Addressed after V11. New Business A. Review Construction Contractor Bids Darryl Richard distributed a comparison analysis on the construction bids received from 4- Contractors. (See attached) The analysis was stamped "Preliminary Subject to Change. " Bids are as follows: ➢ Hannula $456,296.59 ➢ Valley Crest $631,358.90 ➢ Arazoza $635,713.97 ➢ Superior $689,970.76 Staff reported working with Hannula in the past and received good quality plants and services without any issues. 2 1612 A 15, The Advisory Committee asked Staff to confirm Hannula bid costs as follows: ➢ Quality of topsoil ➢ Green markers ➢ Landscape edging installation Tom Depouw moved to accept bid from Hannula as presented (to be submitted to BCC for approval.) Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Staff volunteered invite Hannula Landscaping to the May meeting for a meet and greet session. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported she had not received a purchase order on Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services. Staff presented a newly issued purchase order. VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU - None IX. Public Comments A consensus was formed to hold next regular session on June 6, 2012 at 10:00 am. Staff will email status updates on the bank loan, budget, bid award and amended Ordinance to the Committee members when approved. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 PM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Johnson, Chairi#an r These minutes ap roved by the Advisory Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting date is June 6, 2012 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 t W . S• �% (Z• �� e?MU11t w 2885 S. '%foaaealue D�cve i1a�lea, �.C' 341 1612 April 13, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - March 7, 2012 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report —Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business A. Review Construction Contractor Bids VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU — Sue Chapin IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for May 2, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 ass 4 1612 A15, J (_n J W O z CO w Of w �UZw m O O z� < P w Jp wQU' O _N WW QUn W U aU LU zIW- OU��00 OW E EQ =WO Z Qom~ zQ WzzC) OOQQWU� _ LLJ m °) "J CO o- UnQ Z) UnUnz zU 0 0 p Z< Un LL� (� U) W O N (n � U T X W~ r Q Q O O O of LL cl) 00 I- Q� off? :� r cn w z >¢�W�w wW OOUw W CO U �¢Uo Q�z �O p� Of 0 p >_ � p Il 11 LL LL W W W cn n I- w J I- w f- W LL W W pl -I- wz UnU��> �Un.� W f=Q Uv�U) OQ >Q 0w W W0 w» QQ2w�W Zz�ofLoZQ �' M- U)W �o OF- zZ U' C7Z of W �WLL zZw �R'QQW�O z UF-��� car- Q 2'� ��� wW W UpiL f-i- UUZF -� w j�0000 �U T-� mmF- xOf O� r N M LL) LO i� 00 O O r N M d' O t0 f� O ai O r N M (O ti O O O q O O 00 O 00 00 r 0 0 O' O f� O (D (D O O O co 00 Lo r 00 O U? O ' U? " (Q O O l!7 (o O f` O fl- O O O M S O N r- 0 0 0 O � d 0 0 co O O 00 I;t U') O O O r It Lf) O Lf) O U') i, O LO O r M O N N M LO O O O d M O f� f" O LC) LA (C r O d N ('') N O O O r 00 LA (fl C9 N O� d O O ' N N O M r N CY) h- > Q 69- 69 69 69- 69 64 UY 64 61)- 69 69 64 69 64 64 09- 64 64 69 69- 69 60- 64 61� 64 69 69 69 64 69 69 (D o) r 0 O H O 't � q O O O O 'cr I-T N CO O Lf0 r N N O O co M O 1 1 N 1 1 O O CM O N i r- t O N 00 It " 00 p0 00 O 14 r O .4 O O In 00 [}' Lo 00 Oo N U') M M M CO) O O fl- M NT M r r r M N N ti LO Ln 0 0 0 CN 04 CY) r M [f V C r C, r N N r fZ x w 60- EA 6c3 Uf l G Eli 60Y Uf l fA 6ci 61i 69. 6% Efl Ef} 6q W- ff} Grp «} (1 ? EA 69 Uf e% 63 ER Eck 69 6rk U) N o M (D N O r) O (0 r 00 (.6 L6 N oM � (0 M W p co r o Z = N Cl) 'i E L=L O U 64 EA 69 63 69 64 64 64 69 69 69 69 6@ 01) 64 tf? 64 69 64 69 69 6'} 69- 64 64 64 69 (f} 64 69 Y o o OC&ciz o coo O CD co 0o Ooo Oo0 O O O Ln O LC) Lo LC) O O O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 6 of ago o oai 00 000 000 a) d O O O O � r- O OO O� a 0) 00 r- LO mO co Cl) O O O r0 00 � d 00 LO N 0 r_ N M ti f� (O (fl M d' r- 00 M N LO N N N M Er Q 69 6�i 64 EA 6') 64 64 64 69 64 69 64 401 64 64 69 64 69 Y> Eg 64 61� 69 64 61) 64 69 U), 64 6'} 69 (_n J W O z CO w Of w �UZw m O O z� < P w Jp wQU' O _N WW QUn W U aU LU zIW- OU��00 OW E EQ =WO Z Qom~ zQ WzzC) OOQQWU� _ LLJ m °) "J CO o- UnQ Z) UnUnz zU 0 0 p Z< Un LL� (� U) W O N (n � U T X W~ r Q Q O O O of LL cl) 00 I- Q� off? :� r cn w z >¢�W�w wW OOUw W CO U �¢Uo Q�z �O p� Of 0 p >_ � p Il 11 LL LL W W W cn n I- w J I- w f- W LL W W pl -I- wz UnU��> �Un.� W f=Q Uv�U) OQ >Q 0w W W0 w» QQ2w�W Zz�ofLoZQ �' M- U)W �o OF- zZ U' C7Z of W �WLL zZw �R'QQW�O z UF-��� car- Q 2'� ��� wW W UpiL f-i- UUZF -� w j�0000 �U T-� mmF- xOf O� r N M LL) LO i� 00 O O r N M d' O t0 f� O ai O r N M (O ti O O O N } U- 0 b a. co W m O 0 4 rn N et Cl) ti N 0 O O "j- O 't Il- Q 'T O V M tY V ca O O O CO Lo O 00 O co CY) (.O O ai C C O 3 r O m m z E o X r- O d' Lo "t 00 O O . . . . . (1) = 7 7 d LO O It M N '0 M O 0) O) 0) CV 01. a LO 0) CO cu Mf- U NO F F- F- } t 00 ',. co O O O T LL C LL LL LL E a X M ii iL } LL } LL 2 co cfl o � O C i U') i L6 i (�6 C OM m (0 't E CO N 03 U? el EA o, 64 o, oa fA brk Qa fR v) 6,3 O) O CO O Lo O M f� � V �$ Q C, M U a) O M N CO CO CO It N U Q Q d o .- p o 0 o O Z Z O C) 0 0 0 LO LO LO LO LO Ln C E co N O — .c cr, C LL cl u_> > u- cn ( � U) -E C W Of U O O w v) A'S N or, C _� M Q N 0) L 7 U M LL W E M 2i !n HUH —j wLu Of � f6 to to V) O O d U C: U Z U E t6 > .— N N Z O a) Y C U B .0 in M N > U Z > rn N et Cl) ti N 0 1612 A ihw U m 00 0) Q l O t� C � VT N O 0 � y fr1 h VMf � J u m i 01 C O 0) .N r- Q N T o L V M tY V ca O O O CO M ? O } d ri 00 CO LL O LO ai C C O 3 r O m m z E o X m m o of N CL ~Ja)d� o C_aE � _° o cU Q IX 0 a� m N Q O (1) = 7 7 N 7 o LO > > > '0 M 0) O) 0) CV 01. �mxx 0) cu xxo xxa U 00 F F- F- } t 00 ',. co O O O T LL C LL LL LL E c c X M ii iL } LL } LL 2 1612 A ihw U m 00 0) Q l O t� C � VT N O 0 � y fr1 h VMf � J u m ~ C O 0) .N r- Q — w o L O M ON 0) r- CO N fl- Co V M tY V ca O O O CO M N C6 o 00 CO m m -d c E ca Q) C N to N m C N 0) cu O E j m m ai C C O 3 U O m m z E o X m m o of N CL ~Ja)d� o C_aE � o cU Q IX 0 a� 1612 A151 A o c CL N C p w D cn N N V) T c c a NN O N O) N O> N O N W N O N W N O N O N O) N ) ON W N ON ON O N OO ) N n t VN N 01 0t N N N N N N uN t N N UN t 0 N N N N N 0 N N N N N N N m rn rn N m m m m m 0) 0) co 0) OT A A 01 WWA W w Q W N N O (0 co A O O CD 0) O W 11 O O L CA O O 0f Q) ) A a v S S O O O O O 0 O O A W O O O O O O w S O W D MM- T 0 v" m z m m oT r �' D c O O O O m T C ai O �o X w m 5'i m z T m D o z C) Z p c ran m m° X Z O W 0< .o Z r rN m rD N n m=p z �_ A n m r 7 'O nni m N G) N m N m c O v m G) n m O X m °: T m R. m < a m D n D o N 1 ai i m m T zU 5 n z 0O O � m m r 0 r W D m j m m m 4 c0 U3 z IT! 3. .Z7 O ((n '� z A i D 0 'fin A » x z ado n aAO n y m m d m H m m o D �°, °° r o 0 y v m m co m> z r m y r Ro W m m m Cl) m r z m Cl) 2 S < D 0 m 3 m 0 W 1 m 0 0 co m m � D (0 W 0 m °0k � � c � m a c 0 0 O O O O O O O 10 O O O O 0 O 0 O lo O O O O O O O O ox n � C N 7 CL C N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t0 X fD1 9 C N 7 0 y a WW c aNa N A (d A .O O N O N c Da m v° :°. V N d V C C 0 V 8 W S S O O O O O O O O O O 0o s c 3 o� Q CL ;; a m V V O O O S O O O O O O v m O 0 :3 c N 3 d 3 CD N N (per O O OOO 6' O tJ N - O O N m D ax a E N 7 d a c 10 t0 41 A O O S O OOO O O N O O T O A A d N N o S 0 S S O S S S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A m m m CL h c � O S W N CD c" °o O °o O 01 00 N 0) En 00 00 S ^ 'w 0 0 o° 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O o mz x m o a m c O. u0i w� O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 1 w W W CA p (p,7 V N 01 QD O O O O 8 01 0 S O O S S 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L $ 3 8 Ll m m g rD z d .4 ° N fD to 0 N m 5 CD a A O H (5 7 8 � d o m D m CL n �F 0� m o' y G N N F N A o c CL N C p w D cn N N V) T c c 1612 A15a ; o. o c oa warn w�v co -I N N C 01 T 00 o T 0 W O) O 01 Of 0 W O) 00 O 0) T 0 C) 0) 0 0) Q I 3 t0 CD 0) t0 0) 1D 0 0 0) � _ f0 0) t0 O O <D fD f� v7 n 0o (n N W�p O) O O O) O N N N N N V) W ut o O O N N (WO L7 O O 0 O O_ O O �p O O �p O_ O ut (n Ut (T N O O O O S O O O_ O_ O 00 2 O O O O N N N N N O) 01 m 0) W N O N O A O A O N O N O N O 00 _ O O O O O O W W w w w O W W A A A A A CD w co 00 t�0 f�0 f0 CD (D f0 O Q7 0) -4 S 0 A N ��pp 07 fOD fOD N -' W .P N f O pp0� N O O 00 V O O S O O O S O O 0 a 0 S O S S O O O o O O O O O O O O O O Z 'm p m c X 0 0 Z o C C o 0 o m D D D O O W C C O Z °_ ���77 ;�;Up m m m d o v 7a G) z ', m c p X 6 v v m z N 7 D D y N V m m z p i m m m _ T O .O 4 m .o O m m Q ° Q< m' Z ; 'm m `� T T O O < a m m ,� 7• >• < 0 O m m O ,. cn -i 1 3 y ° T m o� Z A O m vt A O I --{ n= m -I ° rn Z D a 3 ., 1 -i O -n T N 2 -I N W 12 D z z z H m 3R D D s O C D< N rv3 z Z 7 ° O O Q O O o A as m Z m D m W N N < m c m O '� A v .� D v p �. O D r $ x A ° in m uJ m nt '" = m 2 m N 3 m M 0 � m ; m n O rn m c c o o o �C < o . o 2, 0 0 � m m m A m z [n m y 7c = y y 0 �° o D 7 c' 'c m m m m m O m R m m O D z z v z vCD m' z n z z o m m 0 T K w 1 v p ao �' a m N 1 O 5 o m v K X m m aa) czi p m m -i D m m o O A m o m to � O O M M m n n 0 0 M ti 1 10 m O m (n m D t x O C N � 7 _ a m o O O o O O O O O O O N O O O O o O O O 10 1 O 0 � o x D ° C 7 N CL c � 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O 40 O O 0 0 1 0.0 0 o 10 n x D ° c m y 7 _ CL N N C r r m j W a ao in A ao O N O S v O O O O O O a O O O 0 0 co D C a O. D N N W N ° W p V O o O O O 0 0 O O O co 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 W D a 3 CL O 7 N N a A V fD N V A W 00 m O 00) -. 0 0 0 S O `b) O S OD S o O O O O O O O O o O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 > O O 0 S 3 c m H O I N C, 0 0 0 0 0 o I o 0 0 0 0 C. c coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o c 0 a" m D x O � D G N j N O. r N C N iA0 W N `ONf O) VOi N 0 N (0 0) V Ul N O G) S V 1 o O O O 0 O O O O O O O -- O) V �I O O O O O O O O O O T O A n m ur N CA N O O 10 V A W p O P 00 O O O O O O O O N O O Vt O o S O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O 1 O o O O O �1 TO m C fD N � a 0 `^ O 0 co W O N -cn N N ONi _N 8W OpW� WpO+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W m ;o x O v � 7 ry a m m � D. a w a 0 0 o O o O O o 0 o O O O o o O O o 0 o O o 1 o O O O O O O O O o O O Gf m w +) 0 0 N A V N N W T ONi W +0 OD U o O w w UN N N O f!) O) 60 SJ O O O O O O O O O O O S S g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o o 0 0 0 0 o o CC" 0 3 z N N O O O N N � � N O O 7 to O C � fO O `O N N ; o. o c oa warn w�v co -I N N C ,AI'2 Al; A o c o c 0 O N .a m m w D 1 N N � O) C T C �17 HT 7 a n n O v m _I D CD 1 c CD O A X 9 W 7 m A 0 m m m m -n n < > x 0 a c O o m 0 m o x 0 � C W W W W W Of A 01 W V W V A OD O• C AW OD V W W p4+ x D � C N - � fvD !VO w w o A W a 0 0 0 0 o m v° A. 0 n N O O O O O O O 3 m r c CL `D N N A A N N O• l0 N OD 00 W Q W O O 10 N A t0 W W so O O N 0 D m O O N ?A N N 3 W W O _ Cn 3 m W W V W V W 40 m N N N N N m N pOp N m D X O _ V N N N j d O. ao a m N y �N�pp W W �< o p N a m 1 G X ICii CD w fmi .Z'7 W N O Z Q 00 OD m m m x (D to 0) CD $ o° v W W N W W PAP C N y O d V N 00 ! j fp 6 x f w w m 90 o0 O 0... COD 0 D A W ^ J a w co m d_ O fA O 0 O W 3 < > > x m v x W N _ m v c .. �• O .n O T •� -n _ .G : 1 G N W N W N C OWi X x N O� Q Q d! (A V OOi A O O A N c X N m m m O O n n - O �+ CD < a m Ci O - m T N O T O C m CL j W p W N ID O O y 2 n m O � � T 4 H W W D] m 10 A o c o c 0 O N .a m m w D 1 N N � O) C v n a M � .. -o -o Q co (u m u m O O Z C 0 O Oc a. �a /LLI[I tUe�.�' ei�) W; u a) 0 o` c 0 m m 13 c m W y P, 0. L 1 N � Ln c a � _ J Ln 2 V1 m W m O OC _2 m m IY v L o: a a n Z z Q 2 D: D: W a r L7 W rY U } W J J IV 00,' L1. Q 1 Id L A15 M C' 0 0 0 `4- V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o u) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N co O O O O O O O O ER O O O O V' O Ln O N O O co u v 'V ct o M It O N O V• O Lo c0 O O O O O u), N 00 �t V' .- Oi (O m O (O r 6ri 64 (D V' O O M Il (O O M r V u) n O W m N oo N r m N m N m w N O N (O to M N (D V' O N (D CO N N N M N N r 00 O) m M M W O o0 m (D C) m w m m (O o o r •�•, O O O r- N V ' LO V' m � N N 69 60)- 6% 64 (A O (D O V V V Il- N O OO O F- (D N D 000 m V LO O u) r Lr Lx C) oc O N Y T 64 69 69 69- FR Vi 69 69 69 C) V' 64 64 69 64 64 64 69 69 69 0 64 a 69 64 69 64 69 V). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 Lo o o Lo N o O (n o 0 N d m O O O m O O O O o O O O ((') O O O N O L) L' 64 69 (D N M U O (O Il O O � u) N N N M 00 (D V• O) N N N N N N n' C (f) r N O IT to N (D 64 N V• c 0 U) LL M F- cn J J Q M co N (D C M r N r a M O 0 V � r 0 r 0 m m C •C Y t N CCU d U p Q N D) Q) t7 .a O m (p 2 a) L d. 0) a.) U L c N— c C o r N C o m m m t o v c LL m > r a c 0 o r ~ - u N a) j .o. o m m X CL 63 64 69 69 69 64 64 64 x 64 64 69 t% 64 64 6% 64 64 69 64 69 69 69 6% 64 cn y m 'C co M m o O O O L° o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O O O O O O O O O O u) O O O O O O O Ln Lo O M V' N O O O LO V' V• It V' O (D W to M O M 0 m LO o N w ti (O m m N > (D Il- M m w N V• I- r N r _ U C r V_ W (O V• (D O (f) U W V' r V M M 'C W (D m 00 N a°i M O M N N N tLn 2 ° Il- m (O r- (D h (D r� W c- U (O N N (6 m U) M Vr ' V• O M- 0 �.' a1 Z N N N N N r N a�- V? 69 69 69 64 64) 6'� 69 69 64 64 69- 64 69 64 69 64 64 69 69 64 64 64 69 +n 0 0 0 O o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o (n 0 0 0 0 0 u) o 0 o O o 0 u) 0 0 'C O O O (O O. (f) O u7 N N co M co O co (D u) cD (p V' V' V' p. M oo ; V• N It N 1- r r r N co V• w M N M CO N N N C 0 6% 69 64 64 69- 64 6H 0 6fl 64 69 69 69- 64 6% 69 64 69 64 69k VR 64 64 ,It O (D V• O It O O O W V• N oo O O (O O w N m O) V• (D (D er O r u) m (D ID O m rl� � O M O V- V• r (D. W m M u) O M M M h M u) I- O N m N to N M • M O m u) m V' m to O It M u) oo M co m M O V• W r m M O V• V' M O m M V' N M N u) N _ M M M m O cc M N I� M 1� V• N N oo N O M m et v n N co O N co (D N O m (D W c0 M V7 W W O r- V• V' r. M O N r r W )- T 64 64 ER 64 6% 69 69 69 64 64 V4 69 64 6% 69. 6A 64 64 V) 0 (A 64 64 Vi bs N I-- r- m r 0 m M m M N It N M O h O V' M m m m m W U M) Il N (D (i) m m m oo r (D r (D O N N (D r 1� (p (D (p (D V. •�„ O )- (O M m O M M M N w N O LO m II- M (O p, M r� N n N m u) u) N LO r m N V' N N M Lo N N N 'c 64 69 6fi 6% 60- 64 69 6g 64 6% 64 (& 69 64 64 64 64 64 6% 64 6A 64 64 69, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) u) 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 I� n O 0 0 6n Cl O O O O O O O O O O O m O O O O N O O LO cr N (D T V' O c0 O O O V) O (O (D V• I- (D (D M Il- M O (D O M (O co m M _ c0 ((') W (D N (D M O 1,- M W v) r O (D O 1� O N (O V' llf M (D •(S ti N m m M rl r r m N It (D co m (D N M (O M O N <- 6% 69 64 64 6% 69 64 6% 6n 64 6% Vi 69 69 69 69 64 64 0 69 64 69 64 64 69 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) M 0 0 0 Ai O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N u) O O '1 O 0 0 O O O V' O LO O O (n r O O m O (f) LO M m (D M cM p. N (O r O O O m 0 N (D N r M Vt V' N N V' LO V N N r C 6% 64 69 64 YLY 69 64 64 64 64 6% 64 69 64 0 64 64 0 Vi 6% 0 69- 69i 69 a s a Q¢ a¢ a¢ a a¢ a a a a a a ¢¢¢ a ° w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w u� n a (m) N �+ N Lo O M 00 N V' m tt m LO O fD N w V• 0 O co LO V It m °N r M m C7 N M N M M m M N m M � aM0 O m v J N N r r (O C C 0 O7 2 E C L N € L V) .D C�cU) 2 m W 7 >� y a i� L1. m y c °• c 'E -c6 2 � c 3 �m m U �D a 7 C d' M Y Y o m Y Y L h L N 3 O 3 O 3 O u U u m m U m m m U - 2 n N N 3 C 3 0 o (D o b 3 E a o v •mo -o ti °c 6A a) o u u-o v° '� ul dm V c o C am) o o -D C d 0. U u o m O o -- O O O ° O o N N L Zfi N N m m m m co V .�0. M O V• M O V• O .0 01 N L L N t L (() iO h N N �_ C' M N M N Ob N N V L CV' u6) _- C J N q• I� N O x x x x x x v X X X L m L(- - L t M co 3 V' (D � � Mr- r o0 f`7 V' _X X X m m m V• (D z m m 0) O 0) m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m _ (D m Q) r L m N d (O LO `- (P) (C) m O) 0) 0) m m 0) m (l) m o) m m 0) 0) m 0) r N N 00 N N M M r r r M M M r r.- M r M r m E m o z E E N 2 ca o c ° E E❑ o n a) c y E ° L°. -° -° m ' E E E m `m E L° E c n. Q- E E E 'O m° m (D m a ) E c O E 0 o E E L m O O` O N L'2 CA D_ D_ E a) U -) a m aQi m m` m m` v m o r E o° U U o? N o c m a c n c m a) m= E u- a) m° m m D c m E o a) a) U m ~ C cn C N cc m a) a) C 0 m? > ? C o N o m d .0 N _ j m m 3 Y c a) > N'D > .o U m . C7 a iq U) m Y � O E iL w O o d m in U- C7 m 0 (n Q c m Em d m n E 1d C c m o N E Z Q) m _ :C C m D. E LL — 7 (n C p a) U m U m � N o C c z N _ _ a) 01 m w .N mZ 2 m > a) m .x c •m u m o 0 o m ? u c m o c E m x o 2 o ¢¢ z z z '� o) `—° a o o E' c a m o E E m m a o c o — N n S m m m .0 � > E cmi Na IL aa)) o o u m m m o o m m� c�> 0 � c vm �a° Q E o o o cu o 'c c o o 0 0 0 c L 2 'E O o E° V m U U U 0- in m m 0 w p �L- m m m m m N cn N 2= i` W I/) Z m z v � V Y F-I m m a U w¢¢ U rn rY x= D Q a¢ o� Lu >- L a U n H I- Q m m m m m U I m f m m m N C7 w == g F - r N M V• 0 (D I- m m C) r V LO m m m O a) Z r r r~ - N N N N N A15 O uj C V O t-- �� V Ul w y,' M C' m o C, O C) (0 `4- V �2 N ONO m N O N co f- ER 69 69 6% 69 Ln M u u) O M M O O M L 0 N C 69 6A 69, 6ri 64 O O O O M O M O V u) O m O u) M N O m M O N (O m N N O N r H 64 64 (g 69 6-1 o °M ° C) o o •�•, O O O (N It r 69 60)- 6% 64 (A O (D O V V V Il- N O OO O (D N D 000 m V LO O u) r Lr Lx C) oc O N Y EA 69- (A 69 69 O C) V' (D M O h It N (D U C O N N V a u) 69 69 W 69 69 O ( (D O O N O 0) u) N (fl V O N u) m (D m M O m MV 0 69 64 69 64 64 U o o u) r o O o O (n h O O N N M n` m C 61, 64 64 0 69 c 0 U) LL M F- cn J J Q % (D C M r N r a M O 0 V � r 0 r 0 m m C Y t N CCU d U p Q N D) Q) t7 .a O m (p 2 a) L d. 0) a.) U L c N— c C o r N C o m m m t o v c LL m > r a c 0 o r ~ - u N a) j .o. o m m X CL x 3 a n o Y E M Lo c m m M 0 n v cn y m 'C co M m M m O L° O U ik m L N D U o Y Q) 0 m LL 2.� o E o� o o U� U E m N = m o N 2 u at .o N d c w o > CL ` ° L U C U C Q m U w L U N � W c W LO 'C C Q) m 0 Vi C W a°i W ° U v 4 tLn 2 ° c O ° y .J J U u o W U U) a1 Z N N N N N O uj C V O t-- �� V Ul w y,' v^-* (h L. 00 ca Gj '0 u m O 2 2 c O a �biRd tiV /- fpi�s V LLI 1i Lu hD Y a t N O a c 0 m 'O C l0 d 00 a L Ln N y �i V ca J l!) i+ m W m m O O m z v .c 4 K D a 1612 A15 4 io O F- = a. C 00 O 00 00 n d' 69 O 00 Co. r 69 O N O O O (D 0 N (D 69 N 00 (a T 6R co N v v O O O N O O O O O O O O O O m 0 (n (n N N h W N M N O tOC) M LO ti ( D O . (OD id N dm xE (t) 06 c (°�ca O LO C o O= -do) r o V C C a a O m> •i4 6A 6f} C 6f} 69 69 h 06 OA N cli (O a L E r � N N D O tO O On y = r V co (D v n r CD o 6H 69 69 oo 69 69 69 69 69 6% W. EPr 69 *OW. d u LO 69 O v O m L m a V m N m O o U) o O N O o O 0 O 0 O 0 •.. a c r l0 N M OA N 1- N N N W LL7 2 L c LO O N O O O u) M M O O) N d (V) . r- LO O) (D mil• m O N OO N (ti C � •^- m C d m p y L w M •f0 H emu m o O C rovou N M (D 69 69 69 69 d w O u W OO n M ll� .r m 00 6c} fA 64 O~i 6% FA 69 Vi w, 64 69 w- 69 v_ C N O O O O O O M O O O O O O O OD O O O O O O O O O O M 6} 6ti O O O O O O CL h O) (O O v (D O O O C N O LO c0 v ci LO n m � c o r N co N LO OD '-k O t` c0 r-i- d' E N - Q C E • C V m U d N c 2 c y m E �cSi� 0 cm E= co rn� m�vn E a� in U m E Er EZZ c0 N N ,Q V_ r %. d Z 6fl W3 69 M V• 61), 69 61i 6% 69 60S 69 61i 61i w u O O O O O O r O O O O O °. r� o ti � N M M N 69 69 60 601i 61i 61} 69 61). 6% 613- ER 603 N � O O O UO Cl) O N OR O N O O OA ID T ti (D O M O) to m r- Cl) N r r M W r` a) O tO N (D r- N T N r- n N r v O (O O _ OA v N V• r Cl) r O v (D On IZ � T O (O 1` T OD r O F- r r V N N 69 fH fH 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6% 64 K U 00 Gi O M OO N O tt O N 00 M LO R N O N tD r t` (D (D M O •)' n (D v Cl) N ° N U) � N O (n C � ti v r N fD 69 69 64 61)- 69 69 69, 69 69 61). 6% 69 W (D O O 00 O 00 N 00 d' O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 N ti M O 00 r O 00 O M OD M v r r Vj � O O O O O 0 O 0 N h 'V' N M N 0) 00 00 O LO On IO On 0 N N N v- N FA 6% 6% 69 69 69 6R 69 60- 6R 69 69 w ID U O 00 00 v OA v (O o O (n N o O 0° O O 0 0 C) 0 d O~ v M ^ ° N O O O O c o (n (n (n N N n N 61} 69 6% 69 64 69 0 61i 69 61P CO 69 rn C7 m C7 C7 C/) (D rn C7 IL LL U fn fn U) o ° m m m m m U 7 U) y O 0 fD h M m r r r d r u N T �' d N °• N O a c0 ad O V n C E Na o Q4-= c m E 0 0 (`�Nd Cda ��N tT�o ^aI,u Ear -62 �a w o d c a `m d d a m v o cm) a c U N C (D d d (°n y N d .p '7 a N y o O) U 0 O •o y O0 7 W O C 0 (D O N a n d N N C O o f C {� d C•E^ O d'_ d m� O (Oaf O.y da d O_C:: dI- 0 ti_ (O C O V y y m lL 0 d a 0) iO) Ob ` U > d Ob E N C N .2 r Cl) N m O (S T w N` - N L � m a V .� d a ':01) w C w C N N m d m 0 • j a)) E O°O n. w y CO m °o an d m y m C C .G CL d °- d C Q •m d .� y 5 N y o` c° v ti m a c am y m c n y a �° (Mi c mM d° �' m cv y 3 v '� u' °� 0ts c - c atl (n d o s m o` hC a c -6 E v o m d �! °5 0 u m u N y d 0 ° m N w a .7 y 3 V„ d° o m 'n d a R (7) m d d' H Ca 4) d H 'r a C: m F- O E c C >> C m d L d E O(pp U m c d c L d N `) m -° aai L y m L d Ot m c L . U (� O. °- d d a L 0 O O O � 3 a a m a 2 E_ dwa 2 0 � c m o d 2 N a c a a ` >> a c v o v c o ' d d a'a d IL u U U a'(L m D' au� aE aD m n. m c,n N C( 'w cD a a a a d E >• m V Z m 0 O d E v O U O U O) c .y 'X d U) '- E E O C 0 y E m Q d d W c a w L 3 c m Z O -0„ E a c O m m C7 ?� m 12 if 0 G� •S C y y N m d N > (D - N T m m am m a a 00 ° a o ad v w w O c) 7 c x v E FO- C U 0 V ` N "- "- a d as c 0- ° f0 m C m E - - d 0 a N «d 7 LL L43) ti in 0 U a in Q d a Y N (0 N n U O _ M M M Z N N N N Cl) M M io O F- = a. C 00 O 00 00 n d' 69 O 00 Co. r 69 O(i O - 69 LO N o T 69 _oo O O d• 69 O rn v 69 O M N 6A O T M N 69. 0 N (D 69 N 00 (a T 6R O O N O O O On O (n (n O N a) N- 0) co o ( D O . (OD id N dm xE (t) 06 c (°�ca O LO C o O= -do) r o V C C a a O m> F- 6A 6f} C 6f} 69 69 6H 69 6f} 69. a L E N (0 Cl m E N N D O tO O On y = r V co (D v n v CD o 00 o. m aNi c E O w oo m T T C N dm �- w (!) M OaU N � LO 69 69, r L m a 69 6} 64 69 69 69 E c c0 00 1- M I- W LL7 2 L c LO O W W O N O O) N d (V) . r- LO O) (D mil• m (ri Z O D ui C\i (ti O � •^- m C d m p y L w M •f0 H emu m o O C rovou d w in L 67) a�'E 69 69 69 69 69 d w O u W OO n M ll� .r m 00 00 C '0 C (n a) c d L O~i O) N v U� N� u I- (n rn m v_ C N c a N N M 6o , > y O d G. y 0. O c L L y o O` = 0 G fA 69 69 6} 6ti O F- d a C L c .�i O' d O O O N O O O E H �_ a a") d U y a) N a) CD 0) N Oro N N c dm xE m Ec m� c (°�ca C o O= -do) VJ y o V C C a a O m> 6A 6f} C 6f} 69 6q .m. y c !U 2 y C On CL N a L E N (0 Cl m E N N D c 'E :3 y 0) E �° (t0 0) N y �d m 00 o. m aNi c E O Di m T T dm �- w > a'O u OaU N 69 69, EA L m a 69 (0 d E co O C m N C y E c O O CL a U y a s LLl W LL7 2 L c LO O W W O N d O N w N 3 O E H �_ a a") d U y a) N a) m e o d o 3 U N c dm xE m Ec m� c (°�ca C o O= -do) VJ y o V C C a a O m> O C (n .0 c w m .m. y c !U 2 y C On CL N a L E N (0 Cl m E N N D c 'E :3 y 0) E �° C.) E Qyo y �d U- v o. m aNi c E O d .0. dm �- w > a'O u OaU N U) m a L m a d E co O C m N C y E c O O CL a U y a s o U c c 2 L c LO O C w 0 C (` O i N N a .E 0 •.Lm+ d d V o Z d m L U U� O.' � Z 'u r . LLB >, y U) c c y U m O U Z O D .d+ OC y O1 LZ c W C •^- m C d m p y L w M •f0 emu m o O C rovou d w in L 67) a�'E . m v - > u a) O . m E m d d w O C a) U 0 C L co m a m m C C '0 C (n a) c d .E� c La U� N� u c o o D E � E f c a � a o E CL 6o , > y O d G. y 0. O c L L y o O` = 0 G U d d > - m ai m u a C Q e j m too O CL a s �O. . U d` C m c mm ) ) D v y m � c o 1) d E m E o a 1- a W 'fQ W a I N O w N d' E >' C >` y O C >'I M N - Q C E • C V m U d N c 2 c y m E �cSi� 0 cm E= E rn� m�vn E a� in U m E Er EZZ c0 ,Q V_ %. d Z Cl) M Cl) cc M V• 0)�� CJ ' m u CO ' O O C z 3 0 0 oa Y d i W r� W W LL CL CID Ll: dl .O L a c 0 m 'O C 16 n CU 00 o Ln N 3 N 13 m m N H N W v .0 u K L ro 0 a m m O O 'O Cc 16 J-,L- A15 O O O U) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 N U) O O O V' O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O OO N O N h 00 CO M O CO O O 00 m f` n O M U) h m N N f� m N N CD U) V- M U) M O r M OIL U) O O m m U) w r h r N N M 'ct co O co V• R ie r N t• m r r N U) r N r N M ti V' N C` O U CL CL C M 64 63 64 6% 69 6% 6) 64 6% 69 6) 6) 6% 69- 6) 6) 6) f9 6`) fR 6H bi d U a w O O CO co D O LO 1, r M U) N N U) W O tD O o M O tD r 00 N M M N O tt r O O O U) to 00 LO V' m O O U) O O M O O N m LO O O CO tM.. O O O O O O C M m O O O M M O O M U) O O V• co C m m (D N U) m V OR tD O O OR O O st 00 (D 00 OR O N 00 O V• (D Z (0 m Cl) It r (D M m V, to O C) U) N O (O O C` N V r V• ° 0 0 64 64 fR 64 64 Fg 64 64 69 bi 69 6% 64 69 64 6) 6) 64 61) 69 64 63 E9 m U) 0.1 O O N N r 00 � N O CO N_ V' VN'- O N M I` ti O O V' 00 N L) r (D oc L) N N .- O N O O r O r O O m r- O O CD co N U) O O O N � 00 O 00 N N (D m f+ V' V' O ao V' m 00 to b V• - (V 00 O 1- M N O O N v V N V' N r Cl) (p m O � U) O m (OD N 00 CA n a (D U) N O V LD O U CL CL C M 64 CM m (D FA 69- M U) V' m to F9 60- N U) t- 6. 69 00 O r- V• 69 W. O N r V' 6) 6) r M U) M 6% 64 r CD U) O O r 64 64 U) M r 6) 64 U) O V' 64 6) m O 64 69. O O 6) 6% m V: m O r r 64 6% m V, m O r r 6) 69 O N (D M N N 69, 6% V• (D V' U) 6% 69 r� V. O 00 U) 6} 69 N N U) O N 6). 69, V' CO r LO 99, 6) � h M co 6) 64 I\ t": Cl) (D 64 64 co r Cl) r 69 69 U) N LO 69- 64 h N O U) O U) O O O O O t0 00 00 r O O O O p O O O m V Uf O LLOO O O O M O O O PO) O 9 C) Or O O O V tt 4 m y a) U m m (D N U) m V OR tD O O OR O O st 00 (D 00 OR O N 00 O V• (D Z (0 m Cl) It r (D M m V, to O C) U) N O (O O C` N V r V• ° 0 0 V' N U) m r OD V' M U) M 00 00 m m N V' M V• O U) 64 M E9 CD r N M O ti 00 M O E 2c N O m U) (D ti O r- to m V' (t1 LL J 3 O �- N N r r Q w r r N r-- r N r r U) r W C U U O N > m X O d �. U 4) c Cn lcc N r _ — N V• O m 0) H Q > c > ro io o U U C C O c O) m C .a m c m N m N tm u .0 'C c O y aj O ` O 0 6Y 6) 64 6) 6% 69 6) 6% 64 E9 64 (' ° > vm a;a c o c 2os w roo$ 3 a) m m e c rn > 2 O ami> O" m V 69 6) 6% 69 % 69 Cn d m 00 N L ?� m O U C o O ,.0., rn M N U °� 0 .E :� of :� Z} C N} c > 0 C ro m of d m N V• tl >u X N M (D N (D O O h N 00 V• N N m V• 'L 00 N U) V• V' O M N U) O O O 00 O ° m L M V H d Ci d 0) u; L Q N r r r NV' N u> U U N w O y U) C r m LO (00 Im c m`o ,C mo` C v °> m ° a a Q. N `' .L+ v m R E a of U c c O a U) C of m N ((O VO' VM N 3° N N c m = 3 L M c 3 a) o o` ° m e cv ro U d LL V _ v� to d m Lb m °- c 3 c c c 3 m y w a) m C, m IL i m r a� c o o o c '� m c '> c E co c m 3 c (a EA 64 69 6) 0 6) 0 fA fH 6% E9 (9 69 64 60. 69 bi ° X c°f 9 d d o O m m mV d y 7 C C/) m N Cw = j ui q�q Lu ■sArws ar,� m L m W '- '• v m v 'p u o O z 3 0 0 m a W O a` c 0 m u v c m 00 v N a 00 m Lr) u N � c-1 � m 01 H � N W v r0 u CLO CL m O O a m a: a) N m N (Ci a K (D co n O n D) of Hi O O 00 LO M M m M n D) n N M ,D J H O ❑ m W U) M O 0 O 0 O o N n O O 'V' O IM O Ln M CD M N to O M (A N 0 LU H O m 6R 64 64 p ui CD 0 10 Cl) O N M u U co C N O O. n V r c T LLI 69 64 65- �`�� �'• F00 (f) O O 00 n O O 00 64 0) (n O r N O r N M V a O M F a) N O O 64 64 64 V► u (O `cY (n u O N O � t- G w N N a VO co N T LO 'c .0 64 64 64 0 (O T b9 n 64 rn 64 O N _ Cl VT N m N 00 T N M O O O N I- O N O O 6'i Uf 69- w O (A O O O u M O n M C O N O 00 0.. T r C M 69 � 00 V' O O O O r ao 0(i ID 0 -4- r H N r N (M'i O 64 v). N H 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 w (D N N a) O N N O (? O N N O a .0 0 Lo V) O LO 0 O O CL 69 64 69 c c W Q QQ 0 W W VJ 69 64 C 64 03 64 64 O 0 M m V W m 21 N N O .c L d c) N N O) 4 Q) C; r Ci m (O LA) co Cl) N c C) ° ° '0 T m o r T U u L � Q) »m m O m M a E Q -Fu u U 6% 69- u C a o y c 6% CL (n N ce) m E m o co m a > m N V� N O M •C C y m 'Ir N o � d. M N r T V° C C (O () a) N O O C L O C (17 ° CL p CL o .y. C 'C .� y a _ C = O m 0 E a Cc, o 64 M z ° .� p m `m 64 0 0 O O O E O O O O E CL c 0 O 0 IM 0 cQ_- a O O m U � u O o r; N a) 0 0 m O 0 .- N r o. E y U O O U d y L co 0 (n w 0 a ° E a N a CL c m m m 3 u m > Mo H > m m E B m0 69 6% m u c = .� a) m > c O 6% 3 ° v a) ° a) 0 m v m o LO ° E 0 0 0 oa E O O N� d m O O � ° o c v o• E N M O (n I° -O C� E H a M T N v Y rO Cl) V N a) Z (O (D 64 64 64 a) N m N (Ci a K (D co n O n D) of Hi O O 00 LO M M m M n D) n N M ,D J H O ❑ m W U) M 1612 A15 -S� ... N (V [bx(Oj4K -� a,► ss:iiF�:c1 O O O O O 'V' O O O o o O O 0 0 0 LU O m (O �- ui O 00 Cl) Z O) co C N O C T LLI �`�� �'• F00 64 69� 64 64 0 64 69 64 0 a) N O O O O O O u (O `cY (n h LO O O t- w 0 M co N T LO .0 Vi b9 69- 64 64 64 64 61} O O O O O N O O O 6 (f) O (A O O O I,- M co N O 00 to O N H 64 v). 64 ER 64 64 64 64 O O O O O O N O O .0 0 Lo V) O LO 0 O O CL c 69 64 64 64 03 64 64 64 0 M V W N `v N m N O O) 4 N C; r Ci (O LA) co Cl) N N T m r T 64 6% 69- 69. 69- 69� 69. 6% ce) 00 co U O (A N V� N O M •C o o m 'Ir N o � d. M N r T m co (O N (17 C bRT 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 O O O O O O O O O O O (n O T O O LO o o r; 0 0 0 0 n Cl) N r M O O M co (n w N O H 64 69 6% 61 69 61i 64 6% 0 m o 0 o LO o 0 0 U C N O O N� O O O O d N Cl) N M O (n M T N 64 64 64 69 64 64 64 64 Cl) c U U LL J W LL W O J W V) Q d (D r N 0 a " ai o o M .3 Cl) M m c 'o c O o _ U ° N N N ❑ V) Y m y m o m > > m0 y U m O O D a) h m C ° - C u m W •y m O W CL L a C "- 0) � C a y 0 x = 3 t O t p O O M o c 0 w m m u > C O O O CO C O 0 V) O m U m O C O O m N _T m C) O 41 ° c d L C O C7) U co j N C 0 •(J o (�0 ° W n. N O o E _ n r° Lo uW O y a E N = 0) d 2❑ p O a ❑C . u cm � a 5 '0 � N O / r O y CL :t 0 0 r O D- 0 u C m c° vy m v, a 0 0 ay °o ° m E m a m m p o U 2 v E U = c GL y � O _ ch O c ° c c v a) v U 0 o a o m > c C C v 0 E o m au > o °- m O v v t_ u C —° m y m u o C c C o 3 C 0 S v a> C �,d C N `o o f o• °- o o •o y C' to Y o c c m o c u 'D r- c E m a m a o) c C a a) m (Q O C C C C m m Ln X °- 'o E E u ay) ° ay CL y o > > N W y O m y am am •a u c C c O a O C U mC M -0 � U C O C C s _7 Z O > O 'y 'Di O 'y O a y O O 'o E x 7 "x = "x m ° (o u 0 v m W v m m° p 0- a w c c m 4 ii J Q m N Cl) V' (n (O h 00 J J J J J J J J '• •i d z Q Q Q ¢ Q Q Q Q 1612 A15 -S� ... N (V [bx(Oj4K -� a,► ss:iiF�:c1 Z LI LU ❑_ o m ui Z C .iL LLI �`�� �'• ..wren% Date: April 13, 2012 1612 A15+ CURRENT LOAN SCHEDULE PROJECTION Radio Road East MSTU Median Landscape & Irrigation Project Activity Date Solicitation Starts February 23, 2012 PROPOSAL DUE DATE MSTU Advisory Committee Review of Bid Results & Recommendation to BCC GMD Agenda Central Deadline (for May 8, 2012 BCC meeting) March 9, 2012 [BB & T SINGLE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED] April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 [ Staff to request extension ] BCC Award to BB & T May 8, 2012 [BCC DATE]; Under a separate item on 5/8/12 will be approval of Ordinance modification removing 6 year sunset provision. [Tentative] Loan Closing Date May 10, 2012 Date: April 13, 2012 CURRENT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECTION Radio Road East MSTU Median Landscape & Irrigation Project ActivitV Date Final 100% x 2 Signed and Sealed Project Plans are due to ATM Dept. February 17, 2012 2 WEEK ROW PERMIT REVIEW Feb. 17 — Mar. 6, 2012 ROW PERMIT ISSUE March 6, 2012 30 day Project Bidding Mar. 12 —April 11, 2012 Mandatory Pre -Bid Meeting March 23, 2012 BID DUE DATE April 11, 2012 MSTU Advisory Committee Review of Bid Results & Recommendation to BCC GMD Agenda Central Deadline (for May 22, 2012 BCC meeting) BCC Award of Bid 60 DAYS RISK, LEGAL, PURCH. REVIEW OF CONTRACT Construction Start 180 DAYS OF CONSTRUCTION April 13, 2012 April 26, 2012 May 22, 2012 [BCC DATE] May 22nd to July 21, 2012 July 23, 2012 [BEGIN CONSTRUCTION] July 23, 2012 — January 19, 2013 Final Completion January 19, 2013 [END CONSTRUCTION] A15i April 13, 2012 Attn: Dayna Fendrick Urban Green Studio PLLC P.O. Box 111841 Naples, FL 34108 RE: Notice To Proceed Project Name: Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for Radio Road East MSTU Bidding Assistance, Site Observation and Maintenance Specifications PURCHASE ORDER: P. O. 44500135562 (dated 04/13/2012) CONTRACT: # 08 -5060; Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term COUNTY FUND: 166 - 162526- 631403 -0 Dear Mrs. Fendrick, This letter serves as Collier County's official NOTICE TO PROCEED (NTP) to your Company to commence with services per Contract #08 -5060 Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term. The purchase order number is shown above. This NTP is limited to services per Contract #08 -5060- Purchase Order No. 4500135562 executed for the Materials Not to Exceed: $28,426.00. Please include the purchase order number, Contract number and project number on each invoice to facilitate the payment process. Commencement date for the services associated herewith shall be considered to be Friday, April 13, 2012. Final completion of all work, based on 159 day contract completion, shall be considered to be Wednesday, September 19, 2012 Sincerely Yours, �> a Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager Abrdve T • 2885 South Horseshoe Drive . NapM, Florida 34144.239- 252 -8192 r FAX 239 - 252.5899 - oolliergov.net 1612 A15 ........ . w _ Sent( all Invoices to: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Collier County Board of County Commissioners Purchasing Department 3327 Tamiami Trl E v" Attn: Accounts Payable Naples FL 34112 -4901 a ' 3299 Tamiami Trl E Ste 700 Tax --xemct: 85- 80126218300 -2 Naples FL 34112-57-19 Vendor# 118696 URBAN GREEN STUDIO PLLC PO Box 111841 NAPLES FL 34108 Please deliver to: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION C &M LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 2885 S HORSESHOE DR NAPLES FL 34104 Terms of Payment Net 30 Days Purchase Order number must appear on all related correspondence, shipping papers and invoices: ._ ...... __._. Purchase order Po Number 4500135562 Dare 04113/2012 I Coniaci Person Trans ATM i. _...._ - _— ..._._ _, ........................... _ ___ .......... Del:ve;v Date: 09130 +2012 Currency USB P _..... item Matsrfai Descri twn QrerQ _ t Unit Price Per Unit .NetVatue _ tl 00010 Task 2.1 Meetings 4,940 each i 00 4,940.00 Release order against contract 4600001972 item 0001 G Total net value excl tax USD 28,426.00 VENDOR Terms and Conditions The VENDOR agrees to comply with al Purchase Order Terms and Conditions as out ined or. the Collier County Pura :asirig Internet site: http:hwww.colliergod neUindex aspx 7page =762 (revision date 01/22/2008), including delivery and payment terms. Further the VENDOR agrees to: Provide goods and services outlined in this Purchase Order with the prices: terms, delvery method and specifications listed abode. 2 Notify department Immediately if order fuif €llment cannot occur as specified. 3 Send all invoices to: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Alin' Accounts Payable 3299 Tamiami Tri E Ste 700 Naples FL 34112 -5749 The Purchase Order is authorized under direction of Collier County Board of County Commissioners by: �' ..._, a a ' Stephen Y Carrell General Sevices ; Purchas'�g D rec :gr r Primed Fn Apr 13 201- _' 13:45:20 uM7-0400 6fi- iCS252S Gat 401 r'sge < o? , 166- 162526- 631403 -0 W/O for Radio Rd East Maintenance Specifications ___. -_ _ _uM 00020 __ - - - -.— o y Task 2._ As Built/ Record Drawings 2,808 each 1.00 2,80800 Release order against contract 4600001972 Item 00010 w. ...... ..... — 00030 ----- _ _.._.._. .._-. Task 2.3 Bidding Asst & Const Observatio .. ...... .4,588 each 1,00 14,568.00 Release order against contract 4600001972 Item 00010 00040 Task 2 4 Main Sgeclficahons 5,290 each 1.00 5.290 00 Release order against contract 46ts001972 ltern 00010 Task-'3 0. RUirrbursabie E- xpN,.s..s 800 each =.U: 806 OC< Release order against contract 4600001972 Item. 00010 Total net value excl tax USD 28,426.00 VENDOR Terms and Conditions The VENDOR agrees to comply with al Purchase Order Terms and Conditions as out ined or. the Collier County Pura :asirig Internet site: http:hwww.colliergod neUindex aspx 7page =762 (revision date 01/22/2008), including delivery and payment terms. Further the VENDOR agrees to: Provide goods and services outlined in this Purchase Order with the prices: terms, delvery method and specifications listed abode. 2 Notify department Immediately if order fuif €llment cannot occur as specified. 3 Send all invoices to: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Alin' Accounts Payable 3299 Tamiami Tri E Ste 700 Naples FL 34112 -5749 The Purchase Order is authorized under direction of Collier County Board of County Commissioners by: �' ..._, a a ' Stephen Y Carrell General Sevices ; Purchas'�g D rec :gr r Primed Fn Apr 13 201- _' 13:45:20 uM7-0400 6fi- iCS252S Gat 401 r'sge < o? , 1612 WORK ORDER/PO # Agreement for: Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term Dated: September 23, 2008 (RFPBID # 08 -5060) This Work Order is for Professional Landscape Architectural Services, subject to the terms and conditions of the contract referenced above, for work known as: Maintenance Consulting Services. Project Name: Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for Radio Road East MSTU Bidding Assistance, Site Observation and Maintenance Specifications The work is specified in the proposal dated March 6. 2012 which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order/Purchase Order # is assigned to: Urban Green Studio. Scope of Work: As detailed in the attached proposal and the following: Task 2.1 Meetinss Principal . /Senior Landscape Architect 30 hrs. @. $128 /hr. $ 3,840.00 Design Associate 4 hrs. @ $ 75 /hr. $ 300.00 Irrigation Sub - Consultant Lump Sum $ 800.00 $ 4,940.00 Task 2.2 As -Built /Record Drawings Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 6 hrs. Ca, $128 /hr. $ 768.00 Auto CAD Technician 20 hrs @ $ 62 /hr. $ 1,240.00 Irrigation Sub - Consultant Lump Sum $ 800.00 $ 2,808.00 Task 2.3 Biddine Assistance & Const Observation Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 72 hrs. @ $128/hr. $ 9,216.00 Design Associate 24 hrs. @ $ 75 /hr. $ 1,800.00 Auto CAD Technician 6 hrs. ,:a $ 62 /hr. $ 372.00 Administrative Assistant 20 hrs @ $ 55 /hr. $ 1,100.00 Irrigation Sub- Consultant Lump Sum $ 2_.,.,100.00 $ 14,588.00 Task 2.4 Maintenance_ Specifications Principal /Senior Landscape Architect Design Associate Auto CAD Technician Administrative Assistant Irrigation Sub - Consultant Arborist Sub - Consultant 16 hrs. Ca $128 /hr. 12 hrs. @ $ 75 /hr. 6 hrs. @ $ 62/ hr. 6 hrs @ $ 55 /hr. Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 2,048.00 $ 900.00 $ 372.00 $ 330.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,440.00 $ 5,290.00 Task 3.0 Reimbursable Expenses (estimated) Reimbursable Expenses aIlowance ........................... ..............................$ 800.00 TOTAL FEE $ 28,426.00 (TIME) ST072 1612 Al WO -Page 2 Urban Green Studio /Radio Road East MSTU Bidding Assistance, Site Observation and Maintenance Specifications Schedule of Work: Complete work within 159 days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed which is accompanying this Work Order. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with following method(s): ®Negotiated Lump Sum QLump Sum Plus Reimbursable Costs X Time & Material (established hourly rate — Schedule A) QCost Plus Fixed Fee, (define which method will be used for which tasks) as provided in the attached proposal. Any change made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of the original Contract Agreement. APPROVED BY: _ ..._.._ .......... Darryl Richard; Project Manager Date APPROVED BY: Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager ate APPROVED BY - Michelle Edwards old; ATNI Director Date APPROVED BY::' Nick C. °a nguida, , inr st tor, Growth Mgmt. Division ACCEPTED BY: Urban Green Studio Id- 19pat of uthorized Company Officer �?44 ' .. MAAn5l I !� i T Type or Print Name and Title Date Date 1612 A15 Memorandum To: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator Growth Management Division From: Michelle Edwards Arnold, Director Alternative Transportation Modes Depw ent Date: March 30, 2012 CC: Pamela Lulich, Landscaping Operations Manager Subject: Delegation of Authority I will be out of the office on April 2nd through April 6t', 2012 for my vacation. In my absence Pamela Lulich will have authorization to act on my behalf and sign off on purchasing matters while I am unavailable. ARemative TransporUion Modes - 2985 South Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104.239- 252 -8192 • FAX 239 - 252 -5899 • www.colliergov.net a I y , � �.-1 [ L w� i 1612 A15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL FOR: Radio Road East MSTU SUBMITTED TO: Ms. Pamela Lulich, RLA, Manager of Landscape Operations Mr. Darryl T. Richard, RLA, Landscape Project Manager Collier County Growth Management Division Alternative Transportation Modes Department PREPARED BY: Ms. Dayna L. Fendrick, RLA, AICP Urban Green Studio, PLLC DATE: March 6, 2012 SUBJECT: Proposal for Landscape Architectural Services Bidding Assistance, Site Observation and Maintenance Specifications 1.0 OVERVIEW & ASSUMPTIONS 1.1 The project is approximately 1.3 miles in length, and extends from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard. The subject medians range in width from 35' to 45'. Curbing and irrigation sleeving is in place. 1.2 The project is to be funded by the Radio Road East MSTU, which was created for the purpose of landscape and irrigation installation and maintenance. The Radio Road East MSTU Committee (Client) will be responsible for design review and decisions, with input from the Alternative Transportation Modes Department staff (ATM). 1.3 This contract will be administered under Collier County Contract # 08 -5060 "Fixed Term Landscape Architectural Services ". 1.4 The project team will include James Abney & Associates as a sub - consultant for irrigation design, and Signature Tree Care as an arborist. UGS will be the prime consultant, and will manage and coordinate the sub - consultants. Radio Road East MSTU Proposal Bidding & Site Observation Services March 6, 2012 1612 x15 1.5 This Bidding Assistance and Construction Services scope is based on implementing the 100% Landscape and Irrigation design plans prepared by UGS and approved by Collier County, per the established limit of work line. 1.6 Collier County Purchasing will be responsible for the preparation of "front end" documents, including General Conditions, instructions to bidders, etc. and for issuing the bids, addenda and preparing the bid tabulation. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 MONTHLY MSTU MEETINGS Attend monthly MSTU Committee meetings throughout the bidding and construction process. Twelve (12) meetings are allowed for in the proposed fee table. The fee schedule reflects attendance by one (1) UGS personnel, Ms. Fendrick or Ms. Binkowski, at the regularly scheduled meetings. Mr. Abney will attend every other monthly meeting. Attend utility coordination meetings with utility contacts identified through Sunshine One. 2.2 AS -BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS Prepare AutoCADD Record Drawings based on redlined drawings and field information provided by the Contractor. UGS will provide one CD with electronic files (AutoCADD drawings) and one set of PDF's to Collier County ATM. 2.3 BIDDING ASSISTANCE & SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION UGS and Mr. Abney will provide the same services outlined below during bidding and construction, except as where noted. Provide bidding assistance, which will include: Outline bid items and alternates, provide bid quantities, attend one pre -bid conference, respond to bidders' questions, and assist with addenda as needed. Attend one pre - construction meeting. Provide design clarification, respond to RFI's from the Contractor, and review shop drawings and materials samples. Review pay requests, completed quantities and process change orders. 1612 A15 Rodic Road cast MSTTU Proposal Lidding & Site Observation services March 6, 2012 Make recommendations for modification and adjustments of irrigation and /or plant materials in response to known utility conflicts. Apply for deviation (if necessary) using standard county procedures for deviation approval. Conduct up to two (2) nursery tagging trips along with the selected Contractor and the County Project Manager to field tag the specified Gumbo Limbo trees and Buccaneer Palms. It is assumed the trips will be made to the east coast of Florida, and the Contractor will provide transportation. If more than two (2) field trips are required to find acceptable plant materials, these trips will be performed as additional services at the established hourly rates. Mr. Abney will not attend field tagging trips. Perform periodic site visits to observe the contractor's progress and general compliance with the plans and specifications. The construction time frame is assumed to be 150 days (21 weeks) to substantial completion and 180 days (25 weeks) to final acceptance. UGS staff will attend weekly field meetings during construction and prepare field progress reports every other week. Mr. Abney will attend field meetings and prepare field reports every other week during construction. If the construction time frame extends beyond the assumed schedule, additional services will be required to perform continued site observation. Perform one preliminary walk - through at substantial completion and prepare a punch list outlining corrective actions needed. Perform one final walk - through to verify corrections have been made, and prepare a final project report. Perform a walk - through one year after final acceptance to review the condition of plant materials and the irrigation system components. Identify any materials that are not in acceptable condition, which must be replaced under warranty. 2.4 MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS Review Collier County standard Maintenance Specifications and modify as necessary to address the Radio Road East design elements and specific plant materials. Modified items may include the following: • Fertilization recommendations, based on information to be provided by Collier County ATM regarding recent Collier County experience. • Arborist services/ pruning recommendations for Gumbo Limbo trees. • Recommendations for preparation for and /or treatment of plant materials after a frost event. • Crushed shell maintenance. ■ Maintenance bid items & quantities, based on record drawings. k3 Radio Road mast MSTU Proposn_i Bidding & Site Observation Services March 6, 2012 3.0 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 1612 pis 1 Expenses for blue prints, reprographic services, color reprographics, overnight express delivery, and local courier delivery shall be reimbursable to UGS. 4.0 FEES Please see attached Exhibit A for the proposed Fee Schedule. 5.0 EXCLUDED SERVICES Survey services for field locates of underground utilities. Maintenance bidding process and ongoing maintenance site inspections. 4 < LU rj W w U X Ul LU ro wi U- M D F- V) 71 LLI ui z z D LIJ I- z LLI 7 < LLJ u W o Ci U < ti U Z 1612 A15 0 loo 00 m 0 Cli .0 Lri 0 ova "T Lo m D in ca 16 = 0 ko ID a --- c 0 0 C) (N .00 ID to oo —4 ID zT N N N -zr un O Z cc -It Ln IN U cr U u o C) cr m oo v) < N 14 Lf) u cr cc C) It 0 m tD to It to ti r, c) ID vI C x LL 0 x z o -;i E 0 cc 0 > z mc: f a LI) m 06 0 (v C; < cL E G-± hd v) Ll 0 ti "2 N a, N - t0 0 03 00 N fld N Q1 7G CX CJ rc s0 OM M 0 0 m 'ri M it 01 Ck O O er; vi AA O IX no C� ano 14 LL CA L'i In z W co LU Q. X LAJ Lm o LU LL 0 CA < tE II it Pa, < cc C *15 cJ iv Ln Cc 'w < Z 1612 A15 .4 ti u fld 7G CX CJ rc s0 0 0 fi 'ri M it Ck Tn vi IX < tE II it Pa, < cc C *15 cJ iv Ln Cc 'w < Z 1612 A15 .4 1 1612 A16 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 Deveo pfiY67W " 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 '� Jerry Gibson Fiala Clark Hill Hiller _ Henning - Rick Medwedeff Coyle _,- Robert Miller Coletta —7c— Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III Misc. Corres: Date: CH l 111-2, Item #:tUX 2q 1 U Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Development Tax Coordinator 1 f � Februar Y A - Z8 10 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. 0 t 16 12 A16 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." 161 2, 161 February 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 Johnsen, Chief Accountant, Clerk of Courts were present. Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "QI 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 "Q1 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 4 161 2 A16 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 CAC for these budgets. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion failed 3 "yes" — 6 "no." Mr. Miller, Mr. Sorey, Mr. Hen del, Mr. Gibson, Ms. Becker and Mr. Olesky voted "no." Mr. Sorey moved to approve the "Q1 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. Hendel. Motion carried 8 "yes" — I "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. 16 16 � 2 2 Uruar y 8, 11 0 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: • "Florida Now • "Florida Now: "Bal Boutique Bliss "Best of the West" "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 31 Alb 16 I February 2 ebrua y 2 8, 0 11 e. Sales and Marketing Technology- Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert L Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Reports submitted for items 8.d.e f. ( "Web Site — Miles Media Group; Search Engine Services, " - "Sales & Marketing Technologies, Inc., " - "Fulfillment Services dated February 28, 20-11'9 with the condition that future 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 f. 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:OOam. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 7— 0. 7 ear 2 Z L011 t 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 DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL r-l� �) Com s oner Georgia Hiller, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 8 K __ 1612 A 16 March 28, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING o XCNIERMA ,) (i L f Naples, Florida, March 28, 2011 BY : ....................... 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 Hiller Misc. Corres: Date: 9111112 Item #: I low 2141 le ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Copies to: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance Derek Johnnsen, Chief Accountant, Clerk of Courts 1 Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Fiala Jerry Gibson Hiller Henning Clark Hill _ Coyle ✓ Rick Medwedeff Coletta Robert Miller Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III Misc. Corres: Date: 9111112 Item #: I low 2141 le ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Copies to: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance Derek Johnnsen, Chief Accountant, Clerk of Courts 1 1612 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. A16 March 28, 2011 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" — S "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. P) i 16 164arbh 28, 2011 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 4m 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 FY 11 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. 1 lkcl 2�,O I I c� 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: 4 16 ' arch A16 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 1612a March 28, 2011 r e. Sports Marketing f. International Representatives g. Visitor Centers 10. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted by Staff. 11. Public Comment None 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 DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Chai ommissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended C R 6 1 2011 kT1 , 6, .1 MINUT ES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING p C � W3 Naples, Florida, April 1, 2011 j o' 9 E� BY.......................> LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:30 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in the Conference Room of the North Collier Government Center, 2335 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: I Fiala Hiller ---- Henning - -- Coyle ✓ Coletta�- CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff Robert Miller Misc. Corres: Date: Q l 1\ l t '2_ Item #:1 l.Q--T—' 2 k4 1 lv Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack W. Wert, Director — Convention & Visitors Bureau Kelly Green, CVB Office Administrator 1 1612 64 April 1, 2011 � 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chairman Hiller: • 10:45 AM • Quorum was established. 3. NEW BUSINESS: a. Sunshine Law Review — Jack Wert • Requirements: Meetings are to be noticed, open to the public, and recorded. • All communication between members, i.e., written, electronic, and /or telephone, must be one -way; dialogue is not allowed • The presence of two or more TDC members at a meeting triggers application of the law • Penalties: removal from office, 60 days in prison, $500 fine for each violation 2. CHANGES /APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jerry Gibson moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Robert Miller. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 3. NEW BUSINESS: b. Mission and Vision of Convention & Visitors Bureau • Mission Statement: To promote year- round, distinctive, world -class vacation and group meeting experiences resulting in positive economic growth and stability for Collier County • Vision Statement: To be recognized as the most desirable year -round visitor destination in the world c. Goals and Objectives of Subcommittee • Concern: Collier spends less money on advertising than any other County in Florida • Promote the County through: • Advertising • Online marketing • Public Relations/Media • Promotion — the "value added" components of a media buy • Direct Sales • Funding Sources: public (TDC) and private (Industry) Chairman Hiller suggested scheduling a workshop with the Board of County Commissioners, the Lodging Association, and Staff to discuss issues before bringing the Plan to the TDC. Consensus: Available dollars should be funneled into advertising which has been proven to be the most effective use of the funds and structure a year -round marketing effort. 2 1612" d. Input from Committee Members on: a. Individuals /Organizations to invite to subsequent meetings b. Format of Public Meetings c. Questions for Committee Members to ask attendees 4. REVIEW POLICIES FOR FY -11 GROUP MEETING INITIATIVE: • Analyze allocation of funding • What are other destinations in the State doing to obtain funding? 3. NEW BUSINESS: c. Objectives of Future Workshop Meetings • The Chairman and members discussed potential for four informal workshops • Formal Workshop with TDC to review and approve Annual Plan • Institute pre- season workshops to preview strategy (high/low season) ' A'ril 1 2011 p , 5. QUESTION /ANSWER PERIOD: • How have other Counties financed beach renourishment projects without using their TDC money? • What are alternative sources of funding? • What is the percentage allocation required for reserves? • Clerk is conducting an audit — when will results be available? 6. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • If TDC funds were used 10 for a non - tourism related project, a percentage of the profits should be directed to TDC instead of General Fund. 7. RESEARCH MATERIALS: 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:20 PM. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Georgia Hiller, Chair The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on as presented or as amended 3 2 16 April 22, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING p 3aIII�I� Naples, Florida, April 22, 2011 a) ll l J! i BY:... .................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at N. Collier Government Building Conference Room, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: JChairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Fiala Jerry Gibson Hiller Clark Hill (Excused) Henning Rick Medwedeff Coyle_ Robert Miller Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: Ql ► ►-� Item # :1 l Q Z . lq ► Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Jennifer Rainey, BCC Executive Aide 1 161 2 '16 April 22, 2011 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. 2. Changes /Approval of Agenda Mr. Gibson moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: • Item #5 to be renumbered Item #4 — Old Business and Item #4 be renumbered Item #5 - New Business. • Addition of Item #5.a — Report from Robert Miller — remaining items renumbered accordingly Second by Mr. Miller. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting April 1, 2011 Commissioner Hiller moved to continue the item. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. 4. Old Business a. Report from Clark Hill The Subcommittee reviewed an email from Mr. Hill to Kelly Green dated April 15, 2011 — Subject: Re: TDC Subcommittee meeting. b. Discuss Group Meeting Policies & Initiatives for FYI Jack Wert, Tourism Director, provided an overview of the Policies & Initiatives for FYI 1. c. Discuss Next Sub Committee Meeting Agenda re: Current Funding Allocations None. 5. New Business a. Report from Robert Miller — Lee County The Subcommittee reviewed an email from Katrina M. Salokar to Robert Miller dated April 8, 2011 —Subject: "Please Print for Bob" and related backup material. Discussion occurred on the overall data required for the Subcommittee to make informed recommendations. Commissioner Hiller moved to suspend discussion on the remaining items on the Agenda until the all potential revenue sources available to the TDC have been identified. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. The motion was clarified. 2 16 12 A16 April 22, 2011 Commissioner Hiller moved to continue Items #5b, c and d until the above referenced revenue sources have been identified. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. b. Review of Current Marketing Efforts Continued. c. Media Plan Review Continued. d. Promotions Review — Value Added & Co -op Continued. 6. Question and Answer Period None 7. Subcommittee Discussion As noted S. Next Meeting Date /Location 9:30 am, May 6, 2011, N. Collier Government Building Conference Room It was noted the next meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 a.m. Second by Commissioner Hiller. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:25 A.M. COLLIER CONY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SU COMMITTEE Commissioner ueorgia iiiiier These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 3 a 16 12 A16 April 25, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING o )R- 10TUVRI Naples, Florida, April 25, 2011 BY........................ 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: Misc. Corres: Date: C [ (I 1 t 12, Item #: I U Z 2- iA-1 CP Copies to: 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, Clerk of Courts 1 Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Fiala' Hiller ✓�- Susan Becker Henning Jerry Gibson Coyle ✓ Clark Hill Coletta ^a - Rick Medwedeff Robert Miller Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey, III (via telephone) Misc. Corres: Date: C [ (I 1 t 12, Item #: I U Z 2- iA-1 CP Copies to: 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, Clerk of Courts 1 R � 4ril 2k,41 Gio 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/reslt3 oom facility as directed at the March 8, 2011 BCC meeting and request authorization for associated budget amendments" dated April 25, 2011 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 0) Ao4b2y12 A 16 ,. 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 12011 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. 3 Ib 12 April 25, 2011 16 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 "yes " — 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 4il[5&01,A 16 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 E 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 5 .w 6 "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. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL q;nairman, commissioner ueorgia nuier These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 2 16 12 &U01Y MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, May 6, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at N. Collier Government Building Conference Room, Naples, Florida with the Following members present: JChairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Fiala_ Jerry Gibson Hiller Clark Hill Henning — Coyle ✓ _ Rick Medwedeff Coletta �- Robert Miller Misc. Corres: Date: 91 t 12- Item #: t L° Z 2 t-", % to Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Administrative Assistant Jennifer Rainey, Executive Aide 1 3 16 doll Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:45AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. 2. Changes /Approval of Agenda Mr. Gibson moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting April 22, 2011 Mr. Gibson moved to approve the minutes of the April 22, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. b. Regular Meeting April 1, 2011 Mr. Gibson moved to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2011 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 2, item 3, paragraph 3, line 1 — from "dollars should be funneled into advertising which..." to "dollars should be directed toward advertising and promotion which..." • Page 3, item 6, line 1 from "...used to for a non - tourism related..." to "used for a tourism related..." Second by Mr. Miller. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 4. New Business a. TDT Funding Allocations for Competing Florida Destinations Jack Wert, Tourism Director provided a spreadsheet outlining the funding allocations by Category for Tourist Development Tax funds for Collier County and a competitive set of markets (Florida Keys, Palm Beach, Miami Dade, etc.). The Subcommittee reviewed document and recommended: 1. That category "Beach Projects Budgets" indicate the percentage of the funds expended for the each category, where applicable (as opposed to dollar amounts). 2. That category "Beach Projects Budgets" indicates the percentages allocated to the individual categories for Beach Renourishment /Beach Facilities /Administration. 3. That category "% to Mktng & Admin" indicates the percentages allocated to the individual categories for Marketing /,Administration. 4. The spreadsheet provides the competitive market's Ordinance requirements for the percentage funding for the various categories as opposed to (or in addition to) a Fiscal Year spending example. 5. That the spreadsheet be titled and dated. 6. That the spreadsheet incorporates a category for percentage of occupancy and the category be ranked from high to low. The Subcommittee reviewed and discussed the "Tourist Development Council Category "A " Funding Policy. " F) A16 1612May 6, 2011 b. Media Plan Review Commissioner Hiller moved to continue Items 4.b and 4.c. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. c. Promotion Review -Value Added & Co -op Continued 5. Old Business a. Discuss Next Sub Committee Meeting Agenda The Subcommittee intends to review Items 4.b and 4.c at the next meeting. 6. Question and Answer Period None 7. Subcommittee Discussion The Subcommittee discussed /questioned the definition of "public access" in reference to State requirements for funding beach projects. 8. Next Meeting Date /Location TBD - N. Collier Government Building Conference Room Mr. Hill moved to hold the next Tourist Development Council Subcommittee meeting on June 3, 2011 at 9:30 am. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Mr. Hill moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously S — 0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:55 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBC MMITTEE i Chair a mmissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 3 2mA 16 ay 27, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, May 27, 2011 /0 1'- BY: ....................... 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 Fiala Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Hiller j Susan Becker Henning,n Jerry Gibson Coyle ✓ Clark Hill Coietta :3,t— Rick Medwedeff (Excused) Robert Miller Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator 1 6A 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 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 16I2 � A16 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. Sneaker 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 -I - 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. N16 1612 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 "yes" — 2 "no." Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Miller voted "no. .931 M 1612 A16 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. x A � 162t11 .6 ArtsNaples World Festival Ms. Becker moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the grant request for 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" — I "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 FYI 1112 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 n. 1612 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. VA . 1612 , 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. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOP ENT COUNCIL (�A� Chai n, Commissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 16 16 12 June 3, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING o j"IME9W* Naples, Florida, June 3, 2011 BY:. ...................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at the N. Collier Government Building Conference Room, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Jerry Gibson (Excused) Fiala Hill Hiller Rick Medwedeff Henning Robert Miller Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: —9 L < Item #:—i Ce Z Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Tourist Development Tax Coordinator Jennifer Rainey, Executive Aide to the BCC 1 §une 320 , .,1 116 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. 2. Changes /Approval of Agenda Commissioner Hiller moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting May 6, 2011 Mr. Medwedeff moved to approve the minutes of the May 6, 2011 Meeting subject to the following changes: o Page 2, item 4a, I" sentence add —"also provided the April Smith Travel Research Report • Page 2, item 4 - strike numbers 1 through 6. • Page 2, item 4a, line 2 from "... and recommended: " to "and discussed funding and supporting schedules provided by staff. Second by Mr. Miller. Motion carried 4 -0. 4. Old Business a. TDT Funding Allocations for Competing Florida Destinations Jack Wert, Tourism Director provided a spreadsheet outlining funding allocations by Category for Tourist Development Tax funds for Collier County and a competitive set of markets (Florida Keys, Palm Beach, Miami -Dade, etc.) sorted by percentage of occupancy category ranked from high to low. The Subcommittee reviewed and discussed the "TDT Allocation Comparisons for Competitive Destinations" report dated June 2, 2011. b. Media Plan Review Jack Wert distributed the 2011 Spring /Summer Online Campaign dated March 25, 2011 and the 2011 Naples, Marco Island and the Everglades Co -op Participation Overview for advertising; publications, partner cost, partner and insertion dates. c. Promotion Review — Value Added & Co -op Jack Wert distributed the 2011 Added Value overview to -date for Naples, Marco Island and the Everglades. 5. New Business a. Discuss Next Subcommittee Meeting Format and Agenda A consensus was formed to hold 2 meetings to receive input from the community tourism industry private sectors. 14 _612 A16 June 3, 2011 6. Question and Answer Period None 7. Subcommittee Discussion None 8. Next Meeting Date/Location The next meeting will be held June 30, 2011 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the North Collier Government Building Conference Room. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting ended at 11:30 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman; Commissioner Georgia Hiller These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 3 i 1612 A16 June 27, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, June 27, 2011 BY........................ 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: Chairman: Georgia Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Fiala Rick Medwedeff (excused) Hiller Henning Robert Miller (excused) Coyle Ed (Ski) Olesky Coletta John Sorey III Misc. Corres: Date: 1 Item #: i U X -2 ALSO PRESENT: Copies to: 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 1 une 7, 201A 16 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 8. 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 k16,2011 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 195 10 -Year Plan and Fund 195 FYI 1112 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 $3.4M for 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. S. Indicates the beginning fund balances by source for FY11 /12 (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. 3 A16 16 1 dune 27, 2011 Mr. Hendel moved to (recommend the BCC) approve the followingGrant Requests (for FY11 /I2): 1. Re ,-ulatory 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 Proiects $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 B Solutions - 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 (59,o) $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 2 12 A16 1 June 27 2011 FY 2011112 in the amount of $1,9 75, 000 " and related backup material dated June 27, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Sorey moved to (recommend the BCC) approve the following Grant Requests (for FYI-1112): $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" —1 "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" —1 "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" —1 "no. " Commissioner Hiller voted "no. " Commissioner Hiller noted her "no" vote was predicated on requiring a clarification on accounting procedures. 5 16 1e A16 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 Staff's 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 Staff) of the funding. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. SSpeaker Clay Brooker, Friends of Rookery Bay. It was noted there is an existing Grant awarded to the Friends of Rookery Bay from FY10111 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 $1 million in additional billing at gross in accordance with their agreement with Collier County. Second by Mr. Olesky. Motion carried 5 "yes" —1 "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 1612 9. Marketing Partner Reports a. Tax Collections b. Paradise Advertising c. Research Data Services d. BCF — PR Agency e. Miles Media - Website Activity C 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 Alb June 27, 2011 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. COLLI R COUNTY TOURIST DEVF�PMENT COUNCIL GeorViji Miller, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 7 6 ' June A §11 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, June 30, 2011 IUI_ BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at the N. Collier Government Building Conference Room, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Fiala Jerry Gibson Hiller Clark Hill Henning" Rick Medwedeff Coyle Coletta -;�c — Robert Miller (Excused) Misc. Corres: Date: 1 � 12 Item #: i Le Z2 vq Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator 1 A 164 � 16 1230,2011 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller expressed her gratitude and welcomed the Business Community Representatives. The TDC Subcommittee, the Staff and Business Representatives gave self - introductions prior to calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:40 am. A quorum was established. 2. Changes /Approval of Agenda Mr. Hill moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. Gibson. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting June 3, 2011 Mr. Hill moved to approve the minutes, of the June 3, 2011 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Gibson. Motion carried 4 -0. 4. New Business a. Industry Input from Tourism and Business Community Representatives regarding Destination Marketing Jack Wert distributed a list of "Discussion Topics" to the TDC Subcommittee and the Representatives to initiate discussion on: • Competitive position in the worldwide tourism marketplace • Driving more revenue to businesses in community to sustain year -round employment opportunities • Lack of nighttime entertainment options in the community • How it limits the ability to attract more group meetings • International and Domestic travelers He also provided and reviewed the "Naples, Marco Island and Everglades Average Seasonal Occupancy 2002 - 2011" dated June 29, 2011. Commissioner Hiller requested Staff email the TDC Marketing Plan, the TDC Budget and the Museum Budget to the Business Community Representatives. Meeting Recessed from 11: OS to 11:1 S am. Clark Hill left at 11: OS am. Discussion continued. Commissioner Hiller invited the Business Community Representative participants to review TDC Marketing and Budget information and reconvene on an agreed future date for additional discussion. 2 A16 2011 16VneO, 5. Question and Answer Period None 7. Subcommittee Discussion None 8. Next Meeting Date/Location The next meeting will be held on July 28, 2011 from 9:30 am to 12:30 pm at the N. Collier Building Conference Room. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting ended at 11:45 AM. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE j lw/ Chairman' C�Ihgissioner Georgia Hiller These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 3 16 12, ul A 1 y , MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, July 21, 2011 BY:....... ..... 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: Chairman: Commissioner Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker ,r Jerry Gibson Hiller Fiala �_ Clark Hill Henning —� Rick Medwedeff (Excused) Coyle 1-11 _ Robert Miller Coletta �— 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 Misc. Corres: Date: (:--f I I I ( ( 2 Item #: I UM Z*:) 1 U Copies to: - July 21, 2016 A 1,6 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 1612 J 6 1,4 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 COUNT TOURIST DEV OP ENT OUNCIL Chairman, Commissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 3 N 16 12 A16 July 28, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, July 28, 2011 BY: ...................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Development Services Division, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: j Fiala f Hiller -- Henning — Coyle ✓ �--- Coletta� Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff (Excused) Robert Miller Misc. Cones: Date: g i l l h --, ALSO PRESENT: Item #: IUM'2L*ZA I1-v Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Copies to: Jennifer Rainey, Executive Aide to Commissioner Hiller Debi DeBenedetto, Sales & Marketing Manager JoNell Modys, Public Relations & Communications Mgr. Angela Aline, Public Relations Assistant Maggie McCarty, Film and Entertainment Director 1 16,4 +' Ju y 28, 2011 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order — Chairman Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:43 AM. A quorum was established. She expressed her gratitude and welcomed the business community representatives. 2. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Jerry Gibson moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. Hill. Staff requested addition - 4. Report on Journalists Visiting Destination And move balance of agenda items down one number. Mr. Jerry Gibson moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting June 30, 2011 Mr. Hill moved to approve the minutes of the June 30, 2011 Meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Jerry Gibson. Motion carried 4 -0. 4. Report on Journalists Visiting Destination JoNell Modys, Public Relations and Communication Manager distributed and reviewed a "Press in the Destination" report. (See attached) 5. New Business The TDC Subcommittee, staff and business representatives gave self - introductions a. Review and discussion of TDT Allocation, FY 12 Proposed Tourism, County Museum and Coastal Zone Management Budgets and Marketing Plans Jack Wert gave a slide presentation on the 2011 Strategic Plan — International Marketing. Fiscal Yeaf'2012 Preliminary Budgets previously emailed to business representatives for their review are TDC Capital, Museums and Office of the County Manager. Discussion Topics — July 28, 2011 TDC Subcommittee Meeting and Allocations on Tourist Tax for Beach Projects, County Museums, Non - County Owned Museums and a Marketing & Promo Chart were distributed. (See attached) Discussions included night entertainment, ordinance noise restrictions, outdoor tiki huts, gondola rides at Venetian Village, etc. Commissioner Hiller suggested JoNell Mody email the "Night Life" link referred to during discussion to participating business representatives. 0 N �2 A16 � July 28, 2011 Mr. Jerry Gibson left at 10:58 AM. Mr. Hill left at 10:59 AM. A slide presentation was made. There was a brief discussion regarding a deficiency of airline flight destinations to SWFL. Mr. Jerry Gibson returned at I1: 01 AM. Mr. Hill returned at 11: 02 AM. Mr. Miller left at 11:05 AM. Mr. Miller returned at 11:10 AM. Meeting Recessed from 11:15 to 11:23 AM. b. Industry Input from Tourism and Business Community Representatives regarding Destination Marketing Mr. James Gibson - Director of Marketing for Seminole Casino Immokalee presented "Balloons in Paradise Festival" a hot air balloon inaugural event to build into a signature annual event for the market. (See attached) A variety of recommendations and suggestions were made from co -op marketing events, featured newspaper articles and promotional awareness. 6. Question and Answer Period None 7. Subcommittee Discussion None 8. Next Meeting Date/Location It was decided Jack Wert would complete a draft plan, incorporate a summary list of input received from business community representatives, and schedule the next meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:37 PM. TOURIg DEVE PMENT COUNCIL SUBC Mli✓IIlrTlE CommisWder Georgia Hiller, Chair These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on , as presented or as amended 3 A164 1612 September 6, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Q RORRWR Naples, Florida, September 6, 2011 �� -� Ll BY: ....................... 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: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Fiala Clark Hill Hiller — Henning Rick Medwedeff Coyle ✓ Robert Miller Coletta c_ Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III Misc. Corres: Date: °I L 0 1 Item* t'QZZ-e l �v Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Department 1 i 16 124616 1 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 — Commissioner 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 Mr. Sorey moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: • Item #7.e to be heard as Item #7.a. with the remaining items re- lettered accordingly. • Continuation of Item #8.c — County Museum Funding Report Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 -0. Jack Wert, Tourism Director reported the following additions to the meeting packet: • "Changes in Tourism Agreements " • "Smith Travel Research Data, Inc. Report" • "FY 11 TDC Budget Report by Fund — 3rd Quarter (Cumulative) — October 1, 2010 Thru June 30, 2011" • "Summary —All TDC Funds Thru 3rd Qtr FY 2011 " • 2 emails from tourism industry — marketing funding The Council requested Staff to place an item on the next meeting agenda for consideration of appointing a Tourist Development Committee (TDC) Subcommittee to study the issue of raising the Tourist Tax rate. Mr. Hendel to coordinate the content of the item with Mr. Wert. The Council determined to add 1 hour to the meeting schedule beginning with the next meeting. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes- a. Regular Meeting July 21, 2011 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 1, headsheet — line 3 from 9:00 A.M. to 10:00A.M. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 -0. The Council directed Staff to prepare a report for the next meeting agenda on the status of the Moraya Bay Development Agreement for providing funds to the County. 2 1614 4166,2411 6. Presentations /Public comment — (10 min) None 7. New Business a. FY 12 Tourism Strategic Plan Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Review and make recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the Fiscal Year 2012 Strategic Plan for the Naples Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) " dated September 6, 2011. He presented a slideshow outlining the "Strategic Marketing Plan — 2011 - 2012." Speaker Jim Gibson, Director of Marketing, Seminole Casino — Immokalee. Steve McIntyre, Collier County Lodging and Tourism Alliance. The Council recommended the following changes /additions: • Page 6 — Brand Enhancement — recognition, based upon visitor responses, Beaches are the #1 attribute of the area. • Page 8, #9 — Revise the text to convey the concept it is certain areas of the County where there is a challenge (as opposed to the entire County). • Page 10, Weaknesses — Deletion of #6 • Page 11, Threats, #6 — removal /revision of text identifying affordable housing as a current challenge. • Page 14, Political Factors Influencing the Travel Market, bullet point 2 — revise language to ensure there is not a perception set forth that the County is not in favor of enforcing immigration laws. • Identify intent to meet with hospital industry representatives for the purpose of increasing the opportunities associated with medical tourism. including "co -op" opportunities. • Any acronyms in the Plan should be identified. • Identifying the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) publications currently available and any plans for their changes (formats, coop opportunities, etc.). Commissioner Hiller moved to (recommend the Board of County Commissioners) approve the "Strategic Marketing Plan 2011— 2012" subject to: 1. The recommendations listed above. 2. Incorporation of the budget information on the Canadian, Eco and Sports Tourism marketing in total to determine if there is any means to re- allocate or increase the funding in these areas if it is found to be inadequate. 3. Review the future ongoing projects identified in the Plan to determine if they can be funded. 4. Incorporating additional Subcommittee recommendations as the Board wishes over the course of the next year. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Break. 10:40 a.m. Reconvened.- 10:50 a.m. ki A16 September 6, 2011 Ms. Becker did not return b. Proposed TDC Ordinance Amendment Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve and authorize Staff to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended. Amendments include (1) delineating the allocation of administrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches, and Fund 183 Beach Park Facilities, (2) incorporating into the ordinance the Category "A " Funding Policy approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and directing that the Funding Policy be included in the Collier County Administrative Code, (3) incorporating provisions of Section 125.0104(5)(A)1, Fla. Stat., relating to the use of Category "C " funds for museums, and (4) removing expired provisions pertaining to the use of certain revenues for tourism destination marketing" dated September 6, 2011. Colleen Greene stated with respect to Proposed Amendment #3, Category C, Page 3 of 6 of the Ordinance, Line 2 -3 - the current language will remain as is - ( "...operated museums or museums that are... ") Speaker Steve McIntyre, Collier County Tourism and Lodging Association Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the 4 amendments proposed subject to the following changes: 1. Page 2 of 6 of the Ordinance, Category B line 2 - 3, - delete the language "with an emphasis on offseason visitors" 2. Page 3 of 6 of the Ordinance paragraph 4, Subcategory C(2) to read "All other statutorily qualified museums: 4.764 %." Second by Mr. Sorey. Motion failed 3 `yes" — S "no." Mr. Hill, Mr. Medwedeff, Mr. Olesky, Mr. Gibson and Commissioner Hiller voted "no. " Proposed Amendment #1 Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Amendment subject to the following: 1. Ordinance Section, 4.b "Administrative costs," line 2/3 to read "... shall not exceedl5% of Category "A" Tourist Tax revenues." Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Proposed Amendment #2 Mr. Medwedeff moved to continue consideration of proposed Amendment following a review by the County Clerk's Office and the County Attorney's Office for Statutory compliance. Second by Commissioner Hiller. Motion carried 7 "yes" — I "no." Mr. Hendel voted "no." Proposed Amendment #3 4 164 G A 16 � September 6, 2011 Mr. Medwedeff moved to continue consideration of the proposed Amendment until the broader Ordinance changes regarding funding options have been considered. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried S "yes" — 3 "no. " Mr. Sorey, Mr. Hendel and Mr. Olesky voted "no." Proposed Amendment #4 Commissioner Hiller moved to not approve Staffs recommendation to amend the Ordinance as proposed. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion carried 6 "yes" — 2 "no." Mr. Hendel and Mr. Sorey voted "no." c. Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FY 11 Grant Funding Status and Amendment Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Amendment #2 to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FY 11 Tourist Development Tax Grant Agreement to extend the agreement until January 31, 2012, change the current funding source from Category C -2 to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 as a Category B marketing grant, clarify reimbursement requirements in the agreement, and waive the $25, 000 funding limit and 80% second request guidelines in the Category B grant application for FY 11 and FY 12" dated September 6, 2011. Speaker Clay Brooker, Friends of Rookery Bay Brian Holley, Naples Botanical Gardens Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Proposed Amendment to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FYI] Tourist Development Tax Agreement subject to the following changes: 1. Section 2 — Payment (a), line 8 — 9 from "... printed materials and proofs of TV ads... " to "...printed material or proofs of TV ads... " 2. Section S, (d), line 2 — revise language to cite other exhibits deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Section. 3. Add an additional sentence in Section 2, Payments — "Should these documents be unavailable, the Grantee may submit other legally viable evidence of payment subject to review and approval by the Clerk's Office." Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. The Council noted this motion was applicable to Item 7.d and 7.e as well. d. FY 11 TDC Grant Agreement Amendments Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Amendments to FY 11 Tourist Development Tax Category B and C -2 grant agreements to clarify reimbursement requirements" dated September 6, 2011. Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Proposed Amendment to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FYI] Tourist Development Tax Agreement subject to the following changes: 5 SZmber 6, 2011 1. Section 2 — Payment (a), line 8 — 9 from "... printed materials and proofs of TV ads... " to "...printed material or proofs of TV ads... " 2. Section 5, (d), line 2 — revise language to cite other exhibits deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Section. 3. Add an additional sentence in Section 2, Payments — "Should these documents be unavailable, the Grantee may submit other legally viable evidence of payment subject to review and approval by the Clerk's Office." Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. e. FY 12 TDC Grant Agreements Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve FY 12 Tourism Agreements for Category B Grant Agreements totaling $65, 000; Category C -2 Grant Agreements totaling $240, 000; and a Tourism Department printing project totaling $24, 000 and waive grant application multiple year funding guidelines where appropriate" dated September 6, 2011. Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Proposed Amendment to the Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. FY 11 Tourist Development Tax Agreement subject to the following changes: 1. Section 2 — Payment (a), line 8 — 9 from "... printed materials and proofs of TV ads... "to "...printed material or proofs of TV ads..." 2. Section S, (d), line 2 — revise language to cite other exhibits deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the Section. 3. Add an additional sentence in Section 2, Payments — "Should these documents be unavailable, the Grantee may submit other legally viable evidence of payment subject to review and approval by the Clerk's Office." Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. The Council directed Staff to conduct Grant Cycle "update workshops" with the recipients. C Quarterly Financial Review of TDC Funds Continued g. Service Mark Renewals Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare and submit Declarations of Continued Use to maintain service mark registrations with the United States Patent & Trademark Office to preserve the County's advertising, logos, phrases and slogans" dated September 6, 2011. Mr. Sorey moved to approve the recommendation. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 0 16 12 A16 September 6, 2011 8. Old Business a. Coastal Zone Management Responses to 6 -27 -11 TDC Requests - Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Expansion Backup Material - Overview of Beach Parking Collections/Expenditures - Fund 183 Administration Expenditure Analysis - FEMA Reimbursement Quarterly Update - TDC Expenditures by Jurisdiction - Gulfshore Property Acquisition Report Continued b. Fund 183 Project Report Continued c. County Museum Funding Report Continued The Council noted the item should include discussion on the collection of donations by the Friends of the Museum and the previously requested report from the Executive Director of Collier County Museums on Museum funding by Counties. d. TDC Meeting Schedule Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Discuss Future TDC Monthly Meeting Dates, Time and Location" dated September 6, 2011. Mr. Sorey moved to hold a Tourist Development Council meeting on September 26, 2011. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. The Council determined not to consider a Tourist Development Council item in anticipation of it being considered by the Board of County Commissioners the following day. 9. Marketing Partner Reports - Continued a. Tax Collections — Jack Wert b. Paradise Advertising c. Research Data Services — Jack Wert d. Miles Media - Website Activity — Jack Wert c. Sales and Marketing Technology - Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert f. Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert 10. Tourism Staff Reports - Continued a. Director b. Sales and Marketing c. Public Relations and Communications d. Film Office e. Sports Marketing f. International Representatives g. Visitor Centers 7 2, A O 20 1 11. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted 12. Council Member Discussion Mr. Gibson requested Staff consider adding the Marco Island Museum to the Visitor Survey. 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — September 26, 2011— 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration BLDG. F, 3rd Floor, 3301 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 COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPM NT COUNCIL A ueorgia timer, unairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 1.1 0 Alb --h ember 26, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING Naples, Florida, September 26, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Tourist DevelopmenBY: " " " " " " "" 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 1 Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker (Excused) Jerry Gibson Fiala I Clark Hill Hiller Rick Medwedeff Henning Robert Miller Coyle ✓' Coletta 7G Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III Misc. Corres: Date: 9 11 1 1-2— item #:1 k-�o -'�: 2-41 Lo Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Department Ron Jamro, Executive Director, Collier County Museums 1 Se r 11 Alb 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 — Commissioner Hiller Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:03 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. Olesky moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: • Item 7d & 7e to be heard before Item 7a. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 - 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting September 6, 2011 Mr. Sorey moved to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2011 Meeting. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 - 0. 6. Presentations /Public comment — (10 min) None 7. Old Business d. County Museum Funding Report — Continued from 9 -6 -11 Meeting Ron Jamro, Executive Director, Collier County Museums provided a report on the funding of operations of State of Florida, County owned and operated museums. Mr. Sorey moved to continue the item to the October Meeting and requested that staff: 1. Provide data on how Florida counties with museums, that are owned and operated by those county(s), fund operations, including the source of funding in a spreadsheet (or similar schedule) format and backup data as necessary. 2. Provide a business plan on how the department would fund operations (and operate) were it absent of Tourist Development Tax revenue funding. 3. Provide an analysis on the revenue generated by Friends of Museum including distribution of the funds received. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Speaker Patricia Huff, Friends of the Museum, Everglades City 0a A 1 September 26, 2011 e. Quarterly Financial Review of TDC Funds — Continued from 9 -6 -11 Meeting Jack Wert, Tourism Director provided the Executive Summary: "Q3 Fiscal Year 11 Tourist Tax Financial Review " and "FYI I TDC Budget Report by Fund — 3rd Quarter (cumulative) October 1, 2010 thru June 30, 2011" dated September 25, 2011, for informational purposes. The Council recommended future reports be revised to provide data in quarterly periods as well as "year to date' The Council determined they would hear Item 7f before Item 7a. f. Proposed TDC Ordinance Amendment Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney presented the Executive Summary: "Recommendation to approve and authorize staff to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended. Amendments include (1) delineating the allocation of administrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches and Fund 183 Beach Park Facilities, and (2) incorporating provisions of Section 125.0104(5) (A) 1, Fla. Stat., relating to the use of Category "C "funds for museums" dated September 26, 2011. Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve proposed Amendment #1 subject to the following language: 4. Administrative Costs a. Tourism Promotion Administrative Costs shall not exceed 32% of the total amount collected each fiscal year for Category `B" revenue and shall be financed solely from the 23.236% of the two percent tax." b. Project Management, Indirect Overhead, and Program Administration in support of Fund 195 (Beaches) and Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities) shall not exceed 15% of Category "A" Tourist Tax revenues. These charges to be split 75% to Fund 195 (Beaches) and 25% to Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities). Mr. Sorey withdrew the motion. Commissioner Hiller moved to continue the item. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Break: 10:16 a.m. Reconvened: 10:30 a.m. a. Coastal Zone Management Responses to 6 -27 -11 TDC Requests — Continued from the 9 -6 -11 Meeting Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the Executive Summary: "Follow -up items to the TDC Meeting of June 27, 2011 " dated September 26, 2011 and related backup material. The following items were addressed: - Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Expansion Backup Material The backup included copies of permits issued or in process for construction of the proposed Vanderbilt Beach restroom facility. 3 AA p ima 26, 2011 Commissioner Hiller moved for staff to place an item on a future agenda for review by the Council on the project's potential negative environmental impacts on the critically eroded beach and conformance with the Land Development Code. The review to ensure the proposed project does not create negative environmental impacts requiring unnecessary additional expenditures of Tourist Development Tax funds. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion carried S "yes " — 3 "no': Mr. Olesky, Mr. Hendel and Mn Sorey voted "no." Mr. Sorey moved that the Council's review be restricted to areas having potential financial impacts on funds within the purview of the Tourist Development Council (TDC) per the Ordinance governing the TDC. Second by Mr. Hendel. Motion failed 4 "yes" — 4 "no' . Mr. Miller, Mr. Medwedeff, Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Hill voted "no." - Overview of Beach Parking Collection/Expenditures The data outlined the amount of revenue from parking passes and the parking garage. Commissioner Hiller moved to request that staff provide an analysis on revenue and expenditures associated with the collection of beach parking fees. The analysis should include revenue for parking passes versus the parking garage. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Gary McAlpin provided informational updates on the following items: - Fund 183 Administration Expenditure Analysis - FEMA Reimbursement Quarterly Update - TDC Expenditure by Jurisdiction - Gulfshore Property Acquisition Report b. Fund 183 Project Report Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the document "CZM 183 Fund updated 8/11/11 " for review. Commissioner Hiller moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners amend the FY12 Budget and re- assign line items (for Fund 183) 88027 — Gulf Shore Property Purchase ($2,304,300) and 88029 — Gulf Shore Property Improvements ($1,000,000) to Reserves until the Council identifies projects that qualify for funding. Second by Mr. Hendel. Motion carried 7 `yes " -1 "no ". Mr. Olesky voted "no': It was noted, the status of the remaining line items in Fund 183 will be reviewed at the next TDC Meeting. c. Status Report on Fund 183 Transfer — Moraya Bay None 8. New Business The Council determined they would hear Item 8b & 8c before Item 8a. 4 September 2 2 0 b b. Emergency Dredging of Collier Bay Entrance Channel Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the Executive Summary: "Recommendation to award Bid No. 11 -5763 to Energy Resources, Inc. in the amount of $262, 000 for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval " dated September 26, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. ll- 5763 to Energy Resources, Inc. in the amount of $262,000 for the emergency dredging of Collier Bay entrance channel and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval. The recommendation is based on the finding the TDC recognizes the project promotes tourism within the region. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. c. Collier Creek Dredging Project Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided the Executive Summary; "Recommendation to award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project" dated September 26, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award an $18,650 Work Order to Coastal Engineering Consultants for construction support and project certification for the Collier Bay dredging project'. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. a. Proposed Study to Identify New Marketing Funding Sources Mr. Medwedeff moved to appoint Murray Hendel to the TDC's Subcommittee, studying TDCfunding and to incorporate a review on ramification of increasing the Tourist Tax rate into the Subcommittee's area of study. Second by Mr. Hill. Speakers Steve McIntyre, Collier County Lodging and Tourism Alliance Submitted a letter to the TDC dated September 21, 2011, recommending the reassignment of $2.5Mfrom Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities) to Marketing. Brian Pease, representing Small Business Hospitality Motion carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Hendel moved to request that staff. 1. Prepare a Marketing Plan, incorporating additional spending increments of $1.0M, $1.5M and $2. OM respectively, in FY12 for the purpose of promoting tourism in the region. Septer;�i r 26, 2011 . • 2. Provide an explanation and update on the "carry forward" balance of $500,000 intended to be used for future Group Sales Marketing in the area of "hotel promotions /incentives' 3. Provide an opinion and any other necessary documentation required for Tourist Development Council (TDC) action, that to transfer funds from Fund 183 to the Marketing and Promotions accounts is legally allowed and may be recommended by the TDC. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Break: 12:10 p. m. Reconvened: 12:15 p. m. 9. Marketing Partner Reports — Continued Jack Wert provided a slideshow titled "Marketing Partner Reports — September 26, 2011 " which included the following reports: a. Tax Collections — Jack Wert "Tourist Tax Collection — Collier County Tax Collector" b. Paradise Advertising — Lee Goddard "Advertising Report Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. — TDC, September 26, 2011 " c. Research Data Services — Jack Wert "Collier County Tourism Research, August 2011 — Research Data Services, Inc. " The Subcommittee requested staff to provide visitation data for Canadians travelling to Florida and an updated forecast on European visits to the area. d. Miles Media - Website Activity — Jack Wert "Website — Miles Media Group" e. Sales and Marketing Technology- Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert "Search Engine Services — Sales and Marketing Technologies, Inc. " L Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert "Fulfillment Services — Phase IV" 10. Tourism Staff Reports — Continued Jack Wert provided the following staff reports: a. Director b. Sales and Marketing c. Public Relations and Communications d. Film Office e. Sports Marketing L International Representatives g. Visitor Centers 2 161e September 26, 2011 11. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted 12. Council Member Discussion Commissioner Hiller requested staff to submit the Subcommittee draft report to the members of the Subcommittee (excluding Mr. Murray who was assigned to the Subcommittee to assist in completing the new task of studying the feasibility of increasing the tourist tax rate). 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location —October 24,2011 — 9:00 a.m. 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 1:00 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY YOURIST DEV OPMENT C UNCIL Con�nhiVioitkr Georgia Hiller, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended VA 6 Jt0?er2Aj6 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING JUL :7 r'i2 Naples, Florida, October 24, 2011 BY: ....................... 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: Chairman: Vice Chairman: Fiala Hiller _ Henning Coyle Coletta Commissioner Hiller Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff Robert Miller 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 Development Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Director of Finance Ed Finn, Sr. Budget Analyst, OMB Misc. Comes: Date: 9 � l \ W2— Item #: I UM -)—A I 1p Copies to: 1 Octdfier 4, 0 i 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 Mr. Sorey moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition: • Item 8c. — December Meeting Schedule Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting September 26, 2011 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 7. Item 12, line 2 — from "...(excluding Mr. Murray who was...)" to "...(excluding Mr. Hendel who was...)" Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 6. Presentations/Public Comment None 8. New Business (this item was heard before Item 7. Old Business) c. December Meeting Schedule Jack Wert, Tourism Director reported there will be a "Roundtable Meeting" on December 7, 2011 at The Inn at 5th which will be noticed for Tourist Development Council attendance. Commissioner Hiller moved, for Staff to notice the December 7rh meeting as reported by Staff. In addition, unless warranted, the December regular meeting of the Tourist Development Council will not be held. If warranted, the meeting will be convened on December 19, 2011. 7. Old Business Gary McAlpin submitted updates on the following items with backup documents as outlined below: a. Coastal Zone Management Reports — Continued from 9 -06 -11 and 9 -26 -11 TDC Meetings i. Vanderbilt Beach Restroom Environmental Impact Report ii. Fund 183 Project Report • "CZM 183 Fund Report updated 10112111 " 2 A16 + 6012 24, 2011 iii. Beach Parking Revenue and Expenditure Analysis • Memo from Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recre 'on — BAW to Jack Wert — Subject "Request from TDC" with attachments dated October 14, 2011 iv. Moraya Bay Developer Contribution to Fund 183 • Copy of an email string from Gary McAlpin to Kelly Green and others — Subject "FW.- Continued items for 10 -24 TDC meeting" dated October 19, 2011. The Council requested Staff to: 1. Confirm any funds (Line Item # 80058) associated with the Moraya Bay agreements were not utilized for the "Aqua at Pelican Isles " project. 2. Provide an opinion whether utilizing Tourist Development Council funds for improvements at the Delnor — Wiggins State Park entrance is an allowable use of revenues under any applicable Statutes, Ordinance, etc. (County Attorney's Office). 3. Forward the "Beach Parking Revenue and Expenditure Analysis" to the TDC Subcommittee. Said analysis to be revised to remove any items associated with the "Water Park. " 4. Place an item on the Agenda identifying the mileage of the beaches within the County broken out by jurisdiction (City of Naples, City of Marco Island, Collier County) and the associated revenues and expenses of Beach Parking Facilities (including any State of Florida funding). b. County Museum Funding Report — Continued from 9 -26 -11 Meeting (Information and Update Only) i. Florida County Owned Museum Funding Analysis ii. Report on Friends of the Museums Voluntary Collections iii. Plan for Operating County Museums without TDC funding Continued. c. Revised Quarterly Financial Review of TDC Funds (Q4) — Information Only Jack Wert provided the following documents and provided an update on the quarterly financials: • The Executive Summary "Q4 Fiscal Year]] Tourist Tax Financial Review" dated October 24, 1011. • "FYI] TDC Budget Report by Fund— Preliminary 4`h Quarter — October 1, 2010 thru Sept 30, 2011. " • "TDC Funds —Preliminary FYI] Year End Variance Analysis. The Council requested Staff to: 1. Place an item on the next meeting agenda for review of the existing marketing contracts (Staff to provide copies of the contracts, explanation of the services provided and the dollar amounts of the services). 3 Ccgoer 24 2011 2. Immediately complete an analysis to determine how much of the $654,000 of "Projected Carryforward at 10 11 110 "for Fund 184 is actually available for Carryforward to the FY 11112 budget. Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners, amend the Tourist Development Council FYIl 112 budgetfor the purposes of allocating (if available) $350,000.00 (three hundred fifty thousand dollars) of the "Carryforward "for Fund 184 to a "Fall Marketing Campaign" with the intent of initiating the promotions in the New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Instate Markets. Finance Staff to make a determination that the funds may be allocated to a "Fall Campaign "prior to the Board of County Commissioners consideration of the item. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Break: 10: 45am Reconvened.• 10:53am d. TDC Ordinance Amendment for Fund 194 Administrative Costs Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve and authorize the County Attorney to advertise proposed amendments to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended. Amendments include delineating the allocation of administrative costs in support of Fund 194 Tourism Promotion, Fund 195 Beaches, and Fund 183 Beach Park Facilities dated October 24, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners amend the Section addressing "Administrative Costs" in the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92 -60 to read as follows: 4. Administrative costs. a. Tourism promotion administrative costs shall not exceed 32% of total Category `B" tourist tax revenues each fiscal year and shall be expended from the 23.236% of the two percent tax. b. Project Management, Indirect Overhead, and Program Administration in support of Fund 195 (Beaches) and Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities) shall not exceed 15% of Category "A "tourist tax revenues. These charges to be split 75% to Fund 195 (Beaches) and 25% to Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities). Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 8. New Business (continued) a. Marco South Renourishment Permitting Work Order Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary (ES) "Recommendation to award a Work Order for ,$89, 000 to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the permitting required to obtaining (obtain) a FDEP permit for the Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USA CE permit" dated October 24, 2011 and related backup material. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a Work Order for $89,000 to Coastal Engineering Consultants for the permitting required to obtain a FDEP U 1612 A16 October 24, 2011 permit for the Marco South Beach renourishment project along with modifications to the existing USA CE permit as presented by Staff. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. b. Service Mark Renewals for Paradise Coast Blueway Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare and submit applications to renew service marks with the State of Florida Division of Corporations to preserve the County's advertising, logos, phrases and slogans for "Paradise Coast Blueway" dated October 24, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Gibson moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to prepare and submit applications to renew service marks with the State of Florida Division of Corporations to preserve the County's advertising, logos, phrases and slogans for "Paradise Coast Blueway': Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 9. Marketing Partner Reports Jack Wert provided a Slideshow titled "Marketing Partner Reports — September 26, 2011 " which included the following reports: a. Tax Collections — Jack Wert "Tourist Tax Collections — Collier County Tax Collector" b. Paradise Advertising — Pat Cote — Paradise Marketing and Advertising "Advertising Report Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. — TDC, October 24, 2011 " c. Research Data Services — Dr. Walter Klages — Research Data Services, Inc. "Collier County Tourism Research, September 2011— Research Data Services, Inc. " d. Miles Media - Website Activity — Jack Wert "Website — Miles Media Group" e. Sales and Marketing Technology- Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert "Search Engine Services — Sales and Marketing Technologies, Inc. " L Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert "Fulfillment Services — Phase IV" The Council requested Staff provide an analysis on the online inquiries /website traffic from the Brazil market to the TDC Subcommittee. 10. Tourism Staff Reports The following Reports were provided by Staff: a. Director — Jack Wert The Council requested Staff provide a summary on the results of the Routes Airlines Conference held in Berlin to the TDC Subcommittee for review. b. Sales & Marketing — Debi DeBendetto - CVB Sales & Marketing Manager c. Public Relations & Communications - JoNell Modys - CVB Public Relations & Communications Manager 5 Oct e4,10Z A16 d. Film Office — Jack Wert e. Sports Marketing — Jack Wert E International Representatives — Jack Wert g. Visitor Centers — Nancy Kearns 11. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted 12. Council Member Discussion The Council noted: • Staff should continue to consider the opportunities for promoting "Agri- tourism." • Staff investigates the feasibility of undertaking additional promotions in cooperation with "JetBlue." • JoNell Modys was publicly recognized for her efforts to promote tourism in the region. 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — November 28, 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 1:04 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMEN'i COUNCIL A missioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 0 k. 161 A16 November 21, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, November 21, 2011 BY: ...................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Grant Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in a REGULAR SESSION at the N. Collier Government Building Conference Room, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala ✓ Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Huller ✓ Jerry Gibson (Excused) Henning - Clark Hill Coyle Coletta X Rick Medwedeff Robert Miller Misc. Correa. Date: `'1 k \ 1 ► 2, Item #:—I t Z—X 11-0 Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Jennifer Rainey, Executive Aide 1 Nov , 4 2 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 3:03 pm. A quorum was established. 2. Changes /Approval of Agenda Mr. Hill moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting July 28, 2011 Mr. Clark moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2011 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion carried 4 -0. 4. New Business a. Discussion on Additional Funding Alternatives Rick Medwedeff distributed and reviewed "A Business Case for Economic Impact, Jobs and Quality of Life in Collier County." (See attached) He expressed concern that it would be a bad decision to increase the Bed Tax to 5 %. He recommended permanent restructuring of the Tourist Development Tax Allocation over the next 5 years. Discussion was made regarding the BCC Chairman's term ending in January and the time frame to finalize the FY 2012 Strategic Marketing Plan. Mr. Hill moved that we (Subcommittee) present to the full TDC Commission the suggestion that Commissioner Hiller remain on as Chairman of the TDC Subcommittee through the next BCC Chairman's term or until such time the funding issue has been complete. Second by Rick Medwedeff. Motion carried 4 -0. b. Coastal Zone Management Report to Subcommittee Gary McAlpin distributed and reviewed the TDC Category "A" 195 Fund Projections dated November 16, 2011. (See attached) Commissioner Hiller asked Gary to provide details for the plan, documentation and all emails regarding the Federal law which states the Recon Study must have Federal Authorization and requires only Federal funding. Gary McAlpin asked for the Subcommittee to give consideration if any adjustments are to be made, to look first into Category "A" and to keep the surplus in beach facilities Fund 195. Gary McAlpin suggested a Workshop on Re- nourishment be held and to request Leo Ochs arrange the workshop. 2 � 1 A 6 ovem er 21, 2 11 Commissioner Hiller moved to approve Ricks' ( Medwedef) report subject to following modifications: that he adds to the discussion about the high average room rate and how that affects the costs of a tax to a convention group and give an example so people will understand what a penny tax is and also explain why we have a higher average room rate because of our being a luxury cluster and to incorporate the discussion about the museums including the graph and explain the variance between, for example, 2% of visitors versus 11 % of funding and then to present a schedule that maps out the S year plan which also should incorporate, as part of that what Peter said, which is that the higher occupancies would resolve in more revenues coming in; so the schedule should also include the projected revenues or incremental revenues, TDC and other. And then finally, in the last paragraph include the number of jobs that would be created by a 10% increase and do an example on the average salary for your hotel (Marriott Marco Island) and being the largest employer etc. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 4 -0. Commission Hiller suggested that Gary McAlpin bring back the underlining details for the Beach Re- nourishment Program that is being proposed, so that the Subcommittee can make a determination on how much is really necessary versus how much is a want. Also, provide an analysis between the parking and restroom facilities, miles of beach versus contributions and the TDC revenue generated between Unincorporated City of Marco and the City of Naples. c. Subcommittee Draft Report Jack Wert distributed a draft report on the TDC Subcommittee background and a synopsis of the meetings held to review the current funding allocations and destination marketing efforts to attract visitors to Collier County. He also provided a copy of the Big Cypress National Preserve FY 2011 Synopsis. (See attached) Commissioner Hiller directed the Subcommittee to read through all of the documentation provided by Jack Wert and to e -mail him their recommendations. She recommended another meeting to include Murray Hendel, Presidents Council Chairman. It was suggested an economic study be done on the impact of a 10% increase in occupancy with a probable economic return over the next 5 years. Mr. Medwedeff moved the TDC Subcommittee recommend Dr. Klages work with him (Rick Medwedefj) to take the numbers from his (Rick Medwedeffi report to properly extractulate them (the numbers) to have the correct economic impact for the conclusion of his report. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 4 -0. 5. Question and Answer Period None 4� 6. Subcommittee Discussion None 161 Z lb- J-­-- November 21, 2011 7. Next Meeting Date/Location a. Discuss Next Sub Committee Meeting Date, Location, Format and Agenda Meeting date will be determined when report and exhibits are complete. Commissioner Hiller moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Rick Medwedeff. Motion carried 4 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting ended at 5:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman, Commissioner Georgia Hiller These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 2 A 16 2ember 28, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING p R a lg it 3 Jl Naples, Florida, November 28, 2011 u ` � BY:... .................... 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 Hiller Henning = — Coyle Coletta Chairman: Commissioner Hiller Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff Robert Miller (Excused) Ed (Ski) Olesky John Sorey III ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: U 1 Copies to: 6 GvemberA, 21§ 2 � 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 Mr. Hendel moved to add the following item to the Agenda: • Item 7.f - TDC Subcommittee Membership Discussion Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Sorey moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. The Council noted they are still awaiting a report as requested on the Operation of County Owned and Operated Museums. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting of October 24, 2011 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the minutes of the October 24, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 6. Presentations /Public Comment None 7. Old Business a. Q 4 FY 11 Financial Report with FY 10 Comparisons Jack Wert provided the document "FYII TDC Budget Report by Fund - Preliminary 4rh Quarter October 1, 2010 thru Sept 30, 2011 " dated November 28, 2011 for informational purposes. b. Fund 183 Questions from October Meeting Gary McAlpin provided the "CZM 183 Fund Report — Updated 11114111 " for informational purposes. He noted Line Items #80058 (Vanderbilt Beach Access #8) and #80141 (Remaining Vanderbilt Beach Accesses) are still being reviewed by Staff and the information will be provided at a future date. Commissioner Hiller requested Staff provide the following information to Council members: 1. A list o all Churn existin proposed or contem lated ublic acilities subject to or f ry g,P P P P f J intended to be s#hj'ect to a FEMA elevation variance. 2 1612 A16 November 28, 2011 2. An explanation for the approval of the Tigertail Beach restroom facilities (in respect to the FEMA elevation requirements). 3. Property survey maps for the Westerly Terminus Area of Vanderbilt Beach Road and the area immediately easterly of the Delnor Wiggins State Park entrance for the purposes of determining the party of ownership (State vs. County, etc.). 4. The process required for a member of the public to appeal a "Coastal Construction Setback Line" variance issued by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. A determination if the approval of a "Coastal Construction Setback Line" variance requires a "super majority" vote by Board of County Commissioners. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney outlined her email to Gary McAlpin dated November 23, 2011 — "Subject Tourist Development Tax Revenue" which provided the opinion that Tourist Tax Revenues may be utilized for construction of the beach access turn around on Bluebill Ave. c. Beach Mileage and Parking Study Gary McAlpin provided an analysis of parking for beach users and the "FDEP Cost Share Program 71712011" and related backup documents for informational purposes: Speakers Peter Gaddy, Golden Gate Area Civic Association Michael Seef, North Naples Resident The Council requested Staff to provide the following: 1. An analysis on the utilization of beach parking spaces /facilities between Collier County residents and non residents. 2. An analysis on the beach stickers issued by the City of Marco Island, the City of Naples and Collier County. 3. An analysis of room availability for County wide Gulf Front Hotel Properties and the related parking supplied 4. The beach parking analysis as presented, be expanded to include the total City of Naples, the total City of Naples and the all of unincorporated Collier County. Break.- 10 :27am Reconvened.- 10 :37am d. Beach Project Spending Report Gary McAlpin provided the document "Attachment 2 — Fund 195 Spending /Budget Analysis for Fiscal Year 200812009 through 201112012 " for informational purposes. e. Parks & Recreation Report on Beach Parking Fees Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation, provided the document "001— General Fund — Fund 156363 -001— Beach and Water Park Operations" outlining the expenditures and revenues for the account. 3 1612 z3 mn November 28, 2011 The Council requested Staff to provide an explanation on the rationale for the amount of fees established for a beach parking sticker. E TDC Subcommittee Membership Discussion Mr. Sorey moved to affirm the Council recognizes Mr. Hendel as a `full member" of the Tourist Development Council Subcommittee. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 8. New Business a. Barefoot Beach Roof Replacement Work Order Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve PBS Construction Company's proposal in the amount of $10,650. 00 for the thatch roof replacement on the Barefoot Beach Park Learning Center " dated November 28, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve an expenditure of $10,650.00 for replacement of the thatch roof on the Barefoot Beach Learning Center subject to the determination the expenditure is in accordance with County Purchasing Policies. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. b. Marketing Partner Agreement Review Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Review of Tourism Marketing Partner Services and related agreements for outsourced marketing and promotion assistance " dated November 28, 2011 for informational purposes. c. Tourism Fulfillment Services Agreement Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the award of Bid 411 -5754 to Phase V of Southwest Florida, Inc. for Tourism Fulfillment Services and authorize the Chairman to sign Agreement #11 -5754 to include a revised termination notification period of sixty (60) days following County Attorney Office approval" dated November 28, 2011 for consideration. Ms. Becker moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #11 -5754 to Phase V of Southwest Florida, Inc. for Tourism Fulfillment Services subject to staff reviewing Section 21 (Additional Items /Services) of "Agreement #11 -5754 for Tourist Development Council Fulfillment Services" and amending /removing the language as necessary to ensure conformance with County policies. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. d. Tourism Public Relations Assistance Agreement Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the award of RFP #11 -5725 to Lou Hammond and Associates, Inc. for Tourism Public Relations Services and authorize the Chairman to sign Agreement #11 -5725 in the amount of $152, 000 annually to include a revised termination notification period of 60 days following County Attorney Office approval " dated November 28, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Olesky moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award RFP #11 -5725 to Lou Hammond and Associates, Inc. for Tourism Public Relations Services subject to Staff in i 1612 A16 November 28, 2011 reviewing Section 21 (Additional Items /Services) of the "Agreement #11 -5725 for Collier County Tourism Department Relations Assistance" and amending /removing the language as necessary to ensure conformance with County policies. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. e. MIHS Grant Update Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Update on current status of the FY 10 C -2 Grant to the Marco Island Historical Society, Inc. for $100, 000 for design of exhibits to the new Marco Island Historical Museum and discussion ofpossible alternatives for payment" dated November 28, 2011. He sought direction from the Council. Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance reported the expenditure was previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Immediately subsequent to the approval, the ownership /operation of the Museum was transferred to Collier County from the Marco Island Historical Society, Inc. The Historical Society expended the funds after the entity was transferred to the County and the Society seeks re- imbursement. Mr. Olesky moved to direct Staff to determine the most effective means to disburse the previously approved payment to the Marco Island Historical Society, Inc. in the amount of $100,000. Staff to ensure all County requirements to disburse the funds are met. (Said item not to be returned to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) for consideration unless circumstances arise which require their approval). Second Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 —0. C FY 12 In- Market Meeting Planner Site Guidelines Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Recommend approval of revised guidelines for in market familiarization trips (Sites) to our destination for meeting planners " and "In Market Meeting Planner Site Guidelines FY12 Budget $150,000" for consideration dated November 28, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Olesky moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the "In Market Meeting Planner Site Guidelines" as presented and authorize a budget amount of $150,000 for the activity. Second by Ms. Becker. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Break: 12:16pm Reconvened: 12: 26pm 9. Marketing Partner Reports Jack Wert provided a Slideshow titled "Marketing Partner Reports — November 28, 2011 " which included the following reports: a. Tax Collections — Jack Wert "Tourist Tax Collections — Collier County Tax Collector" b. Paradise Advertising — Pat Cote/Nathan Hangen "Advertising Report Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. — TDC, November 28, 2011 " c. Research Data Services — Dr. Walter Klages "Collier County Tourism Research, November 28, 2011— Research Data Services, Inc. " r: 16JZ A16 November 28, 2011 d. Miles Media - Website Activity — Jack Wert "Website — Miles Media Group" e. Sales and Marketing Technology- Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert "Search Engine Services — Sales and Marketing Technologies, Inc. " L Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert "Fulfillment Services — Phase IV" 10. Tourism Staff Reports The following Reports were provided by Staff: 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 Submitted 12. Council Member Discussion The Council requested, at a future meeting, Staff provided detailed information on the efforts of the Sports Marketing Staff. Mr. Gibson reported "The Wall That Heals" (Vietnam Veterans Memorial scale replica) will be displayed at Veterans Community Park on Marco Island from 1217111 to 12110/11. The Council reached consensus on Ms. Becker representing the TDC at the "Roundtable Meeting" to be held at the Inn at Fifth on December 7, 2011. 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location —January 23, 2012 — 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 2 f S 16-1- ; 2 A 16 November 28, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 1:15 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURI' DEVELOPMENT C6UNCIL These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 7 issioner veorgia tinier A' ok bua;y 2 1 0 A1b MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING p )RUIERW3 Naples, Florida, January 12, 2012 I, .BY:........ .............. LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Tourist Development Council Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:30 A.M. in a REGULAR SESSION at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Tourist Development Council Conference Room, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Jerry Gibson Clark Hill Rick Medwedeff (Excused) Fiala _ Robert Miller Hiller Henning Coyle Misc. Corres: Coletta � G _ Date: R t \,, \ 12 item #:1k-P =2 K, Cooies to: ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Debi DeBenedetto, Sales & Marketing Manager Jennifer Rainey, Executive Aide 1 January 12, 2012 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order Commissioner Hiller called the meeting to order at 9:50 A.M. A quorum was established. 2. Changes /Approval of Agenda Mr. Gibson moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Mr. Hill. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Approval of TDC Subcommittee Minutes a. Regular Meeting November 21, 2011 Remove: Preamble, Page 1, 2nd Line, 2nd Word "Grant" 4C, 2"d Paragraph "Presidents Council Chairman " Change: 4C, 3rd Line should read "extrapolate" Mr. Clark moved to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2011 meeting as amended. Second by Mr. Gibson. Motion carried 4 -0. 4. New Business a. Discussion on Additional Funding Alternatives ■ Presentation by Mr. Hendel No presentation and no recommendations were made. ■ Review requested additions to Mr. Medwedeff s Business Case Staff distributed the revised "A Business Case for Economic Impact, Jobs and Quality of Life in Collier County" by Rick Medwedeff, General Manager and Tourist Development Council Member. (See attached) Jack Wert reviewed the Subcommittee's request; additions have been included in the report. Suggestions made: • Request Dr. Klages to provide a labor study to show what a tiny increase does economically to the Community and include in final draft. • Invite a representative to the February meeting to inform the Subcommittee of their plans to open a mega casino in Lee County. • Research museum admission fees. b. Review of Final Report Draft Jack Wert summarized the Final Report Draft. Commissioner Hiller recommended the Subcommittee review and email suggested modifications directly to Jack Wert. Staff stated the Subcommittee will review the full report prior to submitting the full report to TDC and receiving feedback. Then it will be presented to the BCC for approval. 2 F 12 A �16 January 12, 2012 Additional suggestions made were: • Invite the Tourism Alliance and the Collier County Alliance for a presentation of the Final Report Draft prior to submitting to TDC. • Include Findings and Conclusions in the Executive Summary. • Follow -up on the Museum Report. (Not received) • Recommend more TDC Staff to bolster marketing with staffing comparisons. c. Schedule Presentation to Full TDC Staff discussed and reviewed the modification and approval process and additional tourism groups' input prior to presentation to TDC. A suggestion was made to bring the final recommendations to PARAB for their support. Subcommittee was given a deadline of January 20th to submit feedback on the full report. A consensus was formed to hold another Subcommittee meeting at 9:30 a.m. on a date to be determined. 5. Question and Answer Period None 6. Subcommittee Discussion None 7. Next Meeting Date/Location a. Discuss Next Sub Committee Meeting Date, Location, Format and Agenda Addressed - 4. b. Mr. Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Miller. Motion carried 4 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting ended at 11:30 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE C i Chairm n issioner Georgia Hiller These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended W r] 16 12 Alb January 23, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING D _ O Naples, Florida, January 23, 2012 BY....................... 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: Chairman: Commissioner Georgia Hiller ALSO PRESENT: Jack Wert, Tourism Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Kelly Green, Tourist Tax Coordinator Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Director Scott Johnson, Purchasing Department 1 Misc. Corres: Date: C M O V2-- Item #:1 " Z'2-V4 11-o Copies to: Vice Chairman: Murray H. Hendel Susan Becker Fiala_ Jerry Gibson Hiller ✓' Clark Hill Henning Coyle — Rick Medwedeff Coletta Robert Miller 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, Clerk's Finance Director Scott Johnson, Purchasing Department 1 Misc. Corres: Date: C M O V2-- Item #:1 " Z'2-V4 11-o Copies to: a 2 6 1 6 lanuary 23 20 2 � 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 Ms. Becker moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Miller arrived at 9:02 am. 5. Approval of TDC Minutes a. Regular Meeting November 28, 2011 Ms. Becker moved to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: Page 3, paragraph 5, item 4, line 2 from "...total City of Naples..." to "...total City of Marco Island..." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. b. Presentations/Public Comment None 7. Old Business a. Museum Admissions Study Jack Wert, Tourism Director presented the Executive Summary "Reporting on County Museums Funding Sources and Admission Policies for Museums in other Florida Counties " dated January 23, 2012 for review. The Council requested Staff to provide a report on which Counties in Florida (as identified in the Smith Travel Report) fund their County owned museums operating expenses utilizing Tourist Development Tax funds. The Council determined the Chairman should outline the request to the County Manager in writing. b. Coastal Zone Management Responses to 11 -28 -11 TDC Requests Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the following items: i. Restroom Locations with FEMA variance Documents provided: 2 1612 A16 January 23, 2012 • Map titled Beachfront Restrooms in Collier County identifying the location of existing beach restroom facilities in Collier County. • Chart titled Beach Front Restrooms Collier County and City outlining the restroom construction status in relation to FEMA elevation requirements. The Council requested Staff to amend the report "Beach Front Restrooms Collier County and City" and identify the requirement for any FEMA elevation variances (whether previously required for, or to be required for the construction of the facility). ii. Tigertail Beach Restroom Approval Analysis — on hold Gary McAlpin reported the project is currently on hold pending an analysis of any new FEMA requirements which may allow at -grade construction of the facility. The Council requested Staff to provide a report on the basis the FEMA maps were proposed to be amended (flood zones in question amended from VE to AE zone). iii. Vanderbilt Beach Road/Bluebill Avenue — State or County Road Documents provided: • Warranty deeds, commitments for title insurance and survey map titled Vanderbilt Beach Center - A subdivision in Section 32, TB8S, R25E, dated January 1954 depicting the ownership of Vanderbilt Beach Road in the area of its westerly terminus. • Warranty deeds and Collier County property appraiser maps for Bluebill Ave. depicting the ownership of Bluebill Ave. at its westerly terminus. The Council directed Staff to submit the memo to members regarding the opinion on the appropriateness of utilizing Tourist Tax revenues to fund improvements on State lands. iv. Coastal Construction Setback Line Discussion — Colleen Greene Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney provided an updated on the status of the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) variance application for the restrooms proposed at Vanderbilt Beach. She noted a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners is required to approve these types (CCSL) of variances. v. Analysis of beach parking spaces used by residents and non - residents Documents provided: • Copy of an email string ending date January 9, 2012 from Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Department to Gary McAlpin /Jack Wert outlining the number of parking sticker issued by the County for residents vs. non residents. • City of Naples —Beach Parking Study (Joint City County Study). The Council requested to Staff to: 1. Provide a report (by analyzing entrance gate transactions, or other applicable means), outlining the percentage of County residents vs. non County residents utilizing the Vanderbilt Beach Road parking garage 2. Provide a review of the document "FDEP Cost Share Program 71712011 "provided at a previous meeting. 3 161 anuary 2 , 2012 3. Determine for which purposes individuals are allowed to utilize the parking garage (beach parking, shopping, etc.). 4. Coordinate with Mr. Hill to ensure Staff submits the information requested in the format anticipated by the Council. vi. Analysis of rooms and related parking for county -wide gulf front properties Documents provided: "Beach Front Hotels and Resorts in Collier County" outlining the number of parking spaces provided by beach front hotels. Continued to next meeting pending incorporation of this data with the information requested in Item 7. b. v. vii. Expanded beach parking analysis to include Naples, Marco Island and County beaches Continued to next meeting pending incorporation of this data with the information requested in Item 7.b.v. Speakers Peter Gaddy, Coalition for Open Economic Development Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, Calusa Group c. Meeting Site/Fam Guideline Revisions Jack Wert, Tourism Director presented the Executive Summary Recommending approval of revisions to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) recommended guidelines for payment or reimbursement of expenses related to attracting a group meeting to Collier County, and for County Finance to pay expenses covered by these guidelines up to an annual total program cost of $150, 000 dated January 23, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the document titled In- Market Meeting Planner Site/Fam Guidelines - FY 12 Budget $150,000.00. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Break: 10: 43am Reconvened: 10: 55am Mr. Sorey moved to reconsider the previous motion. Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the document "In Market Meeting Planner Site/Fam Guidelines - FY 12 Budget $150,000.00" subject to the following revision: Page 2, bullet point 14 -from "If the specific planner has had a recent Site/Fam in the destination, they may not qualify for a second site /fam. The CVB staff will look at each set of circumstances to qualify the planner for a return trip. "to "A specific planner may quay for multiple site /fam visits, however, the CVB Staff will consider each set of circumstances to quay the planner for a return trip." L, m, le January 23, 2 A 16 Second by Mr. Medwedeff. Motion carried 8 yes — I no (Commissioner Hiller). 8. New Business a. Election of Vice Chair Jack Wert, presented the Executive Summary "Appoint Vice Chairman for the Tourist Development Council for Calendar Year 2012" January 23, 2012 for consideration. Ms. Becker moved to nominate Murray Hendel as Vice Chairman of the Tourist Development Council. Second by Mr. Hill. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Mr. Hendel was declared Vice Chairman of the Council b. Golisano Children's Museum of Naples Grant Usage Change Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary Recommendation to approve a change in the use offunds for a tourist tax Category C -2 grant to the Golisano Children's Museum of Naples in the amount of $50, 000 dated January 23, 2012 for consideration. Speaker Heather Patton - Golisano Children's Museum of Naples Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a change in the use of funds for a tourist tax Category C -2 grant to the Golisano Children's Museum of Naples in the amount of $50,000." Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. The Council heard Items 8.g — 8. i next g. Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit Work Order — Atkins North America Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit under Contract CE- FT -09- 5262-CZ for a not to exceed amount of $7,672. 00 " dated January 23, 2012 for consideration. Speaker Marcia Cravens Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit under Contract CE -FT- 09- 5262 -CZfor a not to exceed amount of $7,672.00." Second by Mr. Olesky. Motion carried 8 yes —I no (Commissioner Hiller). h. Marco Laser Grading Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Work Order with Coastal Engineering Consultants (CEC) to permit a long term maintenance program to reshape the beach on Marco Island under Contract CE- FT -09- 5262 -CZfor a not to exceed amount of $35,190 " dated January 23, 2012 for consideration. ZhI§,, 2012 Mr. Gibson moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a Work Order with Coastal Engineering Consultants (CEC) to permit a long term maintenance program to reshape the beach on Marco Island under Contract CE- FT -09- 5262 -CZfor a not to exceed amount of $35,190." Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Mr. Gibson left at 11:50 am i. RFP No. 11 -5772 — "Beach Renourishment Engineering Services" Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve shortlist of firms for contract negotiations for RFP No. 11 -5772 "'Beach Renourishment Engineering Services "' dated January 23, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Sorey moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve shortlist of firms for contract negotiations for RFP No. 11 -5772 "Beach Renourishment Engineering Services" and authorize Staff to begin contract negotiations with the number one shortlisted firm, Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. Second by Mr. Hendel. Scott Johnson, Procurement Specialist, Purchasing Department addressed the Council on the RFP process. Speakers Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, Calusa Group Commissioner Hiller read an email into the record submitted by Thomas Crowe, Friends of Barefoot Beach. Motion failed 4 yes — 4 no (Commissioner Hiller, Mr. Olesky, Mr. Hill and Ms. Becker). c. Subcommittee Progress Report Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "Progress Report on the Tourist Development Council (TDC) special Sub Committee meetings" dated January 23, 2012 for information purposes. Commissioner Hiller provided an update on the Subcommittee. d. FY 12 Q1 Financial Report Continued e. Grant Workshop and application review for FY 13 (Cat. B & C -2) Jack Wert reported a TDC Workshop will be convened to discuss the issue. E Meeting Dates for 2012 Jack Wert presented the Executive Summary "TDC Monthly Meeting dates, time and location for 2012 " dated January 23, 2012 for consideration. M 16 I 2huarAlk Mr. Olesky moved to approve the TDC Monthly Meeting dates, time and location for 2012. Second by Mr. Sorey. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 9. Marketing Partner Reports The following reports were submitted by Staff for individual review by the Council members. a. Tax Collections — Jack Wert b. Paradise Advertising — Pat Cote c. Research Data Services — Dr. Walter Klages d. Miles Media - Website Activity — Jack Wert e. Sales and Marketing Technology- Search Engine Optimization - Jack Wert L Phase V - Fulfillment Services — Jack Wert 10. Tourism Staff Reports The following Reports were provided by Staff for individual review by the Council members: a. Director b. Sales & Marketing c. Public Relations & Communications d. Film Office e. Sports Marketing L International Representatives g. Visitor Centers Terry Gallagher, Lou Hammond and Associates presented a Slideshow on the firm and the public relations efforts planned for the Collier County Convention and Visitor's Bureau. 11. Detailed Staff Reports Submitted 12. Council Member Discussion None 13. Next Scheduled Meeting Date/Location — February 27, 2012 — 9:00 a.m. Collier County Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112 7 lni� J66 23, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 1:02 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVEL E T CO CIL 1 Chairm ' ommissioner Georgia Hiller These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended E:j